A CIVILIZATION on MARS? 1B/200M Years Ago? (Pt. 2)

maxtheknife · May 22, 2005

Oh, you want a 3-d trace.... here' ya go <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> http://www.enterprisemission.com/sameface.html Yaaaawwnnn...

telfrow · May 22, 2005

<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

maxtheknife · May 22, 2005

<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> His skills did improve somewhat while tracing the fort, 'road less traveled' aside. I've been waiting more than 2 days for answers to my questions. Here are some more.... What about the redundant geometry, Jon? What about the Tholus? Do you have a problem w/ the other peer reviewed work on the subject, or just Carlotto? Jon, please edit your posts for obvious typos and grammar....it hurts your presentation and is becoming painful to decipher.

mental_avenger · May 22, 2005

Steve says: "And then you do the 'tu quoque' squeal again at the end." lan replies: "YOU were the one who attacked someone as "squealing like a stuck pig." " Do you not understand what "tu Quoque" means, or are you being deliberately obtuse? Steve never denied he posted the original quote. He was merely pointing out that you were employing the Logical Fallacy of Tu Quoque, which you did. Simple as that. Although I agree that Steve is being overly harsh in his criticisms, he IS correct on this one point. Perhaps you two can bury the hatched (hopefully not in each other) and have a more productive discussion. Steve, how about it? Can we have a little less "destructive" criticism, and a little more "constructive" criticism? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

JonClarke · May 22, 2005

cs: Your opinion of my expertise is something you are entirely entitled to. Fortunately it is not shared by my employers. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> It is very significant that Carlotto published his stuff in Journal of applied optics, not Geomorphology, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Journal of Geophysical Research, Icarus, or any of the other journals that public planetary research papers. It isn't even in one of the many journals that deal with remote sensing techniques and image processing. The Journal of applied optics is not a journal that could give a meaningful peer review of the planetary aspects of this paper or which is going to be read by the planetary science community. The problem with Carlotto is not that he knows nothing about applied mathematics, but that he is applying it to fields outside his expertise without any control from people who understand how intergreation of real landforms and geological features. It would be the same as me writing a paper about applied mathematics. This is not an uncommon problem. One major issue the group at my day job has to wrestle with is the fixation of mathematicians with modelling real world problems by using very simple minded models and their refusal to deal with real observations. Carlotto seems to have fallen into the same trap. I have yet to see any evidence he actually knows anything about the interpretation of real features, whether on earth or elsewhere. I will check though at work today on the main geoscience and astronomical data bases. Added in edit. But none of this addresses the issue I asked to: why you think there is symmetry in this unsymmetrical structure. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

silylene old · May 22, 2005

"Well, I can only say that JonClarke's work in his post of 5/20... reaches to 'masterpiece' rising to artistry or pure ART." -- colin098 You see that Maxtheknife? JonClarke IS an artist and thus qualified to speak authoritatively on the FOM. I am insulted! Not to toot my own horn too much, but I do think my tracings were more artistic and imaginative than Jon's! Jon's tracings were...how should I say it best? ...yes, overly technical and far too left-brained. Jon simply does not allow his imagination flow through his art as he makes his traces. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

JonClarke · May 22, 2005

Telfrow It is certainly possible, even like that this some kind of valley for talus deposit. I don't think it connections across to the other side of the mesa. I read it as sloping down to the right. But I will check on full image the work broad band. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · May 22, 2005

Colin I would like to see some positive evidence for such processes. Without such evidence you would go for the simplest explanation, in this case erosion which can produce such morphologies and invokes processes known or likely to have operated (mass wasting, aeolian erosion, etc.) Mud volcanoes would be cool (I flew over some in southern Turkey and northern Iran a few weeks ago) but I don't know if there is any evidence of them on Mars. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

telfrow · May 22, 2005

Never mind, Jon. It doesn't. I was working on a small crop area and thought I saw something that might have opened to the other side, but it's a "channel" from the higher elevation of the "forehead." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

JonClarke · May 22, 2005

Ty[pos and grammar - groan. You should see what they look like before I edit them. I promise to try harder. What "redundant geometry"? The tholus is a butte. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

zenonmars · May 22, 2005

Holy mola................am I flabergasted!!! Wonderful. You guys are absolutely wonderful. Transparent, nasty, and not very good at disinformation, but truely dedicated.........I find that quite engrossing. (Steve said

"Your comments... reveal how threatened you are being exposed for the motivations behind your constant referrals by links to RCH's blatantly commercial & ludicrous website." [Now did it ever occur to all SDC readers out there, that since Richard LEADS the martian monuments investigations, gets the most national radio coverage, and has sacrificed the most for his cause(*see below), that it should not be considered unusual to reference his immense body of work when discussing a possible "A CIVILIZATION on MARS?"] "RCH's blatantly commercial & ludicrous website." [Well, "ludicrous" is your opinion, and you are welcomed to it. But "blatantly commercial" has NO bearing in truth. Richard's sight has a link for his book and a couple of videos, and also an unobtrusive pay-pal link for donations. To truely understand the scope of his website, one should scroll to the very bottom of the page, and then click on the yearly archives of article after article.......all free to the public. By the way, NASA, and JPL, and Malin Space Science Systems all sell souvenires such as hats and shirts and coffee mugs. Richard does not.] (Steve said further

"Simply because Carlotto is published, doesn't logically or necessarily mean anything Carlotto says/writes is correct. It does not even mean that what they published is true and has been verified/confirmed. It's a wild statement totally bereft of necessary truth or value or relevancy. It's an appeal to the facts which is the case, not some unname articles published in a Journal that few read, which articles' relevancy is not EVEN established with respect to the issues." [Wow. All you guys screach about is 'Is he published? is he peer-re <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · May 22, 2005

Mental Avenger said: He was merely pointing out that you were employing the Logical Fallacy of Tu Quoque, which you did. lan says: No I didn't.. Maybe _you_ should read up on what it means: Unlike you, I didn’t have to look it up, I already knew what it means. Literally, it says: “You too”. I see you are still trying to weasel out of it by presenting a highly exaggerated, marginally relevant interpretation, and THEN attempting to use the literal wording of that interpretation as a defense. Good grief! lan says: I was merely pointing out the painfully obvious and ironic fact that he was attacking another person for "squealing like a stuck pig" but was actually squealing louder than anyone else. And THAT fits the common, ordinary definition of Tu Quoque to a ‘T’. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Merriam-Webster - Tu Quoque : a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others MSN Encarta - Tu Quoque : used when accused of an offense to accuse the accuser of the same offense American Heritage - Tu Quoque : A retort accusing an accuser of a similar offense or similar behavior. Hutchinson’s Dictionary - Tu Quoque : 'thou also'; act of imputing to one's accuser the same fault as that with which one is charged. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

silylene old · May 22, 2005

By the way, Steve, "critical thinking" is often outside the box, is often divergent with accepted "facts", and often lands the thinker in much muck. Ask Galileo. Ask Tesla. Ask Eugene Mallov. The discerning part of this statement is the words 'critical thinking'. I was encouraged by the posts in this thread to use artistry and trace what I saw on the FOM butte, and then interpret it according to what it most looked like 'objectively'. Having done so, I trace lines that too me (and I bet most of you all too!) looked like butt-cheek imprints. Was this critical thinking? Certainly it was divergent with accepted 'facts', was 'outside the box' and could land me in much muck. So I guess so. I am a genius! Move over Galileo, Darwin, Tesla and Copernicus. Woot! Here I come!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

mental_avenger · May 22, 2005

Mental Avenger asked: Once again, why would NASA deliberately hide valid information about an alien race (albeit a dead race) from the public? For once, I’d like to see a reasonable, rational, valid response to that question. Max answered: [silence] Was the question too tough, Max, or is there still no valid answer after all these years of accusations against NASA? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

maxtheknife · May 22, 2005

Mental Avenger asked: Once again, why would NASA deliberately hide valid information about an alien race (albeit a dead race) from the public? For once, I’d like to see a reasonable, rational, valid response to that question. Read the brookings report. Have you read it yet? It's been presented as evidence several times. How about the McDaniel Report? Have you read that yet, MA? Ever stop to think, MA..... That when we did go to the moon and found ruins, the govt might want to understand exactly what it was they were dealing with before they told the world? Suppose the ruins were left by an advanced Space faring civilization. Suppose it was obliterated by some unknown cataclysm....Forget EPH for now,..... Don't you think the implications are cause for concern and maybe even discretion? New technology, new energy, religious implications..... Apparently you haven't even begun to consider the implications and how important a controlled disclosure project might be. Nasa is obviously hiding, holding, degrading, and misrepresenting data. You guys will say anything to avoid what has become increasingly obvious w/ every bit of data that is returned from Mars. Imagine what Steve might accomplish if his anger was focused where it belongs. NASA's the one taking your money and misleading you, Steve, not RCH, Carlotto, Brandenburg, McDaniel, et al..... The truth hurts..... Cause and effect...cause and effect.

telfrow · May 22, 2005

Read the brookings report. Have you read it yet? It's been presented as evidence several times. Can’t speak for MA, but yes, I’ve read The Brookings Report. All 219 pages. Every line. The entire thing. I even opened a thread to discuss it after you presented it as “evidence.” Interestingly, no one from your “side” posted to the thread. Here’s the final paragraph from that post: "Besides, I personally believe using eight sentences out of a forty-five year old, two hundred and nineteen page report based on a series of “What ifs?” to support the contention there is currently a massive “plot” to “hide” information from the public is highly disingenuous. Read the rest of the report. Read those eight sentences in the context of the rest of the report and keep the historical context in mind as you read it. It makes a difference." So here’s a question for you, Max: have you read the entire thing or just the eight sentences conspiracy theorists like to quote? You can download the file at: www.gaiaguys.net/brookings.pdf As cs_specialist noted: "Raising conspiracy theories is a diversion." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

najab · May 23, 2005

>As cs_specialist noted: "Raising conspiracy theories is a diversion." It's a diversion which will land this thread in the Phenomena forum too.

mental_avenger · May 23, 2005

It’s not really important, but since you continue to deny the obvious……………..one more time. Mental Avenger says: And THAT fits the common, ordinary definition of Tu Quoque to a ‘T’. from Merriam-Webster - Tu Quoque : a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others lan replies: No it's not. The person he attacked wasn't doing any "squealing" at all. It's not that "he does it too"; it's that he does louder than just about anybody else, which according to him, means his arguments are weak. Implicit in the phrase ” he does louder….” is that he is also doing it, the only difference being degree (according only to you). Ergo, Tu Quoque. Steve used the quote: There's an old saying, "It's the stuck pig which squeals the loudest." and you're squealing mighty loud!, and you replied with You squeal more loudly than most other people around here.. That is classic Tu Quoque. It is still there in the record. I am perplexed at your continued denial. But then, as I recall, to this day, you have NEVER admitted to being wrong about anything, regardless of the clear and unmistakable evidence that you were. Some things never change. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Whatever........................... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · May 23, 2005

Mental Avenger asked: Once again, why would NASA deliberately hide valid information about an alien race (albeit a dead race) from the public? For once, I’d like to see a reasonable, rational, valid response to that question. Silence is probably a wise response to loaded questions. Loaded? Would you care to explain how that question could possibly be considered to be loaded.? Here we go again. I recall, but I am certain that you will deny it (again), your response to that question years ago. Paraphrasing: NASA is in the business of transportation. They are afraid that if there is evidence of life on Mars, then the geologists and other scientist will be sent to Mars, and NASA will be relegated to the job of bus driver, losing their preeminent position. Yes, I still remember that after all these years because it was so ludicrous. However, the question itself was not loaded, either then or now. The only reason the question is being asked is because there are so many accusations that NASA is hiding information. Keeping in mind that those are only unconfirmed accusations, one wonders what possible motive NASA could have that would override the enormous boost in their importance, and as a direct result, the enormous boost in their budget, should evidence be found of life on Mars, past or present. This discussion is about the data based on the assumption that it is accurate and complete. Raising conspiracy theories is a diversion. It is NOT the skeptics that continually and repeatedly bring up the conspiracy angle. I don’t have the time to do a search, but the accusations that NASA is “hiding evidence” of life on Mars probably outnumber any other single comment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · May 23, 2005

Read the brookings report. Have you read it yet? It's been presented as evidence several times. Yes I have read it. Evidence? Yes. Relevant? No. I don’t know what portion of the infamous Brookings Report you consider relevant, because you didn’t say. I do know the sections that most “believers” consider relevant. As telfrow correctly pointed out, the few oft quoted sentences, taken out of context, prove nothing. In addition, the 45 year old report is hardly relevant today, even it did say what the “believers” claim it says. (which it does not) Technology has advanced so far, and the average citizen is so very much more technically aware, that the concerns expressed by Brookings no longer apply. Ever stop to think, MA..... That when we did go to the moon and found ruins, the govt might want to understand exactly what it was they were dealing with before they told the world? ‘Scuse me? You make it sound as though we actually did. In any case, if they really did want to “find out”, they would have done so long ago. They did not. Suppose the ruins were left by an advanced Space faring civilization. Suppose it was obliterated by some unknown cataclysm....Forget EPH for now,..... Don't you think the implications are cause for concern and maybe even discretion? If there was a valid reason for “concern”, we would certainly have gone back to find out more. Even so, what possible reason could there be for such “discretion”? If NASA could show there were actual ruins on Mars, their funding would no doubt be increased to the point where we would already have people there. And what possible harm could such information do? It’s not as if private citizens would fly off to Mars and steal ancient technology secrets. New technology, new energy, religious implications..... A <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

JonClarke · May 23, 2005

OK, I have searched the standard astronomical and geological databases about Carlotto’s publication record. There has been only one general publication by Carlotto on planetary image analysis: Flinn, R. David and Carlotto, M. J. 1988. A global approach to knowledge-based surface material classification. Technical Papers of the American Society of Photogrammetry Annual Meeting. 1988, Vol. 4; Pages 50-59. There was also had an abstract in the 6th International conferences on Mars (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2003mars.conf.3208C&db_key=AST&high=428d7b357214943) This, apart from privately published material is it, as far as the relevant scientific literature goes. Carlotto may well have 70 publications to his name, but his published work in the interpretation of real planetary surfaces is minimal – two papers and one abstract. For interest, the same data bases showed up three other scientific publications in favour of the face: three unreviewed abstracts by Tom van Flandern, (two are http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1998DPS....30.5531V&db_key=AST&high=428d7b357214943 and http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1997AAS...191.2704V&db_key=AST&high=428d7b357214943), Brian O'Leary had a JBIS paper, abstract http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1990JBIS...43..203O&db_key=AST&high=428d7b357214943. While JBIS is peer reviewed this paper is so far ou <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

najab · May 23, 2005

>Nasa is obviously hiding, holding, degrading, and misrepresenting data. You guys will say anything to avoid what has become increasingly obvious w/ every bit of data that is returned from Mars. "2. Always favor the conspiracy angle over the boring angle. Mundane explanations (like saying that Roswell was a balloon) are for dullards and government drones."

maxtheknife · May 23, 2005

Fine, MA...I answered your question...now mine...what would it take to convince you? This is boring.....

najab · May 23, 2005

>If something doesn't fit your prejudices, then there must be something wrong with it.Pot, kettle, black. Remind you of any familar sayings? >From what I've seen of their writings in the popular media, the revered experts, while absolutely certain that the Face is totally the product of nature, can't even decide what sort of natural structure the Face is. Was it formed by erosion, or by volcanism?As Jon pointed out already - disagreement about what it is doesn't mean there's disagreement about what it's not. Besides, those two theories - erosion or volcanism - aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they very easily go hand-in-hand: erosion of a volcanic feature.

najab · May 23, 2005

Do these words sound familiar: "The "test" is nonsense. Maybe he's an experienced field geologist, but he's clearly as much of a rank amateur at digital image analysis as everyone else here.", or how about "I see no evidence that your line drawings involve any more expertise than those of the people with a butt fixation. "That sounds like you were rejecting JonClarke's work because you didn't like the results.Or how about: "No, but it does carry just a bit more weight than the opinions of people blathering on message boards about subjects not in their field of expertise."Which is kinda ironic, considering the fact that JonClarke is a geologist by training (and profession), and Carlotto is neither.

A CIVILIZATION on MARS? 1B/200M Years Ago? (Pt. 2)

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

silylene old

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

telfrow

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

silylene old

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

najab

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

najab

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page