Ok
Mental state may be a bit far, but remember the types of folkes who come on here thinking they saw with certainty Marvin the Martian

Lack of scientific Understanding is real and important.
Very important.
I have a lack of scientific understanding too.
I'm working on it.
I imagine that at some point past 90 years old I may get somewhere... its a shame I can't live a few hundred years though. Maybe then I might achieve something truly noble with it.

There is not one thing wrong with admitting to ignorance.
I'm totally ignorant about floral arrangement.
But if I started telling a florest that her arrangement makes no sense - Then I need to admit my ignorance first- NOT deny it. Then study into afloral arrangement. So that I have a leg to stand on
Galileo was a true scientist. He wasn't locked in his house by true scientists. He was locked up and punished based on political powers and greed and other reasons that are best not discussed on this board.

JayUtah ask

It is possible to hypothesize that you misinterpreted the photograph without also necessarily suggesting that you are mentally ill or deluded for having done it.

If a person who was mentally ill or deluded may not be aware of his state. When you find yourself seeing things that other people should see I think you would wonder yourself. I guess it is possible. I hope so anyway.

My interpretation was not based on false color.

Hogwash. You said it was "discolored." You specifically claimed the coloration was unexpected. If discoloration is indeed part of your opinion, you need to provide evidence that appropriate coloration can be judged in a false-color photo. Are you saying you were mistaken in claiming that the feature in question was "discolored?"

The anomalies show up just fine in grayscale.

What "anomaly?" The only evidence you have given that this photo represents something extraordinary is your supposition. You may not beg the question of anomaly and then attempt to show that it's somehow NASA's fault for not acting to preclude your supposition.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

So that is your estimation?

My question was directed at all readers, actually... I think maybe a good solid measurement on how far it is could be important.

The purpose of answering the questions is to help you see what evidence and support for your claims exist.

You have in front of you a lot of people here posting that want to HELP you not insult nor berate you.
They want to help you to learn and understand something that you admit you are having trouble understanding.
It isn't a cover up-plot or disinformation. Just regular people haveing a discussion.

i don't think you seem abnormal or mentally ill, in response to your last post. Just that you are in a kind of denial.
You are not accepting the facts. You are not accepting logic.

You are also denying evidence that exists. Denying reasonable explanations because you WANT it to be something else.

Having someone point that out to you is a good thing.

Im not so good at it myself. I need someone to point out my flaws or I will ignore them. I need management or I'm going to think Im right and everone else is wrong. But Im not always right.
So if I, of all people, can try to do it...

Jason Thompson ask.

What was the temperature doing at that time? in short, can you show us that the experts whose job it is to actually study the stuff coming back from the rovers had any reason to believe there might have been liquid water there, beyond what your eyes tell you?

No, Nasa does not release a lot of temperature data. When the do it is a doozy.


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/20070612.html

No, Nasa does not release a lot of temperature data.

What makes you say that? What have you done to look for it?

NASA's supposed stinginess with data is a recurring theme in your post, despite others' ability quickly to locate it. I'll ask again. Is your distrust of NASA prejudiced or from experience?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

What is your objective evidence that what is in the bottom of the trench is water?

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

Dfrank, while you are madly answering questions..
I have a personal one for you.

Let's say that you are, in fact, right.

That the picture shows a standing pool of water.
We will need to accept that it must be purely a temporary effect caused by a strange and bizarre moment of atmospheric and temperature irregularity for the Martian environment. We must because we know the science behind this and that a standing pool on Mars would evaporate very quickly in the thin atmosphere.

What does this signify to you?
What does it mean to you?
What about this startling revelation would make your heart beat faster?
What are the implications of it?

So you believe that mission scientists saw the "water" but chose to ignore it, and all of this is based on your interpretation of a photograph?

Humble fellow aren't ya.

And now the obligatory comparison to Galileo.

Difference is, Galileo was a scientist.

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

Neverfly,

You seem sincere. You made a comment that you want to live to be a hundred. Let’s just say I am getting on in years.

Knowledge can be a pain in the rear. When you study the universe you will start to see patterns and all of a sudden you get the big picture. Everything is what it is due to, Temperature, pressure and time. From a water eruption on Mars to the different levels of the sun.

I think there comes a point when you get an understanding that it is just a bunch of processes, matter moving from one state to another trying to reach equilibrium. You can really see it in your mind. It can be a little overwhelming

Dfrank

Looks like we're getting very close to Godwin time.

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

If a person who was mentally ill or deluded may not be aware of his state.
When you find yourself seeing things that other people should see I think you would wonder yourself.

I want to be very clear on this point.

In your second post you said
No one had accused you of any mental illness or deficiency, nor has anyone subsequently. English appears not to be your native language, so I want to make sure we understand one another clearly. Conspiracy theorists whose interpretations are questioned sometimes respond to the questions with indignance and say their sanity is being questioned instead of their interpretation. This is to try to portray their critics as irrationally dismissive or hurtful.

And I want to make very sure that you're not accusing anyone here of any sort of mental deficiency for not accepting your interpretation of the photo. It sounds as if you are, but that may simply be a difference in language.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I think there comes a point when you get an understanding that it is just a bunch of processes, matter moving from one state to another trying to reach equilibrium. You can really see it in your mind.

I reached that point a long time ago. I'm a professional engineer, and thermal design is one of the things I must occasionally do.

It can be a little overwhelming

Only if you don't understand how it works.

It's clear you don't have any evidence for what the temperature of anything was in this photo, so you don't have any evidence that it was in the narrow range that would have allowed liquid water at that time and place. So why are you still saying your interpretation must necessarily be plausible?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Maksutove,

Looks like we're getting very close to Godwin time

Please explain

Dfrank

I made that statement based solely on the idea of gathering knowledge.
Because I can be a bit slow
But I'm perfectly happy with the thought of only living to say 60. After that I will be ugly and noone will like me because I will be much grumpier than I am now. Maybe when Im sixty I will see this differently.

WOW look at all the people comming out of the woodwork when their name is mentioned. Without seeing them post- I had no idea that folks actually read this stuff!.
Im going to blindly call out names every so often from now on and see who responds

MARCO!

Sincere? I'm approaching you from a different angle that is true. Im giving you the benefit of the doubt in spite of your posts. Many have learned to be cautious and some, like JayUtah, seem to be able to spot hogwash from 300 meters off without a scope.
Im not that experienced or wise yet.

I'm hoping that in approaching the way I do that you will have your defenses down and therefor be more open to reason.

But don't be misled either. Your statements don't hold water and Im not buyin' it.

Drop the "e", please.

If you also think we're getting close, what's there to explain?

But, most importantly, what is your objective evidence that what is in the bottom of the trench is water?

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

Serenitude,

And, as a warning, please take the time to travel to the "AboutBAUT" forum, and brush up on our ad-hom, civility, and decorum rules. The next time you call a forum member "little man" in such a manner, it won't be a freindly warning

The term little man was used to describe how NASA looks at the regular guy, not a poster.

References to my mental state...

None were made. But you seem to want them to have been. Currying sympathy doesn't work here. People disputed your interpretation saying only that you might be mistaken, not crazy.

...and the lack of my scientific understanding I did not expect.

When your argument requires you to be a layman, you're a layman. When your argument requires you to be an expert, you're an expert. You say NASA has an obligation to "regular guys" like yourself, then you tell us that your superior knowledge is such a burden to you. Please pick one and stay with it.

Your argument is simply not scientific in any way. Since this is a science-oriented forum, your argument will be tested for its scientific merit. "Common sense" and handwaving claims about being an "atmospheric type guy" do not satisfy scientifically your claim that the feature in question is liquid water that NASA should have investigated -- even if only to placate the "regular guys."

They locked Galileo in his house.

And when you can prove your claims to the same extent Galileo proved his, you can complain about being likewise mistreated. Until then, you're being held appropriately accountable for your statements.

Nice wig.

Thank you.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

The term little man was used to describe how NASA looks at the regular guy, not a poster.

I think we figured out your meaning on our own. But you have presented no evidence that this is NASA's attitude, except for your own supposition.

Again, you seem very heavily prejudiced against NASA. Might that type of prejudice be a more proximal generator of conspiracy theories that NASA's supposed misfeasance?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Just chiming in because this conversation reminded me of somthing I read that was neat and kinda relavant! (I hope)

But key to note was this quote :
"The atmosphere of Mars is so thin and the temperature so cold that liquid water cannot persist at the surface. "

Here is the source linkie :

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ma...-20061206.html

(Either way I found it interesting )

__________________
Mission Control : "Please don't kick the robot Bill. "

Looks like we're getting very close to Godwin time
Please explain

First, please take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with how to quote another's post in a way that identifies it as a quotation. It's appropriate for you to provide context for your response, but it's not clear to everyone what was the original post and what was your answer.

Godwin's Law refers to the nature of debates such as this, where certain specific arguments and references are commonly brought to bear. Almost every pseudoscience proponent compares himself to Galileo or Einstein or Edison or some other prominent figure in the history of science who was allegedly persecuted for his proposals. And as the debate shifts away from the scientific principles at hand and more toward the belief in authoritarian oppression (which, more often than not, is the real motivating force behind a conspiracy theory), the comparison eventually culminates in comparing one's critics to Nazi Germany, which serves rhetorically as the epitome of the dangers of authoritarianism.

The statement is meant to imply that you're behaving exactly like the stereotypical conspiracy theorist.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

JayUtah

When were you elected to speak on behalf of the American people? What makes you think your interpretation is shared by anyone besides you? Aren't you the one asking us to follow along your interpretation of this photo with no better evidence than your profession that your layman's intuition is sufficient? Doesn't that make you the Pied piper?

The field of ignorant speculation is wide open. Why does your particular selection deserve any more attention that anyone else's uninformed speculation?

I was not elected.
I have talked to a few that saw several water anomalies at the Opportunity site.
In this thread it was the decision to drive away. I guess anyone who makes a claim wants you to follow along, and yes that would make me the piper.

Uninformed speculation would be your opinion. And yes we all have them.

Here's some more Martian Temperature data. A different mission, but data nevertheless.

BTW, search time - 10 seconds

and yet some more http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/science/weather.html

To be honest, I've always been rotten at following the so called pied piper myself. It's why when curious I've often listened to the current theories and then gone to look up the known facts (recorded data, documented evidence, etc.) and make up my own mind.

__________________
Mission Control : "Please don't kick the robot Bill. "

JayUtah

Thanks for the explanation on Godwin. It would appear he is up on the human reactionary process.

I would never accuse you of being a Nazi or such. You are doing no less than you believe. I was unable to get you to see my point that’s all.

I will do some reading and practice the quoting system.

Dfrank

Dfrank, what is your objective evidence that what is in the bottom of the trench is water?

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

I would never accuse you of being a Nazi or such.

That's comforting. Now when you can see why you are not remotely comparable to Galileo, your avoidance of Godwin's prediction will be surer.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

jrKeller,

What is your point with the Pathfinder data.

Yikes I posted a duplicate link! Sorry!

__________________
Mission Control : "Please don't kick the robot Bill. "