Mars Odyssey's website

Mars Global Surveyor's website

TES Website

MOC Website

Mars Express Website

Mars Rovers

I could keep going if you like....

__________________
"The bread's hollowed out --- the veggies go on forever --- and --- oh my God! --- it's full of meat!" - Maksutov

Thank You. I know some of those.

__________________
Round...everything is always round!

You really need to do honest, openminded research into the Mars Anomaly sites BEFORE ridiculing them... I cannot understand how most scientists equate human intelligence with dogmatic skepticism...it continues to amaze me...many former skeptical scientists have discovered after thorough research, that these claims, along with many other extraordinary claims are, IN FACT true... do any of you have the guts, the real courage to find out for yourself and not fear ridicule by colleagues???

I honestly and openly have come to the gutsy and courageous conclusion (all by myself, thinking with my own mind) that this Mars anomaly stuff is nonsense. Fear of ridicule was not a deciding factor in forming my conclusion. Looking at the evidence, and the application of solid critical thinking, ranked right up there, however.

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

Yes, but just how "open minded" do we have to be?? If it's painfully obvious (from the beginning) that someone (lets say Hoagland) doesn't know what he is talking about, then what is to be accomplished by further investigation?

Do you believe that to be a valid characterization of "most scientists"?

Can you provide the names of these scientists?

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

Yes, here is one...Dr. J. Allen Hynek.
Also Stanton Friedman a nuclear physicist.
Perhaps you heard of the late Dr. John Mack, Harvard professor of psychiatry...
There ARE more...

Heh. Dr. Hynek seems to be the only one with anything resembling relevent experience. Got any PhDs in Dentistry in there? I might believe them...

You consider Stanton Friedman a "former skeptical scientist"? He gave a lecture "Flying saucers are real" as early as 1968. He was a believer, not a skeptic, and thus probably quite easy to convince.
John Mack was a believer in UFO's (alien abductions, no less) as well. Hardly the signs of a sceptic convinced by a thorough research of the Mars Anomaly claims.
And J Allen Hynek was one of the best known early UFO defenders as well (starting at least in the 1950's). He was a former skeptic wrt UFO's, but was convinced that they were real decades before the Mars anomalies discussion.

A strange bunch of former skeptical scientists, Reticuli, so perhaps you are willing to try again and give us the names of some truly skeptical scientists wrt Mars anomalies that became convinced after a thorough research? Preferably with some relevant scientific knowledge of course...

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Dr Hynek died in 1986, and so did not get to see any of the more recent Mars data. Additionally, he did not regard the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis as the only, or even the best solution to the question of UFO's;
In 1975 (according to Wikipedia)

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

This is concerning the scientists studying UFO's, etc... I have given you three names however I'll try to get more... that won't be hard , I know thy are out there!!!
I do think it's wonderful that you here are at least entertaining the possibility!!!
I can remember a name of a Dr. Bruce Macabee, I think he is a PHD, an optical physicist.
Remember, it may be true that some scientists do, for whatever reason, feel the UFO phenomenon is real, don't you feel that their preconceived ideas on this are similar to the skeptics? Although at the opposite end of the spectrum don't the skeptics (not all, of course) have their own preconceived ideas on the topic?

the UFO phenomenon

I have the feeling that the acronum UFO is thrown about too much. Any object that is in the sky and not about to be identified by the observer is a UFO, that doesn't mean that every, or any UFO is an alien spacecraft. How about we refer to them as ETOs or Extraterrestorial Transportation Object, just as Aliens are now called EBEs (Extraterrestial Biological Enities.) This way we can differenciate between a Flying Object with has not been identified and an Object believed to be of Extraterrestial origin.

__________________
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

Of course sceptics will have preconceived ideas, and that is why having examples of some of those that in spite of their ideas became convinced after a study of the Mars Anomalies would be interesting (as I would like to know what it was that convinced them).
You claimed that there were such sceptical scientists that became convinced that the Mars Anomalies were real anomalies (not just natural phenomenons or JPEG artifacts). Now, the first three names you gave were not sceptical, they were long time UFO believers. The one you give now (Bruce Maccabee) is a UFO researcher since the late 1960's as well and co-author of "Ufo's are real, here's the proof". Again, not someone I would call a sceptic.
So take your time and please come up with some scientists that fit your description...

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Hey!
I have several organizations I'm going to list here that are for serious study of the UFO (ETO) phenomenon...Thanks for the ETO recommendation Phantomwolf!
But first, the late Dr John Mack, IF you check it out, was a skeptic at first, read his book Abduction.
Dr Hynek also was a former skeptic, but due to overwhelming evidence changed his mind.
Stanton Friedman, despite knowing this is a very real phenomenon is nonetheless a very competent man with a great deal of knowledge and information, if anyone would only be willing to listen...
There was also a B.H. Downing, Ph.D, Professor Raymond Leonard, plus so many more it would be easier if you researched this for yourselves...
The following are just a few links to some serious UFO studies...

CSETI, at...http://www.cseti.org/

Florida UFO Network

Fund for UFO Research, at... http://www.fufor.com (this particular site is VERY conservative)

UFO Research Coalition UFO- The Scientific Examination of a Mystery,at...http://www.ufoscience.org/research-coalition.html

CUFOS, at...http://www.cufos.org/index.html

Organization for SETV Research at... http://www.setv.org

NARCAP,National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomenon


N.C. More, I have been meaning to ask you what research you performed in regards to Mars Anomalies???

And Fram, I will search specifically for the Mars Anomaly skeptic-turned nonskeptic shortly...
But honestly, please do check on the three first names.. I KNOW Dr. Mack was a skeptic, however we cannot quote them here.
Also I KNOW Dr. Hynek WAS a skeptic also...

Kindest regards and prosperous investigating,
Me

Hi Fram and the others on this thread... I found more info. however, wether the mars anomaly scientists were previous skeptics I can't say...
Here are some amazing sites and hih level scientists on mars...

SPSR
The Society for Planetary SETI Research
http://spsr.utsi.edu/

Society for Scientific Exploration
http://www.scientificexploration.org/

Science Frontiers
http://www.science-frontiers.com/


Also I found a Journal of Scientific Exploration at Stanford University

And a few notable names:
Dr. Brian O'Leary, Ph.D Astronomy (with SPSR)
Prof. Stanley McDaniel
Tom VanFlandern Ph.D (former JPL)
Dr. Alexey Arkipov, Senior Scientist at Inst. of Radio Astronomy
Dr. Horace Crater, Ph.D Yale

"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein

None of the names you gave were sceptic about UFO's / aliens when they started studying the Mars Anomalies and became convinced that they are real (assuming that those people really studied the Mars Anomalies and really came to that conclusion).
I haven't checked all the names you gave in your last post, seeing Tom VanFlandern as a sceptic was more than enough...

But anyway, I'ld rather discuss the arguments for and against the Mars Anomalies than which authorities agree or disagree. Of course, if you can find the arguments some of those people do give for believing in the reality of the Mars Anomalies, then please give them (but perhaps check first if they haven't been discussed to death on this board yet).

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Reticuli, I have noted that it's always the same short list of scientists who "believe." Certainly you can't be suggesting that all of the rest who don't "believe" aren't capable of making a sound judgement for themselves?

I don't actually think that's what you mean, certainly. But it is very interesting that it's always the same people.

__________________
Rest enough for the individual man -- too much, and too soon -- and we call it death. But for Man, no rest and no ending. He must go on, conquest beyond conquest. First this little planet with its winds and ways, and then all the laws of mind and matter that restrain him. Then the planets about him and at last out across immensity to the stars. And when he has conquered all the deeps of space and all the mysteries of time, still he will be beginning.

Hello!
I certainly do NOT mean to imply that the names I listed were the only ones doing serious research into the Mars Anomalies, nor did I imply that only they were capable of making sound judgements for themselves, please accept my apologies if it came across like that...
I'm simply hoping that many more scientists take a hard look at all the evidence from other scientists...
So many times over centuries, something that seemed absurd turned out to be very real...
If you have done alot of in depth research into this, serious unbiased research, and conclude that this is all nonsense then that is okay, I do respect everyone's judgement... I might not agree with it but I DO respect it...

I have been meaning to ask a question here...
Does anyone suspect that NASA is tampering with the Rover images??? If not, why not, and if so, why?

Kindest regards,
Me

Hi Fram...
PLEASE don't let one researcher which is questionable to you deter you from a truly unbiased scientific investigation... Because in every area of study, the more true, honest and openminded scientists ( I suspect there are indeed alot in this forum) is just what these organizations need, and also what the topic itself needs...
We owe it to science to be thorough in our investigations, don't we???
Take Care,
Me

No, you didn't. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were anything but on the up-and-up about this.

It's a reflex of sorts, with me - hearing those same few names far too many times, really. The obverse of that usually being that all others who have decided that there is nothing there to investigate must be deficient somehow.

I am always hearing the same list of names in reference to this topic, and was curious why that is. If these anomolous sites are truly so compelling, why aren't there more people willing to speak out?

__________________
Rest enough for the individual man -- too much, and too soon -- and we call it death. But for Man, no rest and no ending. He must go on, conquest beyond conquest. First this little planet with its winds and ways, and then all the laws of mind and matter that restrain him. Then the planets about him and at last out across immensity to the stars. And when he has conquered all the deeps of space and all the mysteries of time, still he will be beginning.

Hi Draconis,
Each one of us who truly cares should take up the "mantel" as it were...
If we can get one scientist at a time to just take a serious look at the evidence...
Who knows?
Take care,
Me

True, true. I figured you seemed to be much more "in the know" in the subject matter than I am, and might have a thought or two.

I find the overwhelming hopeful attitude of "believers" to be a good thing, refreshing even - and their frequent inability to accept sensible scientific thought maddening as hell.

Perhaps many researchers are just plain not willing to accept the opprobrium they'd receive if they said, "hmmm...there may be something to this" Then again, perhaps not.

__________________
Rest enough for the individual man -- too much, and too soon -- and we call it death. But for Man, no rest and no ending. He must go on, conquest beyond conquest. First this little planet with its winds and ways, and then all the laws of mind and matter that restrain him. Then the planets about him and at last out across immensity to the stars. And when he has conquered all the deeps of space and all the mysteries of time, still he will be beginning.

Not in the sense I expect you mean.

I fully expect that NASA is, say, balancing the lighting or colour or whatever, just as professional photographers do before they release pictures. Certainly I think it reasonable that they'd only--as with Apollo--emphasize the really good pictures.

However, no, I don't think they're "tampering" with the images. I think that the whole purpose of the Rovers, aside from that pesky "scientific discovery" thing, is to show people the wonder of visiting, well, a strange new world. If there were, in fact, anything in those images that was proof of life--even what the layman would consider boring life, like plants--their funding level would pretty certainly shoot up. Since all they're showing is pictures of rocks, I find it a pretty safe assumption that rocks are all there is to see.

__________________
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!"

I have been meaning to ask a question here...
Does anyone suspect that NASA is tampering with the Rover images??? If not, why not, and if so, why?

I'd have to agree with Gillianren, it really depends on what you mean by tampering. As soon as you take 3 images and colour match and combine them to produce a quasi-real colour image, you are tampering with the images. When you lighten an underexposed image by pushing it, you are tampering with an image. If you mean that they have been removing things from images, then no I don't think they have. Those that generall claim such things don't tend to understand how the images are produced and what problems can occur due to over-exposure bleeding and frame drop outs. Added to that that most of the so called "anomalies" in the images are pure speculation about what this looks like, then ignoring anything similar in other images. I think that NASA is doing things right, you don't start jumping up and down until you have proof, and an odd shaped rock isn't proof no matter how desperately you wish it to be so.

As an example, the photo below has been "Tampered" with. The original exposure is too dark to see any detail in the shadows, including the bridge, so I pushed that part of it and left the sky and mountain at the original exposure level so they didn't get washed out. That classes as tampering, but it's still an honest representation of what was seen. This is exactly what I suspect NASA does.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
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

Flatly, NO. All images are processed. They must be. This is data being recorded by digital cameras, sent millions of miles, received, collected, and images formed from the data. A similar process happens when you load images from your digital camera onto your home computer.

But tampered with? No. I've heard no credible reason for it and seen no credible evidence for it.

Let's reverse the question. Do you think the rover images are being tampered with? If so, why?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

That kind of journals and magazines are not very trustworthy. I remember an article in the Journal of Scientific Exploration about the Apollo 16 UFO. The author made a thorough work just to conclude: "We believe that the object is a huge extraterrestrial artifact. (...) this is the only hypothesis that is consistent with the data."
Thorough but pointless work, indeed, because just a check up on the original source of the video or asking NASA about it would have helped to solve the "anomaly". See here and here.
I have not seen any rectification in the later numbers of the journal. Maybe I missed it.

Also, the other topics they usually talk about in these journals (reincarnation, telepathy, bigfoot, ESP, Cydonia, etc.) gives an idea of their scientific level, much closer, I think, to Hoagland than to science.

__________________
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World.

That's a lovely picture, Phantom Wolf.

__________________
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!"

Just me...

With all the links I listed above, there really are very good ones, FUFOR seems to be very conservative...
Is there anyone willing to give some of these sites a chance?
eburacum45, Dr. Hynek WAS a skeptic turned knower. I say Knower as opposed to believer for obvious reasons...

Alberto, who said telepathy dosen't exist? Or the continuation of our bodies' energy, if you will, after the body dies? I have witnessed too many things to deny their existence...

Yes, nice photo Phantom Wolf!

And Van -Rijn, I think your little quote is very cute about invisible elves, and it may be true, however with real UFO's, and mars anomalies, the evidence has always been there and is not invisible, if only we would peel away the layers of coverups and image tampering...

Has anyone seen the Brazilian ufo film footage taken with several cameras at the same time over several days in the daytime, and there were thousands of eyewitnesses...? It is very true that, with all the evidence we have for the reality of the existence of Ufo's, meaning the alien visitors type, that evidence would be more than enough to convict a man, if not thousands of men, and sentence them.
Also, Van-Rijn, that you were curious as to why I think NASA is tampering with the rover images? I should rephrase my statement... in saying that the images are being tampered with, somewhere between the rovers sending back the data to NASA, and the images allowed for public viewing. Now that could mean the photos are tampered between NASA and the release for public viewing, but wether by NASA itself or another part of government working alongside NASA is the question. I do agree that if evidence of Martian life were made public, funding for them would increase... however then the proverbial "pandoras box" would open, with more pressure on the governments to "come clean" about the UFO coverups. What, the government lie???
Best regards,
Me

What is your evidence of image tampering?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Yes, Van Rijn,
sorry for not mentioning why I know the tampering... I've been trying to find out how to put photos from the NASA site on this board, hopefully will do that soon...
If I could present the photos for you to see, you would find that there are certain areas that even my 7 year old niece would be able to spot, the areas being blurred, smudged, parts "cut out", etc. It's all there and I look foward to showing you the photos in question as I'd like to hear your opinion...
Kind regards,
Me

You could just link to it.

Like this: Armstrong

__________________
Join the Illuminati