The "catbox" Face?

[Eye-Zee]

... a search on "geomorphology Mars Cydonia" produces a meager 236 results.

236 Martian morphology articles that mention the tiny piece of Mars that is Cydonia is meager. Then they should be fairly trivial for you to read up on. And clearly then you'll be able to show us how none of them can match works such as Erjavec's for rigor or quantitative evaluation.

[R.A.F.]

i've been trying to get people's attention to some of the "mistakes" that Nasa did on this issue to no avail.

HUH??? That's not what you've been doing at all. What you have been doing is stating that NASA/JPL has been involved in some kind of "cover-up" to hide "evidence" of artificiality. A "cover-up" would be a conscious decision...a "mistake" would not be.


interestingly enough ToSeek's post got little attention, i bet if i had posted such speculation...

I concede that NASA has made "mistakes"...what I don't concede is that there is any evidence of a "cover-up". So where is the "speculation" in To Seek's post???

[R.A.F.]

Van Rijn, I hope you don't mind, but your post makes some very good points, so I've quoted it to make sure it wasn't "lost" on the previous page....




From my standpoint, it could be said that many "skeptics" here have ignored points made in order to portray Outcast, or myself, even scientists cited, as mere woowoos and HBs and conspiracists out to defame NASA.

I, for one, did not ignore you. This reference in the opening post:

http://www.suppressedscience.net/mars.html

is called, after all, "NASA vs. Artificial Structures on the Surface of Mars." Not, for instance, "A Geological study of Mars and suggestions of criteria for evaluation of artificiality." Let's go back to a portion that you specifically quoted (I've highlighted gems that caught my eye):


Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered. NASA's irrational, even bizarre behavior in this matter, which runs counter to the most basic scientific principle that conclusions are drawn based on examination of the evidence, not on a priori beliefs, could simply be motivated by a desire to "save face" (pun intended) after firmly and repeatedly committing itself to a premature dismissal of the formation as natural in 1976. However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public.

And you said of this article:


To me, this is a well reasoned argument for why "the face" issue persists.

This is, after all, about an assertion that there is significant evidence for artificial ET structures and a government conspiracy. The astonishing thing to me is that you presented this right at the start, but you seem surprised at the response. Every reference that I followed up made similar assertions without evidence, often showing contempt for NASA, often suggesting cover-ups. I did not see any serious scientific papers that would lend support to your position.

You were not ignored. Rather, your own words destroyed your arguments.

[Swift]

I believe that there are plently of speculative articles about the face but what about articles from a strictly scientific perspective?

Take a look at this article. (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm) Here's a bit from Jim Garvin, an actual scientist for NASA's Mars exploration program:



What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa -- landforms common around the American West. "It reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho," says Garvin. "That's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars."

Cydonia is littered with mesas like the Face, but the others don't look like human heads and they've attracted little popular attention. Garvin and other members of the MGS Science Team have studied them carefully, however, using a laser altimeter called "MOLA" on board Mars Global Surveyor.

MOLA can measure the heights of things with a vertical precision of 20 to 30 cm (its horizontal resolution is 150m). "We took hundreds of altitude measurements of the mesa-like features around Cydonia," says Garvin, "including the Face. The height of the Face, its volume and aspect ratio -- all of its dimensions, in fact -- are similar to the other mesas. It's not exotic in any way."


Very nice find NC =D>
So NASA has studied the area and has concluded that other than the fact that it looks kind of like a face, that the "face" is not any different than other features in the area.

I would say this is exactly Nereid's pets in the clouds.

[algorithms]

Outcast: "i've been trying to get people's attention to some of the "mistakes" that Nasa did on this issue to no avail."

No you haven't. You've been claiming that NASA is lying to the American public. You make this claim without evidence. There's a simple term for that - slander.

[ToSeek]

It was once a primary target for investigation because of its enigmatic geological formations, thought to be a suitable site for evidence of water or even microbial life as it rests on what is thought to be an ancient shoreline.

Are the present rover sites that much more interesting geologically?


Cydonia is too far north to send a solar-powered lander. Note that all the landing sites considered (http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/previous/sites.html) are within 12 degrees of the equator.

[Nereid]

[snip]the literally hundreds of articles on Martian geomorphology and evolution published in that time. The data are in the public domain, being digested by hundreds, if not thousands of individuals looking for discovery and to uncover the history of Mars
[snap]
could you kindly provide some info regarding these "thousands" of studies?
Surely if they're so plentiful, I'd have found more than I did when researching "Mars, geomorphology, Cydonia."

While there are plentiful sources for "martian geomorphology" pointing out the likely role massive amounts of water played in producing the many formations, certain few I found actually dealt with Cydonia.
So, I went to Google Scholar, entered "Mars geomorphology", and got 1,350 results.

Oh? Did you find any of the alleged "more recent" studies on Cydonia? After all, this is the argument being used to counter Erjavec's work: "it's almost 10yrs old," right?

As it turns out, I had in "martian geomorphology" rather than "Mars geomorphology" and it produced some 10,400 results.

Does this matter to you? The number of results?

If so, then a search on "geomorphology Mars Cydonia" produces a meager 236 results.

Hmmm.... :-?


As for Cydonia, well, we're back to the 'why Cydonia?' question, aren't we?

Certain folk think it worth investing a lot of effort to investigate, because of its possibly 'artificial' origin (not in any way quantified; no objective criteria for selecting this rather than any other part of Mars, etc); other folk don't.

Why is Cydonia more important to study, in detail, than any other part of Mars? If it's because it 'might have an artificial orgin', then how do you test - objectively - 'artificiality'? Unless and until we have an answer to this question, there are - I contend - no grounds for selecting this region for study, over any other region (except pure, subjective speculation).

So what you're saying here then, is that those scientists, Sagan included, who initially thought of Cydonia as a primary target for a Viking mission were working on "pure, subjective speculation?" :-?


Would it help if I were to provide another 'pets and clouds' analogy, A.DIM?

Not necessary, Nereid.
Keep your "pets and clouds," that's not science.

Apparently even the "differential erosion" seen in the area isn't geologically interesting to you. Nevermind too, that it sits on the shore of an ancient ocean, and with such apparent erosional history looks like a good place to look for microbial life. After all, it is in the exposed, eroded stratum that evidence for Life can be found, no? Just as it is here on Earth.
Forgive me A.DIM, I really can't follow you.

You had two questions/issues - 'artificiality can't be ruled out' and 'NASA acted peculiarly' (my summary).

I claimed that we had addressed the second (though Outcast doesn't agree), are you now saying that NASA is continuing to act peculiarly? Or that folk who write papers about Mars, for peer-reviewed journals, are 'acting peculiarly'? What is your assertion???

Wrt the first ('artificiality'), I have asked you (and Outcast) several times now to provide at least a draft of a set of objective criteria by which we may determine 'artificiality'. So far all I have is an apparently powerful algorithm to check for 'ruin-like' formations in lunar images (Outcast hasn't yet given us anything on what this is). How can we have a discussion on your 'artificiality' question/issue if we have no agreement on how we could determine it!

Wrt to 'those scientists, Sagan included, who initially thought of Cydonia as a primary target for a Viking mission were working on "pure, subjective speculation?" :-?'. This comment has me totally mystified - would you mind explaining it to me, please? Pretend I'm in the slow class. Thanks.

[Nereid]

the MOLA data issue is still ignored
What MOLA data issue?

Perhaps you are referring to some statements from some folk (at NASA)?

Or are you saying that MOLA data is not available to the (US) general public?

Or that the official MOLA data products are lies?
[snip]
and yet, some around here complain that i "ignore" them or their "questions"
That includes me. Here is the main one (in bold):
I think it's a good idea to remind ourselves of A.DIM's OP, and the questions he (she?) posed. My summary (back on p14, 9 August):
Seems there were TWO questions/issues in the OP:
1) "whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered"
2) "NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years"

To address the first, don't we need to establish (hopefully objective) criteria by which "artificiality of origin" can be determined?

As to the second, well excuse me if I'm really in the slow class today, but:

a ) did NASA release the data from the martian probes' instruments? I mean, not processed .gif images (for avoidance of doubt ALL .gif images are 'processed'). Is this data freely available (at least to US taxpayers)?

b ) are Börner, Fleming, Outcast (?), A.DIM (?), et al. getting hot&bothered over a PR, or over 'the real McCoy' (is that the right expression?) - the actual data?
With regard to #2, algorithms has provided some pretty unequivocal material to show that the data from the MGS is publicly available (and Outcast's answer to my questions re the Fleming et al. claim re 'processing' is (I paraphrase) 'here are a few .gif images, they look different, don't they?').

With regard to #1, there is some discussion in some of the webpages which various folk have provided us links to, on 'symmetry', and varying amounts of photointerpretation (things like 'if you look at this image, you will see that it looks like {x}'). However, no proponent has (AFAIK) presented objective criteria for "artificiality of origin". Nor have they presented any discussion of controlled, quantitative analyses of images (e.g. frequency with which features on Mars with characteristics {X, Y, Z, ...} occur in MGS images).
So, to re-iterate: I feel the only way we can continue to have a decent discussion of the first claim ("whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered") is if we adopt a ground rule, similar to the BA's for ATM ideas, for our discussion.

In this regard, my position is that folk who wish to defend A.DIM's assertion must respond to questions, challenges and even attacks on that assertion.

Let me ask you: do you agree that this is a good basis for continuing discussions? If you don't, would you be so kind as provide us with what, in your view, would be a basis for further discussion that has a reasonable chance of being productive?
What objective criteria could be used to assess any claims of 'artificiality'?

Without some agreed basis for determining 'artificiality', surely your (Fleming's? Outcast's?) contention can never be evaluated!

Once we do have something we can sink our teeth into re 'artificiality', we would also - in principle - be able to assess whether your assertion that the catbox (batbox?) is somehow deserving of special attention. Who knows; we may find that - under the agreed, objective criteria for determining 'artificiality' - some features on Venus, or the Sun, are much, much more deserving of our attention. We may even find that the most compelling case to go investigate is Nereid's - Joan's cat Tiddles' soul shaped the clouds over Vostok today; Jack's dog Phydeau's soul shaped those over Pitcairn.

i believe i've answered your [Gillianren] question(s). if you do NOT accept my answer then that is really your problem, isnt it?
Actually, it's your problem Outcast! Or, more accurately, it's a problem with the claim/assertion you are making (my bold).
(source (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/faq.php#0))
4. If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend those arguments. People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science. If it appears to me that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will get banned. I will warn you first, but only once.

[Count Zero]

I believe that there are plently of speculative articles about the face but what about articles from a strictly scientific perspective?

Take a look at this article. (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm) Here's a bit from Jim Garvin, an actual scientist for NASA's Mars exploration program:



What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa -- landforms common around the American West. "It reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho," says Garvin. "That's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars."

Cydonia is littered with mesas like the Face, but the others don't look like human heads and they've attracted little popular attention. Garvin and other members of the MGS Science Team have studied them carefully, however, using a laser altimeter called "MOLA" on board Mars Global Surveyor.

<snip>
Very nice find NC =D>
So NASA has studied the area and has concluded that other than the fact that it looks kind of like a face, that the "face" is not any different than other features in the area.

Here (http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=12&X=449&Y=6020&W=2) is Middle Butte, who's outline has at least as much symetry as the Cydonian massifs. Here (http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/geo/gsa/papers/gsac3p10.pdf#search='Middle%20Butte%20Snake%20Rive r%20Idaho') is a fairly technical paper on the geologic composition & history of the Idaho Buttes.

[A.DIM]

Unmasking Middle Butte (http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/middlebutte/middlebutte.htm).

I'm amazed someone could claim "at least" as much symmetry as "the face" while others would accept Garvin's story about Middle Butte as some sort of scientific comparison.

:roll:

[R.A.F.]

Lan Flemming again?? :roll:

[The Bad Astronomer]

Oh? Did you find any of the alleged "more recent" studies on Cydonia? After all, this is the argument being used to counter Erjavec's work: "it's almost 10yrs old," right?

As it turns out, I had in "martian geomorphology" rather than "Mars geomorphology" and it produced some 10,400 results.




Oh for criminy's sake.

Have you tried looking in an actual scientific journal instead of Googling? Is real research dead?

Try the magazine Icarus, or some other planetary/geology journal.

[algorithms]

A.DIM: I'm amazed someone could claim "at least" as much symmetry as "the face" while others would accept Garvin's story about Middle Butte as some sort of scientific comparison.

Why? Frankly the so-called "face" isn't particularly symetrical. There is virtually nothing exceptional about it that suggests it is anything but a mundane martian butte.

Talk about grasping for straws here. In 1976, we have a butte that sort of appears to have a "face." Nearly 30 years later we have multiple images with significant better resolution and it no longer appears at all like a "face." So instead, "face" fanatics claim "well it kinda looks symmetrical" as if that's something exceptional and then run around like idiots whining about cover-ups.

Of course, what makes the "cover-up" assertion truly ridiculous is that the people making these silly claims are using the very images made public by NASA in the first place. To be blunt and somewhat out of patience...only an idiot would claim that NASA is covering up the very image that idiot just got off a NASA website.

[The Bad Astronomer]

After 21 pages, I've had enough.

A.DIM, Outcast, you have been making the same circular arguments for weeks now, with nothing new. When presented with new arguments, you simply dismiss them, and as I point out in the post above, you are researching this on the web instead of where the real work is published, the journals.

And in the end Nereid has the best point: Outcast you have yet to say what is clear evidence of artificiality. Both of you have danced around this. That's got both of you on thin ice for banning.

So I will be very clear. I will not allow further discussion about this until the idea of what constitutes artificiality is discussed. Until that is resolved, this argument will never end.

But this thread will. Locked.