Martians Worship Sun ! Tell NASA imbeciles...

[extrasense]

I did go to their site. <br />I did did find out that there is no open position currently for any physicist.<br />So, the nitwits do not employ physicists.<br />Actually, they hate anybody even with BS degree in anything, unless it is their pseudoscience baked.<br /><br />ES<br /><br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

Probably more like MC Escher or possibly Roger Penrose. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Hmm.<br /><br />Are we speaking of the same Roger Penrose? I'm referring to the Eminent British Mathematician, who worked with Steven Hawking on his theory of singularities, back in the 70's.<br /><br />The reason I mentioned him is he invented a number of shapes called "Penrose Tiles," which when put together, never repeat themselves. You can make a mosaic of thousands of elements, and never end up with the exact same configuration in two seperate locations.<br /><br />Of course, he did get around. Perhaps we are speaking of the same guy after all... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Interesting three triangle shapes; one erect; two appear to have tipped over, yet, the two that tipped remained attached for whatever reason. Why people would bash you, instead of offering further analysis, just goes to show how SDC is falling prey to these trolls. At first, I thought you all were playing a game, like tag, but recently I noticed Yevaud and extrasense going off on a personal tangent, that didn't seem like it was fun for the victim. To extrasense: I do not see any reason why that object, and hypothetical event did not transpire, but you should really work on your presentation.<br />

 

[jatslo]

arit said, "<font color="gold">Yevaud, Excellent posts! You proved the triangle case, and I learned a new few words. Don't waste your time trying to convince es, he is in-convinceable.</font>" <---- arit - Yevaud did nothing of the sort; how you all went off on a crystal tangent is typical of a classical disrupter, who will often draw attention away from the subject to promote his or her own sick humor, but the fact of the matter is: Yevaud failed to explain the observed phenomena that extrasense presented. I am curious as to why extrasense did not provide a link for that picture, because I am curious about the source. Are these Martian objects, and a past event, or Earth objects, and a past event? What space are we talking about?

 

[yevaud]

<i>just goes to show how SDC is falling prey to these trolls</i><br /><br />Yes, Buddy. And you have been one of them here and there. Capishe?<br /><br />By the way - I thought only Zombies were ressurected after being mercifully deceased for 9-10 months.<br /><br /><i>Yevaud did nothing of the sort; how you all went off on a crystal tangent is typical of a <b>classical disrupter</b>, who will often draw attention away from the subject to promote his or her own sick humor, but the fact of the matter is: Yevaud failed to explain the observed phenomena that extrasense presented.</i><br /><br />I'm sorry, but...<br /><br />HAR HAR HAR!!!<br /><br />Extrasense actually PROVING SOMETHING???!!!<br /><br />HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Thank you for the best laugh I've had in days!!! <br /><br />Oh, and hey: care to take a poll at SDC, and see who's considered a "Disrupter???" I will GUARENTEE you that you will leave, red-faced, hat-in-hand. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

All one need do is look at your history in this thread and many other threads to find the truth, but if you want to open a poll, then by all means please do; I DARE you!!! There is rarely anything scientific at all from you, and this place would be a far better place without your ranting and ravings, and that is a FACT.<br /><br />You just keep singing the same old tune!!!

 

[yevaud]

Oh. And when have *you* taught a lesson series on anything, except Jatslo's patended Horse-hockey: "light/dark matter, great-big-balls-'O-Plama" and so on.<br /><br />You let me know when you achieve more than a bad movie's level of actual science, and then we'll talk.<br /><br />Until then, it's just nonsense followed by foolishness followed by inanity... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Why would I talk to you about science; I would certainly talk to someone else before I talked with you? What makes you so special? Why do you think that you have any expertise in Martian Rocks that were clearly stacked triangles shortly before they fell over? Why should I listen to you about anything? I am not going to fall for your BS any more; you want to get confrontational then confine your antics to free space, and stay the &%$#@! away from these good people who have real reservations about there own perceptions!!! Your psycho-babble is not welcome, and that goes double for you personal attacks. Why don't you just take off to where ever that stevehw33 is, and you two can have psycho-babble party to your hearts content.<br /><br />You don't psychoanalyze someone who thinks a rock looks artificial!!!!

 

[yevaud]

<i>Why do you think that you have any expertise in Martian Rocks</i><br /><br />Gee, I suspect education and professional experience might just have something to do with it. You?<br /><br /><i>Martian Rocks that were clearly stacked triangles</i><br /><br />Illusion based on a superficial analysis of grainy and corrupted photographs by inexperienced amateurs.<br /><br /><i>you want to get confrontational then confine your antics to free space</i><br /><br />Confrontational? Hey, who just ressurected a 10-month dead thread for the specific purpose of mentioning me - by name - and then making a personal attack? Methinks your actions give lie to this.<br /><br /><i>I am not going to fall for your BS any more</i><br /><br />Read your own nonsensical concepts and then get back to me.<br /><br /><i>confine your antics to free space, and stay the &%$#@! away</i><br /><br />Lesse...me, here 6 years and many good scientific concepts, debates, and threads. You, inane non-science. Go figure.<br /><br /><i>Your psycho-babble is not welcome, and that goes double for you personal attacks.</i><br /><br />No, it generally isn't by people who attempt to corrupt science forums with their patented brand of arrant nonsense. The real nub of it here, is <i>your type hate to be confronted by real science, because you never have anything remotely close to an adequate explanation for your foolish wrongthinking posts.</i><br /><br /><i>You don't psychoanalyze someone who thinks a rock looks artificial!!!!</i><br /><br />No, that's true. I end up doing so to people who rigidly hold onto these kind of ideas, and think they actually are in the know, even when it is shown they are so wrong that it's breathtaking. And can't even explain why this is so.<br /><br />Back at you, Boy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

extrasense is an active user; I saw him or her here yesterday, and I expect to see extrasense again. When I do, I will be watching you.

 

[yevaud]

For example:<br /><br />Here, in this thread, Extrasense continually shows grainy, out of resolution photos, highly pixellated, manipulated by him, and even with features altered to highlight them - the antithesis of actual analysis. In short, he's altered the evidence to favor him.<br /><br />And then there's the real core of the argument: if they are artificial, <b>who made them???</b><br /><br />Notice Extrasense never actually gets to it? He makes these weak diversions around that question. And when pinned down on it, he can't explain it away at all.<br /><br />This is not science, Bud. <br /><br />And if you have a problem with me (and others) who call you people on it on a daily basis, too damned bad. Nothing stopped you from obtaining an actual degree in the very subjects you think you're expert it. But you didn't, did you? All you guys want to do is post the weird idea du jour, and then have a fawning audience all cry, "Oooooh, what a genius!!!"<br /><br />Ain't gonna happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[spasser]

<font color="yellow">if you want to open a poll, then by all means please do; I DARE you!!!</font><br /><br />Not only permission but a challenge... normally opening up a thread about other members would be a violation of TOS right? But in this case he's literally requesting it. I'd really like to see a poll on here... Yevaud vs. jatslo.

 

[jatslo]

Yeah, I am curious too: Just do it, Yevaud.

 

[jatslo]

The folloing link leads to the flat mode that contains all posts, and note the the first reponse is "Stupid":<br /><br />URL

 

[yevaud]

That would be a violation of the TOS, and I am in no way suggesting it (though, frankly, if the TOS supported it, I would say “Go.”). The question was rhetorical: "yeah, well <br />ask around..." As to me, I suspect that a lot of people will say, “he’s a very knowledgeable guy, and yes does occasionally go off on pissy rants. Those are usually about far-wing politics and extraordinarily crappy science. And he’s generally a wiseass.” <br /><br />I have my own personal defects, admitted freely. But I am scientifically *FUNCTIONAL* And, friend, I live painfully in the real world. I wonder, sometimes, about some of <b>you</b>.<br /><br />With all due respect, Jatslo, what will they say about you?<br /><br />Ok. You in turn challenged me. You posted a thread with some allusion to my nasty attitude about my counter-arguing against ES’s <b>true</b> “Pseudoscience” – crap like this post. Obviously, the core of your point here is that my acting like that was unwarranted. How dare I.<br /><br />Originally, I made topical answers to Extrasense, and surely this is one piece of “evidence” being used against me by you. Ok. I’ll deconstruct further, and show what I could have said. I didn’t do so, as these type of answers have already proven to be worthless and disregarded by ES, so why bother. Snide in = Snide out, Buddy.<br /><br />Don’t post Science, my ass.<br /><br />***********************************************************************<br /><br />My response to ES’s post, and further analysis:<br /><br />***********************************************************************<br /><br /><b>ES:</b> There've never existed equilateral triangle rocks on Earth <br /><br /><b>ME:</b> Excuse me? How would you know that? Is there some reason that an equilateral triangle is not possible? Null argument, buddy.<br /><br />Really? Now ES is playing “I misremembered,” as I’d responded in a previous thread to this statement. My response was to post a picture or so of naturally occurring miner <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Yevaud said, "<font color="yellow">And it doesn’t, except for considering that Mars is a vast place, windswept by a very tenuous atmosphere, yet containing frequent sandstorms that can sweep across huge distances, with velocities in the hundreds of Kilometers. Does he somehow expect those forces can't sculpt terrain features into whatever you could possibly image? I'm surprised we don;t see an "HESS" logo, just thrugh chance.</font><br /><br />The following is something that rlb2 posted in another similar thread:<br /><br /><i><font color="gold">Note Viking and Pathfinder wind speeds as recorded on the surface of Mars were never over 15 m/s (33 mph) except the occasional dust devil. <br /><br />Here are a couple of formulas you would need to actually calculate it all out if you want a more exact wind speed to move (inertia) a grain of sand on Mars. <br /><br />P = 1/2 Cd pAV^3 <br /><br />F = P/V <br /><br />F = Force <br />P = Power <br />Cd = The coefficient of drag <br />p = Air Density <br />A = Surface area affected by the wind <br />V = Velocity <br />½ = A spherical object has ½ the drag as a flat object at low wind speeds, at high speeds a spherical object's CD would be different depending on the Reynolds number (a dimensionless number in fluids that is determined by a laminate flow or turbulent flow)- a number that is dependant on the velocity of the wind, viscosity and density of the air. Yes the movement of air is considered a fluid motion. <br /><br />The density of the Martian air at the Datum is 2.0E-5 slugs/cu ft. at -25 f</font></i> ( REF#118419801894 )" <br /><br />I can make nothing out of the initial posted picture other than there appears to be three, maybe four ROCKS shaped as triangles that could of possibly been stacked either naturally or mechanically and then fell over for whatever reason.

 

[yevaud]

Oh? And I can show you a picture of an Indian's Head in New Hampshire, which Geolocic and Weather forces etched that way. And it recently collapsed - fell down.<br /><br />What an extradorinary coincidence. Why, that happened on Mars as well... <br /><br />Perhaps you see why this conversation is Terminated. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

You can compare and contrast Earth and Mars all you want; in fact, I suggest that you do. The fact of the matter is that we do not know any more than what was provided, and not one of you, who were involved, asked for more information, e.g., ( Source, alternative angles, scale, topography, space, event, experiment, etc.), All you all did was substitute crystals for rocks, and wind that clearly has less of an affect on ROCKS than you would have us believe. Like I said in a previous post, extrasense is an active user, and I saw him or her yesterday, so we will see, if this is a dead issue, or not. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[extrasense]

Hi, jatslo,<br /><br />the idea that any shape can be observed with reasonable probability, like more that one to gugol, even if winds were 1000 miles per hour, is an utter nonsense. Just my opinion.<br />The people who make such claims, had claimed also that liquid water is impossible on Mars.<br />Some have a learning disability with illusion of grandeur, that's all.<br /><br />es<br />

 

[yevaud]

I don't believe there's any reason to respond. You do a fine (and ungrammatical) job of shooting *yourself* in your own head.<br /><br />Many people have many "personalities" on the Internet. You have managed the near-impossible: wherever you go, you are the man who posts pictures of rocks and see's everything - except rocks.<br /><br />Remarkably consistent: the same nonsense across multiple message boards. Quite a feat. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

The statistical probability of a similar phenomena and/or hypothetical event occurring elsewhere must always be paired with actual data, which you failed to supply. Furthermore, any Earth observed event in space compared and/or contrasted to Mars must include Mars factors to determine the standard deviation to some degree of predictability, or whatever you choose to report. The image you initially posted, although interesting, is nothing more than a ink blot utilized in some psychiatric evaluation. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I looked at your profile and visited the link you provided, and I noticed that you have posted similar images with alternative outcomes, which is cool. I noticed that you cited the source as NASA, and I ask that you do that now for the initial posted picture. I/we can investigate these phenomena further, if we only new where to start looking. Can you do this? This outcrop is particularly interesting, because of the unusual shapes of what appears to have been stacked at one time; three, possibly four rocks, and they are rocks, right? We have not ruled out Martian Monolith, but what is the probability of that occurring? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[extrasense]

The first thing to understand is, that any really regular shape of a rock is the most unlikely occurrence. <br />With the particular candidate for pyramid, we have to wait until end of January, when the full set of data will be released for the Sols beyond 450.<br /><br />es<br /><br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

This thread is almost one year old, so where did you archive that image, and a link would be nice?

 

[extrasense]

What can be easier than clicking on the link at the thread start?<br />