Some skeptics... what a way to stamp one's authority in the world of skepticism. Of course, the quote A.DIM posted was a quote from
RCH's web site and thus not necessarily what the Texan skeptics think.

Usually those who accuse Nasa(or an undetermined "government") of disinformation, are full of it themselves.

Once again, everyone seems to know better what's in Nasa's pictures
than Nasa itself. In fact, everything associated with Nasa, whether it be this, Bush's bold new vision, shuttles return to flight, we have all sorts of scientists telling it can't be done or Nasa's neglecting this or that. If these experts are so damn smart, why aren't they running the space program!?!

A.DIM wrote:
Sigh, once again it's up to others to prove there never was a civilazition on Mars just because it might have been possible, eh A.DIM? How typical to shift the burden of proof. Now I claim for the record that we are the only living beings in the universe ever to have existed. Let's see you prove me wrong.

What?!
That links directly to ntskeptics.org archives. They linked to Hoagland's site, just as they link to smithsonianmag or csicop in other articles.

This strikes me as ad hominem; you know, attacking "those" instead of objectively evaluating NASA behavior regarding this?

Politics perhaps?

I don't know, maybe it's only the scientific process at work; there will always be dissenters.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Sigh...

"How typical to shift the burden of proof." ????

You've assumed I'm trying to prove something.
I've not asked anyone here to disprove the artificiality hypothesis, V-GER.

All I said is that the existence of Life on Mars, IMO, lends validity to the artificiality hypothesis, and to the ETH in general.

The artificiality hypothesis is falisifiable and NASA has acted as if the initial "trick of light and shadow" explanations and the follow up "catbox" release and a few other images have been sufficient to disprove it.
Indeed, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but there's certainly been no extraordinary investigation.
But I realize you're not very objective on the issue, as you admitted, so I don't expect you to agree.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

A.DIM wrote:
Well that certainly suggests that you think it is artificial. But let's keep
this simple: do you think that the "face" is artificial, and that Nasa is knowingly deceiving people=lying?

The text they posted and you quated was from Hoagland's website.
I simply pointed out that it isn't necessarily what they think as one might have thought by reading just your post alone.

Just how big a deal was this whole "face" thing to the general public? Perhaps Nasa didn't view the photo as the major scientific event of the year and therefore didn't go public all guns blazing. And maybe Nasa is just tired of having to prove and explain themselves to all the Hoaglands out there, I know I would be. In fact if I could decide these matters I wouldn't even comment on any lunar hoax/face/cover up/alien/disinfo/whatever- carbage. Just because there is something Nasa
can't immediately explain or a detail they don't immediately comment on doesn't mean the detail is artificial and they're trying to cover it up.
In short, just because they're not answering my questions doesn't mean they're hiding something. In February 2003 I sent them an e-mail regarding true colors of Mars. Now I still haven't received a reply! outrageous! Obviously I must have touched a nerve and exposed a hoax, right? :-?

We agree there.

Regarding the NT skeptic site: That Hoagland snippet A.DIM linked to was a "heads-up," not a revolution in skeptical thinking. The first line says it all: So if we find micro-organisms on Mars this validates artificiality? That's a heck of a leap. I'd need evidence of artificiality itself before I took that plunge.

Why should NASA have to investigate it? When I say "requires extraordinary evidence" I'm saying that those who make the extraordinary claim have to prove that it has validity. This agrument is just a "re-wording" of the "prove me wrong" idea, and that's not how science works.

the only thing that past water on Mars valdates is that there was past water on Mars...nothing else.

emphasis mine...

And a few other images?? Those are the most important "ones". They are the best available, yet you dismiss them as "and a few others".

Hardly objective thinking...and it shows.

So it's up to NASA to investigate every extrordinary claim??? No...I don't think so...

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

Indeed, that's how I took it: "Beware: WooWoo-ism Inside."

And are you suggesting that Hoagland prompted the NT skeptics to write a snippet supporting him? Or are you attempting to associate the nt skeptics own opinion with Hoagland in order to reduce credibility?

:-k

I didn't say it "validates" it, Archer. I said it lends validity to the idea; more "in support of" than "confirmation," you know?
Once Life of any kind is proven elsewhere, it will support the ETH more than harm it, lending validity to an artificiality hypothesis.

Of course, I realize that even then, the argument could likely be "Life abundant? Sure. Intelligent Life? Rare." :wink:

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Please. Why do you think the NTSS is supporting Hoagland just because they quoted him?

I just quoted you and I don't support what you said.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

RAF, I'm sorry, but if you were to admit that you, too, "loose all objectivity" when discussing this subject, and as your first post here implies, the rest of your posts would make more sense to me.

As it is, you continue to offer "that's not how science works" and other such proclamations in the guise of "skepticism," while apparently, to me, missing some pertinent points.

Science demands objectivity, RAF, and in my mind (yes, "in my mind") you exhibit very little when "skeptically" discussing ATM ideas.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

MY mistake.

Upon perusing that page I understood it to be an archive of articles put out by the NTS.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

A.DIM wrote:
Then I must have misunderstood this one:

You're talking about 3 different things here. Once/if life is proven elsewhere it will prove that live exists elsewhere. The ETH is a separate issue as is the "artificiality hypothesis".

The first by itself does not "lend validity" to anything but itself. The other 2 must be validated on their own merits (or lack thereof.)

Why quote my entire post if you're not going to comment on it?

Particularly this part...I'd really like you to hear what you say in response to that...

So, it's come down to I say you're not being objective, and you say that I'm not being objective.

I think I'll let the other posters here determine which of us has a stronger case. :wink:

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

huh? All I'm "suggesting" is that this was just a "hey guys, check this out" kinda thing. We have some people that do that here with Nancy's Zeta-spiel in the PX forum.Semantics, my point still stands.And I'm sure you'll continue to imply otherwise, what's your point?

I can just see it. A science tem spends years working on a project, selecting just the right camera for the mission, organising the areas to be photographed. They work with JPL and NASA to get the perfect pictures. The day of the launch comes and they wait with hold their collective breath as they watch the rocket lifting off, praying that the equipment will remain intact and working. Over the next six months they can barely contain themselves as they watch their probe getting closer and closer.... until the big day. It enters Mars orbit and moves towards their target. They gather in their rooms, computers ready for the data to be sent and start to be analysed, knowing, just knowing that they will find something, anything that will allow them to write their papers and make their names in the industry....

The phone rings.

"Hi, this is Mission Control, we have your images, but because Richard Hoagland demanded that everyone gets them immediately we've posted them to the internet. Of course you're free to download them from there with everyone else."

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

yes, typical and ridiculous. but you should have by now be used to that, after all, you've been tackling this same bunch of debunkers for years.

anyway, since everyone obviously "missed" (side steped?) your request, i thought i'd bring something to your attention, A.dim.





Copyright © 1998 Oriental Institute, University of Chicago

does it look familiar? its an artificial mound at Malik Shah, Iran. who said that if the Anunnaki built the Mars face they should have also made one on Earth? how insightfull, maybe they actually did. =D>

Actually, Archer covered that back on page 2 of this thread.

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

All A.DIM did was try to shift the burden of proof Outcast. As R.A.F. linked to, A.DIM obviously "missed" my request to prove that natural symmetry doesn't exist or is limited by scale. Feel free to answer that for him.Regarding your Iranian mound .. "insightful?" Not really. I don't recall seeing proof that A) the Anunnaki exist; B) that the Martian "Face" is really a "face" or anything artificial, or C) Malik Shah was built by ancient-astronauts.

Outcast wrote:
Wow, I have insight!

Nice to hear from you again Outcast, I was wondering what kept you from the debate. Now, the feature in your picture does look familiar, it looks like the "face" on Mars! Although the only thing that "lends validity" to is that the Martian one is of natural origin. You provided proof of a natural formation just like the one on Mars, here on earth. Well there you go A.DIM. thanks Outcast!

Edited to correct:
Oh yeah, it is artificial, looked so natural I didn't even properly read the text, my bad Outcast, sorry. Hmm.. could this mean... :-k Nah, it looks less a face than the Martian one and that's saying a lot.

Outcast, are you suggesting that that mound looks anything like a face? Or just that people have made mounds? The latter is quite obvious, and the former looks to me like wishful thinking.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Malik Shah

Shouldn't the portrayal of a face at least, like, have eyes and a mouth, maybe a nose?

A pyramid is a better face sculpture than Malik Shah. At least a pyramid has a nose.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

It looks like a horseshoe crab or one of those wooden spatulas they use to take pizzas out of the oven. Proof that pizza loving horseshoe crabs ruled the Earth. :wink:

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

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

What "burden of proof" are you talking about, Archer?

I never set out to "prove" anything here. I wanted to discuss NASA's behavior toward "the face" as put forth by Fleming, who seemed to be objectively considering the issue.

I didn't ask anyone to prove or disprove anything. I shifted no burden.

I'm willing to accept symmetry and parallel lines occuring naturally, but for the "man on the mountain" explanation to be enough, I need to see it on a similar scale.

As for your charming word salad suggesting how I claim "NASA lies," am good at "net mining, cherrypicking & shoehorning" as well as possessing "tricks:"
Your mistake was thinking that I claimed to have proof of anything regarding the artificality hypothesis.

Right you are, but does that mean you see no similarities between this mound and "the face?"

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Maybe. =D>

Thanks Outcast, for bringing this to my attention, but of course we have to realize that no matter what similarities one may find between these two "mounds," none of it will constitute evidence and will certainly not "prove" anything.

:wink:

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

you all understood perfectly well what A.dim requested of you. a similar phenomenon of natural symetrical occurence at the same aproximate scale that can emulate what we see in the sands of Cydonia. untill now i see nada coming from the usual crowd, despite it being a simple request.

A.DIM wrote:
Ok, but...

...this does strongly hint that you did.

And as to minimize future -he said she said- debates, do you think the Martian "face" is

a) Artificial

b) Natural

or

c) The jury's still out there

As for Nasa's behaviour, for what it's worth, Dr. Porco did say in a BBC program that she would like it nothing better than there to have been an ancient civilization on Mars. That would solve their budget problems for a while. So it's not like Nasa's activily trying -not to find- anything there.

you want to know what kept me from debating in this BBS? well, i believe that true debate must imply at least a modicum of understanding of the subject at hand, i believe that debate that strives for an answer must be imparcial and truthwordy, i believe that debate should not be built around strawmens and false precepts, i believe that debate should not single out people because they do not follow a pack mentality. i believe that debate should be followed with critical thinking and honesty no matter the evidence that is brought to table.

so what kept me away from debate was the nasty tendency of certain debunkers to merrily follow people around with false premises, inuendo and a terrible lack of critical thinking and imagination.

So you too apparently think A.DIM shifted the burden of proof?

and it is somewhat a large task to go through random satellite photos of the earth, try here for instance:
here

Outcast wrote:
Perhaps you'd like to rephrase? :wink:

im sugesting to the people that have sugested that an intelligent and craftfull civilization would never produce such a gigantic symetrical artificial mound with face like features that in fact it can actualy happen. ancient Mesopotamia is packed full with this kind of large scale terraforming works of engineering. if ETs (Anunnaki?) have been around our solar system now and in the past, why not also on Mars?
it may be wishfull thinking but im entitled to it. i dont think i have to remember anyone that many wishfull thinkers of the past have indeed made ground breaking discoveries.