...should we take a time out and let me try and fiquire this out?

No, we shouldn't. It seems you've been concealing the real reason behind your distrust of NASA: your uninformed belief that they are being inappropriately influenced by religion. So if that's the real reason, then all of this triple-point and climatology discussion is just a smokescreen.

You said you wanted to discuss the reasons why conspiracy theories form. At long last, in this case, you say that NASA acts strangely because of a religious influence you can't show any evidence for. Isn't people making claims they can't prove the real force behind conspiracy theories? Hasn't your question been answered?

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

JayUtah,

You statement is true there is no proof just years of seeing the influence of the church in politics. The Viking data reversal, The change in mission statement form looking for lifeon Mars to if Mars has ever been favorable for sustaining microbial life.

I believe you are a knowledgeable fair person JayUtah. I have no proof, just a belief.

Dfrank

belief founded in fancy and fantasy.

Viking data reversal?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986Icar...66...39T

This is woo woo speculation.

Fancy and fantasy is an openion.

Yeah and we covered how much an opinion is worth right?

Sorry Neverfly,

Harvard is the same guys who posted the liquid water map projections based on ambient air temp. I can not in good conscience believe anything they say.

Dfrank

Poisoning the well again? Fine, but in order to get away with it you'll have to prove Harvard can't be trusted, or has a general tendency of being untrustworthy.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

ok give me a minute

So you don't "like" what they have to say, so you have "chosen" not to believe them.

Would you call that an example of objective reasoning??

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

Like I said earlier, denying the evidence as it slaps him in the face.
I officially give up on this thread. I tried being nice, supportive and encouraging.

Oh well...

It worked on Niin.

One out of 100 isn't so bad right?

NASA is a group of individuals, which you seem to be criticizing because none of them shared your opinion that the wind-blown sand "looks like" water (if you want to get sarcastic with me, I'll add it "looks like" water that lacks specular reflections characteristic of sunlight, and mirrored reflections of the environment).

Again, you can't defend yourself by saying it is just your personal opinion, then criticize NASA because no one in control of the mission shared your opinion.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Neverfly,

Give me a chance. I found the Map now I am trying to find a link that you do not need to pay to see. I can prove this point. I may not ever be able to prove another but I can this.

Dfrank

The last "proof" someone showed me was the Paluxy River footprint pictures "proving" that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
I hope this proof is a wee bit more scientific...

Ok,

This link to another forum. The map is here free of charge. It shows the areas on Mars that water can exist according to Harvard University.

It is based on Ambient air temperature. It does not take into consideration water temperature. I hate to be redundant but the instability of water at any pressure is due to the water temperature.

Example. On Earth if you have a cup of water at 10c and place it in an oven with an ambient air temps of 100c. The water in the cup will not boil at standard atmospheric pressure till the water in the cup reaches 100 c How long this will take is unknown. If you place the cup in the oven on a slab of ice it will take longer.

The ground temperature on Mars is not known. The temperature of any liquid eruptions on Mars is not known. The effects of ambient air temperatures on water temperatures are not know.

With all of these unknowns how would you produce such a map? This is Harvard for Christ sake.

http://www.marsroverblog.com/discuss...r-on-mars.html

Dfrank

...just years of seeing the influence of the church in politics.

But without proof, how do you know that's not years of prejudicially attributing political effects spuriously to religious causes?

The Viking data reversal, The change in mission statement form looking for lifeon Mars to if Mars has ever been favorable for sustaining microbial life.

Repeatedly speculating does not make the speculation any more valuable.

I believe you are a knowledgeable fair person JayUtah.

I owe it all to the wig.

I have no proof, just a belief.

Then would you agree that it's premature to judge another person or organization based solely on a belief for which you admit you have no evidence? Is it fair to do so?

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

With all of these unknowns how would you produce such a map?

Would this affect your prejudice in any way?

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

And so we come to the (usual) meat of the proposal - "The evil overlords, who are actually (x) are secretly controlling (y)...."

Dfrank - you have recurrently been asked a question - provide your evidence that there IS an anomoly. Please read Maksutov's repeated requests, and Jason's clarifications.

We do not need a basic or remedial lesson on Martian climatology. What we need are the factual (and facts aren't democratic) evidence that leads you to conclude that this is a noteworty area, and purposefully 'missed' by NASA.

Second - religion wrt the conspiracy stands OK for now. DO NOT, however, Dfrank, turn this into a thread defaming a particular strain.

Third - yes, even though you have 'conceeded', you must still answer any and all questions until such point has been reached that the thread is satisfactorily concluded through it's natural course. Opening a thread, posting your "gut feelings", and running home without further criticism of the idea once it's shortcomings are exposed under the flag of 'concession' is poor form, and, frankly, considered the coward's way out on this forum.

You will continue to answer all questions until such point as either you have proven your conspiracy, or it has been disproven (we are extremely close to the latter). Remember, though, that "I don't know", and "I was wrong" are perfectly honorable, acceptable answers, and you will not be ridiculed for using them, other than possibly to demonstrate trouble you could have saved yourself by using such honesty earlier, as a learning experience to help you in the future. I have used those answers, honorably, several times myself on these forums.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Then here it is. That the world was round started as a hypothesis when a greek chap a few thousand years ago heard that in a city to the south a stick in the ground cast no shadow at noon on a particular date, while observing that on that same date a stick in the ground at his own city did cast a shadow. So he did some travelling, some measuring, and came to the conclusion that the world was round. He even measured it and came out with a surprisingly close figure to what we now know to be the actual circumference of Earth. Further supporting observations came along with every lunar eclipse, when the shadow cast on the Moon was always circular. And watching things sink below the horizon as they retreat into the distance.

Beliefs become facts when objective evidence supports them incontrovertibly. You cannot use the argument that your beliefs are vindicated because other beliefs were proven right. Many beliefs do not become facts. Have you seen those Martian canals, so well described and drawn by such as Schiaprelli and Lowell? No? Nor have I, and I've looked at Mars a fair few times myself. They just aren't there, however much those people believed they were.

So far your only evidence of impropriety on NASA's part is that they don't share your sense of what is observed in a particular picture. If you have nothing more substantial than that, you haven't a leg to stand on, frankly.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Which is a lame way of saying I can't prove you wrong.

Trouble is, I never said I could. But then I don't have to. You are the one with the claim about NASA's behaviour, so you are the one with the burden of supporting your contention. You have to prove yourself right.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Dfrank - you have recurrently been asked a question - provide your evidence that there IS an anomaly. Please read Maksutov's repeated requests, and Jason's clarifications.

I do not understand. If an anomaly is something that does not fit in the current model than it is an anomaly

We do not need a basic or remedial lesson on Martian climatology. What we need are the factual (and facts aren't democratic) evidence that leads you to conclude that this is a noteworthy area, and purposefully 'missed' by NASA.

Why would we need a lesion in Martian Climatology? I think we all know. Lest see, We have had 4 rovers with meteorological data that is suppose to give us global data. We have had no color images from the MRO that could distinqish from dust or whit hydrological phenomena.


Second - religion wrt the conspiracy stands OK for now. DO NOT, however, Dfrank, turn this into a thread defaming a particular strain.

No sir they are all the invisible man in the sky, pass the plate thank you. Control your federal government, just vote and be happy. Some want you to kill anyone at any cost but we would not mention them.


Third - yes, even though you have 'conceeded', you must still answer any and all questions until such point has been reached that the thread is satisfactorily concluded through its natural course. Opening a thread, posting your "gut feelings", and running home without further criticism of the idea once it's shortcomings are exposed under the flag of 'concession' is poor form, and, frankly, considered the coward's way out on this forum.

Well I aunt a coward

You will continue to answer all questions until such point as either you have proven your conspiracy, or it has been disprove

I am here to the end. I hope you guys can respect that.

Dfrank

Jason Thompson,

Beliefs become facts when objective evidence supports them incontrovertibly

That is a comfortable place to be, don’t ya think.

Not at all. You personally believe that it is water. That doesn't make the image an anomaly. It is still a perfectly normal picture.


Lets go over ALL the data and decide what we are looking at.

Way outta line! Your own personal bias has no relevance to this picture. It has no place within your argument simply because you cannot back up those claims.
Admit to speaking too quickly on a personal opinion and retract the statement. Then we can proceed to the science without arguing over a Red Herring.


Evidence! .. couldn't resist!


Place your agument on the table aware that it will be scrutinized.
Back it up with hard evidence and worthy claims.
Avoid personal bias and opinions that are red herrings and have no basis on the topic- they will only detract from your argument.

Especially resist the urge to make such a comment religiously as you did earlier...
Do these things and you WILL be here til the end

That is fine, but the trouble is you are spouting personal beliefs without backing them up with evidence.

JayUtah,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With all of these unknowns how would you produce such a map?

Would this affect your prejudice in any way

Yes, they had no idea

If an anomaly is something that does not fit in the current model than it is an anomaly

You haven't shown that this feature fails to fit the current model. You have only shown that it fails to meet your personal, subjective expectation. Your case depends on everyone recognizing this feature as anomalous, not just you. Therefore you must provide objective evidence that everyone can accept, not just your personal belief.

Do you have any factual evidence that the feature depicted in the photograph in question is actually standing, liquid water? Yes or no.

No sir they are all the invisible man in the sky, pass the plate thank you.

This means you're obliged to provide evidence for your claim that NASA is being controlled by religion, or withdraw the claim.

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

Dfrank, if you're not going to use the quote function, will you at least bold the quoted text using either the button with the big B or putting [b] and [/b] tags around the text?

ETA: trying to pick your words out of the quoted words is incredibly confusing.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

Irishman posted this link in the other thread.
I stole it and dragged it over here.

http://www.bautforum.com/misc.php?do=bbcode

Instructions on how to quote (More instructions anyway...)

Specifically:

http://www.bautforum.com/misc.php?do=bbcode#quote

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

Would this affect your prejudice in any way
Yes, they had no idea

I don't understand your answer. I'm trying to discover why you believe what you believe. You say you believe -- but have no evidence -- that religion is affecting NASA inappropriately, specifically to suppress the search for life outside the Earth. Since this belief does not seem to be based on any evidence you care to supply, I'm wondering what the point is to your criticism of evidence that disputes your belief. If you're going to admit to being ideologically entrenched, why bother with science?

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