PDA

View Full Version : Ruins on Mars



vimjams
2004-Apr-15, 05:21 PM
Hello

Please have a look around this website if you want

http://www.geocities.com/vimjams/mars_index.html

I'm not out to win 'hearts and minds'...Or to sell books.

Vimjams
:D

SciFi Chick
2004-Apr-15, 05:25 PM
What are you out to do then? You certainly aren't presenting any new claims or new evidence.

I really don't wish to come off as rude or dismissive, but I really must insist that you present something other than conjecture that people working for NASA are worried about their jobs.

That simply is not the case. This has been said innumerable times on this site, but apparently not enough. The scientists at NASA would be OVERJOYED to discover evidence of advanced civilization on another planet.

You can't look at rocks in a vacuum and ignore all evidence of evolutionary reality and draw conclusions about the rocks based on what they LOOK like. There's way more to it than that.

](*,)

vimjams
2004-Apr-15, 05:28 PM
Scifi chick...Is that what 'debunking' is about then? You can't possibly have visited my site and yet you have this opinion already.
vimjams

SciFi Chick
2004-Apr-15, 05:29 PM
Scifi chick...Is that what 'debunking' is about then? You can't possibly have visited my site and yet you have this opinion already.
vimjams

I got to page 2 where you said:


Experts are going to categorically state that these objects are ‘naturally formed’ and ‘ejecta’…
They have to say that because ‘experts’ toe the official line and their careers would become (doubtful) if that line is crossed.


Give me ONE SHRED of evidence supporting that supposition. Just one. [/quote]

Wolverine
2004-Apr-15, 05:59 PM
All I can offer is...


I am one hundred percent convinced that civilisation existed on Mars…And I believe these worn and battered stone objects represent all that remains of their culture.

... the plural of anecdote is not data.

The pages are full of misrepresentations, misunderstandings, fallacious logic, and present opinion rooted in belief without offering empirical evidence to support the conclusion(s) offered.

That's not how science works. [-X

JohnW
2004-Apr-15, 06:07 PM
I don't understand how looking at a picture of a rock leads you to conclude

There is an ‘agenda’ here don’t forget. The planet Earth isn’t tumbling (willy- nilly) into the future you know…There are people at the helm…Plotting! A million years ago another Race thought their existence was perpetual. And they also thought ‘progress’ meant things would always be getting better. In their world of ‘attainment’ the (self-important) would always seek to attain. Martians made the mistake of allowing themselves to be governed by liars and lunatics, and it destroyed them.
You're going to have to help me here, because all I see is a picture of a rock. What features of the rock are indicative of:
- the plot of the people at the helm?
- another race thinking their existence was perpetual?
- their view of "progress"?
- their takeover by liars and lunatics, and consequent destruction?

vimjams
2004-Apr-15, 06:22 PM
Ok scifichick...Let me explain something clearly to you.
I have seen (in some of the stones) evidence (I believe) to be an indication of artificial design. I don't really care if you can or can not see the same.
I've posted my website on quite a number of boards and this site was linked to one of them).
As I state (several times) I could be wrong about my observations...But I don't think I am.
Everything else I have written there is basically just MY opinions about how the World operates around me. Politics and business are active in every single aspect of our lives. No less so...with Mars also. I can't prove that to you or anybody else...And what I say about 'experts' doing as they are told is quite frankly not the issue...is it? But I do remember the term 'whistleblower' (plenty of examples about) will quite often turn an employee's back on the truth.
I am showing people 'objects' I believe to be remnants of a civilisation
(on Mars) and long since destroyed. That (for me) is the issue.
vimjams
:D

SciFi Chick
2004-Apr-15, 06:29 PM
Well, vimjams, let me explain something to you. This is a scientific board, not a faith-based one. What you do or do not believe does not matter unless you have empirical evidence to back it up.

dummy
2004-Apr-15, 06:47 PM
Nobody is going to seriously try and convince me that 'wind and sand' created this object. I accept wind and sand (could have) but they didn't. I state that with total conviction. And I base my conviction on several factors.

One of those factors is quite easy to understand:
The people (charged) with the responsibility of securing our future and the future of this planet are, at best (incompetent) and at their worse (bloody) liars. Their logic is simple. Two and two equals four unless it becomes necessary to get away with (three).

That's possibly the worst reasoning I have ever heard. Is that really all it takes to convince you? If you go by that logic anything is possible, for example:

Rat man photo (http://www.bildungsserver.de/zdf/bilder/DR_Schwanger9.jpg)

The earth is overrun by mutant rat creatures that wear human skin disguises. I state that with total conviction. And I base my conviction on several factors.

One of these factors is quite easy to understand:
Rat people look like normal people. The people (charged) with the responsibility of securing our future and the future of this planet are, at best (incompetent) and at their worse (bloody) liars. Their logic is simple. If it walks like a human and looks like a human, it's a human.

TinFoilHat
2004-Apr-15, 07:56 PM
I see many pictures of ordinary looking rocks and stones, accompanied by claims of incredulity that these ordinary looking rocks and stones were formed naturally. I'm just not seeing where anything on that page looks like it couldn't have formed naturally.

Hamlet
2004-Apr-15, 08:51 PM
I just finished reading your site and I am officially requesting a refund on the time I just wasted. :(

There is nothing in any of those pictures to indicate artificiality. Have you never seen wind and water sculpted rocks here on Earth? Have you never seen broken rocks that have cleaved at right angles?

Other Mars conspiracy-mongers have had images that, at first look, seemed to indicate something unusual. Your images show rocks and there's nothing in them to suggest otherwise.

How on Earth did you ever come to such a bizarre conclusion?

aurora
2004-Apr-15, 09:05 PM
I especially liked the statement that a picture of angular basalt would be considered archaeology if it was on earth.

I think the author should visit eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, or southern Idaho. Or Ireland.

So, this must be an ancient city wall:

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~hories1/Ireland/Portrush/P9180016.jpg

and here's a shoreline that is just full of old statues:

http://www.ecoguild.com/website-index/friends/morro_negrito/022701-index/image/mvc-832m.jpg

and here is where an ancient civilization carved many devices:

http://216.122.201.253/rpc/materials/rocks_tn.jpg


:P

(edited to remove a link to a picture that did not work for some folks)

jawajedi
2004-Apr-15, 09:09 PM
:o i second the motion for a refund on time wasted from my life

TriangleMan
2004-Apr-15, 09:10 PM
And here is a Martian visiting the Oregon Star Party.
http://members16.clubphoto.com/_cgi-bin/getImage.pl?imgID=23083054-6eec&trans=
Link didn't work. :(

SciFi Chick
2004-Apr-15, 09:11 PM
And here is a Martian visiting the Oregon Star Party.
http://members16.clubphoto.com/_cgi-bin/getImage.pl?imgID=23083054-6eec&trans=
Link didn't work. :(

Yeah. We're not members of the club, and it said you have to link to the low or medium resolution shot.

aurora
2004-Apr-15, 09:20 PM
Yeah. We're not members of the club, and it said you have to link to the low or medium resolution shot.

Odd. I'm not either, and yet the link works for me.

Oh, well, the point was that if you look at images of the rocks and dust at the site of the Oregon star party, you will see pretty much what you see in the Mars pictures on the web site linked in the first message.

With some minor differences. Like small dogs. :lol:

try the history pictures linked from this page:

http://www.oregonstarparty.org/osp303/osphist.htm

Rc2000
2004-Apr-15, 10:18 PM
*Looks over site*

Rocks and sand. That's all I see and nothing more.

Rc

jt-3d
2004-Apr-16, 12:36 AM
Well congratulations on your site. It's a shame if fell to the darkside but oh well. I got up to page eight before yahoo clamped your bandwidth.

You see alot that most of us don't see and jump to a lot of conclusions. Don't get mad when others don't agree with you. It's your site and you can put whatever you want on it. You failed to sway me though. I did't see anything artificial. Possibly the two triangle rocks that you have highlighted in the yellow blocks in that one image could be man/martian made. However lacking anything else to corrabarate, I'll go with natural.

Archer17
2004-Apr-16, 01:02 AM
Not to sound like a parrot, but I've also checked out the site and fail to see anything artificial-looking vimjams.

BTW jt-3d, my wife hates your sig! :)

vimjams
2004-Apr-16, 02:34 AM
Hello,

I have been busy updating pages of my website. I know a lot of you will be interested so I’ll remind you when they’re ready.

I was not coming back here for several more days but the noise from this little ‘Vipers nest’ became too much to bear.
Not one (opposed) appears to have tackled the issue of the stones directly but have instead just echoed some “gobble-d-gook” about personality, ‘wasting time’ and about my ability to make such claims.
Scifi chick…I am not impressed by your (condescending) and implied scientific orientation. Considering you believe this to be a ‘science board’ your lack of understanding that having faith has a great deal to do with science…is somewhat surprising. But it is nevertheless, a validation about those who think they know better. Have you read the opinionated and (subjective) remarks made by Wolverine…Is he scientific also?

Having said this, I have found a lot less venom here than I was expecting. And I thank those of you for expressing yourselves more courteously.

I received some links to view naturally formed ‘dreikanter’ shaped stones…Cheers. I do recognise that little point and have been along this path on a number of occasions. Nice pictures though.

Vimjams

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Apr-16, 03:18 AM
This is hardly venom. Go to godlikeproductions.com to see real venom.

We have seen many people come here with outrageous claims, with little or no evidence to back them up. Your site simply shows pictures of rocks, and makes lots of claims that they look like other things. This is not evidence! I have a rock shaped like a valentine. That implies... that it's shaped like a valentine. That's it.

The point is, you'll have to do a lot better if you want to be taken seriously here. You've shown nothing to earn that.

BOB2.0
2004-Apr-16, 03:31 AM
I was not coming back here for several more days but the noise from this little ‘Vipers nest’ became too much to bear.
Not one (opposed) appears to have tackled the issue of the stones directly but have instead just echoed some “gobble-d-gook” about personality, ‘wasting time’ and about my ability to make such claims.

I mostly lurk but I would like to point out that noone has directly attacked your claims because the same ones have been made at least 3or 4 times before and they have been addressed. Maybe if you had used the search (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/search.php) feature you would know that. But don't let common sense or good research get in the way of a poor rant about how you are being oppressed.



Considering you believe this to be a ‘science board’ your lack of understanding that having faith has a great deal to do with science…is somewhat surprising.

What part of science is faith? There is trust in what you see and can be proven. Faith cannot be proven. Elementary school mistake on the scientific process, heck I know that and my last science class was years ago.

vimjams
2004-Apr-16, 05:53 AM
The Bad Astronomer
Hello to you
Well, you’ve taken me seriously enough to personally reply…You sort of contradict yourself there.
And as for making outrageous claims…What have said that is ‘outrageous’ (if) as you infer, it’s all been said before? You contradict yourself again there…Don’t you think (?)
I am really not interested in gaining ‘acclaim’ on this message board. I wanted some good honest (negative) feedback for my web site and this is all coming along just fine.
I am truly sorry you fail to see anything but ‘rock’. Is it this that has upset you?

Vimjams
:D

vimjams
2004-Apr-16, 05:54 AM
BOB2.0
Hello to you too
In reply to your comments and your veiled assault…’faith’ is another word for ‘trust’. And your use of the word to twist the context in which it was used is as cheap as one would expect from somebody who still relies on his elementary education.
But once again…There is a need to state. Your contrary argument is non-existent. I ask you…What do you possibly know about Mars that challenges my assertions?
You are addressing me here simply because you like to ‘show off’...An intellectual ‘ponce’ who mostly ‘lurks’. Enough said.

Vimjams
:D

Musashi
2004-Apr-16, 06:00 AM
Insults already?

vimjams
2004-Apr-16, 06:07 AM
I have simply joined in with the 'ethos' of this board
vimjams
:D

Musashi
2004-Apr-16, 06:13 AM
Oh, don't worry, it isn't as if you have set some kind of speed record for resulting to insults to try to make up for the fact that you have no logical backing for your stance. You haven't even come close to the record for worst insult or most off-topic insult yet either.

Let's see if you can adress some issues instead of spewing insults. Here is a good one:

jt-3d wrote:


You see alot that most of us don't see and jump to a lot of conclusions. Don't get mad when others don't agree with you. It's your site and you can put whatever you want on it. You failed to sway me though. I did't see anything artificial. Possibly the two triangle rocks that you have highlighted in the yellow blocks in that one image could be man/martian made. However lacking anything else to corrabarate, I'll go with natural.


And my question, based on this tidbit of wisdom:


What do you possibly know about Mars that challenges my assertions?

What do you know about Mars that supports your assertions?

Tranquility
2004-Apr-16, 06:26 AM
The Bad Astronomer
Hello to you
Well, you?ve taken me seriously enough to personally reply?You sort of contradict yourself there.
And as for making outrageous claims?What have said that is ?outrageous? (if) as you infer, it?s all been said before? You contradict yourself again there?Don?t you think (?)
I am really not interested in gaining ?acclaim? on this message board. I wanted some good honest (negative) feedback for my web site and this is all coming along just fine.
I am truly sorry you fail to see anything but ?rock?. Is it this that has upset you?

Vimjams

An outrageous claim is an outrageous claim whether its been repeated once or a million times. The outrageous claim in this situation is that you have looked at rocks and concluded that they are artificial artifacts without a single shred of evidence. That's outrageous. The fact that a lot of people have done it doesnt make it less outrageous, because it still defies reason. Once evidence is accumulated to validate it, its not outrageous anymore.

The fact that the BA replied to you does not indicate that you are being taken seriously, merely a pointer to where you have gone wrong. The fact that the BA and people here debunk people like Nancy Lieder and other perpetrators of false theories does not mean that these people are to be taken seriously, just that their theories may have dangerous consequences and so debunking their nonsense MUST be taken seriously. Most of the people hear participate in debunking Nancy's nonsense but if they see her will probably laugh in her face.

Unfortunately, everyone has seen nothing but rocks. Why would anyone get upset? Just another nonsense perpetrator with nothing to add. Hardly anything we need to worry/be upset over.


BOB2.0
Hello to you too
In reply to your comments and your veiled assault??faith? is another word for ?trust?. And your use of the word to twist the context in which it was used is as cheap as one would expect from somebody who still relies on his elementary education.
But once again?There is a need to state. Your contrary argument is non-existent. I ask you?What do you possibly know about Mars that challenges my assertions?
You are addressing me here simply because you like to ?show off?...An intellectual ?ponce? who mostly ?lurks?. Enough said.

Vimjams

Faith does not require proof. Science does. If you "believe" there are artifacts on Mars thats really up to you. Nobody cares. If you have EVIDENCE beyond reasonable doubt that there are artifacts on Mars then that would be different. Everyone will care!! Unfortunately, your evidence consists of mere rocks. Not conclusive evidence. Wait, let me rephrase that: Not evidence at all. See the difference? You can have faith that there are artifacts on Mars. That wont make any difference. You have evidence there are artifacts on Mars - that would make a difference. Understand the difference between faith and scientific proof?

What on Earth do you know about Martian rocks to justify your assertions #-o ? Just looking at them makes you decide they're artificial when clearly they're not?

What justification do you have for asserting that the "ancient Martians" fell under the leadership of liars and that that caused their demise #-o ?
I could go on and on about your false, unjustified assertions.

Your last sentence constitutes a verbal attack on another member here. [-X Read the FAQ so you dont eventually get banned.

Vernors
2004-Apr-16, 07:00 AM
vimjams,

What I think you're missing here is a basic principle of logic often referred to as Occam's Razor. You show pictures of rocks with some interesting shapes. We know that intelligent beings are capable of shaping rocks like that, right? But, as several posters have already shown, natural forces are also capable of shaping rocks like that. The natural forces explanation requires no further unknown players or processes since we already have solid evidence that such forces (wind, water, vulcanism, etc.) either exist currently or existed previously on Mars. Do you see the problem here? Since the shape of the rocks can be explained more simply without intelligent beings they cannot, by themselves, be considered as evidence of intelligent beings. You need to provide additional evidence of intelligent design for your claims to be taken seriously at this point. It's nothing personal, that's just the way science works.

carolyn
2004-Apr-16, 08:31 AM
well i have read all the way through your site and think that you have done your self few favours with the tone you set. Very confrontational, very 'if you don't believe me you are part of the problem' etc... that is the feeling your site left me with, it may not have been your intention, but as a punter, that is the feeling I got. Now, that meant that I stopped considering the possibility that you may have a valid point and instead, just thought, woo woo, an aggressive one at that!

If you had confined your self to the evidence presented, highlighted possible tool marks on the stone, tried to work out the scatter pattern of the rocks to see if, perhaps, they may have come from the same object etc...people may have looked a little longer at the pictures you present.

but as it is, swearing and aggression never wins an argument, just turns people off.

by the way, thought the black fluffy objects on page 6(?) i think looked interesting, life though.... hmmm, well who knows.

and ps weren't most of those pictures taken inside an impact crater? :o

PhantomWolf
2004-Apr-16, 10:04 AM
You know it always puzzles me that when there is disagreement with some people they resort to the same tactics. Firstly claiming that everyone that disagrees is closeminded, then start jumping up and down claiming that people are only disagreeing because they are upset about having their views challanged and that in disagreeing they are being insulting.

Is there a book out there with this sort of garbage in it?

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2004-Apr-16, 10:57 AM
It's amazing how NASA/JPL always manage to land their spacecraft smack-dab in the middle of ancient ruins...Mars must of had some kinda urban sprawl going on back in the day as it were... :roll: :roll: :roll:

N C More
2004-Apr-16, 11:35 AM
I see this problem as resulting from not really understanding the scientific method. Here's a great article that will give some good basic information about the scientific method.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html

Here's a snip from that article that is particularily informative.

"If you have such an idea, remember that the burden of proof is on you. The new theory should explain the existing data, provide new predictions and should be testable; remember that all scientific theories are falsifiable. Read the articles and improve your theory in the light of your new knowledge. Starting a scientific revolution is a long, hard slog. Don't expect it to be easy. If it was, we would have them every week. People putting forward extraordinary claims often refer to Galileo as an example of a great genius being persecuted by the establishment for heretic theories. They claim that the scientific establishment is afraid of being proved wrong, and hence is trying to suppress the truth. This is a classic conspiracy theory. The Conspirators are all those scientists who have bothered to point out flaws in the claims put forward by the researchers. The usual rejoinder to someone who says ``They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Galileo'' is to say ``But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown''

PhantomWolf
2004-Apr-16, 11:44 AM
``They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Galileo'' is to say ``But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown''

:lol: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

jt-3d
2004-Apr-16, 12:35 PM
To his credit, s/he did say, over and over, go download the image yourself and look. I'll give him that much. I didn't do that, mostly because there was no link and I'm lazy.

<thread hijack>
So, if this is from inside one crater, that answers a question of mine to wit: Where did all those triangle shaped rocks come from? So if this is all from inside a crater, are we looking at the remains of a meteor that shattered on impact? That would explain those triangle shaped rocks all over. That would be a very cool thing to look over. To me they appear to be a shattered rock, alas not of martian manufacture.
</thread hijack>

Swift
2004-Apr-16, 12:50 PM
I can think of a couple of actual tests that might show that the objects on Mars are artifical, rather than rocks. If they are manufactured items, such as an engine, they would show a different chemical signature than if they were a rock containing iron. A steel car body is not the same as iron ore. The processing of the iron changes the composition. As far as I know, the instruments on the rovers, such as the Mossbauer, have shown chemical compositions completely consistent with know, naturally ocurring minerals.

If the object was a rock that had been artifically manipulated mechanically, such as made into a building block or into a stone tool (like a flint point) it would show marks/scratches on its surface that are consistent with such mechanical manipulation. Again, as far as I know, none of the microscopic examinations done by the rovers have shown anything that is not consistent with completely natural processes, except for the marks we made ourselves, with the RAT.

Staiduk
2004-Apr-16, 01:05 PM
The difficulty is, of course, the difference between wanting to know and wanting to understand.
Vimjams wants to know that there are ruins on Mars. That desire is a powerful force; it can cause us to see what we want to see. Vimjams sees right-angles and interesting shapes; he really wants to see ruins on Mars; so interprets them in that way.
Unfortunately; that's the easy way out. vimjams has accused those who disagree with closemindedness; unfortunately the opposite is true; it is Vimjams himself who is closeminded since he doesn't wish to challenge his own pet theory.
Wanting to understand is a whole different kettle of fish; and much harder. I don't know beans about the stars; but I know dinosaurs. I love them dearly; which kid didn't? I don't simply want to know there were dinosaurs; I want to understand them - to know every little thing; how they looked, moved, lived. I want to know what an apatosaur steak tasted like; or how fast an ankylosuar could whip that sledgehammer around.
So, I study and learn. On the way; I see information and develop my own theories on the subject; and this is where the desire to know and to understand diverge.
If I wanted to just know; I'd be happy with my pet theory. It's nice, seems to work, I can tell it to others and they say "Hmm; sounds reasonable". But to understand; I have to throw that theory down in front of a pack of rabid degree-laden wolves and watch while they tear it to pieces. I can defend it and risk having them turn on me; that's part of the game. If I and my theory come out of it intact; I'll be able to state with a high degree of confidence that the theory is valid.
The process hurts; let me tell you. When I announced "Hadrosaurs are prehistoric camels"; half my local society went screaming right up the wall; the resulting fight was not pretty but very instructive. (And BTW; the theory survived. ;) )

Ummmm........ where was I going with this? :roll:


Oh, yeah - Vimjams. Look; what you're saying is very tantalizing - let's see a show of hands: How many people hear want to see ruins on Mars? Here's my hand: =;
Of course we want to see them; it'd be the greatest discovery of the millenium! But we cannot afford to take the easy way out; we have to look at the data; tear it apart and decide without the benefit of desire what is actually there. To do any less would be false; a cheat, and ultimately, unsatisfying.
I am personally convinced that we will see some evidence of life on Mars; whether with this group of probes or the next; or the ones after that. But until then, we're going to take no chances.
Cheers!

Paul Beardsley
2004-Apr-16, 02:18 PM
The difficulty is, of course, the difference between wanting to know and wanting to understand.
Vimjams wants to know that there are ruins on Mars. That desire is a powerful force; it can cause us to see what we want to see. Vimjams sees right-angles and interesting shapes; he really wants to see ruins on Mars; so interprets them in that way.
Unfortunately; that's the easy way out.

Ab-so-lutely. This is why people get irritated by remarks like, "Sorry to upset you by challenging your beloved theory."


I have to throw that theory down in front of a pack of rabid degree-laden wolves

Love it!


Oh, yeah - Vimjams. Look; what you're saying is very tantalizing - let's see a show of hands: How many people hear want to see ruins on Mars? Here's my hand

And mine. It's probably worth doing a poll. Who wants to find real evidence of an ancient Martian civilisation? I'll be very surprised if it's not unanimous.


Of course we want to see them; it'd be the greatest discovery of the millenium! But we cannot afford to take the easy way out; we have to look at the data; tear it apart and decide without the benefit of desire what is actually there. To do any less would be false; a cheat, and ultimately, unsatisfying.

=D> =D> =D>
Very well said.

vimjams
2004-Apr-16, 02:47 PM
Hello to you all
Oh dear…There are quite a few nasty mouthed (know-alls) lurking about down here. I have accused you of nothing.
And I find myself having to say this again…There is absolutely nothing in what you debunkers are (repeating) that comes anywhere near to disproving my claims.
The language I use, its tone and my personality have nothing to do with the assertion that there are ruins on Mars…What you don’t see (isn’t there) This is the premise of the arguments against me.
I think there is a great deal of anger and frustration being generated and directed at individuals such as myself: Especially here…But (fortunately) it is what makes you all so quaintly amusing.

vimjams

SciFi Chick
2004-Apr-16, 03:06 PM
Clearly, you either cannot comprehend what you read, or do not bother to do so.

You've made up your mind about every poster here, and you will interpet anything we say as insulting or somehow against you.

If you are like all the rest, you will continue until you get yourself banned.

Then, you will go elsewhere and celebrate how you were banned, and how this somehow proves you right.

Get therapy! The real world is a lot more pleasant than the paranoid, delusional fantasy you and other like you create in your own minds.

Paul Beardsley
2004-Apr-16, 03:08 PM
Oh dear…There are quite a few nasty mouthed (know-alls) lurking about down here.

The only name-calling came from you, vimjams.


I have accused you of nothing.

Has anyone accused you of accusing anyone?


And I find myself having to say this again…There is absolutely nothing in what you debunkers are (repeating) that comes anywhere near to disproving my claims.

This line of "thinking" comes up again and again. One could almost believe these claims are coming from the same person who keeps changing his or her name.

We don't need to disprove your claims. As you have probably been told many times, the burden is on you to substantiate them. Come up with some real evidence and people will take you seriously. Otherwise people will just think you have constructed a fantasy - an admittedly appealing fantasy - on the basis of some pictures of a pile of perfectly natural rocks. Now there's nothing wrong with that - I create elaborate fantasies based on flimsy evidence, and I've even sold a few stories to publishers as a result. But I know these stories are works of fiction, and they are marketed as such. I do not try to persuade people to believe they are true.

Tensor
2004-Apr-16, 03:29 PM
vimjams, your claim that the rocks indicate "ruins" are very similar to the claims in this (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=11167&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=0) thread. Right down to your reaction to the rebuttals of your claim. You haven't posted here as MAP before, have you? :wink:

I'll bet Paul remembers this one.

JohnW
2004-Apr-16, 03:54 PM
vimjams, I thought my questions were non-venomous, in no way nasty-mouthed, and perfectly reasonable. I was just looking for a more detailed explanation of how you reached your conclusions from the evidence you presented. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed my questions, so here they are again:


I don't understand how looking at a picture of a rock leads you to conclude

There is an ‘agenda’ here don’t forget. The planet Earth isn’t tumbling (willy- nilly) into the future you know…There are people at the helm…Plotting! A million years ago another Race thought their existence was perpetual. And they also thought ‘progress’ meant things would always be getting better. In their world of ‘attainment’ the (self-important) would always seek to attain. Martians made the mistake of allowing themselves to be governed by liars and lunatics, and it destroyed them.
You're going to have to help me here, because all I see is a picture of a rock. What features of the rock are indicative of:
- the plot of the people at the helm?
- another race thinking their existence was perpetual?
- their view of "progress"?
- their takeover by liars and lunatics, and consequent destruction?

aporetic_r
2004-Apr-16, 04:40 PM
The people (charged) with the responsibility of securing our future and the future of this planet are, at best (incompetent) and at their worse (bloody) liars.

Vimjams, could you please elaborate on this idea? I am interested in hearing more about your claims.

Aporetic

Tranquility
2004-Apr-16, 04:53 PM
These claims are quite amusing. Lets go through them one by one:


Oh dear?There are quite a few nasty mouthed (know-alls) lurking about down here. I have accused you of nothing.

1) You are the one who name-called and even said that you were only going with the ethos of this board when u started the name-calling. Thats insulting to us BABBers over here. IF you name-called, and admitted to name-calling, you still have the nerve to say that we are nasty-mouthed? Challenging your hypothesis does not constitute a personal attack.

2) Who said anything about you accusing us of anything?


And I find myself having to say this again?There is absolutely nothing in what you debunkers are (repeating) that comes anywhere near to disproving my claims.

How about you show something that PROVES your claims. I can only reiterate JohnW's questions. How, from a pile of rocks that can be explained using natural phenomena, did you manage to make sweeping conclusions about Martian politics and the process of the demise of the Martian civilisations? How about you also come up with evidence to prove the artificiality of these rocks? IMHO, if the rocks can be proven to have been formed by natural phenomena, then there is no need for an artificiality hypothesis. Artificiality can be proposed only as a last resort, if there is no way of figuring out how these rocks formed by natural means.
Unfortunately for you, the existence of these rocks CAN be explained without the idea of artificiality. The burden is on you to prove otherwise.


The language I use, its tone and my personality have nothing to do with the assertion that there are ruins on Mars?What you don?t see (isn?t there) This is the premise of the arguments against me.

No, the premise of the argument against you is not your personality, because no one cares about that. The premise of the argument against you is the logical fallacy in it, as highlighted above.


I think there is a great deal of anger and frustration being generated and directed at individuals such as myself: Especially here?But (fortunately) it is what makes you all so quaintly amusing.

Once again resorting to personal attack. Suddenly we're amusing? So you just posted this stuff and when proven wrong you find us humorous and hence do not possess enough knowledge for you to bother with our debunking? Need I say: Typical...

vimjams
2004-Apr-16, 05:26 PM
I have made it perfectly clear as to where the line exists between my obsevations about the stones and the 'speculative' scenario I've placed around them.
I have no need to explain any of my personal opinions about our 'society' or why I believe it is heading for destruction...and I am not presenting this any 'evidence' of Martian (existence)...You have all made that assumption and have based your arguments and (endeavours) here at this level (appluading yourselves) as having something valid to say.

NASA has provided enough 'evidence' as far as my claims go. Some of you cannot see that...and I understand that can be very frustrating. The strength of your desire for 'proof' is an indication of how seriously you do take the subject

No. I am not 'map'.

carolyn
If I shout out to you "Watch out for that '****ing' car"! Do you walk across the road regardless?
In the same way...The reasoning behind your comments are as equally 'flawed'.
Quite frankly I haven't the time to debate language and vocabulary and/or the lack of finesse in my approach. It is quite simple...You can either see the true nature of these stones or you can not (?) I don't mind...Really. But I can assure you that I don't give a (*$£*) for the opinions commonly shared on this board.
However, I do appreciate the imput concerning the 'fluffy' blobs. I don't know what they could be (as I state) but they are curious to look at. So far there has been nothing from anybody here which explains why they are not organic. Just a great deal of nonsense about 'opinions' some poeple don't like to hear.
I take note about the use of the 'f' word...A moment of anger I am afraid. It shall be removed.

Vimjams
:D

Paul Beardsley
2004-Apr-16, 05:36 PM
I'll bet Paul remembers this one.

I certainly do, Tensor! Vimjams' writing style is different to MAP's, and the scientific hypothosis, while containing similar quantities of hard evidence, is different. But vimjams' rhetoric certainly recalled MAP's thread to my mind.

Is there an emoticon for "irritated, but at the same time glowing with nostalgia"? :)

Archer17
2004-Apr-16, 05:45 PM
.. I am really not interested in gaining ‘acclaim’ on this message board. I wanted some good honest (negative) feedback for my web site and this is all coming along just fine.. Then why the whiny insults when you got "honest (negative)" feedback?
..And I find myself having to say this again…There is absolutely nothing in what you debunkers are (repeating) that comes anywhere near to disproving my claims..It seems I've been using the term argument to ignorance a lot lately. Look up what it means vimjams, I'm sure you'll find the shoe fits. You show us pictures and demand we prove it's not artificial while failing to prove it is and fail to see the irony here.
The language I use, its tone and my personality have nothing to do with the assertion that there are ruins on Mars…What you don’t see (isn’t there) This is the premise of the arguments against meYour language, tone, and personality have everything to do with how you are perceived here. It's one thing to promote your unique interpretations of Martian rocks, it's another to resort to crude insults when the "honest (negative) feedback" you claim was your primary motivation for posting here is used as an excuse to be insulting. Your behavior is troll-like.

In addition to your web site of rocks, you make a lot of sweeping statements, most of which are beyond erroneous. The "faith" thing in particular was actually humorous in it's absurdity. I'm beginning to wonder what qualifications you do have. Anybody can make a web site and anyone can hurl insults vimjams.

I suggest other BABBers here avoid vimjam's baiting. As with another poster in another forum, vimjams doesn't care if he's banned and wouldn't lose any sleep if he took a few of us with him. I think we have already given vimjams more attention than he deserves. I know I did.

JohnW
2004-Apr-16, 05:46 PM
I have made it perfectly clear as to where the line exists between my obsevations about the stones and the 'speculative' scenario I've placed around them.
In my opinion, you didn't. But anyway, are you now saying "there is no evidence for my scenario, and I'm just making stuff up"? If not, I'd still like you to answer my questions:

What features of the rock are indicative of:
- the plot of the people at the helm?
- another race thinking their existence was perpetual?
- their view of "progress"?
- their takeover by liars and lunatics, and consequent destruction?

Tranquility
2004-Apr-16, 06:52 PM
Vimjams,

It seems you hardly read all these posts. Maybe its some English language thing, but you have to understand what we're trying to say and to stop trying to put words in our mouth.


I have made it perfectly clear as to where the line exists between my obsevations about the stones and the 'speculative' scenario I've placed around them.

First of all, your observations about the stones are themselves a bout of speculation, because you still have no evidence for artificiality, and no counter-evidence for the idea that natural phenomena allowed the formation of these rocks.

Secondly, it seems you are basically admitting that your follow up and ideas of the implication of the picture are all speculation. Adding to that the idea that the observations are themselves speculation. We end up with the fact that your whole "endeavour" is based on speculation and zero hard evidence. That does not qualify as science. Hardly even speculation, which is built on educated guessing.


I have no need to explain any of my personal opinions about our 'society' or why I believe it is heading for destruction...and I am not presenting this any 'evidence' of Martian (existence)...You have all made that assumption and have based your arguments and (endeavours) here at this level (appluading yourselves) as having something valid to say.

So you think that by our counter-arguments to you, valid as they are and still unanswered, as well as directed at your hypothesis and not your personality, are faulty and unbased, whereas your assertions that the existence of natural rocks which look to you (for no apparent reason) artificial, are a reminder of a fallen Martian civilisation, is actually credible?


NASA has provided enough 'evidence' as far as my claims go. Some of you cannot see that...and I understand that can be very frustrating. The strength of your desire for 'proof' is an indication of how seriously you do take the subject

Of course we take the subject seriously. We all want there to be alien artifacts on Mars, but we're not gonna be taken in by the notion unless we see hard evidence. Why? Call it good sense. And I dont understand why the need for proof is a bad thing..
Unfortunately, every aspect of what you think is "evidence" for artificiality on Mars has been explained as natural effectively. Why cant YOU see that?


Really. But I can assure you that I don't give a (*$£*) for the opinions commonly shared on this board.

You claimed earlier that you wanted to get our feedback. A change of heart after being proven wrong in your assertions?

I am beginning to feel this is hopeless. You dont systematically respond to half of what we say. JohnW's questions are still unanswered. Once again..Typical.

N C More
2004-Apr-16, 07:34 PM
...You can either see the true nature of these stones or you can not (?) I don't mind...Really. But I can assure you that I don't give a (*$£*) for the opinions commonly shared on this board.


I can see the true nature of the stones quite well. What I don't understand is why you posted asking for opinions that you don't give a "*$%*" for? The truth appears to be that a scientific opinion was never desired in the first place. The only reason I can see for your posting here is a desire to "play games".

vimjams
2004-Apr-16, 08:03 PM
Hello All

Just a few lines in response to some of your comments and queries.

The only (whinging) I’ve noticed on this board comes from those who seek to defend the ‘mundane’.
You may (imagine) that replies riddled with ‘psycho-babble’ subterfuge and contempt are somehow indicative of ‘intelligent response’…But let’s face it…That’s half your problem: Actually believing your selves to be (intelligent people).
And as for not answering ‘johnw’ questions let me say this.
Johnw…On this posting; you are one of three individuals: You are politically naïve or politically ignorant or just some snot nosed fourteen year old sitting at his computer (playing) with his testicles.
I would personally go for first…But my logic is apparently ‘fallacious’ so I wouldn’t place any bets on my choice.
Does this help?
vimjams
:D

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Apr-16, 08:16 PM
And I find myself having to say this again…There is absolutely nothing in what you debunkers are (repeating) that comes anywhere near to disproving my claims.

Perhaps you haven't read this the half-dozen or so times people have said it, so I'll say it one last time: we don't have to disprove your claim. You the one who must prove or support them. All you have done is said "these rocks look artificial", with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Claiming you have evidence is different than actually having it.

Some people here have indeed been less than polite. I am not a big fan of that, as you all know. In the future, cut it out. But still, vimjams' response has been impolite, and it's clear to me s/he won't listen to reason, no matter how clear and how well it's presented.

One of the advantages to running a board is, I get the last word when I want it. I want it.

This thread is going nowhere, and cannot get anywhere. Locked.

Edited to add: after I posted this and locked the thread, I saw that vimjams made a childish and rude remark in a post right above this one; he posted it while I was writing mine, I think. I have banned him, and I'll leave his post intact so that others can see that I bend over backwards to let people like him post, yet they still complain about how they are treated. Good riddance.