Do Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B. and the Shadow both work at Xenotech Research, or do they both subscribe to the same Internet provider? Notice the email addresses. They both end with @cfl.rr.com.

Just wondering.

How exactly do mollusks create their shell? Are the constituent molecules manufactured by the organism or harvested directly from the environment? Does a mollusk shell tend to concentrate certain chemical components at a significantly higher ratio than they would be expected to be found as a result of abiotic processes? How would you expect the shell to be effected by the environment after death?

Those are examples of questions that a person could be expected to answer (or to even formulate) when they have spent 10+ years of their life studying the subject. Laymen (even PhD's from another field) aren't expected to know the answers. I don't. I don't even know if they are good questions! These people aren't necessarily better or smarter than anyone - they are quite a bit more specialized.

Questions like that are also the sort of questions that have to be asked in order for the impression that they look like seashells to evolve in to the conclusion that they are, in fact, sea shells.

[edited for spelling]

__________________
In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1

From Charles' website...

Who says that NASA has "clear proof" of life on Mars? Certainly NOT NASA scientists.

Charles talks about how NASA MUST be "covering up" the existance of life on Mars. Even though all the images taken by the rovers have been published. If NASA were trying to "cover up" something, then they would simply not publish all the images.

There is a fundemental aspect to "alternative interpretations" that some folks who visit here don't understand. To disprove mainstream science, the "alternative theory's" must explain observations BETTER than mainstream science already does. It is simply not enough to say, "that looks like" something, and expect it to be taken seriously...especially on this BB.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

And that would be you, then, to get those letters after your name? :wink:

I don't have a PH.D. in paleobiology. I have an amateur's fascination with the topic, as well as many others. I can hold what I hope would pass for an intelligent conversation on it at a cocktail party level. But I wouldn't dream to presume to know more intuitively than someone has a doctorate, or to have better judgement than the entire professional community of folks who make their living from examining such objects.

I can understand issues of refusing to accept authority just because someone "says so." But an expert usually becomes an expert by years of work, and there is such a thing as an informed opinion. To dismiss the considerations of those who have worked for years in this field just because it looks like a shell to you is amazingly arrogant. Sir Charles may be an educated and intelligent person, but his professional qualifications are not in the relevant areas. If you have a toothache, you don't go to a concert pianist, no matter how good they may be.

Seriously, this isn't obvious, as you seem to imply. It's not a seashell you are "rolling around in your hand." It's a digitized PR image from a remotely operated sensor platform millions of miles away taken under an alien sky and under completely different conditions than here on earth that resembles products of understood natural nonbiologic processes. It's about as unobvious as it can be. One really has to know what one is doing.

edited for typos

__________________
Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!"
Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test

Looking back at the previous responses I don't notice direct personal attacks, although a couple of folks (myself included) may have engaged in some lighthearted humor, which certainly may have been at the claimant's expense. If the BA has followed this thread, perhaps he might be willing to offer some judgment and encourage corrective behavior if deemed necessary.

Perhaps the overall nature of generated response here has stemmed from so many similar unsubstantiated claims within the Martian Chronicles forum -- from consistent allegations of artificial structures on Mars, to a variety of assertions which run a predictable gamut which many regular posters have experienced. From my perspective, it doesn't appear that anyone has been slinging ad-homs while ignoring the content of the claims in question. Although, it's entirely possible that the ensuing discussion has been limited not due to arbitrary dismissal, but rather all-too-familiar modus operandi.

In order to best scrutinize the subject matter at hand, I'll submit the following -- and will hopefully receive some feedback from others in the event that I've made any errant observations. Please feel free to offer opinions and corrections where necessary.

In review:

1) Schults claims that, in various MER imagery, photographs of ordinary geological features in actuality depict fossils and/or evidence of fossilized life on Mars.

While he may indeed believe that the referenced imagery constitutes evidence of fossils on Mars, there are fatal errors within his methodology which, as a result, I feel are directly responsible for reaching and promoting erroneous conclusions -- pareidolia being a key factor. Despite the text on Shults' main page claiming he has "received confirmations from professors and teachers of biology, paleontologists and amateur fossil hunters and collectors", we are not presented with an iota of evidence to corroborate his findings. If the MER imagery displayed any such evidence, as noted by prior posts (and what I detailed earlier in the thread), why aren't astrobiologists and planetary scientists addressing the situation? As previously noted, such finds would literally be epic scientific discoveries. This leads nicely to the next point...


2) Schults claims that NASA/JPL is not only deliberately concealing data/findings from the public, but also that they're faking and editing out "evidence" from their images.

This sort of claim comes up in a variety of subjects, ad infinitum. From Hoagland and the "face" on Mars to those who believe UFOs are alien craft, instead of focusing upon the evidence necessary to substantiate their claims, it's a common tactic to instead fill the gaps by claiming that a governmental conspiracy is at work. There is simply no evidence to suggest such -- and in this case, there would be no reason to conceal anything. If we positively identified evidence of extraterrestrial life on the red planet, such news would likely generate significant additional revenue for scientific investigation, which would not only be of great assistance to agencies like NASA but the scientific community in general. These sorts of allegations simply defy logic. The Clavius Moon Base offers noteworthy perspective detailing why the conspiracy angles appeal to some people.

Further, Schults claims that NASA has altered the appearance of the Martian sky. He's certainly not the first to allege this -- Richard Hoagland and others have made similar unfounded assertions in the recent past. The Bad Astronomer posted a section devoted to issues of Mars' color, and there's an additional resource at the bottom of that page further demonstrating that NASA isn't altering color images of Mars. The latter URL specifically addresses the imaging and filtration discrepancies that Schults makes a big deal about here, further illustrating how he's reached erroneous conclusions.

3) Fatal errors exist in Shults' method of analyzing MER imagery.

Looking at the section here on Shults' page which reveals his approach to "image processing" is quite reminiscent of the same flawed approach employed by Hoagland (and others). This too has been covered by The BA here; while Schults utilizes a different process, the same artifacting problems manifest themselves on multiple levels. Despite his statements such as "It is easy to see that other processes or refinements of these can be applied to obtain excellent images, even in the face of fairly noisy or poor data to start with", the fact remains that the "enhancement" process detailed adds a variety of content to the frames not contained in the original images. That's not "enhancement" -- it's distortion.

In summary, no empirical data exists to support Schults' conclusions, the flaws in his methodology are quite obvious, and as I've stated previously, his presentation consists of pseudoscience, if even that. Attempting to verify his credentials or status (e.g. knighthood) is simply unnecessary. There's no need to delve into the minutiae when Schults' methodology and conclusions can be readily demonstrated as incorrect.

__________________
In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1

Good one!

Seriously though, awhile back I had to have surgery. I sought out someone with a MD and surgical specialization in the exact type of surgery I needed. I believe this to be a common practice and honestly think that the vast majority of people would have no problem understanding the logic of this choice and would do the same themselves.

Why then does this reasonable thinking seem to "fly out the window" when one attempts to apply it to other areas of expertise? I suspect it may have something to do with "personal investment", ie... not having one's own "butt on the line", so to speak. Just an observation.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

Good point, and I also think it may be a product of the anti-intellectualism of our society to a bit, mixed in with distrust of authority and a severe underappreciation for the amount of work it takes to become an "expert." I, too, fall into this trap when I find myself offering "advice" to my wife in her field when I really know diddly about it. :wink: (Though I suspect this may have more to do with good ol' male "gotta know everything" instinct.")

Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that any reasonable, intelligent person of good will can understand the general principles of modern science, but to be come an expert you must then take those smarts and work for several years. It's more a question of time than intelligence. It takes years of dedication to become so familiar with a subject of study that you can afford to rely on your intuition.

It's the mastery of specifics that come from such intimate exposure that separates the professionals from the dilettantes. And that's why real fossil hunters can stroll across a plain and immediately find a tooth when all everyone else can see is rocks. (Or the other way around, in this case)

This is why articles are peer reviewed. Others who have put in the work are the ones who judge your ideas. It's why science is really a verb more than a noun. (Not just knowledge, but how that knowledge is obtained.)

Wolverine: Spot on, mate!

__________________
Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!"
Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test

Thanks, Wolverine. Good read.

And I do agree with you.

Shadow,

The titles that are under our names are soley dependant upon our number of posts at the board. They do not indicate our educational status, nor our leanings toward or away from the mainstream.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Shadow - Just to add to what Mushashi said above - though I am sure you have noticed by now - we are all "bad" here in our monikers - it just ties in with "Bad Astronomy." Don't take it personally. Also, you are just 90 plus posts away from a magical upgrade! (See I told you science was work!)

__________________
Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!"
Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test

My guess is the same ISP, Road Runner, the subdomain cfl is Central FLorida it seems.

__________________
Game over, you lose, we hope you enjoyed playing the exciting game of Thermodynamics...

Actually, I found what I was looking for under http://home.cfl.rr.com/ . Sir Charles is listed, which gives Sir Charles' home link http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip/ , but there is no sign of the Shadow.

Chip Shults has a fundamental problem.

He claims that NASA has doctored the photos from Mars to eliminate all evidence of fossils.

Yet, he has concluded, based on his examination of NASA Mars photos, that there are fossils on Mars.

Neat trick!

:roll:

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Sounds like he intends to "have his cake and eat it too"!

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

The idea that NASA is deliberately hiding evidence of life on Mars is in my humble opinion, one of the ludicrous ideas, even more silly than the Lunar Conspiracy stuff. Supposedly NASA hoaxed the lunar landing because they couldn't really land men on the moon. But why would then cover up what would be the crowning success of their Mars explorations. NASA has also shown that they ARE willing to publish evidence for life on Mars. Look at the work done on the Martian meteorites found in Antarctica. One might argue they went out on a limb claiming that they had evidence of microbes. So why we they turn around now and cover it up. It's daffy, even by woo-woo standards.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Why do people cook up these wacky conspiracy theories? This article indicates that humans may have an innate tendency to want to link a major event to a major cause, the bigger the effect the bigger the cause must have been. Add this to another tendency to disregard things that might discredit one's pet theory and you have fertile ground for a conspiracy theory.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

What would we do if we founnd the existence of life?
How would human structure and social norms change if we found the truth to not only other existence of life, but, our own existence?
Man is in search of the truth, not proof... proof is only a tool to be used by man, in order to justify the means.. some people want to justify the means, and others just want the truth.... in my opinion.. that is where this topic of discussion is leading... a way to justify the means.... but, at what expense? Some people say that they believe in man.. others say they believe in faith.. I believe that faith is our driving factor that keeps us searching for the truth....If the truth was revealed... would man stop the quest for new frontier and just live or woulld he react like a microbe... multiplying just to preserve the function of the species? As a class G2 star (our sun) we have approximately 6 billion years left I think that in one million years we will be closer to the truth than what we are today. Just look at how far civilization has came in the last 2000 years.Which means we have roughly 500 times that amount of time for mankind to figure it out.. "Small Steps" We are not going to figure it out in our life time.... all we can do is try to discover the truth for the next generation to build on... THus, we step on new territory... and look beyond to the next.. in hopes of finding an intelligent being capable of communicating in order to obtain knowledge to feed the truth. knowledge consists of both good and bad information... eventually leading to the truth....conspiracy theories bring alot to the table.... they give man alternatives to chew on... and sometimes they bear false witness but eventually man sorts through it and discovers the truth..
Would the world be a better place if we knew these things?

Can I ask a few questions? The existence of life in what way? Microbe? Or bigger up the food chain, so to speak?

Welcome, fellow Hoosier!

I'm not sure I understand the "justify the means" argument. the proofs are what allow people to tease out the bits of truth. Theological truths, by definition, are not bound by science - biological 'truths' are.

For me, unbiased answers are helpful to assigning a theological context.

__________________
In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1

Besides confusion, bad science...etc., I can't think of anything useful that conspiracy theorys "bring to the table". Certainly nothing useful if one is trying to determine the reality of something.

BTW...welcome to he board.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

hello everyone ...

I hope your weekend was as good as mine was

Thank you for your input Wolveriine. Isnt it nice to be able to state YOUR opinion. I wish I could see what Sir Charles would say to what you all have said.

Candy if you want to ask me something then do so. esp. ISP
"Do Sir Charles W. Shults III, K. B. B. and the Shadow both work at Xenotech Research, or do they both subscribe to the same Internet provider? Notice the email addresses. They both end with @cfl.rr.com."
My guess is the same ISP, Road Runner, the subdomain cfl is Central FLorida it seems.


Actually, I found what I was looking for under http://home.cfl.rr.com/ . Sir Charles is listed, which gives Sir Charles' home link http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip/ , but there is no sign of the Shadow.

What do you want to know ?


cn more and malksutov Like i said earlier must be nice to say what you want when the Person your talking about has no way of answering you.



Thank you erich5470 for your input. I like your opinion Not sure if it would be a better place but it would sure blow the heck out of the ego.....

expert means : a person who is very skilled or highly trained AND informed in some special field. Websters new universal 1972 2nd edition.
Nowhere does it say that you must be a PHD in something, to be an expert and says nothing about intuition..........

thought you should know what EXPERT means

__________________
....who know what evil lurks in the heart of man......... the Shadow knows............

contempt prior to investigation..........hmmmmmmmm......... food for thought.

Hey, that was funny.
I am guessing you have the same Internet provider, or you changed the email address to reflect something other than your real email address? I am trying to show authenticity of the email. I googled Sir Charles public postings, and his style of writing is a little different than what you posted. He writes more with a twist of sarcasm.

I guess my questions will be, "Is that your real email address"? If so, will you email me at my listed email address located at the bottom on my post? You may want to label the subject Sir Charles. 8-[

thank you candy for your quick reply.

as for my email addy... that isnt it not in the email part of what I put here on the board altho it looks good to pass........ my email is not listed anywhere right on the net under the nick Shadow . I have learned all to long ago that ppl love to do not so nice things. So you could say that i am a Shadow . LOL < humor take it where you can find it>


I hope this answers your question .

Have a nice one )

If you want to verify then email Sir Charles Shults sent me then email him at aichip@cfl.rr.com I am sure he would verify his for you. Kinda simple isnt ....go to the source and ask. )

__________________
....who know what evil lurks in the heart of man......... the Shadow knows............

contempt prior to investigation..........hmmmmmmmm......... food for thought.

after all candy it is in the email he sent me..................... i mean his addy ....

__________________
....who know what evil lurks in the heart of man......... the Shadow knows............

contempt prior to investigation..........hmmmmmmmm......... food for thought.

well heck its aichips@cfl.rr.com forgot the s .............LOL

__________________
....who know what evil lurks in the heart of man......... the Shadow knows............

contempt prior to investigation..........hmmmmmmmm......... food for thought.

Hey shadow!
Of course, I agree with your that someone can become an expert without being a PhD, but those letters usually mean that someone has taken the time to deeply study a specific field, and their dissertation has been approved by other experts in that field. So their opinion carries more weight since they have "gone pro," and have now a professional reputation. Could some unkown amateur golfer beat Tiger Woods? Sure, it's possible, but most would bet on Tiger...

Can "experts" be wrong? Of course they can: look here for a great story on catching a mistake on the Huygens probe, how intuition is guided by extensive knowledge, and how the professional community becomes involved.

I mentioned intuition in my post before in the sense of what you might call "hunches." For an example from my own line of work, if a person is having a problem with a computer monitor "turning green" one might guess that guess that it was a bad cable, bad video card or a bad electron gun in the monitor itself. Well since I have seen this same model of monitor "turn green" several times before due to a faulty electron gun, my intuition tells me to check the serial number. I can then tell if it was part of the series of faulty soldering jobs done by some guy in Taiwan for one month in 2001, and eligible for a recall.

The only way I know that is because I have seen it before and dealt with it and knew what to look for. An "amateur" would have to start from scratch troubleshooting, or may not even know what to do and end up throwing the monitor away. This ultra-specific information, garnered from years of experience and grounded in the principles of the genre is what guides an expert intuition.

But all or us are free to express our opinions. Whether anybody at NASA pays attention to them as valid scientific contributions is another story...

__________________
Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!"
Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test

Hello Shadow.

I am confident that Sir Charles W. Shults III can be found at the email you posted. I found that already from his website. I understand your reluctance to verify yours. No problem.

I am debating whether I should email Sir Charles W. Shults III asking him if he is indeed BANNED from the BABB. I am not as familiar as others with Sir Charles W. Shults III.

I can’t speak for others, but I would like to know if he is truly BANNED or not. A copy and paste email can be dockered in so many ways.

I believe in a previous thread, someone suggested you find those login name(s). Is that something you are still willing to do?

Thank you,
Candy

candy you can email him and ask him ...i did ......he answered me ..took a day or two but he did ..

__________________
....who know what evil lurks in the heart of man......... the Shadow knows............

contempt prior to investigation..........hmmmmmmmm......... food for thought.

what login names ?

__________________
....who know what evil lurks in the heart of man......... the Shadow knows............

contempt prior to investigation..........hmmmmmmmm......... food for thought.