Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ToSeek
And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored. Evidenced by the fact that pictures of the area were "filed away" without scientific scrutiny or further interest, only to be accidentally rediscovered.
You have no evidence that Cydonia was ignored. For all we know, the Viking orbiters took plenty of images of Cydonia - the Face was just one small target in a very large area.
|
OK, so, "for all we know" there
are plenty of images that were taken by Viking. Were they, too, "filed away?" Why wouldn't there at least be some follow-up photogeological studies since it was deemed so interesting at first?
Quote:
And what about the "catbox" image from '98? Are you willing to believe that NASA employed a bunch of "interns" to process those images, and then not check their work before presenting their findings to the public?
You're ignoring the fact that the ETHers demanded that MGS take a photo of the Face at the earliest possible opportunity and release it as quickly as possible. Then when, in perfect response to their request, a raw image from an uncalibrated instrument was released and looked like crap, they started complaining and haven't stopped yet.
|
"In perfect response," ToSeek? I disagree.
Consider
The Politics of Science and JPL's "Catbox" Enhancement of the Face on Mars by Lan Fleming, an engineer with Johnson Space Systems.
And his
NASA Report.
Quote:
And then not even offer a retraction or a more accurately processed image?
As documented here, a much better image was made available only seven hours after the raw image was posted.
|
Thanks, I didn't know.
Quote:
Is Cydonia no longer most interesting geologically?
MGS takes photos of the Cydonia region on a regular basis. You can find dozens of such images in the archive, including ones of just about every object of interest to ETHers taken at the best resolution available.
|
Indeed and there still remain countless very interesting structures that should warrant up-close scientific investigation, whether they are naturally occurring or artificial.
Quote:
Does not the Brookings Report imply that it might be best to withhold such a discovery from the public?
Most amusing to me, within the report, is the notion that "scientists and engineers" would be most threatened.
Do you have any evidence that anyone other than woo-woos pay attention to the Brookings Report? I have searched for any mention of it on any NASA website without success.
|
I found it listed on a NASA bibliography page under its actual title, but I have no evidence that anyone other than woos pay attention to it.
But what else should I expect to find regarding the "Brookings Report" in ,say, "scientific" circles?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
NASA would be first to bang the bongos if they find something on Mars with a sufficient possibility of being artificial. If they could find such a thing, they would get more money for funding a massive Mars program than they could handle.
|
I don't really understand this argument since it is clear that NASA lied regarding "the face" at the outset.
Why didn't they "bang the bongos" then to get more funding?
|
Because if they'd gone to Congress saying, "Look, there's something on Mars that looks vaguely like a face - we need a hundred billion dollar mission to investigate it further" they would have been laughed back to Pasadena.
|
OK, but they apparently established good reasons for wanting to go there to begin with. Instead, the public got the "trick of light and shadow" explanation and Cydonia was ignored until a public outcry almost 20yrs later. And then what did they get? A premature "unmasked" face and the "incompetence" explanation.
Harrumph!