Of course these are to be taken seriously. I think this is a MAJOR discovery and PROVES intelligent life on Mars. BTW, speaking of major discoveries, I MYSELF have just made a MAJOR DISCOVERY. I just walked outside my house and DISCOVERED STATUTES LEVITATING in thin air, OBVIOUSLY made by extra-terrestials. The statutes are white and puffy and one looks like a butterfly, another is clearly a dragon and the third appears to be Richard Nixon riding a motorcycles (ET must be a Republican). Unfortunately, the wind appears to be blowing the buffy white statutes away, but THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I have seen them. They regularly appear as statutes of birds, animals, people, etc. I am sure if you leave your house right now, you can see some of these white, puffy statutes directly overhead.
To see a world in a grain of sand<br /><br />and a heaven in a wild flower,<br /><br />hold infinity in the palm of your hand<br /><br />and eternity in an hour.<br /> <br /><br />-William Blake<br /><br /><hr /><br /><br />The range of human perception is so huge and subjective, who's to say that Martian rocks aren't capable of inspiring someone to see past the veil?<br /><br />Of course, it's when they suggest that their perception describes a physical reality, especially on a science board, that those of use who aren't delusional will offer help to reconnect them with reality.<br /><br />In the end, though, if someone sees aliens in rocks, I'm sure not going to tell them they are wrong. Just that with my physical senses, I do not perceive them.
So come on, what extra sense do you have? I'm dying to know. I bet it's not <i>common</i>, eh? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#339966"> I wish I could remember<br /> But my selective memory<br /> Won't let me</font><font size="2" color="#99cc00"> </font><font size="3" color="#339966"><font size="2">- </font></font><font size="1" color="#339966">Mark Oliver Everett</font></p><p> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow">you are entitled to them</font><br /><br />Thank you. That's very generous of you.<br /><br />I'm curious, though, what that has to do with establishing the <b>fact</b> of existence or non-existence of blue flowers or alien statues on Mars? Are you seriously suggesting that if you and I had access to those items, could pick them up, taste them, toss them about, examine them in a lab, that our <b>opinions</b> would be sufficient to establish the truth of our perceptions?<br /><br />Since that's not how science works, I'm wondering what your goals are, here.
Whoof!<br /><br />Are you argumentative by nature? An understanding of the methods used for discovery is a prerequisite for learning new things. But that's different from using those methods to make a discovery. Your challenge to me to present something I've discovered has no bearing on the matter at hand. <br /><br />My opinion (which you have generously allowed me to have) is that I could help you with a little remedial course on the scientific method. We can switch over to Occam's razor whenever you like, but otherwise, try to keep up. Ready? Here we go!<br /><br />1) establish a testable hypothesis.<br /><br /><i>water makes things wet</i><br /><br />2 and 3) design and conduct an experiment that tests your hypothesis<br /><br /><i>I'll dip many objects into a bucket of water to prove that they all get wet</i><br /><br />4) Describe your results and modify your hypothesis, if necessary<br /><br /><i>My wood stick got wet, but my plastic stick came out almost entirely dry. My stick made of salt didn't come out at all. Therefore, I can conclude that water makes some things wet, but not others.</i><br /><br />A well designed experiment leads to more questions, until the nature of Nature has been described and understood. In the example above, we might choose to investigate where our salt stick went.<br /><br />Your "discovery" of statues and flowers is nothing more than a description based on a visul perception. Not evidence that you did any work, set up any hypothesis, pursued other explanations, or have any follow-up experiments or descriptions to perform.<br /><br />Your assignment, and you can PM me if you want me to review it before you post it here, is to work out an experiment that you might do which would demonstrate these things are not rocks. Wouldn't that be amazing? If you could use a method of discovery that has been refined for hundreds of years, to prove that you've found something unique and beautiful?<br /><br />So follow the steps above, write down your experiment, post
"Unfortunately, all those fluffy things are rocks. "<br /><br />No, actually I was referring to the fact that people see shapes in clouds, as some here so desperately want to see shapes in martian rocks.
Bob there's no point. I wouldn't even try to reason with him. He obviously can't comprehend higher level critical thinking. All he's really got is a very over-active imagination without common sense to filter anything. But of course he'll pass that off as open-mindedness; just like the "hollow moon" argument before the crash.
Any fool can think they know the answers as well extra dispite contrary evidnece suggesting no complex organisms in a harsh environment.<br /><br />Folks I do believe that extra just like to get his jollies off of us getting frustrated at this inability to think. Therefore ignore him and prevent him the attention he seeks...its just that simple.
<font color="yellow">us getting frustrated</font><br /><br />Spacechump, this is an aspect of our behavior that has recently begun to fascinate me. Here I sit at a computer screen, completely safe from any sort of... well, anything, and yet another person's lack of common sense, ability to carry on a discussion, or even accomplsih something so simple as to prove a point can drive us crazy.<br /><br />Here's the point the skewer turns me over: nothing extrasense or any of the other people who try to pass fantasy as objectivity can write can actually harm me in any way shape or form. It costs me nothing (well, okay, a few pennies in electricity, and some minutes of my finite span) to carry on a dialogue with them.<br /><br />I suspect it costs any of us very little.<br /><br />So why get so frustrated?<br /><br />There's got to be something unknown, some reason, why we would invest any effort, even to the extent of assigning ourselves to feel pain, that we would even spend a minute when a crazy post shows up (ball lightning is intelligent! It flew through the open window, not through the closed one! I see blue flowers and alien statues! My bellybutton lint looks like Jesus, and spoke to me!)<br /><br />So I've been watching the boards, and trying to understand why the more sane among us would give ourselves pain when we see absurdity posted as truth.
<font color="yellow">Any fool could be a scientist, if it were only to follow the rules.</font><br /><br />That's a pretty strong, and rather vile, opinion. Does the smiley face at the end show an effort to "soften the blow" of being so rude?<br /><br />Why bother?<br /><br />Oh, and back to the matter at hand, I'm eagerly waiting for your ideas about how to prove your hypothesis.
<<ideas about how to prove your hypothesis>><br />See, <br />everyone is eager to point to the occam razor principle in connections with these observations.<br />Nobody yet mentioned the beauty ot the theory principle, and the "craziness" of the theory principle. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
Solid, not transparent things shadow themself.<br />If Martian flower were a rock, it would shadow itself too. I do not suggest although for anybody to eat that apple. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If Martian flower were a rock, it would shadow itself too.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Not if the sun was behind the rover. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>