http://www.marsnews.com/news/20021004-boerner2.html

Same old same old, actually. At one point he calls the Themis Website a 'scientific disgrace'.
This guy is one step from being as paranoid as Hoagland...

Oh boy, the only 'real' science, huh?

_________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rift on 2002-10-06 00:12 ]</font>

If he looks hard enough, he should see other animals in land formations too. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

As opposed to the tired old canard about the face being clearly of artificial origin.

Blech. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

>Same old same old, actually. At one point >he calls the Themis Website a 'scientific >disgrace'.

Your argument must be pretty weak, if you have to resort to outright falsification of the marsnews article. The exact quote is

"the way in which the Cydonia data has been posted on the THEMIS web site is a scientific disgrace. "

Not the website is being called a scientific disgrace, only the fashion in which a particular piece of data has been posted.

Several reasons are given for this assessment; you did not respond to a single one of them.

>This guy is one step from being as paranoid >as Hoagland...

Last time I checked, ad-hominem was not a scientific argument. If you feel that the argument that is being made about the composition of the Cydonia plane is incorrect, I'd love to hear your reasons.

>Oh boy, the only 'real' science, huh?

Sorry that the facts are unpalatable to you. The only published papers on Cydonia are from those who are trying to show artificiality. NASA has done never anything but "science by press conference" on the subject.

The bottom line is, you're all bark and no scientific bite. Your sole argument is ad-hominem and ridicule.

>As opposed to the tired old canard about the face being clearly of artificial origin.

Ah, that's pseudoskeptical trick #17: demolishing a straw man. If you had actually read the research you're attacking, you would know that the planetary SETI community claims nothing but "probable cause" for artificial origin. It is only NASA that claims to possess infallible and certain knowledge as to the origin of the formation.

That's all Hoagwash and his cronies are worth...

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

If I must... ::sigh:: I've posted all this before.

http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/DMPyramid.html

REAL science about the non artificiallity of the D&M pyramid.

http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/FaxBack.html
http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html

About Hoagland's dishonesty and out right lying before.

and finally
http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com...terprise.shtml
about the themis data from a face advocate.

The first thing you learn in science is that you throw out suspect data.

Even if the story hoagland is telling about the Themis data is true, you have to throw it out because it is suspect. He's trying to say that someone downloaded it but it's no longer there (now he's trying to say that somebody did download it after his Art Bell apperance, apparently it comes and goes at will). His data is suspect, it HAS to be thrown out as worthless, because we have no idea where it came from, who tampered from it, or what was done with it.

And, because of his past lies, I frankly don't trust Hoagland.

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

More ad-hominem, and no response to my argument. Is that the best you can do?

I never said that I trusted Hoagland. Back to the topic - the marsnews.com article.
If you had actually read it and tried to give its argument a fair chance, you would have seen that that article never claims that Hoagland's data is valid. In fact, it says that the nature of the Hoagland data cannot be ascertained "beyond the shadow of a doubt".

In fact, the article is really not about Hoagland's data at all. It is about the official data posted on the THEMIS website, and it raises valid points about the validity of that data and its interpretation. Since you seem unwilling to actually read what is being said, I'll summarize the main point for you.

The THEMIS team says that Cydonia is uniform in composition which is why the IR data has little spectral variance. But geological evidence suggests significant diversity in composition. Why would very hard materials (which were, if we believe the official interpretation, "carved out" of the softer material by erosion) have basically the same IR signature as the dust of their lower-level surroundings?

It's a valid point, and it deserves an answer. What Hoagland thinks or does not think, and whether the D&M pyramid is natural or artificial, is totally irrelevant to this question.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dsinclair on 2002-10-07 15:38 ]</font>

I call your attention to "Scientific Method Employed By NASA proves that Skeptic Martin Gardner Has No Eyes, Mouth or Nose!," by David Sinclair. That page was recommended by Dr. Tom Van Flandern for a reason that escapes me.

Looking past the title of Mr. Sinclair's page, could any part of it be described as an ad-hominem attack?

Here's my photograph of a limpet (319 Kb).

(emphasis mine)

Freudian slip? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

My interpertation stands- the article accuses NASA and the Themis ASU team of lying, conspiracy, and scientific fraud. And the reason? Because of what they think the IR data should show, but it's not there. And they are all martian geology specialists. Oh, and unless you get this snazzy program and fiddle with it enough... and get some mysterious download that isn't there now, Then, EUREKA, the truth!

Yes, I know, more ad-homein attacks, and no scientific reasoning. Bleakh. who cares? They can land on dang cydonia, build a subdivison on the dang hill, and people will STILL claim the mars face is artificial. I'm guessing you'll be one of them...

Okay, I've had enough of this thread, and I'm getting my dander up. These morons that want to side track the entire study of mars for that stupid face and cydonia irratate me to NO END. There are much MUCH more interesting things on Mars, like this http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021001.html and you all have blinders on and are missing them.

Don't bother responding, I won't... grrrrr....


Sorry Phil, they just really make me angry...

Oh btw, which peer reviewed scientific journals published those papers 'proving' artificality of the face? hmmm? Nature?

ugh. Trying to blow steam off of how one sided the marsnews.com coverage is (even if they call it 'neutral') and I get the Dsinclair on his first posting to this board thinking it was a serious scientific statement, sheesh...

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

What NASA claims to have is a solid understanding of planetary forces (I won't say "geological" because it's not on Earth), which explain the formation. As far as "probable cause," I have yet to see an article, Web site, tape recording or sand painting that shows why that region is "probably" created by non-natural means.

Factor in the fact that all the images are from probes without the observational quality of Earth-orbit satellites, and you're left with the fact that some people will just see what they want to see.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

There are two ways of screwing up in science. One is to see things that aren't there. That's called pathological science. The other is to refuse to see things that are there- that's called pathological skepticism.

That NASA has a full understanding of the forces that shape surface features on Mars is a joke. For example, the high IQ boys at NASA have a hard time explaining away the artificial looking features that the ONLY nighttime THEMIS image ever released to the public (of the Hydaspsis Chaos Region) show.

Mars Odyssey Project Manager Roger Gibbs recently held a public lecture, which you can find as a webcast at

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/events/lectures/may02.html

Dr. Gibbs presented the Hydaspsis Chaos region picture, and he had this to say about it:

"Now this is an intriguing picture.. a night time picture. Dark is cold, white is warm.
Look at this feature here. The explanation I've heard so far- and again, we're early in
our mission, we've just started, and so we have tentative explanations for what we see, when we take more data, we'll understand this a whole lot better, what it looks like, we have a continuous surface here, and then this surface collapsed. Not certain why. A couple of explanations why, but not certain why. Also, this (pointing to white areas) is warmer, and this (pointing to dark areas) is colder. The most logical explanation is: this (pointing to white areas) has no dust , and this (pointing to dark areas) does. Which is - a quandary - why does a channel have no dust, and a plateau does? Or, I mean, what we're really measuring here is thermal inertia, so the real question is, why does this have more thermal inertia, why does it stay warm longer than the top up here? So.. uh.. uh.. a picture like this really asks more questions than it really answers."

It is indeed a perplexing riddle- why would a mesa retain a layer of dust, despite the fierce Martian winds, while the lower channels don't? Seems like JPL doesn't know the answer either.

No. They don't. And being good scientists, they admit it. Hoagland and other claimants of Cydonia as proof of a past civilization would do well to learn from them. I've never seen a Hoagland article where he wasn't bragging about how right he is, how wronge everyone else is, and claiming that anyone who disagrees with his interpretation is either an idiot or part of a conspiracy.

Why is this whole discussion always being reduced to the psychology of Hoagland? He does not represent the Planetary SETI Resarch Community.

The REAL scientists in the Planetary SETI field commit none of the bragging or conspiracy-mongering that you so rightfully complain about. Here's one of their recent papers:

http://it.utsi.edu/~spsr/articles/Ev...Science-6a.htm

"Best Evidence Yet for Planetary SETI".

Their conclusion is

"We can only say with assurance that here is a scientific puzzle of great import. We urge that the highest priority be attached to obtaining additional images of the entire Cydonia region at the highest available resolution. This seems the only way to resolve our mystery with any confidence. In particular, re-imaging the “Face”, embedded triangles, and anomalous surface markings from overhead, under better lighting conditions, with better resolution and contrast, should confirm the existence of the features discussed here and assure everyone they are not the result of tampering or amazing statistical flukes. In our estimation, enough evidence now exists to justify interrupting or extending the MGS mission until the entire Cydonia area can be mapped at high resolution. "


Now, if you truly think that that's not a scientific conclusion, then there's nothing to be done for you.

Someone else pointed out that perhaps the most telling difference between scientists and pseudo-scientists is that the scientists have some humility in the face of what they're studying.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

OK. Let's take a look at the first paragraph from the Planetary SETTI site:

Fisrtly, what do they mean when they say they removed distortion? There were no distortions in the original picture. It was simply a photo of the same mesa from a different angle and under different lighting conditions. Any distortion was introduced by the SETTI people when they were processing it to make it match up with a prior image take from a different angle and position. How could such processing not produce distortion?

So basically what we have is the Mars Global Surveyor takes a picture of the mesa clearly demonstrating that from other angles and under other lighting conditions it bears little resemblance to a face. So the SETTI folks "process" the image until it matches their a prior assumptions and then proclaim that this is evidence of artificiality. They claim this "evidence" demands yet another close photographic examination of Cydonia, apparently under lighting conditions more favorable to their hypothesis.

The so called face has been imaged at least 3 times and each picture made is more damning than the last to the claim that this mesa is an artificial construct. But thanks to the magic of "processing", the SETTI folks can still claim that if they would just photograph it one more time, this time it would clearly reveal proof of an ancient Martian civilization.

You could photograph Cydonia from every conceivable angle and under every conceivable lighting condition and you still couldn't convince these people that it is a natural phenomenum. They are true believers and true believers can "process" any evidence to fit their belief.

I'll jump to the pro-Face people's defense for once: the 1998 MGS image (which is what this article is talking about) was taken at a severe side angle, something like 45 degrees off from the vertical, which results in significant foreshortening. Carlotto (one of the authors of the paper) endeavored to produce a rectified version of the image and, if you look at the eventual MGS image from overhead, did a pretty good job. "Distortion" is probably a strong term for the original image, but at least I know what they're getting at.

In any case, the referenced paper is based on old data. I haven't seen too many responses to the more recent, overhead image of the face taken by MGS.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

"One post to bring them all, and in the confusion, refute them" [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

What follows is a long post addressing many of the points brought up in this thread. I hope it will satisfy some of the criticisms brought forth herein.



dsinclair wrote: Your argument must be pretty weak, if you have to resort to outright falsification of the marsnews article. The exact quote is

"the way in which the Cydonia data has been posted on the THEMIS web site is a scientific disgrace. "

Not the website is being called a scientific disgrace, only the fashion in which a particular piece of data has been posted.

Several reasons are given for this assessment; you did not respond to a single one of them.

Ok, first of all, this article does not simply "question" the way THEMIS posted it's information, it criticized and downright insulted them. Phrases like "scientific disgrace", "sudden lapse into sophomoric incompetence" are not signs of professional criticism.

Furthermore, I think this criticism is unfounded. The THEMIS page is not a scientific release. It's really little more than a photo gallery for the public. This is not data specifically designed for scientific research, therefore criticizing the site for it's lack of scientific professionalism is just wrong. The very release page says this:

If the site itself gives an explanation for why it hasn't released a fully processed image, what's the beef?


dsinclair wrote: Last time I checked, ad-hominem was not a scientific argument. If you feel that the argument that is being made about the composition of the Cydonia plane is incorrect, I'd love to hear your reasons.

and

The bottom line is, you're all bark and no scientific bite. Your sole argument is ad-hominem and ridicule.

It was not intended to be a scientific argument. This is called banter, and it's a common thing on just about any board. It does however, indicate the poster's opinion about the article.


dsinclair wrote: Ah, that's pseudoskeptical trick #17: demolishing a straw man. If you had actually read the research you're attacking, you would know that the planetary SETI community claims nothing but "probable cause" for artificial origin. It is only NASA that claims to possess infallible and certain knowledge as to the origin of the formation.


Once again, banter. But also, I absolutely meant it about it being a "tired, old canard". No matter how many photos of the "face" are released, no matter how many explanations or counterarguments are given, pro-artificiality people just can't accept it. They will do anything except admit that they have a very weak case.


dsinclair wrote: In fact, the article is really not about Hoagland's data at all. It is about the official data posted on the THEMIS website, and it raises valid points about the validity of that data and its interpretation. Since you seem unwilling to actually read what is being said, I'll summarize the main point for you.

The article is most definitely about Hoagland's data. It starts out by criticizing THEMIS for it's handling of data, probably to cast doubt on the source, then it goes to great lengths to try to show that Hoagland's version of the photo gives better results than the original. Tell me again why this isn't about Hoagland?


dsinclair wrote: The THEMIS team says that Cydonia is uniform in composition which is why the IR data has little spectral variance. But geological evidence suggests significant diversity in composition. Why would very hard materials (which were, if we believe the official interpretation, "carved out" of the softer material by erosion) have basically the same IR signature as the dust of their lower-level surroundings?

It's a valid point, and it deserves an answer. What Hoagland thinks or does not think, and whether the D&M pyramid is natural or artificial, is totally irrelevant to this question.


This seems to me to be a very questionable point. It's questionable in my mind as to why exactly a difference in hardness (note, the original point was not necessarily a difference in composition) should necessarily have a radically different IR signature. I'm no expert, so I can't really say it for sure, but it doesn't seem like such a strong argument to me.

Also, I have a suspicion that this argument is resting on an incorrect assumption about the original data. They seem to think it all hinges around an apparent contradiction; that some data suggests homogeneity in composition for the area, while others suggest variable composition. My guess is that someone has misread homogeneity in the region to mean homogeneity in the mesas, including the face. If instead, the general area is of one composition, while small points of the mesas and other features are of another, then the apparent contradiction disappears.

This is just my guess however. I'm no expert (and I admit it readily, unlike some).


Rift said: My interpertation stands- the article accuses NASA and the Themis ASU team of lying, conspiracy, and scientific fraud. And the reason? Because of what they think the IR data should show, but it's not there. And they are all martian geology specialists. Oh, and unless you get this snazzy program and fiddle with it enough... and get some mysterious download that isn't there now, Then, EUREKA, the truth!


I pretty much agree with this assessment. See my points above.


dsinclair wrote: There are two ways of screwing up in science. One is to see things that aren't there. That's called pathological science. The other is to refuse to see things that are there- that's called pathological skepticism.

And I see plenty of the former in most, if not all, "face" pages. I will also admit that it's true that the latter is practiced by some individual scientists, but I've found that the scientific community as a whole is quite open to new ideas. But you are probably confusing
scepticism with the rigorous standards the scientific method imposes. You can't just claim anything and have it accepted, or even closely considered. You have to have a strong case to start with; one that stands up to scientific and logical examination.

Besides, if it's true, it all come out in the end anyway. Why does everyone always have to cry conspiracy, supression, and closed-mindedness whenever anything isn't accepted right away? If you're right, you're right. If you're wrong, you're wrong. It's not like it's going to lead to the end of the world.


dsinclair wrote: That NASA has a full understanding of the forces that shape surface features on Mars is a joke. For example, the high IQ boys at NASA have a hard time explaining away the artificial looking features that the ONLY nighttime THEMIS image ever released to the public (of the Hydaspsis Chaos Region) show.


NASA (and it's not just NASA, but the worldwide scientific community), has highly-qualified people, physicists, geologists, hydrologists, chemists, and many others studying the data sent back to Earth. They may not have the answers to everything, but it's certain that they have a very good idea of the forces involved in shaping Martian surface features. They may not be able to explain everything yet, but that doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about when they say a particular feature is formed by natural phenomena. It's the small group of mostly non-scientists (or pseudo-scientists, or scientists working outside of their area of expertise) that I tend to question more.


dsinclair wrote: Why is this whole discussion always being reduced to the psychology of Hoagland? He does not represent the Planetary SETI Resarch Community.

Why does this center around Hoagland? Well first off, Hoagland is one of, if not the, leading Mars face proponents. Second of all, the article starting off this thread deals directly with his supposed data (And it does. See my point above). Thirdly, you came onto this board to (at least seemingly) defend this article and Hoagland's data. Tell us why we shouldn't have brought up Hoagland and his credibility.

If you don't want to be associated with Hoagland, then you should make it very clear from the outset. Why don't you tell us just what you think about his credibility?


dsinclair wrote: The REAL scientists in the Planetary SETI field commit none of the bragging or conspiracy-mongering that you so rightfully complain about.

I've never heard of the Planetary SETI community. As far as I know, they have no more credibility than Hoagland himself. Please educate us on just where they stand. First of all, are they in any way related to the established SETI organization? You know, the one that scans the heavens for radio signals and is involved with SETI@HOME. My feeling is that the real SETI folks aren't in any way interested in the "face". They tend to be types that understand the incredible unlikelyhood of any intelligent civilization ever existing on Mars.


dsinclair wrote: Here's one of their recent papers:

http://it.utsi.edu/~spsr/articles/Ev...Science-6a.htm

"Best Evidence Yet for Planetary SETI".

(snip)

Now, if you truly think that that's not a scientific conclusion, then there's nothing to be done for you.


It's not the conclusion that I disagree with, it's the asumptions. I have some serious doubts about some of the points they made. For example, one of the "tests" for artificiality given on that page was:

This assumes that there is only a 2-dimensional illusion. But, who's to say that a natural 3-D feature can't occur that vaguely resembles a face? Another point is that the so-called "symetrical" nature of the mesa has been shown through the new images to be nothing of the sort. All the previous "image enhancement" turened out to be so much garbage.

Here's another one:
First of all, I don't see how they can claim that 40.89°N is anywhere near the 45°N given by Shultz as the former Equator. It's almost 5 degrees off, for goodness sake. How can it be more accurate than the estimation of the former alignment itself? Also, the whole "cultural significance" thing seems like wishful thinking to me. How can the alignment of one object be considered strong evidence of artificiality? And pray tell me just where this 99% confidence level came from? If I came home one day to find the pine tree in my yard lying on it's side with the tip pointing straight at my door, can I claim to a "99% confidence level" that someone had come along and aligned the tree in that way?


Espritch said: Fisrtly, what do they mean when they say they removed distortion? There were no distortions in the original picture. It was simply a photo of the same mesa from a different angle and under different lighting conditions. Any distortion was introduced by the SETTI people when they were processing it to make it match up with a prior image take from a different angle and position. How could such processing not produce distortion?

Excellent point. Another one I have trouble with are the figures 5 and 6 on that page. In both of them, they have outlined the "features" they want you to see. They are selectively interpreting the data for you. Figure 6 is a real joke. So they altered the photo to simulate the lighting conditions of the original Viking image and came up with the same features. Riiight. As if anyone would expect anything different. But even then, if you compare it to the original image, you can see highligted areas on the shadowed side that just don't match the original in any way, at least as far as I can see, even taking the altered shadows into account. The mouth especially seems fake to me.


ToSeek said: I'll jump to the pro-Face people's defense for once: ...

And we're accused of being closed-minded.


Well, that's my point-for-point rebuttal of this thread. I'm sure it won't do any good, but at least I tried to give a proper answer.

_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size="-1">(minor editing)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-10-11 13:13 ]</font>