Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

yevaud · Feb 24, 2006

Spot on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

JonClarke · Feb 24, 2006

Jon: Assertion is not enough. Max Unless of course you're a pathological skeptic. That must mean the that the devotes of TEM are all "pathological skeptics". Me" I just know the difference between baseless assertion and informed opinion. Jon Are you accusing Shadow of suppressing science? Evidence please. Max There's plenty of evidence. But I wouldn't pin it all on just one guy. I wasn't asking you. But the fact you don't produce any (and never have) shows you don't have any evidence, or don't have the intestinal fortitude to present it. 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>

maxtheknife · Feb 24, 2006

bonzelite · Feb 24, 2006

Jon, i admire your talks and trailblazings into geologic processes. and the work you are doing to advance martian pioneering is invaluable and i applaud you and your collegues for this. but you outright deny at all costs any suppression? at all? i find this highly unbelievable coming from you. the stance you have taken, that of absolute and unwavering denial of it, borders on minion status. all you need to do is google you butt off and find hundreds of suppression of science books and articles. the practice is as old as humanity itself. trade secrets, piracy, lies, deceit, coverups --all are business as usual and just another day in the 'hood. and, no, i'm not anti-capitalist. quite the opposite. here is but one of millions: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/clausen240106.html excerpt: An attempt by powerful professors very much aligned with industry interests to stifle a peer-reviewed article damages the basic process of scientific advance -- in this case, by hindering scientific debate on critical issues of forest ecology. One must wonder: is intimidating fellow researchers and distorting the process of science an SOP in academic institutions subordinated to the profit-making imperative of industries whose funding has become increasingly critical to academia's survival? here is another one: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Suppression-Of-Dissent.htm There are numerous documented cases of attacks on dissident scientists, yet there is no established body of literature or standard theoretical frameworks for dealing with this phenomenon. Cases in three contentious areas–pesticides, fluoridation, and nuclear power–are used to illustrate processes and patterns of suppression. The evidence in

telfrow · Feb 24, 2006

...borders on minion status... Well, you almost said it publicly again, Bonz. <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>

bonzelite · Feb 24, 2006

sure. and here's more publicity for it: http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html ...science progressively became handmaiden to industry and government, and its direction of research is increasingly influenced by vested interests and self-interested bureaucracies, including bureaucracies supposedly established to promote good science such as the National Academies... even to the staunchist skeptic against suppression, to deny even entertaining such a possibility seems overly dismissive. it raises the question "what's up with the schtick?" the opposing views in this thread are not of this tone: "sure, suppression may be happening, but it probably isn't." it is, instead, this way: "no. absolutely not. that is heresay. you are a fool for even entertaining such an idea. facts are facts. goodbye."

yevaud · Feb 24, 2006

Er, no. Take it from my own experiences that many distasteful things occur in the Astronomy field. Just as in every other field of endeavor in human history. They're fallible, just as is anyone else. But it's tiny percentage. Condemning the whole for the sins of a few is fruitless. To think too much that way would mean you'd never leave home - because the knowledge that this is not exclusive to one field, but is pervasive everywhere would make you a functional cripple. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Feb 24, 2006

JonClarke: "... Assertion is not enough..." Enough? When is a hypothesis baseless, but a valid argument, and when is *your* opinion of false premise ever substantiated by the evidence that you apparently require? *evidence* of cover-up(s), and/or suppression of technological advances ... ?!?! The stealth aircraft were largely classified as UFO's by the public, until the government actually acknowledged that they existed. Neither confirm, nor deny the existence of highly advanced propulsion technologies, that in there own right, will eliminate the need for fossil fuels, but are suppressed, because of their weaponization potential, etc. "... devotes of TEM..." This sounds like a political grouping or classification of individuals, who assemble the facts, or what appear to be facts, and postulate, or predict outcomes that may or may not be true. The fact that you have failed to scientifically *REJECT* the *hypotications* presented by the *TEM* group, only tells me that the door is still open in that regard. Your statements sound like political *bullying*, and your very attitude in this matter sounds like the very *suppressive* nature that is currently being discussed in this thread. There are numerous ways to suppress individuals and groups, in which certain related methodologies are usually politically motivated. Here is a message I posted for ZenOnMars just recently: ################## Hello ZenOnMars - I was beginning to start archiving some of those links you provided when all of sudden I found a "Scholarly Article" titled "… Symmetry and Geometry of the Face on Mars Revealed …", and according to the article, it is a new analysis based on a April 2001 image taken by the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS). You might find it interesting to know that Ph. D., Dr. Mark J. Carlotto, designs this particular

ag30476 · Feb 24, 2006

There is always some lag - for example windows based applications, object oriented programming, relational databases and networking took about 15-20 years to get fully accepted and distributed by the supposed technologically elite IT industry. And some of it is due to a suppression effect of systemic or economic factors as you mentioned. My point was simply that a simplistic model of monolithic, entrenched, economic interests supressing technology is not true now nor has it been true in the past. The biggest reason many technologies have not taken off is simple: they don't work or they are not economical. This is especially true of energy technology. In fact, many OPEC members realized long ago that the simplest to supress alternative energy technology and conservation and keep demand high was also very simple: keep oil prices low (realtive to other technologies and from the the long term perspective).

yevaud · Feb 24, 2006

Symmetry is not a prima facie determinator of artificiality. Much more is required. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Feb 24, 2006

For example, suppose New Hampshire was devoid of all life. And I imaged the "Old Man of the Mountain" from orbit. Furthermore, I note that it's in a certain relationship (I'm not saying it is, this is for the purposes of illustration only) with Mount Washington, the tallest mountain in New England. Am I then warranted in assuming the OMOTM is artificial? Because it isn't. This is one reason why symmetry and arbitrary relationships are not indicative of artificiality by any means. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Feb 24, 2006

JonClarke: "... But none of this belongs here, it belongs in Free space. It has nothing to to with space science and technology. I request the moderators it be moved...." It *IS* Space Science & Astronomy: Probe the vast reaches of space from the comfort of your desk ... , not SS & T ... Last time I heard; space covered everything in a selected point in space time, and science, well, is the means by which humanity quantifies the particular space in question. Definitions of Science on the Web: A systematic field of study or body of knowledge that aims, through experiment, observation, and deduction, to produce reliable explanations of phenomena, with reference to the material and physical world. LINK [from Latin scientia from scire to know] In its widest sense formulated knowledge, a knowledge of structure, laws, and operations. The unity of human knowledge may be artificially divided into religion, philosophy, and science. Science and philosophy, as presently understood, have in common the quality of being speculative, as opposed to religion, which in the West is supposed to be founded merely on faith and moral sentiments. ... www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/sar-sec.htm Definitions of Space on the Web: the unlimited expanse in which everything is located; "they tested his ability to locate objects in space"; "the boundless regions of the infinite" LINK Space has a range of definitions.* One view of space is that it is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a set of dimensions in which objects are separated and located, have size

yevaud · Feb 24, 2006

Jon is on the other side of the Earth, so he may not be able to respond for some hours. However, is it possible, you think, that the people who imaged all of these objects and analyzed them might just have taken all of that - and more - into account? Because that seems to be one of the keys to your argument. E.g., that they haven't. Edit: or worse, are deliberately suppressing information. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Feb 24, 2006

Yevaud: "... Am I then warranted in assuming the OMOTM is artificial? Because it isn't. ..." Are you sure that it *ISN'T*? Your *Hypothesis* is baseless, because it *IS* missing the numbers that I require to either *ACCEPT* or *REJECT* it; therefore, you are banished to the dreaded *PHENOMENA* thread. Does that sound familiar? Why is it so acceptable for you to post your nonsense, while others are banished, or worse? Because science is suppressed politically around the world. *STRIFE* is the force that blinds us. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

yevaud · Feb 24, 2006

In a post by post, case-by case basis, my posts do not belong in "Phenomena." Of others, I won't say. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Feb 24, 2006

Your *Hypothesis* is baseless Err, no it isn't. Ask around. because it *IS* missing the numbers that I require to either *ACCEPT* or *REJECT* it That you, personally, find the data lacking was not, I think, in the minds of the Mission teams. Sorry. therefore, you are banished to the dreaded *PHENOMENA* thread. Other than my "cutting up," I don't believe you'll find a "non-scientific" post that I've made. I try to be quite "by the numbers," thanks. Besides, it's not your call, is it? Does that sound familiar? Why yes it does. Why is it so acceptable for you to post your nonsense Because I do not post nonsense - your own personal opinion, notwithstanding. while others are banished, or worse? Because some others *do* post "nonsense." In particular, here, in the science forums. Because science is suppressed politically around the world. You may believe that if you wish. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Feb 24, 2006

At any rate, my post was in direct answer to you. The "Old Man" is known to entirely natural as people were able to go right to it, for the last 400-500 years, and analyze it. The same may not be said about anything on Mars. So there itself is a distinguishing characteristic between the two. One has more than ample experimental and on-site evidence to show, one way or the other, the status of the OMOTM. The other does not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Feb 24, 2006

I made a case, based on the work of Ph. D. Carlotto, in which he suggests that we study the Cydonia Landscape with the same technologies that we use today. He wants to see specialized equipment installed on future spacecraft, and makes a very good case for it. There must be other scholarly articles out there. Here, wiz007 replies to TheShadow HERE, and his intelligence in the subject matter *IS* demonstratively credible to the trained eye; however, he does nothing to back up his position, which is suspect. ################################## wiz007 replies: If you had phone conversations with the people working with images within ASU it is hard to imagine that you seem to be unaware of the process that actually must be done to PROPERLY process an IR or VIS QUB product in the PDS data set. To say you 'quess' as to how alignment is done makes me question whether you KNOW the process or not. I have done IR and VIS QUB processing...and done so PROPERLY uses to the correct software for georectification and then imported the results into ENIV for band ratioing and spectrographical analysis. In ALL the discussions I have seen concerning the DATA and 'skeptics' of what that DATA actually SHOWS when properly processed I have yet to see only ONE (1) person in the hundreds you have said the Face on Mars is only a hill actually DO that proper processing and present their results to the web. Since you said you had an 'inside' track to such...have YOU actually DONE any of the proper processing of any QUB data and shown the results...especially IR QUB data of the Face which clearly, in some ratios, show 'beams' underneath the Face. For those who PROPERLY process the data according to PDS standards and then do the band ratios, these beams are clea

telfrow · Feb 24, 2006

Why, for the love of God, would someone make a statement like that, and not provide evidence to support it. Why indeed. <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>

yevaud · Feb 24, 2006

Ok, compound answer: The first is that Carlotto is one of a rare few PhD's in the field who have signed onto the following: "More investigation is required." That's fine, good. But most people in the various fields have seen more than ample evidence that more investigation isn't required. Carlotto is, despite some unhappy talk about him, reasonably legitimate. But he's only one of a very few (edit: to sign onto the "more investigation required" crowd, that is). Next, Jatslo, I have exactly processed an entire swath of satellite imagery using PCI and ARC, in a wide range of multiple multispectral bands, with all of the appropriate bells and whistles: altitude benchmarking, linear stretch, various forms of supervised and unsupervised classifications, playing around with imagery Eigenvalues, and much more. While I do not possess a PhD in the field, I did in fact go to school (undergraduate) for this. I know quite enough to determine the efficacy and accuracy of imagery, thanks. I might add that it's curious. The experts of the Mission teams - who exactly have access to the tools you and I don't possess - don't believe the FOM is artificial. But the TEM crew discount that. Then they "Orthorectify" the image and "analyze" it using eyeball and ballpark guesswork, as they most certainly do *not* possess these software tools and the raw imagery to manipulate and analyze. But they accept that as ok, valid. And then someone who has some experience at Remote Sensing comes along and they discount their experience; all the while accepting their own non-experience. You'll pardon me if I seem a trifle cynical about it all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Feb 24, 2006

In brief, I am receiving mixed and entirely subjective messages as to what constitutes "evidence" from the TEM crowd. At times the experts are ok - when they agree with the TEM crowd. The remainder of the time, they are dolts. And that *is* in effect what they've been saying. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Feb 24, 2006

Oh. He's a user who's posted here once. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Feb 24, 2006

Yeah, my point exactly; the following is TheShadow's response to wiz007, in which raises my suspicions to something a little more sinister going on here at SDC. SDC minions beware, what you are about to see is *not* for the faint of heart: <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Robert, At the time I was communicating with Phil Christensen and Greg Mehall, we were not discussing georectification. I wish I had my notes here, but basically the conversations revolved around the technical operation of the cameras, and the processing of the data when it was received on Earth. This was almost exclusively limited to the Odyssey Spacecraft. The only images I worked with were oriented squarely with the down-track of the camera. The VIS camera in THEMIS is a push-broom camera. It has five filters laminated to the surface of a 1024 x 1024 CCD element. These filters are aligned consecutively in the downtrack direction. Each filter is about 200 pixels long and 1024 pixels wide. The CCD is scanned about once every second, which is the time it takes for the Odyssey to move almost the width of a filter. Therefore, each filter is scanned just before it has crossed over into new territory. There is a 25 pixel row overlap, and this overlap is used to help align successive images together. The result is that the camera can obtain continuous images on each of the five filters at the same time. The only limitation to downtrack image length is the available memory. Here are some interesting points of information: 1) The Odyssey spacecraft passes over a specific point on Mars once every 4 months. 2) The spacecraft spends 15 minutes each day taking pictures, and 23 hours 45 minutes transmitting data back to Earth. 3) The buffer in the VIS camera has a 4 megabyte capacity so it can store 19 single band images or 3 five band images. 4) The visible image camera must wait for the IR camera to trans</blockquote>

telfrow · Feb 24, 2006

...which raises my suspicions to something a little more sinister going on here at SDC... Here we go...again. <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>

jatslo · Feb 24, 2006

telfrow: "... Here we go...again..." Is that your argument? *here we go again*, or are you trying to hide something? Do you have a problem with making a case involving JonClarke, Saiph, Yevaud, telfrow, and TheShadow, in regards to suppressive behavior(s)? Your little one liners are attempt to draw attention away from the fact that there are individuals who post in SDC, who are suppressive in the political extreme. Do you deny this? In fact, your multiple one liners might be construed as a cover-up, or your attempt to cover-up something that is exposed.

Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

yevaud

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

telfrow

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

ag30476

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

telfrow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

telfrow

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page