PDA

View Full Version : Mars life, civilization discovered!



extrasense
2004-Jun-22, 09:04 PM
There is life on Mars, but we know it not from them.

Stingray fossil from Mars:
Lamb statue from Mars:
Martian outpost:
Animal skull from Mars:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/RatTailHighlights.gif http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/2p090-2P134351571EFF2500P2536L4M1-lamb.jpg http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/FirstMartian.gif http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/SkullHighlights.gif

More at site
Welcome to Mars (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense)

TriangleMan
2004-Jun-22, 09:27 PM
Welcome to the board, extrasense.

Here is another helpful link: pareidolia (http://skepdic.com/pareidol.html)

There have been many past threads regarding "fossils on Mars" photoanalysis, it might be useful for you to read those threads to get an idea of what kind of response you will expect for your claims.

kucharek
2004-Jun-22, 09:31 PM
YATR

Yet Another Rorschach Test...

extrasense
2004-Jun-22, 10:19 PM
an idea of what kind of response you will expect for your claims.

I am aware that people are conditioned to believe own eyes only if they are watching TV :P

ES

extrasense
2004-Jun-22, 10:22 PM
Yet Another Rorschach Test...The goal of that test is to grade people by their ability of image recognition.
I expect viewers to be normal people in that regard :P

ES

xbck1
2004-Jun-22, 10:59 PM
http://www.cowlook.com/images/marsstuff.gif

Just goes to show that you can find anything you want in an image of some sort of cloudy black and white nothing in particular.


Oh, by the way... I made the entire image in Photoshop. It took me all of ten mintues to get everything ready.

beskeptical
2004-Jun-22, 11:08 PM
Welcome to the board, extrasense.

Here is another helpful link: pareidolia (http://skepdic.com/pareidol.html)

.....Link from that link:
Jesus in a tortilla (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/5/jesus.htm)

We actually went looking for this. One year when my son and I went to New Mexico to see the Leonids Meteor Storm, we came across info on this tortilla in a city Chamber of Commerce publication, I can't remember which city, but we went out of our way to go there. The tortilla was no longer there and the locals we asked had never heard of it. And, it was a very small town so you'd expect the locals to at least have heard of it. This explains it! It was in 1978. So the memory had faded over 20+ years. Amazing that the claim was still in print in the local tourist ad.http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/2/happy11.gif

beskeptical
2004-Jun-22, 11:14 PM
From Grizzly's link on the other thread:
Pancam shot of crater walls (http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/spirit/pancam/2004-06-21/2P140650025EFF6900P2375L7M1.JPG)
Take a look at the shull carved into the rock at the bottom center!http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/scared/scared07.gif

xbck1
2004-Jun-23, 12:49 AM
Take a look at the shull carved into the rock at the bottom center!http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/scared/scared07.gifWhat's it look like to you? It looks like a cow butt to me.

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 01:25 AM
you can find anything you want in an image of some sort of cloudy black and white nothing in particular.

This claim is incorrect.
Some people might, and it is considered medical condition.

What percentage of people have this condition - I honestly do not know.

ES

freddo
2004-Jun-23, 01:52 AM
Some people might, and it is considered medical condition.

What percentage of people have this condition - I honestly do not know.
Medical condition? No. It is a human trait that we all have, if to differing degrees. Your first post demonstrates you are quite adept at it.

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 02:36 AM
Some people might, and it is considered medical condition. What percentage of people have this condition - I honestly do not know. Medical condition? No. It is a human trait that we all have
You think it is true if you say so. A baseless assertion is not the same as the Truth 8)

ES

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Jun-23, 02:51 AM
No, it is well-established that a normal human sees recognizable patterns in random patterns. That is a survival trait.

Also, we have had a half dozen or more people come in to this forum, point out random patterns, and claim they are evidence of life on Mars. You have to do better than that.

For rebuttal, read my Lenin page (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/lenin.html) and the Hoagland pages (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html). Then come back here and defend your claims.

Jigsaw
2004-Jun-23, 03:42 AM
Extrasense, the one thing I have always wondered when people tell me that things on Mars look like Earth things is, "Why? Why should Martians create, for example, a statue of a lamb, or a fisherman tent?"

freddo
2004-Jun-23, 05:55 AM
Extrasense, the one thing I have always wondered when people tell me that things on Mars look like Earth things is, "Why? Why should Martians create, for example, a statue of a lamb, or a fisherman tent?"

Because, of course, it's humans on Mars (www.enterprisemission.com)... And ancient humans on the Moon (www.lunaranomalies.com). But it's Lizards on Venus. (http://guthvenus.tripod.com/)

P.S. I don't recommend following those links.

xbck1
2004-Jun-23, 05:58 AM
Now, extrasense hasn't actually said that he (she, it?) believes these things. He has alluded to the fact the he does, but not come right out and said it. So, with that in mind... extrasense, do you actually believe these things are what the person who owns that website says they are?

freddo
2004-Jun-23, 05:59 AM
Some people might, and it is considered medical condition. What percentage of people have this condition - I honestly do not know. Medical condition? No. It is a human trait that we all have
You think it is true if you say so. A baseless assertion is not the same as the Truth 8)

ES

Worse than that is the faulty belief that photographs alone are a sound basis for arguing the existence of extraterrestrial life.

This assertion is certainly not baseless - beyond yours I could cite you countless examples of people who believe this is the way to do it.

freddo
2004-Jun-23, 06:01 AM
Now, extrasense hasn't actually said that he (she, it?) believes these things. He has alluded to the fact the he does, but not come right out and said it. So, with that in mind... extrasense, do you actually believe these things are what the person who owns that website says they are?

Erm... Note that the link to the website is mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense
I think that the OP may be the owner of the website... Just maybe. :wink:

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 11:14 AM
Some people might, and it is considered medical condition. What percentage of people have this condition - I honestly do not know. Medical condition? No. It is a human trait that we all haveYou think it is true if you say so. A baseless assertion is not the same as the Truth 8) No, it is well-established that a normal human sees recognizable patterns in random patterns. That is a survival trait..
A lot of people base their scepticism on this erroneous idea. How would anyone drive on the crowded road, if he would "recognize" arbitrary images in front of him?
How such nonsense become so popular? An absolute, unadulterated nonsense, how does it become popular in our culture?

ES

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 11:18 AM
Extrasense, the one thing I have always wondered when people tell me that things on Mars look like Earth things is, "Why? Why should Martians create, for example, a statue of a lamb, or a fisherman tent?"

The question "Why" might take years to answer. My point is that it is the things we observe on Mars.

ES
8)

Swift
2004-Jun-23, 12:33 PM
I'll give it a try....
Extrasense, there is a statistics program I use that, as an example of how humans look for patterns in everything, talks about "there are no horses in clouds". This is not a new, pop culture thing. Every person I've met looks up at the clouds and picks out things they see in those clouds. Because a person sees a "horse" in a particular cloud does not mean that cloud has any "horseness" about it.

Now lets assume you're right. Maybe one of those objects in the pictures is not a simple rock. But science, like the courts, needs evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Without some other evidence that this object was a lifeform, an eyeball look at a blurry picture is not going to be considered proof, or even good evidence, because shape alone can't prove such things.

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 12:45 PM
Extrasense, there is a statistics program I use that, as an example of how humans look for patterns in everything, talks about "there are no horses in clouds". Every person I've met looks up at the clouds and picks out things they see in those clouds. Because a person sees a "horse" in a particular cloud does not mean that cloud has any "horseness" about it.

You are 100% wrong. If the question to the person is "what this cloud look like", the answer might be "horse". If the question is then "is this a horse" the answer will be "no". We are able to distinguish between "it is like A" and "it is A". Period.

Some people hear voices in their heads. The healthy people dont.
Lets do not be schisophrenic about what we see.

ES

ToSeek
2004-Jun-23, 12:58 PM
Extrasense, the one thing I have always wondered when people tell me that things on Mars look like Earth things is, "Why? Why should Martians create, for example, a statue of a lamb, or a fisherman tent?"

Because, of course, it's humans on Mars (www.enterprisemission.com)... And ancient humans on the Moon (www.lunaranomalies.com). But it's Lizards on Venus. (http://guthvenus.tripod.com/)



Dang, I can never keep those straight! I thought it was aliens on the Moon. (http://ufocasebook.com/moon.html)

Psi-less
2004-Jun-23, 02:26 PM
Maybe I need some more coffee, but I guess my pattern recognition skills are down this morning. The photo in the upper left appears (without the "helpful" addition of color) to be a flatish rock with a trailing ridge of sand or dust and nothing like a real stingray fossil (see an example at http://tinyurl.com/3ctsf ). I'm not sure if the photo in the upper right is supposed to be the "Martian outpost" or the "lamb statue". I'm guessing the former, but all I'm seeing is a rock with a missing bit out of it. Again I'm guessing here, but if the lower left photo is supposed to be the statue, I'm not seeing anything particularly lamblike. And even with the color addition, I'm not seeing anything remotely skull-like in the lower right hand photo. And xbck1, I didn't "see" any of the things in your photo until you color highlighted them, but the biggish light blob in the upper right (containing the horse and plant) looked like a face to me. Sorta like the "Scream" if he been hitting the McDonald's "Supersizes" too hard! :lol:

Psi-less

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 02:36 PM
Maybe one of those objects in the pictures is not a simple rock. But science, like the courts, needs evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Without some other evidence that this object was a lifeform, an eyeball look at a blurry picture is not going to be considered proof, or even good evidence, because shape alone can't prove such things.You are 100% wrong again. In a good company although, NASA idiots use this too.

Lets do some math, using the "stingray with tail" picture.
Lets assume that there is 10,000,000,000=1010 rocks that can be considered for fossils in the area covered by rovers :)
Lets assume that each of them has a small rock attached, which will play the beginning of the tail :)

Lets assume that there is 1/100 chance that small rock has an another small rock attached on the right side of it and of the right size, so that it forms next bone of the tail. And so on, and so forth. :)
Since the "tail" has 12 bones, expected number of existing in the area "rock stingrays" will be 10-14 8)
Lets assume that rovers photograph everyone of them, that exists.

We must conclude based on the assumptions and their consequences, that chances of us to have the existing picture, if the object were of nonbiologial origin, would be less than 10-14 #-o

/14=24-10/

So much for the psedoscience worshippers

ES

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 02:41 PM
The photo in the upper left appears (without the "helpful" addition of color) to be a flatish rock with a trailing ridge of sand or dust

Really? So, you do not see the end of the tail in air and its shadow on the ground?

Check your monitor, glasses, eyes, brains and computer in this order.
You will figure out what is the problem :D

Psi-less
2004-Jun-23, 02:58 PM
Maybe one of those objects in the pictures is not a simple rock. But science, like the courts, needs evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Without some other evidence that this object was a lifeform, an eyeball look at a blurry picture is not going to be considered proof, or even good evidence, because shape alone can't prove such things.You are 100% wrong again. In a good company although, NASA idiots use this too.

Lets do some math, using the "stingray with tail" picture.
Lets assume that there is 10,000,000,000=1010 rocks that can be considered for fossils in the area covered by rovers :)
Lets assume that each of them has a small rock attached, which will play the beginning of the tail :)

Lets assume that there is 1/100 chance that small rock has an another small rock attached on the right side of it and of the right size, so that it forms next bone of the tail. And so on, and so forth. :)
Since the "tail" has 12 bones, expected number of existing in the area "rock stingrays" will be 10-14 8)
Lets assume that rovers photograph everyone of them, that exists.

ES

Stingrays have no bones.

Psi-less

TrAI
2004-Jun-23, 03:08 PM
You are 100% wrong. If the question to the person is "what this cloud look like", the answer might be "horse". If the question is then "is this a horse" the answer will be "no". We are able to distinguish between "it is like A" and "it is A". Period.

Some people hear voices in their heads. The healthy people dont.
Lets do not be schisophrenic about what we see.

ES

Actually he is not really wrong, people do see things in patterns, this how simple symbols like pictograms work, if people didn't have this capability it would just be some lines and dots. Now, most of the time we are capable of seeing the difference between the object and what it looks like. But in some cases the brain will fill in missing details, making a tree stump look like a person hiding in the bushes, for example.

In the picture you posted there are a rock shaped in a way that can remind one of a ray, of course it is not a stingray, but a rock. and so it is not a question of something being seen as a stingray, but something having a shape reminiscent of a stingray.

That of course does mean the question is more along the line of whether it is a rock formed by fossilization or by normal geologic activity. I see a rock that looks kind of like a ray, and sand that may look like a tail. But I will say it is just a normal rock, until better evidence for something else is available.

The next two objects just look like rocks, really. The last picture is of so poor resolution that to even identify it as a rock is hard, so if you see something there, it is a good indication that you are prone to the pareidolia phenomena. The problem is that some people are so prone to this, that they can not accept that it is not what they think, they can not accept that their perceptions are not right. This is similar to how people can't believe that their memories are wrong, even if other people try to tell them, I guess.

Off course, if someone's perceptions of objects in these kinds of pictures are like that, it will not help no matter what I or anyone else say. In fact, some people have been so convinced something is a fossil that when they get analyses rapports that show it to be normal rocks, they just will not accept it, and starts to weave some sort of conspiracy theory.

As for if it is mental problems, yes it may be, I guess, and as with some other types of mental problems, the one afflicted can not identify it in them self, and will remain convinced it is the other people that is the problem, perhaps... But as IANAP, I can't really say anything certain about it..

ToSeek
2004-Jun-23, 03:22 PM
Lets assume that there is 1/100 chance that small rock has an another small rock attached on the right side of it and of the right size, so that it forms next bone of the tail. And so on, and so forth.

There's a load of dubious assumptions here: First off, I don't see these rocks of which you speak, just a ridge (and I've seen zillions of those). Second, I don't see any signs of attachment. Even if I did, I daresay the odds of the wind lining up small rocks is a lot better than 1/100.

Really? So, you do not see the end of the tail in air and its shadow on the ground?

If you go here (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit_p130.html), you can see a whole bunch of images of the same thing, including left and right images suitable for stereo. Combining them makes it clear that there is no "tail in the air." (Scroll down to the "sub-frame EDR" section.)

Check your monitor, glasses, eyes, brains and computer in this order.

You should keep in mind that our host on this board does not have a lot of patience for people who come on here with an attitude.

Chip
2004-Jun-23, 03:43 PM
If the question to the person is "what this cloud look like", the answer might be "horse". If the question is then "is this a horse" the answer will be "no". We are able to distinguish between "it is like A" and "it is A". Period.

Then you should say: "This rock looks like a stingray, and that rock looks like a lamb." It isn't difficult for a field of rocks to resemble the shapes of things we recognize.

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 03:53 PM
Really? So, you do not see the end of the tail in air and its shadow on the ground? If you go url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit_p130.htmlhere, you can see a whole bunch of images of the same thing, including left and right images suitable for stereo.

You are wrong. The picture this object came from was never published on the NASA site. It is here http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/spirit/pancam/2004-05-26/2P137912072ESF5000P2575L2M1.JPG

ES

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 03:57 PM
If the question to the person is "what this cloud look like", the answer might be "horse". If the question is then "is this a horse" the answer will be "no". We are able to distinguish between "it is like A" and "it is A". Period.

Then you should say: "This rock looks like a stingray, and that rock looks like a lamb." It isn't difficult for a field of rocks to resemble the shapes of things we recognize.

Not at all. We are able to distinguish between "it is like A" and "it is A", which means that if it is A, we say"it is A" [-X

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 04:00 PM
Stingrays have no bones.

You do not see tail, you do not see bones...
You do not see. Work on it :P

Irishman
2004-Jun-23, 04:20 PM
extrasense, you're making things up. You're seeing shapes in rocks and think the shape proves it is the item. You are wrong.

For starters, you only have one view of the items in question. It is difficult to show the true shape of a three dimensional object from just one view. What does the other side look like? Is the geometry really the way it looks, or is it an illusion of perspective? Are the shapes real, or just patterns that resemble the shapes, like shapes in clouds.

Let's look at your stingray. I will concede the shape bears a resemblance to a stingray. I will concede the dirt path looks like a tail. However, your stingray shape is faulty. First, this is the shape of a Manta ray.

http://www.big.or.jp/~ishigaki/manta/E_galleryB.html

Notice how the "wings" flair out much farther than the points on the rock you show. Notice how the shape is soft flesh, not bone. That wouldn't fossilize very well, and certainly wouldn't be smooth.

But even more important, look at the shape of your outline. Look closely at the left edge, and note how you have traced a shape by ignoring part of the rock you are pointing out. You just draw a line in the correct shape and ignore the part that doesn't conform to your expectation.

It is even more clear in the original (http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/spirit/pancam/2004-05-26/2P137912072ESF5000P2575L2M1.JPG).

The rock does not cut neatly from the top corner to the near wingtip, but bulges outward off the corner of the page. Oops. The part you call the tail and tail shadow are in fact just the windswept ground that is evident across that image. Also, the surface texture of the feature is that of rock. It is bumpy and pitted in just the way to expect of rock. In short, it is just a rock that from this angle bears some resemblance to a stingray.

The rest of your images bear similar problems. Some of them are not even recognizable even after you tell us what they are supposed to be. For instance, there is nothing resembling a lamb in your lamb picture. What you call a Martian outpost is a rock - it doesn't even have contouring or symmetry to suggest it is artificial. Your animal skull with teeth is just an obscure blur of dark and light texture from what appears to be an IR image of a rock. With your markings and highlights it bears a slight resemblance to an X-ray of some deformed jaw and teeth, but it's really just blurring at the resolution limit.

Your website has more of the same. I can't even tell what is supposed to make up the pregnant antelope.

I do commend you for linking to the NASA originals. That is a good way to show if the images you outline are truly in the originals, and not some photoshop jobs. Unfortunately, there just isn't anything to the shapes you point out. They are nothing but visual patterns that resemble objects to you.




Yet Another Rorschach Test...
The goal of that test is to grade people by their ability of image recognition.
I expect viewers to be normal people in that regard

The Rorschach Test is a controversial and discredited technique in psychology that relies on interpreting the patterns seen in inkblots or other amorphous shapes. It is not about seeing a particular set of patterns, but about interpreting the patterns the observer describes. Rorschach is supposed to be about seeing the inner workings of a person's mind by seeing how they interpret unstructured images. You tell the psychiatrist what you see, and he decides from what you say, not from the the inkblot, how that relates to your mental state, internal assumptions, and psychological foibles. There are no right or wrong answers, no predefined shapes you're supposed to identify. It's controversial, not reliable, and there's no evidence supporting that it really provides any insight to the patient.

http://skepdic.com/inkblot.html

The Rorschach Test applies in this case as a shorthand for subjective interpretation of vague shapes and patterns. You say what you see.


A lot of people base their scepticism on this erroneous idea. How would anyone drive on the crowded road, if he would "recognize" arbitrary images in front of him?
How such nonsense become so popular? An absolute, unadulterated nonsense, how does it become popular in our culture?

Most of the time, people are able to distinguish between real objects and subjective shapes. Most of the time, we focus on the real, the concrete, and the illusory shapes don't register. But sometimes conditions do trigger the mind. That is the cause of many illusions. Children in their beds at night seeing shapes in shadows in the dark, getting frightened by the monster that is their jacket on the coatrack. When a person takes photos and starts looking at them to find shapes, it is easy to start finding shapes. That is explicitly engaging the pattern recognition feature of the brain. The trouble is distinguishing the shapes that represent actual features from the shapes that are illusions caused by the particular pattern on the pictures.


You are 100% wrong. If the question to the person is "what this cloud look like", the answer might be "horse". If the question is then "is this a horse" the answer will be "no". We are able to distinguish between "it is like A" and "it is A". Period.

That is just not true. Sure, when one looks at a bank of clouds and makes out shapes, one knows the shapes aren't real objects, but visual patterns. But it becomes more difficult when the source of the patterns is not clouds in the sky, but dark and light spots on a picture. Shadows and texture and coloration all blend together, and you have to determine if the shape has real structure in the image, or if it is just a random collection of lines and shading your mind it stitching together. Or even if the object is real, but the shape is just coincidental - like "skull rock" photos. There are really rocks there with some bumps and shadows, but they are not really alien skulls, just funny shaped rocks.

As for your statistics, that's just a load of gibberish. Your assumptions are invalid, and your figures are all assumptions. That's not the basis for conclusive math.


So much for the psedoscience worshippers

The irony of this statement is amusing.

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 05:39 PM
... you're making things up...
manta ray or sting ray - it is just a placeholder for an nonexistent name of martian animal of somewhat similar shape.
The tail is what is interesting and importent...
Lighten up a bit :P

ToSeek
2004-Jun-23, 05:52 PM
Really? So, you do not see the end of the tail in air and its shadow on the ground? If you go url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit_p130.htmlhere, you can see a whole bunch of images of the same thing, including left and right images suitable for stereo.

You are wrong. The picture this object came from was never published on the NASA site. It is here http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/spirit/pancam/2004-05-26/2P137912072ESF5000P2575L2M1.JPG

ES

The exact same photo is on the NASA website here:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/130/2P137912072ESF5000P2575L2M1.JPG

Along with a whole bunch of others of the same thing, apparently with every available filter on both pancams.

xbck1
2004-Jun-23, 06:18 PM
Erm... Note that the link to the website is mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense
I think that the OP may be the owner of the website... Just maybe. :wink:D'oh! #-o

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 06:34 PM
The same picture
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/130/2P137912072ESF5000P2575L2M1.JPG
Along with a whole bunch of others of the same thing, apparently with every available filter on both pancams.
Well, I am glad there is no argument about the authenticity :P

So, do you see a tail and its shadow there?

ToSeek
2004-Jun-23, 06:37 PM
The same picture
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/130/2P137912072ESF5000P2575L2M1.JPG
Along with a whole bunch of others of the same thing, apparently with every available filter on both pancams.
Well, I am glad there is no argument about the authenticity :P

So, do you see a tail and its shadow there?

Nope. I see a ridge.

foxd
2004-Jun-23, 07:01 PM
Maybe one of those objects in the pictures is not a simple rock. But science, like the courts, needs evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Without some other evidence that this object was a lifeform, an eyeball look at a blurry picture is not going to be considered proof, or even good evidence, because shape alone can't prove such things.You are 100% wrong again. In a good company although, NASA idiots use this too.

Lets do some math, using the "stingray with tail" picture.
Lets assume that there is 10,000,000,000=1010 rocks that can be considered for fossils in the area covered by rovers :)
Lets assume that each of them has a small rock attached, which will play the beginning of the tail :)

Lets assume that there is 1/100 chance that small rock has an another small rock attached on the right side of it and of the right size, so that it forms next bone of the tail. And so on, and so forth. :)
Since the "tail" has 12 bones, expected number of existing in the area "rock stingrays" will be 10-14 8)
Lets assume that rovers photograph everyone of them, that exists.

We must conclude based on the assumptions and their consequences, that chances of us to have the existing picture, if the object were of nonbiologial origin, would be less than 10-14 #-o

/14=24-10/

So much for the psedoscience worshippers

ES

The argument against your assertions does not center on the improbability of a rock looking like a "stingray with tail". If you think it does, then you have totally missed the point.

The argument against you assertions centers on the probability of a rock looking like something familiar! That is why people have given you examples of other people doing just that.

Daniel Fox

Doodler
2004-Jun-23, 07:11 PM
More dragons in the clouds? Or are we back to that danged Face on Mars kind of deal?

I don't care what it LOOKS like, unless some more definitive testing of the material says to us, "Organic composition, biological origin probable", then its just another rock and shadow deal.

At least with the "microbes" on the meteor a few years back, there was a bit of actual testing done that indicated an outside chance it was organic, if not alive. This is just an inkblot exercise.

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 07:36 PM
So, do you see a tail and its shadow there?Nope. I see a ridge.

So, you may move on to other images, where you see what I claim they are. Like berries or mushrooms :D

My site shows the whole Mars biosphere and noosphere.

ES

omypelt
2004-Jun-23, 07:41 PM
A lot of people base their scepticism on this erroneous idea. How would anyone drive on the crowded road, if he would "recognize" arbitrary images in front of him?
How such nonsense become so popular? An absolute, unadulterated nonsense, how does it become popular in our culture?
ES
It becomes popular by being subjected to repeated investigation and experimentation. Neurobiologists as well as AI researchers are keenly interested in learning how the brain 'sees' things.

If you think about this example you will find it demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you claim. A person standing in the middle of a highway would be roadkill if it weren't for the brain's innate ability to take the raw information provided by the eyes and instantly attempt to decompose the scene into objects with known characteristics (e.g. "that red blob of light in front of you is a car, the grey blob of light below you is a highway, cars move rapidly on highways and are dangerous, move!").

We don't see arbitrary objects under ordinary conditions because the system works very well. But when the information provided by the eyes is ambiguous, that's when we tend to see things that aren't there. This mental mechanism is so fundamental that one can't just voluntarily turn it off. A normal person does not comprehend what he sees with his eyes as a spatial array of colors and intensities (the way a digital camera sees the world), from which the conscious mind decides what's there.

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 07:45 PM
I don't care what it LOOKS like, . Some still do not care to believe in evolution either. :lol:

SciFi Chick
2004-Jun-23, 07:48 PM
I don't care what it LOOKS like, . Some still do not care to believe in evolution either. :lol:

Evolution has evidence to support it.

Your constant laughing does comes across as very disrespectful.

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 07:50 PM
A lot of people base their scepticism on this erroneous idea. How would anyone drive on the crowded road, if he would "recognize" arbitrary images in front of him?
How such nonsense become so popular? An absolute, unadulterated nonsense, how does it become popular in our culture?
ES... we tend to see things that aren't there...

Again, you personally might have this problem. Seek attention than. Normal people do not have it.

ES

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 07:55 PM
I don't care what it LOOKS like, . Some still do not care to believe in evolution either. :lol:Evolution has evidence to support it.

Exactly. And people do not believe in it. The same thing with stingray tail and civilization on Mars :D

Gullible Jones
2004-Jun-23, 08:03 PM
Extrasense, I believe that Omypelt is refering to pareidolia. (http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html) The human mind has a curious tendency to see patterns where there aren't any.

A good example of this is the (in)famous "Jesus in a tortilla" incident. Apparitions of the Virgin Mary in grimy windows, splotches of paint shaped like busts of Ho Chi Min, etc. are also examples of pareidolia.

Another example: this Mandelbrot fractal (http://chaos.inje.ac.kr/Lec/fractal/mirror/gallery/buddha.gif) looks so much like the seated Buddha that it and similar fractals are often called "Buddhabrots".

Edit: Also, your "jokes" are not very funny, and are in fact somewhat offensive...

Anla'Shok
2004-Jun-23, 08:26 PM
The same picture
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/130/2P137912072ESF5000P2575L2M1.JPG
Along with a whole bunch of others of the same thing, apparently with every available filter on both pancams.
Well, I am glad there is no argument about the authenticity :P

So, do you see a tail and its shadow there?

If you enlarge the photo and look at the rock you can see that it extends under the soil under the ridge, what you call the tail, to a length almost equal to the portion of the rock above the soil. You can see how the ground slopes in front of the "tail" indicating the shape of the underground portion.

Laser Jock
2004-Jun-23, 08:30 PM
It becomes popular by being subjected to repeated investigation and experimentation. Neurobiologists as well as AI researchers are keenly interested in learning how the brain 'sees' things.

If you think about this example you will find it demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you claim. A person standing in the middle of a highway would be roadkill if it weren't for the brain's innate ability to take the raw information provided by the eyes and instantly attempt to decompose the scene into objects with known characteristics (e.g. "that red blob of light in front of you is a car, the grey blob of light below you is a highway, cars move rapidly on highways and are dangerous, move!").

We don't see arbitrary objects under ordinary conditions because the system works very well. But when the information provided by the eyes is ambiguous, that's when we tend to see things that aren't there. This mental mechanism is so fundamental that one can't just voluntarily turn it off. A normal person does not comprehend what he sees with his eyes as a spatial array of colors and intensities (the way a digital camera sees the world), from which the conscious mind decides what's there.

Welcome to the BABB omypelt. Good first post.




Again, you personally might have this problem. Seek attention than. Normal people do not have it.

ES

:x [-X :x

That was inappropriate ES.

TriangleMan
2004-Jun-23, 08:35 PM
:roll: I'm outta here, this is going to go just like all the other "photoanalyst" threads. ES, please look back at the posts and the links people like the BA have provided and ask yourself why your contentions have not convinced anyone here.

Laser Jock
2004-Jun-23, 08:37 PM
If you enlarge the photo and look at the rock you can see that it extends under the soil under the ridge, what you call the tail, to a length almost equal to the portion of the rock above the soil. You can see how the ground slopes in front of the "tail" indicating the shape of the underground portion.

I'm not sure if the rock extends that far, but it is clear that part of the rock is covered by the dune.

BTW, welcome to the BABB. (It seems I'm on the welcome committee today.)

ToSeek
2004-Jun-23, 08:43 PM
:roll: I'm outta here, this is going to go just like all the other "photoanalyst" threads. ES, please look back at the posts and the links people like the BA have provided and ask yourself why your contentions have not convinced anyone here.

That's about my attitude at this point.

Musashi
2004-Jun-23, 09:26 PM
I don't care what it LOOKS like, . Some still do not care to believe in evolution either. :lol:Evolution has evidence to support it.

Exectly. And people do not believe in it. The same thing with stingray tail and civilization on Mars :D

So... what evidence does civilization on Mars have? :roll:

Doodler
2004-Jun-23, 09:27 PM
I don't care what it LOOKS like, . Some still do not care to believe in evolution either. :lol:

I love this, my first totally baseless ad hominem attack on this board. :lol: I'm almost proud.

You're essentially playing the same game as the people who swore up and down there was a face and three pyramids on Mars since the Mariner flyby. Its shadows, light, and wishful thinking.

Heck, hop over to the Lunar Conspiracies and Against the Mainstream board and have a look at the ungodly number of times this type of photoanalysis has been completely debunked.

The only thing you've got going for you at this point is the fact there aren't any lenseflares you're trying to use to support your idea.

kucharek
2004-Jun-23, 09:53 PM
:roll: I'm outta here, this is going to go just like all the other "photoanalyst" threads. ES, please look back at the posts and the links people like the BA have provided and ask yourself why your contentions have not convinced anyone here.

That's about my attitude at this point.

Count 3

JayUtah
2004-Jun-23, 09:53 PM
The physiology underlying pareidolia functions in the healthy human mind. It is not a symptom of mental illness. The human brain is purposefully well attuned to "recognizing" objects from incomplete or obscured patterns. That mechanism can be easily fooled.

omypelt
2004-Jun-23, 10:42 PM
Again, you personally might have this problem. Seek attention than. Normal people do not have it.

ES
Consider a scenario:

You're walking down a poorly lit alley in a bad part of town. Suddenly you become aware of person leaning against the wall directly in front of you. You freeze. A bucket of adrenaline is dumped into your veins. The person doesn't move either. As you try to decide whether to run away or stay put, it dawns on you that the 'person' is nothing more than a stack of boxes and trash lit in an unusual way. You saw something that wasn't there.

This is normal. Our visual system has a strong incentive to discourage false-negatives (not noticing things that are real) at the expense of more false-positives (identifying things are aren't real). If you had to wait until something could be unambiguously identified you'd be tiger food.

Tranquility
2004-Jun-23, 10:47 PM
Heck, sometimes the clothes hanging from my dresser in the dark in my room look like a 3-legged rhinoceros. :-?

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 11:01 PM
Again, you personally might have this problem. Seek attention than. Normal people do not have it.
Consider a scenario:....

In the situation, when the recognition time is very much limited, there can be mistakes. If they are not fatal, they are corrected 8)
This is not the case with viewing a photographic image.

ES

extrasense
2004-Jun-23, 11:09 PM
I don't care what it LOOKS like, . Some still do not care to believe in evolution either. :lol:Evolution has evidence to support it.Exactly. And people still do not believe in it. The same thing with stingray tail and civilization on Mars :DSo... what evidence does civilization on Mars have
Here it is:
Piped spring with running water
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/water1.jpg

Statue of Lamb
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/2p090-2P134351571EFF2500P2536L4M1-lamb.jpg

Statue of Fish
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/2p063-2P131954927ESF1300P2532L6M1-big-fin-fish-statue.jpg

The Martian himself on camera
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/FirstMartian.gif

And there is more at http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense
=D>

Musashi
2004-Jun-23, 11:21 PM
Have you ever heard of Brad Guth?

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Jun-24, 12:28 AM
You are 100% wrong again. In a good company although, NASA idiots use this too.

Besides endless denials without evidence to back it up, I also frown heavily on ad hominems. Read the FAQ for this board.

First warning. There won't be a second.

freddo
2004-Jun-24, 12:42 AM
Have you ever heard of Brad Guth?
:D Or Btimsah1, or wiolawa, or any other number of posters that thought seeing things in images actually mean something.

What I find interesting is this.

extrasense, you claim that humans can tell between 'looks like' and 'is.' This was the basis for your assertion that there is a fossilised stingray in the image - asserting that the bones were obvious to see. Upon being informed that stingrays do not have any bones, your response was:


manta ray or sting ray - it is just a placeholder for an nonexistent name of martian animal of somewhat similar shape.

Somewhat similar. We have yourself, a self-proclaimed expert about seeing what 'is,' claiming knowledge about what life on Mars actually looks like - and the basis for this knowledge is a shape in an image that is 'somewhat similar' to a stingray. Only it has bones.

Please forgive me if I do not consider the case closed at this point.

Squink
2004-Jun-24, 12:53 AM
Can anyone else see the statue of a lamb? I thought that picture was the Martian outpost. What I thought was the lamb statue now turns out to be an actual martian? He looks kind of like a lamb.
This is very confusing.

extrasense
2004-Jun-24, 01:29 AM
Can anyone else see the statue of a lamb? I thought that picture was the Martian outpost. What I thought was the lamb statue now turns out to be an actual martian? He looks kind of like a lamb.
This is very confusing.

In nice black outfit. How do you like his dog?
Hopefully, you are not telling me that the statue spins its head..
Do you see the # 36 written under the pipe? :P
Did martians stole out numbers????????
:roll:
ES

John Jones
2004-Jun-24, 01:53 AM
Can anyone else see the statue of a lamb? I thought that picture was the Martian outpost. What I thought was the lamb statue now turns out to be an actual martian? He looks kind of like a lamb.
This is very confusing.

In nice black outfit. How do you like his dog?
Hopefully, you are not telling me that the statue spins its head..
Do you see the # 36 written under the pipe? :P
Did martians stole out numbers????????
:roll:
ES

This is quasi-topical, but why would you choose BABB.Martian_Chronicals as the place to display your <cough> unusual theories<cough>?

There are plenty of kook/woo-woo threads on BABB alone - not to mention the minds you could waste on GLP or Usenet, for example.

To recapitulate: Why post crackpot theories here, when the pathologically credulous world lies before you?

Is it just me?

extrasense
2004-Jun-24, 03:38 AM
Is it just me?
No, there is plenty of nitwits besides you :P

Musashi
2004-Jun-24, 03:44 AM
Did you forget to read the FAQ or is it just your nature to be rude?

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Jun-24, 03:50 AM
Is it just me?
No, there is plenty of nitwits besides you :P

Haha! He used a smiley face, so it cannot be an ad hominem! Haha!

Wrong. Banned. Locked. :evil: