You missed V-GER's gist as well. The onus is on you and A.DIM to legitimize the opinion of this 'appeal to authority' (Fleming), not the other way around. Trying to shift the burden of proof won't cut it here.

C'mon, Archer17, be nice to Outcast and A.DIM.

That's the least you can do for two posters who continue to lose "face" here. :wink:


Meanwhile, keep both barrels blasting away! Antiscience types scurrying for cover are always fun to watch!

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

Now, now, Archer and Mak, I actually do think we need to "be nice". Where does this continual "blasting" really get us? It doesn't seem to be moving the discussion to a more reasonable position. Ok, maybe it's fun to watch but frankly, I'm puzzled beyond belief here.

So, here's my question to Outcast, A.DIM and any other Hoagland "face supporters" around here:

Why do you find the position that Cydonia is the remains of an ET city to be more reasonable than that Cydonia is of geological origin?

Perhaps it's more appealing to think that Cydonia is artificial but that's not my question. I want to know how you all have come to a conclusion that (as far as I can see) just isn't backed up by much of anything definitive? You seem to be intelligent people, capable of understanding exactly what is being said to you, yet you continue to take this position? Puzzles the heck outta me! :-?

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

You know, that's always been my question. Let's not assume either hypothosis (spelling?) but consider what is more probable....

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender

I personally believe that both Outcast and A.DIM have been more influenced by this than by any actual objective study they might have undertaken.

Of course, that's just my opinion...

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

Outcast wrote:
Exactly how have you been involved Outcast? With Enterprise Mission?
I mean anyone with internet access and even the slightest interest in these matters can boast they are involved in the search for martian artificiality.

I have been pretty "nice" despite the games and rhetoric from A.DIM and Outcast here. My POV is simple. There is no real evidence for artificiality on Mars. We all saw the '76 Viking images and it did look like something out of Startgate SG1, but the follow-up images laid that to rest. As far as I'm concerned, "end of story." Now A.DIM and Outcast might be bothered that I (and some others) have "made up our minds" about Cydonia, but that's the way it is and it shouldn't even be an issue. The onus is on them to try to keep this myth alive if that's their take on it. Lecturing me and others on "pseudo-skepticism," or alluding to personal attacks every time they read something they don't like is not going to work here. Nor is obvious appeals to authority where they wave people like Fleming around like a banner. Now both A.DIM and Outcast have conceded that they "allow" the possibility that Cydonia is not artificial, so what's the issue? IMO it's about the "skeptical" mindset exhibited by me and some others who refuse to "suspend judgment" on the issue of Martian artificiality and this resulting ideological sidebar is not even relevant.

This board is an extension of the Bad Astronomy web site, one that is based on addressing astronomical mis-conceptions and to have two of it's members attempt to lecture us on how we should think about something like Martian artificiality just ain't gonna happen. If they want to keep this dead issue alive that's their right .. but if they try to do it here publicly I'll continue to address it, and despite what Outcast and A.DIM believe, their tactics are fair game.

Seeing how this thread has progressed makes me even more appreciative of Phil's efforts debunking this sort of nonsense. While I'd love news of artificial structures existing anywhere in our solar system, there's simply zero empirical evidence suggesting any such thing. Any and all possible shoehorning won't change that.

Exactly! We'd all just love it if there was good evidence of artificial structures on Mars. It's disappointing but, *face it*, the "face" is a mesa and the "city" of Cydonia is a result of geological activity as well. Frequently, the truth isn't as entertaining as we'd like it to be. Sad but true.

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

okay, I have one question I would like answered re: NASA coverup.

if NASA was going to take the time to cover up the "face," why did they release the initial picture?

note that this is not character assassination. this is not ducking any issues. this is the single most obvious question about the whole controversy. if you cannot provide a logical answer to that question, the rest of your argument falls apart, if, as you claim to be saying, your argument is that NASA is covering things up.

further note that this question does not presuppose artificiality or lack thereof. it's a perfectly straightforward question. if you cannot answer it, the rest of your argument is totally irrelevant.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Of course the explanation for that is that NASA released the pictures and claimed "trick of light and shadows". That way when the "truth" eventually trickles out, people will be able to deal with it that way, than if NASA just came out, BAM intellagent life on Mars.

And I think there may be a little bit of logic to that way of thinking. I remember showing the face to a friend in college. I jokingly said, "Hey look what they found on Mars." They really seemed a little freaked, and then relieved when I explained that NASA says its a trick of light and shadow.

__________________
I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the internet.
http://www.rrac.org

but that doesn't make sense. "trick of light and shadows," fine, but the first picture looked like a face to everyone. they had to assume it would, especially if it really was a face. Mr. Logic says that a true cover-up would mean never showing the picture, not showing the picture with an explanation. what I want is an explanation of why covering up the "face" would entail releasing its picture at all.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Well, since when does anything have to make sense to the woo-woos?

__________________
I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the internet.
http://www.rrac.org

Okay, I just have to say...

Catbox? What catbox? At high res, it just looks like a very lumpy mesa...

=D> =D>
And, after 13 pages, we're still at it!

And on Page 125 you will be still on it.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

ah, but we're not asking this for the benefit of the woo-woos. if they cannot provide a logical answer to that one question, we should all know enough to no longer waste time on them, because (character assassination approaching) they're beyond help.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Actually, page 125 is reserved for the reluctant cosmologist, now long gone from here, but probably still jerrymandering somewhere in cyberspace. 8)

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

and you should if you feel you should, im not asking for you to agree with me. its obvious we stand on different ground in a lot of subjects. the point is i dont like insinuations and innuendos. a "woowoo" or a "hoagland" thrown into a sentence addressed at my opinions is obviously intended to cast a biased light onto my person. that is desingenious, allthough expectable from self appointed debunkers like yourself. i hope you realize that i'll not let you go by with such low tricks.

you assertion was that i frequently cast doubts at NASA, which is an interesting accusation since i've never discussed the "face" or anyother NASA issue in this forum. you do realize thats what you said, dont you?
i believe you're so enthralled by your own debunking speech that you dont even realize your use of mischief just to prove yourself right.

call it character assassination, because thats exactly what has been happening in here since the first post.

i dont care. if you do not "agree" and do not present the work that contradict Flemming's then its a problem of opinion, if its a problem of opinion then do not state yours as fact.

what Flemming "believes" is expounded in the provided links. Flemming's work and evidence was provided in this thread to legitimize the opening comments, which questioned NASA's behaviour during the Cydonia artificial hypothisis investigation. our work is done, if you do not "agree" then that is your problem and it IS NOT fact. if you want to contradict Flemming then at least do it by showing where is arguments are at loss.

again, what was "cited" was not opinion, it was work and evidence. got it?
lame is pretending to debunk the available evidence by the misuse of opinionated arguments and nothing else.

either you dont seem to understand the evidence presented or you're desingeneously trying to divert the question. you ARE making a claim, you claim that Flemming's work and the evidence presented is wrong without backing up your claims. go it?

a crater humm?
apparently it is not a crater, when we realize the direction from which like is coming and compare with other craters in the area, and in my opinion it is quite unique. like i said, this feature is to the west of the face:



by the way, the above image is from the high resolution THEMIS imager, the face still looks like a face. how about that?

good thing that you put that "eventually" in there.
sure, asking for current images from ESA (which obviously is the only candidate available untill now) does not negate your point but i really thought you would present whatever ESA has available. i personaly only know of one ESA image of the Cydonia area but it is not high resolution and they failed to comply with their promise of providing images for that general area:

now, im not saying there is a conspiracy at work here but they sure are fueling the conspiracy theorists.

Outcast wrote:
For the umpteen time...

Hmm, that sounds almost like a personal attack on Archer, Outcast. :-k

Yet you go on and say things like this:

As for the "face", again...:

Do you have a link? I went through all 864 themis images I could find on Nasa's web site and found only these mentions of the "face":

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA04100

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA03905

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA03768

Besides, why would you bring up the "face" again, since you yourself said that you didn't really believe it was artificial?

And if that mystery formation of yours isn't a crater, maybe it's a hill. What ever the case, it doesn't look artificial to me at all.

Dude, it's been 'enhanced'. Odd that said enhancment also added black dots for eyes and a mouth when clearly none exist in the original.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Imagine if we found something like this on Mars. It would surely be thought to be an ancient wall for a city or something. Of course it is all a natural rock formation. I've seen this feature first-hand. It's impressive, but clearly natural. Another picture; there are several in the area. A third picture. Link to all pictures and explanation.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

I've come to the conclusion that all this is *more* than just a discussion of an interesting feature on Mars. It seems to me to be:

1) A conflict involving personalities on this bulletin board.

2) Questions regarding the truthful or deceptive nature of NASA.

3) A general defense for Mr. Hoagland's ideas about Mars.

Just my opinion, this all seems to be a bit more than simply debate about a unique Martian land form. Perhaps this is why we can't seem to get anywhere with the discussion?

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

Balderdash. I attack your spiel regarding Mars and NASA and if the subject of Cydonia comes up, "woo woo" and Hoagland are relevant. Attempting to constantly morph my posts into an attack on you instead of making a better case for your opinion is what this thread has degenerated into.You do frequently cast doubts on NASA and other facets of the "mainstream" Outcast. It's what you do. It's what you need to do. How else could you promote nonsense like artificiality on Mars, flying saucers, the pyramid/ancient astronaut corollary, and Sitchin on this board?I'm not "suspending judgement" to prop up your beliefs Outcast. To me my opinion is fact until proven otherwise and it's up to you to make your own case instead of worrying about the degree in which I believe something."Our work is done?!?" If digging yourself a hole is what you mean by "work", I'll agree with you. You keep missing the boat here Outcast.. the burden of proof is on you to legitimize what Fleming opines. You also would be better served if you didn't play games. See what I bolded in your quote? So spare me the constant denials about casting doubt on NASA.But I don't "get it" Outcast. There is no hard evidence of NASA shenanigans (an implication you continue to deny making), just lame shoe-horning of an appeal to authority (Fleming). "Misuse of opinionated arguements?!?" Is that supposed to make sense?heh .. no. Shifting the burden of proof won't work Outcast, how many times do I have to say that? Want to know what I "claim?" I claim Cydonia is not artificial, NASA does not engage in hanky-panky, and Fleming's opinion has not been shown to be credible by you or A.DIM after 13 pages. I have a suggestion. Why don't you email Fleming and tell him to pay us a visit? Otherwise this thread will continue to go nowhere.

Good points NC. I would like to throw out one more.

I think part of the problem is that there are actually two different, but very closely related questions. The first is are the face and the other things artifical (yes/no)? The second is if there is enough doubt about the first question to further investigate the question. It seems to me that the one side is answering the first question maybe or unknown and the second question yes, and the other side is answering no and no.

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

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

There's more ...

For those in the 'first side', it seems to me the answer to "What is 'artificial'?" is "I really don't have any good criteria, other than gut feel" (I'm not sure 'the other side' has been asked to provide an answer ... I'm probably showing my ignorance though).

To hold a more 'sensible' discussion, why not work on establishing the difference between each side's means (methods, algorithms, criteria, ...) for coming to a Yes/No/maybe answer to that question (in general)?

I base my POV primarily on the photographic evidence taken after the '76 Viking images. If this "discussion" were to occur in say, 1977, I'd be more receptive to "suspending judgment" regarding possible artificiality in the Cydonia region.

I also don't subscribe to the innuendos of NASA hanky-panky and in my first post here I briefly touched on (since expounded by Gillianren) the illogic of NASA releasing the '76 Viking images at all if NASA/PTB were intent on covering up potential artificiality. I later addressed the futility of such a cover-up when one factors in emerging foreign agencies like the ESA conducting their own Mars research. I'd like to think that NASA/PTB wouldn't be naive enough to assume this country would have exclusive hegemony in the field of planetary exploration ad infinitum.

What it boils down to is two different POV and a past history between some posters. The fact of the matter is there can not be satisfactory closure here no matter how many pages this thread expands to. So where do we go from here? Do one of us have to eventually end up "crossing the line" and get banned before the folly of keeping this thread alive with ideological bickering sets in? I've never walked away from a good debate before, but is this a "good debate?" The honest answer is no.

I'm finished here.

I personally don't think that any amount of photo analysis of pictures from orbit can ever prove that something is artifical. This picture for example shows a NASA photo of the pyramids at Giza from orbit. Ok, you can see some square things, but does that prove they are artifical? As a kid I would find lots of weathered pointy rocks that I would swear were arrowheads. Is the rough shape proof? I would say no to both. The reason we know the pyramids are manmade isn't some photo from orbit, but from tons of evidence at the sites. I could have an archeologist look at one of my pointy rocks under a microscope and look for indications that they were "worked" (scratches, etc.) rather than naturally weathered. So we are stuck about Mars until someone can pay a visit.

IMHO, given the extraordinary nature of the claim, I believe the onus is on those trying to prove an artifical nature of these Martian features and as I said, no amount of photo processing is going to do that for me. If others think that we need to leave it an open question, or would like to petition NASA to make the face the first stop on a visit, I'm not going to convince them otherwise.

(edited to fix link)

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

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