Beyond the "catbox" thread

[algorithms]

The Bad Astronomer:

After 21 pages, I've had enough.

A.DIM, Outcast, you have been making the same circular arguments for weeks now, with nothing new. When presented with new arguments, you simply dismiss them, and as I point out in the post above, you are researching this on the web instead of where the real work is published, the journals.

And in the end Nereid has the best point: Outcast you have yet to say what is clear evidence of artificiality. Both of you have danced around this. That's got both of you on thin ice for banning.

So I will be very clear. I will not allow further discussion about this until the idea of what constitutes artificiality is discussed. Until that is resolved, this argument will never end.

But this thread will. Locked.

Perhaps folks should take a look at the remote sensing work used in terrestrial archaeology for some ideas here. Both satellite imagery and aerial photography are used by archaeologists in their search for evidence of past human settlements. Here is an interesting piece on the subject:

GIS TECHNIQUES, REMOTE SENSING AND MULTIVARIATE MODELS IN ASSESSING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

What I gather from looking at this and other materials on the subject is that you can't simply rely upon the shape of an object in order to identify it as a potential archaeological resource. There are other important variables that must be considered in order to narrow down the candidates. That's because symmetry and regular geometric shape is a common occurrence in natural geology. In fact, these materials suggest that its an entirely useless pursuit of time to simply peruse satellite images in search of archaeology. One must know something about the geology and geophysical history of a location in order to know where to look and what to look for.

[jt-3d]

Originally Posted by algorithms

GIS TECHNIQUES, REMOTE SENSING AND MULTIVARIATE MODELS IN ASSESSING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

What I gather from looking at this and other materials on the subject is that you can't simply rely upon the shape of an object in order to identify it as a potential archaeological resource. There are other important variables that must be considered in order to narrow down the candidates. That's because symmetry and regular geometric shape is a common occurrence in natural geology. In fact, these materials suggest that its an entirely useless pursuit of time to simply peruse satellite images in search of archaeology. One must know something about the geology and geophysical history of a location in order to know where to look and what to look for.

Yes, I agree. But none of this sways the woo. Alas, once they espy some sign of intelligence in a grainy, old, low resolution image, they go nuts. How they recogize it I don't know. Possibly opposites attracting.

[Nereid]

espy some sign of intelligence [snip] How they recogize it I don't know

Yes.

This is precisely the issue, is it not? Frustrating to me is that, despite asking many times, I never got an answer to how anyone could determine 'intelligence' or 'artificiality', from any (kinds of) observations.

Worse, it seems the proponents were unwilling to have a discussion about how such criteria might even be established (i.e. the program whose results would be a working draft of such criteria). :-?

[algorithms]

The "proponents" rely upon their discovery of "anomalies" in satellite images of Mars. I assume what they mean is that the feature in question is anomalous with respect to natural geologic processes, thus implying an artificial, or "intelligent" origin.

The problem here is that "proponents" fail to explain what kind of criteria they are using the determine that something is "anomalous" in natural geology. Most will tend to suggest that the presence of symmetrical or geometric shape implies something other than natural processes. But we know for a fact that natural terrestrial geology is replete with symmetrical shape and regular geometric form - especially in areas where eolian processes dominate. So how is it "anomalous?"

[MG1962A]

This an interesting discussion. A while back I started a thread about the geology of the 'Inca village formation." I was curious what sort of exotic geology could create such an interesting formation.

To my suprise...there were at least three very sound theories - all so good they are competing against each other. All have examples found on Earth. Two could be re-created using plaster of paris sand and water in my own back yard.

So the number of anomalies found on Mars points to a lack of knowledge in geology by the observer rather than evidence they are artifical.

MG

[JonClarke]

I recently had a long discussion about this with another board. I agree it is very hard to pin the Cydonia Clan down to testable statments. However I suggest the claimed evidence seems to come down to the following:

1. It looks like a face and is therefore it is artificial.

2. The "face" is symmetrical and therefore artificial.

3. Othe features in the area (e.g. the "D&M pyramid") are highly regular and therefore artificial.

4. There are significant alignments between various features (e.g. "Tholu," "face," or "pyramid") therefore the feature is artificial.

5. The position of various features in relation to mars, each other and the proportions of the various angles and distances are all numerically significant according to Hoagland's hyper dimensional physics. Therefore the feature is artificial.

6. Fractal analysis of the surface of the "face" and other features shows that they are non fractal and thus artificial (viz Carlotto).

We can safely say that 1 is false based on later images, 2-4 can be shown to be false even by Viking data, 5 requires acceptance of Hoogland's hyper dimensional physics (slightly contentious of itself).

That leaves 6. Identifying artifical structures in remotely sensed data is the province of geomorphologists, geologists, archaeologists, and intelligence gathers. I can safely say that the first three do not use fracal analysis to recognise artificial structures in any of their work. Can anyone speak about the military's analysis of air photos? Carlotto's work was supposed designed to simplifying looking for structures, vehicles etc. Can anyone address how valid this methodology is? It was done at least 10 years ago, when fratcal image analysis was all the rage, but it did not amount to anything in other applications.

By this stage the Cydonia Clan are usually reduced to saying "It is artifical because I say it is."

Jon

[algorithms]

MG1962A: So the number of anomalies found on Mars points to a lack of knowledge in geology by the observer rather than evidence they are artifical.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Those individuals imagining they've found "anomalies" are not very knowledgeable about geology or planetary science. Hence, they incorrectly conclude that something they've found in an image is "anomalous" when it isn't.

JonClarke: Can anyone speak about the military's analysis of air photos? Carlotto's work was supposed designed to simplifying looking for structures, vehicles etc. Can anyone address how valid this methodology is? It was done at least 10 years ago, when fratcal image analysis was all the rage, but it did not amount to anything in other applications.

Well the big problem with Carlotto's "fractal analysis" is that he was working with an image that had been grossly enhanced to the limits of legibility. In otherwords, it was already embedded with the results of image processing algorithms that had produced extrapolated features. So, naturally, his "analysis" seemed to produce provocative results. One wonders what would happen if he attempted to pull off the same stunt with the April, 2001 image.

By the way, folks should notice that neither A.DIM, nor Outcast have attempted to present their case here.

[JonClarke]

Even Carlotto admitted that not all of the "anomolous" features in the Viking image gave anomalous fractal indices, making his whole case borderline at best.

Jon

[Yorkshireman]

Here's the link to Carlotto's fractal paper in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society:

A Method for Searching for Artificial Objects on Planetary Surfaces

I wasn't convinced then, and I'm not now!

[JonClarke]

I certainly would not have passed it for publication if I had been an editor of JBIS.

Jon

[algorithms]

Yorkshireman: Here's the link to Carlotto's fractal paper in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society:
A Method for Searching for Artificial Objects on Planetary Surfaces
I wasn't convinced then, and I'm not now!

Indeed. There is a fundamental flaw in Carlotto's methodology. Its that when you are working with a digital image which has been enhanced to the limits of its legibility, one cannot peer deeper for evidence of "self-similarity." And just as important, Mr. Carlotto's work offers no controls which might reveal how frequently fractal analysis of natural objects might not demonstrate self-similarity, particularly with respect to the resolution characteristics and limitations of the cameras used with the Viking orbiters.

JonClarke: I certainly would not have passed it for publication if I had been an editor of JBIS.

The JBIS "peer review" is not particularly rigorous. Never has been.

[Archer17]

Originally Posted by algorithms

..By the way, folks should notice that neither A.DIM, nor Outcast have attempted to present their case here.

My computer went on me, sparing me the latter half of that previous cat-box quagmire (probably a good thing :wink: ), but they never had a case themselves .. it was all based on their belief in Sitchin. He said there was artificial structures on Mars and there's enough net-candy out there to feed advocates of Martian artificiality/NASA subterfuge. They were glad to post the candy. That's what they do.. heh, that's all they do.

The thing is, I can't see how/why NASA would: A) think they are able to suppress convincing evidence of Martian "artificiality" indefinitely, B) lack the foresight to realize that and, C) why they would even suppress a potential "shot in the arm" that such artificiality would provide to their budget.

[Gillianren]

I stand by the scenario I posted in the other thread, and if anyone wants to prove to me otherwise, they must explain the motivations in the alternate scenario where I ask for them. (did anyone actually read the alternate scenario? I thought I summed it up pretty well, but it was so close to the end of the thread that I'm not sure anyone caught it.)

if another thread on the same subject starts, I'll probably haul that scenario out again. (this isn't really a thread on the subject; it's a thread on what's wrong with threads on the subject.)

[Archer17]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

I stand by the scenario I posted in the other thread, and if anyone wants to prove to me otherwise, they must explain the motivations in the alternate scenario where I ask for them. (did anyone actually read the alternate scenario? I thought I summed it up pretty well, but it was so close to the end of the thread that I'm not sure anyone caught it.)

if another thread on the same subject starts, I'll probably haul that scenario out again. (this isn't really a thread on the subject; it's a thread on what's wrong with threads on the subject.)

I've been away for a bit and only read the last post (BA's locking) .. what scenario?

Edited to add: Never mind. I read it. .. I'll leave it at that. :wink:

[A.DIM]

Most of you missed entirely the point of that thread...

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Recently in conversation, "The Face" was brought up.
Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't recall the "catbox" fiasco ever being discussed around here.

And so...
NASA vs. Artificial Structures on the Surface of Mars.

To me, this is a well reasoned argument for why "the face" issue persists.

I find myself frustrated upon hearing someone say matter-of-factly "it is just a hill with tricks of light and shadow coupled with pareidolia" or some other such.

Now, while I allow the ETH and consider it plausible that beings once inhabited Mars, in no way do I consider it proven.

So is it wrong to agree, as concluded in the article, that the question is yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years?

"For the time being, the conclusion must be that the basic question of whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered. Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered. NASA's irrational, even bizarre behavior in this matter, which runs counter to the most basic scientific principle that conclusions are drawn based on examination of the evidence, not on a priori beliefs, could simply be motivated by a desire to "save face" (pun intended) after firmly and repeatedly committing itself to a premature dismissal of the formation as natural in 1976. However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public."

...the point being that NASA's own behavior has helped perpetuate the conspiracies.

Only ToSeek acknowledged this.
Perhaps my OP should've been more like his summary and without Fleming's inflammatory "conclusion."

I didn't start that thread to offer evidence of artificiality(I have none), "prove" something (i don't think the issue can be resolved through images), or slander NASA as many of you thought.



And so now on with this thread...

[A.DIM]

Originally Posted by algorithms

Perhaps folks should take a look at the remote sensing work used in terrestrial archaeology for some ideas here. Both satellite imagery and aerial photography are used by archaeologists in their search for evidence of past human settlements. Here is an interesting piece on the subject:

GIS TECHNIQUES, REMOTE SENSING AND MULTIVARIATE MODELS IN ASSESSING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

What I gather from looking at this and other materials on the subject is that you can't simply rely upon the shape of an object in order to identify it as a potential archaeological resource. There are other important variables that must be considered in order to narrow down the candidates. That's because symmetry and regular geometric shape is a common occurrence in natural geology. In fact, these materials suggest that its an entirely useless pursuit of time to simply peruse satellite images in search of archaeology. One must know something about the geology and geophysical history of a location in order to know where to look and what to look for.

I agree, the remote sensing techniques are a good place to start in establishing what comprises artificiality.
Are there any such examinations of Cydonia that have shown the area to be entirely natural?

[Fram]

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Most of you missed entirely the point of that thread...

...the point being that NASA's own behavior has helped perpetuate the conspiracies.

Only ToSeek acknowledged this.
Perhaps my OP should've been more like his summary and without Fleming's inflammatory "conclusion."

I didn't start that thread to offer evidence of artificiality(I have none), "prove" something (i don't think the issue can be resolved through images), or slander NASA as many of you thought.



And so now on with this thread...

First it is a 'well reasoned argument', now it is a inflammatory "conclusion' (why the quotes?) and your intention wasn't to slander NASA... Right.
And I don't recall ToSeek saying that NASA's behaviour helped perpetuate the conspiracy. I don't think they needed any help anyway. ToSeek acknowledged that NASA probably has made mistakes and misjudgments with the release of the first processed image. He wasn't the only one to say so (I did as well).

And once again, you asked two questions in the OP of the other thread;

Originally Posted by A.DIM

So is it wrong to agree, as concluded in the article, that the question is yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years?

The part about 'the question is yet unanswered' has everything to do with artificiality and nothing with NASA. The second part has a bit to do with the catbox face (four hours, until the release of the better image), and much with slandering NASA (the rest of those 'many years').

[Fram]

Originally Posted by A.DIM

I agree, the remote sensing techniques are a good place to start in establishing what comprises artificiality.
Are there any such examinations of Cydonia that have shown the area to be entirely natural?

Shifting the burden of proof, A.DIM?