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?

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by A.DIM

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

Only ToSeek acknowledged this.

Hmmm....from the catbox thread...

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

I concede that NASA has made "mistakes"...what I don't concede is that there is any evidence of a "cover-up".

So are you now saying that NASA was not involved in a "coverup"??

Why would you post links to people who have the opinion that there was a "coverup" if that's not your opinion??

[Nereid]

Let's not get distracted from 'the main game'.

From 'that other thread' (p14, 9 Aug):

Originally Posted by A.DIM

So I emailed Fleming regarding our "discussion" here and he pointed out that what I've stated is as much as he would himself. There was no intent on "proving" artificiality in his articles or in this thread, only to point out NASA's behavior on this issue.

And so, to bring this full circle, I still concur with him that this issue is as yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly on this issue, which, as stated in the OP, has only fueled the artificiality hypothesis and conspiracy theories.

However, here's an extract from A.DIM's OP, repeated here in this thread (my bold): ""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.""

From our discussion, here and in 'that thread', the conclusion must be that the 'artificiality hypothesis' remains unanswerable. It's got nothing to do with what NASA did (release all the scientific data, per their normal release schedules) or didn't do, and everything to do with a vague, untestable idea, essentially devoid of any meaningful content.

[Christopher Ferro]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Hmmm....from the catbox thread...

So are you now saying that NASA was not involved in a "coverup"??

Why would you post links to people who have the opinion that there was a "coverup" if that's not your opinion??

You know, this reminds me of ol' Jerry's method of posting. On the one hand, you say how hard working NASA and scientists are, and that of course they aren't covering anything up.. they are just inept. THEN you go one and post quotes or drop innuendos that say there must be a cover up.

I had a brief encounter with either Hoagland or one of his "colleagues" about the old and new face images when MSSS released the higher resolution images.

It was amusing (and frustrating) that someone claiming to be an expert image analyst was telling me (a remote sensing graduate student) there were artificial structures BELOW THE LIMIT of spatial detection of the sensor! He was enlarging the image up to 1000X or more, in Photoshop (using its default display resampler), and claiming the artifacts were actual imaged objects, showing regualr and artificial structures.

It amazes me, now that I've been an image analyst/remote sensing professional for 6 years that these claims are STILL BEING MADE.

You can't image objects below the sensor's scale of collection. If you have a sensor that can collect data at 2 meters per pixel, you can't image objects under 2 meters in size! You MIGHT be able to image long highly constrasted objects less than the scale of collection (sometimes called the instantaneous field of view or IFOV), but only in the long dimension. If I wrote my name in 1 meter high letters and used a 2 meter IFOV sensor, The most you would see are some indistinct blobs. If you zoomed in past 100%, guess what you would see? BIGGER LOOKING indistinct blobs.

I'd post some examples if I had the time, but I don't. I hope my explaination is clear enough.

CJSF

[algorithms]

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?

Your question is off-topic. The purpose of this thread is to have you and Outcast specify what criteria must be met in order to advance the assertion that the so-called "face" and other martian landforms are artificial rather than natural. In stating this criteria, I need you to state the body of science that supports your contention that such criteria for "artificiality" are valid. You refuse to do this. If you continue to refuse to do so, I will ask Mr. Plait to ban you from this forum. Please stay on topic.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by algorithms

The purpose of this thread is to have you and Outcast specify what criteria must be met in order to advance the assertion that the so-called "face" and other martian landforms are artificial rather than natural.

You are of course correct...my last post was also "off topic"...sorry about that. ops:

[A.DIM]

Man, you guys are quick to the draw... heh .... my posts, magnetic.

Originally Posted by Fram

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.

Right. The argument itself still seems reasonable, regardless of Fleming's inflammatory (eg. "bizarre, dogmatic, significant evidence") conclusion.
"Conclusion" in quotes because there are as reasonable arguments to the contrary. His wasn't meant as the final say.

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).

I'm sorry then, I missed that.

Originally Posted by ToSeek

I think an argument can be made that NASA has handled the "Face" situation badly:

- Saying that there were other photos when there weren't
- Providing an extremely low quality image from MGS early on (though I blame the Face proponents for this as well)
- Claiming before MGS that all attempts to image Cydonia would be announced in advance and then not following through
- Claiming (at one point) that there was a high-resolution image and anaglyph of the Face on the web several weeks before it was actually posted

However, I think this is more due to NASA personnel not taking the Face at all seriously (and in some cases resenting the interest it was receiving) rather than a cover-up or anything else nefarious.

This was a much more balanced consideration of the intended topic.
Though if these mistakes were made merely because personel didn't take it seriously, I can hardly agree that objectivity has been employed, and such behavior might well be considered bizarre and dogmatic, considering how science works.

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

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').

OK, and I still say the question of artificiality is yet unanswered, and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding "the face."
IMHO, of course.

[A.DIM]

Originally Posted by Fram

Shifting the burden of proof, A.DIM?

No, asking a simple question.

Are you ignoring my words above that "I have none" regarding evidence of artificiality so as to employ this stock retort?

[A.DIM]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Hmmm....from the catbox thread...

So are you now saying that NASA was not involved in a "coverup"??

Why would you post links to people who have the opinion that there was a "coverup" if that's not your opinion??

Did I ever say NASA was involved in a "coverup," RAF?
No, Fleming did.

I regret linking to his article now, I assure you. I'd have much rather stated my OP as clearly and concisely as ToSeek while maintaining my impression of peculiar behavior and an unresolved artificiality hypothesis.

[A.DIM]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Let's not get distracted from 'the main game'.

From 'that other thread' (p14, 9 Aug):

However, here's an extract from A.DIM's OP, repeated here in this thread (my bold): ""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.""

From our discussion, here and in 'that thread', the conclusion must be that the 'artificiality hypothesis' remains unanswerable. It's got nothing to do with what NASA did (release all the scientific data, per their normal release schedules) or didn't do, and everything to do with a vague, untestable idea, essentially devoid of any meaningful content.

So let's get back on topic here and try to establish what would constitutes artificiality, eh?
You consider the question "unanswerable?"

[algorithms]

Mr. A.DIM: If you don't honor the topic of this thread, I will request that you be banned from this forum. Now, please, I need you to state your evidence-based criteria for determining that a landform on Mars is "artificial" rather than natural.

[Christopher Ferro]

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Did I ever say NASA was involved in a "coverup," RAF?
No, Fleming did.

I regret linking to his article now, I assure you. I'd have much rather stated my OP as clearly and concisely as ToSeek while maintaining my impression of peculiar behavior and an unresolved artificiality hypothesis.

Am I the only one who thinks that makes no sense? I agree with R.A.F., why post it then? Also, you can't drop phrases like "peculiar behavior" and then not say WHY you think it's peculiar. HOW is it peculiar? What does that peculiarity mean to YOU? You seem to be casting doubt on NASA's honesty or forthrightness, but then claiming you're not.

CJSF

[A.DIM]

Originally Posted by algorithms

Your question is off-topic. The purpose of this thread is to have you and Outcast specify what criteria must be met in order to advance the assertion that the so-called "face" and other martian landforms are artificial rather than natural. In stating this criteria, I need you to state the body of science that supports your contention that such criteria for "artificiality" are valid. You refuse to do this. If you continue to refuse to do so, I will ask Mr. Plait to ban you from this forum. Please stay on topic.

Fine, as I've said, I have no evidence for it. Never claimed I did.

When I profered Erjavec's geomorphology study it was summarily dismissed or ignored. Carlotto is dimissed. I imagine DiPietro and Molenarr would be dismissed. Erol Torun too.
And it appears now that even refereed journals like JBIS are unreliable.

All I have is my opinion, and if that is enough for you to request my banning, so be it.

I'm finished here.