Chip Shults and Martian fossils

Plautus · #1 (**permalink**) 07-June-2004, 04:02 AM

http://xenotechresearch.com/marsindx.htm

Quote:

The Case For Fossils On Mars
What I Have Discovered

Quote:

Summary Of Findings And Images

1. Mars has fossils- I have now identified at least thirty species of arthropod or echinoderm. There appear to be crinoids and echinoderms, some molluscs and trilobites- life forms that appeared on the Earth about 530,000,000 years ago in the Cambrian Era.

2. Mars rover Opportunity first found spherules by the thousands, which later turned out to be many types of small, primitive aquatic organisms, similar mostly to sea urchins.

3. Mars rover Spirit later found spherules as well, halfway around the planet, that match the Opportunity findings precisely. Spirit also found stromatolites, primitive layered bacterial colonies that often lived in very salty brines.

4. All the "spherules" show consistent, repetitive markings and many of the spherules are identical. Typical features are triangles with fine lines and circles, raised symmetrical ridges, grooves, "hand" patterns, and slots. These features closely match known organisms and fossils on the Earth (in particular, sea urchins, cystoids, and rolled up trilobites).

5. Mars had large oceans in order for these organisms to get all over its surface. These are aquatic organisms.

6. There are sure to be many more fossils and organisms, since it takes more than a handful of organisms to make a biosphere.

7. Some larger fossil beds have now been found with fantastic specimens of all kinds. But all appear to be aquatic organisms. Clearly Meridiani Planum was a sea or large brine lake at some time in the past. NASA has now confirmed that the area was "soaking in water" in their terminology, and has found huge quantities of salts that were deposited by drying seawater.

8. Now NASA has confirmed that Mars had to have sizeable bodies of salt water- if you look at the location and topography of Meridian Planum and accept that very little tectonic activity has occurred, then Mars had to be at least 1/3 covered in oceans, with a maximum depth of about 4 kilometers. This confirms my findings that indicate large oceans must have existed on Mars.

9. Mars is most certainly still a living world- there are sure to be extreme halophile bacteria living in its soils, and there may still be small arthropods that are resistant to salt, near vacuum, and extremes of temperature. Keep in mind that they have probably had a half billion years or more to adapt to these nearly intolerable conditions.

10. Mars is also sure to still have large quantities of water present just below the soil. There are many images that support this concept, showing darkened, even wet-appearing spots like mud or very recent runoff. Note that this water cannot evaporate, even in the near-vacuum of Mars' atmosphere, because its relative humidity is nearly 100% all the time. This in itself indicates that large amounts of moisture must be present, like the brine just under the sand at a beach.

11. There are vents below many of the slab-shaped rocks that show where water has emerged within a few days. This is supported because dry vents would have filled with silt and sand due to the wind. These vents are clearly active and have been so within (at most) weeks. Further images show geyser fumaroles and wet mud. And, liquid water can indeed exist on Mars. NASA posted an in-depth page showing this is true.

12. My experiments and the examination of the image data support the idea that Mars has periodic rain that consists of small, high speed droplets. The soil is constantly being wetted and reconfigured by this rain as well as the spray from geysers or from groundwater.

13. The study of stromatolites shows that many lived in hypersaline lakes. Included in their structure we often find coccoids, fossilized spherules formed by bacteria. They usually come in distinct sizes, and 5.2 mm is usually the largest such structures found. They are made of calcium carbonate and have varying textures. Some of the spherules are very likely coccoids.

http://xenotechresearch.com/marso.htm

Plautus · #2 (**permalink**) 07-June-2004, 04:39 AM

http://xenotechresearch.com/marsvac.htm

Quote:

To start with, the atmosphere of Mars was lost due to three processes. First, the lower mass means that its gravitational field is much weaker than ours. It is much easier for warmer air molecules to escape to space because of this. Second, its smaller core meant that its volcanic action ran out of power long ago, so its atmosphere and oceans could not be replaced naturally. Third, aquatic life consumed the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as they constructed their shells and skeletons. Calcium carbonate is the result, and much of the Martian atmosphere is literally lying on the ground or blowing like dust in its winds.

So now we can see how as the atmospheric pressure dropped, the boiling point of water also dropped. Eventually, probably about 400 million years ago, its air was so thin that the existing temperatures could easily boil water that might be heated slightly above the ambient temperature.

For the most part, this is not much of a problem. As the air got thinner, the greenhouse effect that it supported also slacked off, and the Martian surface cooled off. This was good for its oceans, as that slowed evaporation and kept the water in place. But anything venturing out of the water might have been unable to return quickly enough to stay alive.

How does lower air pressure change things?

Because of this lower pressure, a new sort of fossilization can occur. Imagine that you were to drop a piece of meat in the desert sun. In a few hours, it would probably have dried into jerky. This is a process of natural mummification. Now, imagine that there is very little rainfall, and that there is also almost no air. What would happen?

Not only would the meat dry out much more rapidly, but if it were protected from the raw sunlight by a layer of mud or dust, it might be able to remain in that desiccated state for very long periods of time. On Mars, this is exactly how many of the fossils were formed.

http://xenotechresearch.com/O030thm1.jpg

Quote:

Here is a shot of dried mud from Opportunity, Sol 030. The original data is here at the NASA website. You will see that it looks precisely like dried mud on Earth.

This is a bed of dried leaves, most probably of an aquatic plant like kelp. It has been deposited along with a coating of mud on the notorious "fossil bed". You can see that the texture of the mud is conformal and smooth. Each independent leaf-shape can be made out as overlapping and covering other leaves.

Some even show the thin, rippled edges of almost any leaf. The foremost edges of some are worn down, presumably by dust and wind.

http://xenotechresearch.com/O030pock.jpg

Quote:

In this image, I have outlined many pockmarks that in my opinion represent the solidified bubbles that were created by outgassing.
As the mud dried in the vacuum, a large number of bubbles formed and some popped, leaving these pockmarks.

With lower gravitation, surface tension and other fluid processes would have a greater influence on the texture and surface of the mud than they might on Earth.

This guy has like a hundred pages or more of this crap, and it's all basically like this, colored lines drawn on NASA images and bald pronouncements that these rocks are all fossils.

Superluminal · #3 (**permalink**) 07-June-2004, 05:52 AM

Some of the images I've seen are intriequing, but this is science. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it aint a duck until we can get it into a lab and take a closer look at it. Even then you need the peer review process. So I say he has jumped the gun quite a bit.

freddo · #4 (**permalink**) 07-June-2004, 05:53 AM

Hi Plautus,

I think that the idea of fossilised life on Mars is an appealing and interesting idea, and I certainly do not think the book is closed on such possiblities...

However, using only images to build a case for fossilised life is a very limited road to travel. I believe that images are among the poorest collections of evidence one can procure to make a priori judgement. To clarify, visual evidence can be highly effective at supporting an argument, but as the actual point itself, it is sorely lacking...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plautus

This guy has like a hundred pages or more of this crap, and it's all basically like this, colored lines drawn on NASA images and bald pronouncements that these rocks are all fossils.

I have to agree with you (I think I'm agreeing with you) that marking up images and concluding them to be something is a flawed concept - especially when our minds are so tuned to finding patterns. What you will find however, if you search a bit, is that there are numerous sites that tout they have found fossilized and even current extant life on Mars' surface. And once again the argument consists only of fossils. You would not be the only one to be frustrated in trying to convey that you need better evidence.

BTW, welcome to the board.

jumpjack · #5 (**permalink**) 07-June-2004, 10:17 AM

Have you ever heard about people using just photos to find fossils on Earth?!?
They don't.
They dig.

The probability of finding a fossil over the surface is even lower than just a fossil formed.
Click here for info about fossils origin

Quote:

Mars has fossils- I have now identified at least thirty species of arthropod or echinoderm. There appear to be crinoids and echinoderms, some molluscs and trilobites- life forms that appeared on the Earth about 530,000,000 years ago in the Cambrian Era.

The presence of so many fossils inside a so little area is just statistically impossible: it could be possible only if some millions of life forms lived just in this area.... and this area is 3 kilometers wide!!!!

Animals do not get fossilized just because they die... if it was so, there would be more rocks than fossils, here on Earth!!!

All this means that there is a very very very high probability that your "fossils" are just rocks.
Perhaps one of the hundreds of "fossils" you are talking about is actually a fossil, but you'll never know it, until an appropriate probe will be sent to Mars: looking for fossils using a camera, is just like deciding a book is a good book just reading its title: maybe you are right, maybe not, you can't know until you read the book.

MERs are not paleonthologist, they are just geologist!

Tom Ames · #6 (**permalink**) 07-June-2004, 04:33 PM

I always enjoy the complete absence of any kind of scale indicator in these kinds of interpretive photos.

Also: blueberries are fossil sea urchins??!?? Anyone wanna hazard a guess as to the biomass needed to cover meridiani with these "fossils"?

Plautus · #7 (**permalink**) 07-June-2004, 07:38 PM

One of the most remarkable things about him is the way he keeps insisting that the simplest explanation is life on Mars. I can't think of a way he could more quickly eviscerate his own argument with Occam's razor. Since there is not enough water on Mars to form an ocean, that necessitates explaining where the ocean went. And that necessitates explaining where it came from in the first place. And also he suggests this "vacuum fossilization" process that he states is unique to Mars.

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsg.htm

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/O063WET2.JPG

Quote:

Here is an enlargement of the rock and runoff channel around it. Note how the darker areas are exactly what you would expect from the presence of liquid water.
I was told by two scientists (whom I will not name) that "this and the apparent riverbeds are really the result of the action of some chemical solvent that could act like water but is not water."

I have really looked at this with a critical eye, and the CRC handbook and the Merck index do not turn up any conceivable chemical compound that might be a liquid that evaporates at Martian surface conditions and also is abundant enough to create erosion and weathering.

I prefer Occam's razor here- the simplest explanation is that there is water, not some strange chemical.

His claim that it shows "exactly" what he expects should alert people. He prefers Occam's razor, but then plugs a bunch of assumptions into the rule of thumb known as Occam's razor, et violá, fossils on Mars is the "simplest" explanation.

Plautus · #8 (**permalink**) 07-June-2004, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Red Sky Or Blue?

Is Mars' sky pink or blue? A possible explanation for the uproar.

What uproar? hmm...

Quote:

My personal feeling is that most of the time, the skies on Mars are just as gray or blue as you would like, but when the dust kicks up, it turns a pink color. That makes the most sense, based on what we know of Raleigh scattering and just what makes the sky blue in the first place.

Now, a thorny question

Since the relative light intensity data is thrown away when an image at one frequency is made, there is no way to create a light curve that shows the amount of each part of the spectrum that is present. If this is the case, then looking at rocks in different parts of the spectrum will no longer yield the curve that is essential to identifying minerals properly. If this is true, then NASA cannot possibly identify a rock from its infrared components, because without a valid light curve, the mineral data cannot be reconstructed.

If this information is true, then they have lost a very valuable part of the data at the outset. It would seem to be true, since they state that they cannot construct an accurate color image. This means that there are two possibilities- if they cannot make the proper light curves, then they cannot use the cameras for geology as intended. If they ARE using the cameras to identify minerals, then they must have the proper relative intensity data, and therefore, should be able to create proper color images. QED.

So, NASA- what's the answer? Do you have the proper relative intensity values? Do you do brightness AND intensity sometimes, and not others? Which should it be? You, after all, made the hardware and wrote the code- you should indeed have the answers.

UPDATE: I located this chart showing the light curves that NASA has produced from a sample of minerals. This chart proves that either they DO have the relative intensity values or they found a way to compensate. In either case, they CAN produce true color images using this information! Here is the original link to the spectral chart.

Here is the chart itself, showing that they have the ability to create a useful relative intensity light curve. That proves that true color images can indeed be produced that do NOT show that muddy orange smoggy sky.

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsq.htm

I wanted to post all of this document, but it's just too huge and meandering. As I stated, he has around a hundred pages, almost all of them like this. I mirrored them locally and the 74 pages I could find directly relating to these "fossils" is over 600k just HTML alone, the images bring the total immensely higher.

There are many examples where he has manipulated the color of images, and states that the images are essentially relistic color, in spite of what NASA says about the images. I guess he knows JPL's equipment better than they do. The guy definitely has resources and he has technical skill at producing graphical presentations (stitched together with FrontPage, no doubt) but let's be honest here, he's a wingnut. There is nothing in any of the images on his site or released by NASA that constitute proof of past or present life on Mars.

And wait until I post excerpts from his page where he misidentifies motion of the observer (rover) as motion of the subject, and he concludes that this object moved over the course of a few minutes, and therefore must be alive. Not only that, apparently he's discovered some living martian plants that shine spotlights onto the soil to melt ice.

By the way, here's a link to another guy who says he has proof NASA fakes Mars images to make the sky ruddy and red: http://xfacts.com/spirit2004/

Swift · #9 (**permalink**) 07-June-2004, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter

Some of the images I've seen are intriequing, but this is science. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it aint a duck until we can get it into a lab and take a closer look at it. Even then you need the peer review process. So I say he has jumped the gun quite a bit.

Actually, I'd change that quote a little. All we know is it looks like a duck. We have no idea if it walks or quacks, let alone like a duck. That's the problem with jumping to these conclusions.

Plautus · #10 (**permalink**) 08-June-2004, 10:35 PM

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mwater.htm

Quote:

Mars can indeed support liquid water on its surface during the daytimes, particularly in the summers. This is supported by data of its temperature, air pressure, and the phase diagram for water.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast05jan_1.htm

Quote:

Mars may once have been a very wet place. A host of clues remain from an earlier era, billions of years ago, hinting that the Red Planet was host to great rivers, lakes and perhaps even an ocean. But some of the clues are contradictory -- they don't all fit together in a coherent whole. Little wonder, then, that the fate of water on Mars is such a hotly debated topic.

Based on what we have observed so far, Mars today is a frozen desert. It's too cold for liquid water to exist on its surface and too cold to rain. The planet's atmosphere is also too thin to permit any significant amount of snowfall.

Even if some internal heat source warmed the planet up enough for ice to melt, it wouldn't yield liquid water. The Martian atmosphere is so thin that even if the temperature rose above freezing the ice would change directly to water vapor.

http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/mgcm/faq/liquid.html

Quote:

Thermodynamics (the science governing the relationship between heat and other forms of energy) does not allow liquid water. However, at certain locations and times on Mars, when the air pressure is high enough and the temperature is above freezing (greater than 0 deg C), liquid water is theoretically possible; but the rate of evaporation would probably be so great that liquid water, if present, would rapidly vaporize. Moreover, computer simulations show that the average surface temperature at a particular location gradually increases with the approach of summer; so by the time the melting point is reached, any surface ice would have turned to vapor. Liquid water on the surface is therefore possible only as a temporary phenomenon in places where there is some unexpected form of heating, e.g. sudden, near-surface geothermal activity.

Conclusion: Shults is misrepresenting data.

freddo · #11 (**permalink**) 09-June-2004, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plautus

Conclusion: Shults is misrepresenting data.

Is that surprising though? He's painted himself into a corner by choosing the conclusion before investigating the evidence. Now that he's trying to include the evidence, but it is at odds with his preconception, you can see that people will perform all sorts of logical contortions to keep their belief alive...

It can be as simple as allowing logical fallacies to provide 'protection' to the belief, or as blatant as recreating one's own reality to fit the mould. In this case, we see facts that are invented. Unfortunately, people may not have the sense to check these 'facts,' like you have, and the myth is perpetuated...

sts60 · #12 (**permalink**) 09-June-2004, 09:06 PM

Unfortunately, it's easy to proclaim stuff in large quantities... This gentleman reminds me of the recipient of the Harvey Rowe "letter".

Plautus · #13 (**permalink**) 09-June-2004, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Description: squid fossil

Apparent size: 3.5 mm wide, 20 mm long

Common features: any small terrestrial squid

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/Mk065a2.jpg http://www.xenotechresearch.com/Mk065a3.jpg

Quote:

Summary description of image contents: this is a pair of fossil squid, with anatomical features very clearly exposed. Eyes, body parts, and tentacle structures are very well preserved. One specimen is outlined in red, the second in green. Close examination will show a double row of suckers on some tentacle pads (outlined in blue).

terrestrial squid fossils: 1,2,3,4

01101001 · #14 (**permalink**) 09-June-2004, 10:40 PM

[quote="Plautus"]

Quote:

Description: squid fossil

OK. We get the point. Shults has many theories and no evidence.

I don't think any more examples are needed. Thanks.

Plautus · #15 (**permalink**) 10-June-2004, 03:04 AM

[quote="01101001"]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plautus

Quote:

Description: squid fossil

OK. We get the point. Shults has many theories and no evidence.

I don't think any more examples are needed. Thanks.

Are you kidding? This stuff is hilarious. Wait a minute, don't tell me this forum is for lukewarm people to poke fun at passionate people. I thought it was about ridiculing ridiculous pseudoscience. And I have to say I'm very disappointed at the mild responses in the other thread here about this guy. "Doesn't look like a 'woo woo' site." "Oh well, at least he's not raving." Is that what passes for criticism?

I'm going to dress this guy down as much as he deserves, and believe me, with a hundred pages of this crap that's enough material to last to the next decade at least, and he's adding all the time.

freddo · #16 (**permalink**) 10-June-2004, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plautus

I'm going to dress this guy down as much as he deserves, and believe me, with a hundred pages of this crap that's enough material to last to the next decade at least, and he's adding all the time.

Thing is though, Plautus, that you seem to be the only person on the internet giving him more exposure. Sometimes it's better to let sites like this fade into the background.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plautus

I thought it was about ridiculing ridiculous pseudoscience.

Close but no cigar. We're not all about ridiculing pseudoscience (although you may notice the pX stuff is far less serious than it used to be), we are about exposing pseudoscientific misconceptions. The reasons for the misconception are to be demonstrated and shown, but ridicule doesn't need to enter it...

Plautus · #17 (**permalink**) 10-June-2004, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Close but no cigar. We're not all about ridiculing pseudoscience (although you may notice the pX stuff is far less serious than it used to be), we are about exposing pseudoscientific misconceptions. The reasons for the misconception are to be demonstrated and shown, but ridicule doesn't need to enter it...

No cigar, great, because I don't smoke cigars. Perhaps you should respond to all the following posts, which contained ridicule:

wow... talk about Woo squared... by Morrolan

Ugh... Blah blah blah.. Kent Steadman has nothing useful to say, once again. by freddo

This sounds like the plot to a Squaresoft game. Just throw in some ancient Centra to communicate with Earth (but call it Gaia) and convince it to save us. Hmmm, Centra == Zeta? Nancy, save us! by Demigrog

Now all we need is a giant turtle-esque monster to explode from the ground and rain firey doom unto the world. by ness012345

I could go on and on, but instead I'll just say that virtually every thread on this board that deals with "alternate" ideas contains ridicule. <removed content by mod>
P.S.: With regard to "Planet X", the recent discovery of Sedna has done more to shut the "debunkers" up than anything ever said by any "Planet X'er". Quite obviously there was another planet out there to be discovered, as NASA has said for literally decades, it just isn't what the catastrophists had hoped for...or is it? TBC

SciFi Chick · #18 (**permalink**) 10-June-2004, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plautus

Now kindly step off my <removed>, mother ....

Welcome to the board. Did you perchance read the FAQ? That kind of language is not acceptable on this board, and the BA frowns on trying to get past the language censor.

Irishman · #19 (**permalink**) 10-June-2004, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plautus

Wait a minute, don't tell me this forum is for lukewarm people to poke fun at passionate people. I thought it was about ridiculing ridiculous pseudoscience. And I have to say I'm very disappointed at the mild responses in the other thread here about this guy. "Doesn't look like a 'woo woo' site." "Oh well, at least he's not raving." Is that what passes for criticism?

Realize that those responses were posted with very little review of his material, early on. At first, his tone and comments start with a reasonable mindset. It isn't until a few pages in that the really bizarre stuff starts coming out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freddo

Close but no cigar. We're not all about ridiculing pseudoscience (although you may notice the pX stuff is far less serious than it used to be), we are about exposing pseudoscientific misconceptions. The reasons for the misconception are to be demonstrated and shown, but ridicule doesn't need to enter it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plautus

I could go on and on, but instead I'll just say that virtually every thread on this board that deals with "alternate" ideas contains ridicule.

That's not quite the same thing. The point of this board is to point out misconceptions and show why they are wrong. And to discuss good astronomy along the way. Ridicule isn't required. It is, however, the way many people deal with the outlandish.

Quote:

P.S.: With regard to "Planet X", the recent discovery of Sedna has done more to shut the "debunkers" up than anything ever said by any "Planet X'er". Quite obviously there was another planet out there to be discovered, as NASA has said for literally decades, it just isn't what the catastrophists had hoped for...or is it? TBC

Sedna bears no resemblance to typical Planet X claims. It hardly even qualifies as a planet. (Having a consistent, well-founded definition for "planet" would help.) The Kuiper belt has been proposed for some time, and Sedna certainly fits within expectations for it.

freddo · #20 (**permalink**) 11-June-2004, 05:08 AM

Codie Vickers, jeez!

I guess that was coming wasn't it... You can't converse with this guy at all.

Pete Albrecht · #21 (**permalink**) 11-June-2004, 08:46 PM

So who is this "Chip Shults" anyway?

Background isn't supposed to have anything to do with the merit of scientific work, but there’s no doubt it can serve as a useful yardstick. In science or any other technical field, what you’ve done, where you’ve studied, what you’ve published or patented is a strong indicator of the validity of your current claims. Just today, I saw an article in a German online news service that the University of Konstanz in Switzerland has stripped one Jan Hendrik Schön, one of their Wunderkind physics Ph.D. grads and until recently a researcher at Bell Labs, of his doctorate because an independent outside panel investigation empowered by Bell revealed that he fudged his results, not once but in a whole string of allegedly groundbreaking discoveries and achievements. Nobody else was ever able to duplicate his claims. Now he's lost his Ph.D., his co-authors in the journals Science and Nature have withdrawn the published articles, and Bell has withdrawn several patent applications. So as far as background goes, yes, it matters. It matters a lot. This guy Schön was touted as a front runner for a Nobel prize someday; now, he is never ever going to get recognition, funding, position, title, a shred of credibility, respect, or anybody’s ear. I suspect he will wind up teaching high school physics somewhere. More for those who want to dig, at http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/11/2

In science or technology, great ideas are seldom born in a vacuum, or spring up, fully grown, on the halfshell. True Believers will say the following is an ad hominem attack. I say it tells us where these people are coming from, and as such gives us a pretty good idea where they’re going. I don’t think most of us want to be, or even be seen, on that ride.

First of all, the one site, http://www.xenotechresearch.com/ has some "credits" at the end:

"All my research is funded by a generous grant from Dr. Nelson Ying, Baron of Balquhain."

Who? Where? Hang on now... let's sidetrack and see who this is first.
http://members.aol.com/balquhain/Magic.html
No need to wade through that; skip to the end, as they say in “Holy Grail,” and find
“The Barony of Balquahin, erected in 1340, is the oldest of the Leslie baronies. It is an ancient and venerable barony with almost 700 years of history under 30 Leslie Barons of Balquhain. The Baron of Leslie felt that Dr. Ying would be a suitable person to be entrusted with 700 years of Leslie history. In 1993, the Barony of Balquhain was disponed to Dr. Ying. In 1995 Dr. Ying matriculate [sic] arms with the Lord Lyon King of Arms under the nomen juris of Nelson Lee Len Ying of Balquhain, Baron of Balquhain.”

Uh... OK. It’s crackerjack-prize barony. Some rich Chinese-American guy in Orlando had just about everything else, so he wanted to be a Scottish laird. What will they think of next?

Who is this Nelson Ying?
http://www.burkes-scotland.com/sites...ING-AZ-841.asp

YING OF BALQUHAIN, Nelson Lee Len
Nelson Lee Len YING,
feudal Baron of Balquhain, recognised by Ld Lyon King of Arms and matric arms at LO 1 Jun 1995; Address: 7123 Caloosa Court, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Record Type(s): Scottish Feudal Barons

He apparently sponsors local science fairs. (That’s scary. I did the science fair thing as a kid, did pretty well and it steered my future; to me, having this guy involved is like having religious fundametalist whackos sponsoring the local university biology department...)
http://www.yingprize.com/
There’s a picture of him. Shouldn’t he be wearing a kilt?
More.
http://members.aol.com/balquhain/Friends.html

OK, so that’s the big cheese of this make-believe Fenwickian organization. Now let’s look at our pal, “Chip” Shults. The guy goes by the name of "Sir Charles Shults III". ("Chip" to his fellow knights of the infinitely polygonal table). (So, what happened to Sirs CS I and II?)
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2004/06/06.html
He's been involved in some lovely flame wars.
http://usenet.best-buy-online.com/Dir6/File738.html
and
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache...ults&hl=en

Here's his claimed bio. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/773.html
No geo, bio or paleontological credentials that I can see. A hobbyist. Tinkerer. Bodger.
“was knighted and received a long term grant for his present research in robotics and artificial intelligence.” Great. I didn’t know crackerjack barons could elevate others to crackerjack knighthoods.

He has another web site:
http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip/
Click “enter here” and it takes you right to another “Fossils on Mars – What I have found” site. Which, it should be noted, is different from (but somehow the same as) http://www.xenotechresearch.com/

So where is this operation? According to the Xenotech home page,
Xenotech Research
3416 Shader Road Suite 108
Orlando, Florida 32808
321-206-1840

For an "organization" that claims all these big-deal ongoing projects, nobody, but absolutely nobody, outside the late-night-radio circus references it. That's not very confidence inspiring, and more typical of crank behavior -- some guy in a basement with too much time. (OK, so Florida doesn’t have basements...) There is a genuine, legitimate company by that name in Australia, which spawns most of the Google hits.

Doing some digging on Mapquest and Terraserver, the address is apparently for a small-rental-office industrial complex. Searching the web for that address, the same complex houses American Maintenance, a pressure cleaning/maintenance service (Suite 100), an outfit called “Mid-Florida Sweeping Service,” (possibly the same suite), and Awnclean USA, awning cleaning service (Suite 116). Not exactly Technology Park, I guess. The claimed phone number is unlisted so it's not possible to confirm it. Strange behavior for a business doing all this big-league science and robotics and whatnot to have an unlisted number.

I did a patent search for “Charles Shults.” He doesn’t claim any so there’s probalby no point, but FWIW a search from 1976 to present for inventor name Shultz, Charles turns up zero hits.

I think maybe the good Baron's operation is modeled on Bell Labs, only smaller. Ding Dong Labs may be an appropriate title... But why have a knight running your R&D? Shouldn’t that be the job of the court wizard? Or is it jester? Medieval ranks and titles are so confusing... Don’t they have ISO 8000 norms for feudal titles and corresponding uniforms, so we can tell the staff apart?

===============

So, is anybody ELSE reporting these things? (Answer to own rhetorical question: Uh... no). If I remember correctly, science requires that theories be verifiable. If nobody else sees these things, alarm bells should be going off. Also remember the deal with Lowell's Martian canals. He wasn't the only one "seeing" them. The brain often sees what it wants to see, and this guy sees fossils everywhere. If nobody else (with qualifications, not the denizens of the crank forums and late-night conspiracy theory radio shows) sees them, it doesn't count. He's just stringing pixels together to see what he already "knows" must be there.

If verifiable, if the evidence is as obvious as this guy claims, there should be a long line of paleontologists waiting to get on board, struggling for primacy of "their" discoveries, for fame and funding. If not, there won't be. Where are they? If the evidence were as overwhelming as this guy claims, no amount of peer pressure could keep it quiet.

There’s a whole ‘nother issue of how he “processes” these images. If I feel ambitious and don’t have anything more productive to do later, I may get into that on my modest level of knowledge. But others have pointed out some of his errors of technique already. I can think of a few more.

Pete
(Fossils? Heck, no; I see a horsey, a ducky, a castle, and a 1947 Tucker Torpedo. Whatsa matter, do I have to draw in the lines for you?)

The Bad Astronomer · #22 (**permalink**) 11-June-2004, 10:06 PM

Pete, let me very warmly welcome you to this board.

Your post shows just what we need in this world: someone who'll take the time to actually look into outrageous claims, and check the background, which oftentimes proves critical (pun intended).

Keep it coming! =D>

Superluminal · #23 (**permalink**) 12-June-2004, 05:14 AM

Well, I think the guy is full of it. But I do find it more refreshing to read about Mars fossils than Hoaglands claims.

carolyn · #24 (**permalink**) 12-June-2004, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swift

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter

Some of the images I've seen are intriequing, but this is science. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it aint a duck until we can get it into a lab and take a closer look at it. Even then you need the peer review process. So I say he has jumped the gun quite a bit.

Actually, I'd change that quote a little. All we know is it looks like a duck. We have no idea if it walks or quacks, let alone like a duck. That's the problem with jumping to these conclusions.

off topic I know, but did you know that ducks have accents, just like us

a piece of bizzar trivia for you

John Kierein · #25 (**permalink**) 12-June-2004, 01:34 PM

The blueberies are rabbit excrement. Makes great fertilizer. That bunny has been around a long time. We have several rabbits in our yard. They leave blueberries all over the place.

ToSeek · #26 (**permalink**) 12-June-2004, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kierein

The blueberies are rabbit excrement. Makes great fertilizer. That bunny has been around a long time. We have several rabbits in our yard. They leave blueberries all over the place.

You're not the first to make that suggestion.

worstastronomer · #27 (**permalink**) 12-June-2004, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Albrecht

So who is this "Chip Shults" anyway?

Background isn't supposed to have anything to do with the merit of scientific work...

Hi Pete, at the risk of upsetting the BA I must take issue with what you are doing. First, I am not a 'true believer' and second yes, your post is almost purely ad hominem. I don't believe those images show more than just regular rocks and I think that most of what Charles is looking at are simply artifacts caused by poor image processing techniques. However, attacking the validity of Ying's title as a "Baron" or the 'crackerjack' status of Charles' knighthood does nothing to diminish the the points that he is trying to make. It is a fallacious arguing stategy that first-year philosophy students are taught to recognize in their critical thinking class. Furthermore, the 'flame wars' you accuse him of participating in are nothing of the kind. If you look at those message threads it is plainly obvious that Charles is being attacked for his views with tirades which would get anyone banned from this board. But instead of responding in kind, he is polite and patient in trying to defend his views. What is wrong in doing that and how on Earth can you call that a flame war?

So anyways your post was an interesting read (as ad hominem attacks often are) and I appreciate the information you presented. But may I suggest that bad science should be exposed by attacking the science itself, and not by character assassination.

Incidentally, despite any shortcoming, Sir Charles is fascinating to listen to on Art Bell's show. Never have I heard someone with such a well rounded knowledge of so many topics and able to present his ideas in such an elequent manner.

Pete Albrecht · #28 (**permalink**) 20-June-2004, 05:00 PM

Enough with the fossil pond scum already. These piddlin' invertebrates and molluscs and croatians or whatever are just so far down the evolutionary ladder, I don't understand what all the excitement is about. After all, just this past week, NASA has photographed stunning evidence of VERTEBRATE LIFE!!! Oh, but they wouldn't tell us that, oh no. They left it for a free thinker such as my humble self, oh yes oh yes, to discover the truth (oops, I mean -- The Truth).

First, let's take a look at the blessed Raw Data, which NASA has kindly provided to us in that finest of all formats for high-resultion imaging, compressed JPG. Note the following image shot by the Stardust probe:

How can NASA and JPL be so blind? This is proof, PROOF I tell you, of vertebrate, intelligent life in Outer Space. Not just anywhere, either, but on Comet Wild.

Now, if that isn't incontrovertible, undeniable, hard scientific evidence, I don't know what is. Why, it's obvious. Note the various sizes, all going in roughtly the same direction. Conclusion: there wasn't just one of these humanoids, but a family unit or perhaps a whole tribe, all moving in the same direction, probably to better hunting grounds on the other side of Wild -- they would be taking a walk on the Wild side, of course.

Note that the largest of these impressions indicates use of an arch support, evidence of highly evolved life. And the artifact at upper left indicates that iron smelting and forging were well known to these ancient creatures.

Now, refute that, you skeptics!

Pete
("My theory is along the following lines. All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is the theory that I have and which is mine and what it is, too." -- Mrs. Anne Elk)

ToSeek · #29 (**permalink**) 20-June-2004, 05:29 PM

Quote:

they would be taking a walk on the Wild side, of course.

Ouch.

freddo · #30 (**permalink**) 21-June-2004, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Albrecht

Now, refute that, you skeptics!

Now I've decided I need to believe that this is satire, but the problem is that I've seen so many of these that are totally serious, that I never feel comfortably sure... :-?

View Poll Results: Are these conclusions or delusions?
Obviously conclusions.	1	2.17%
Obviously delusions.	36	78.26%
I'd like to suspend judgement on a thing like that until all the facts are in.	9	19.57%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode