PDA

View Full Version : Beyond the "catbox" thread



algorithms
2005-Aug-28, 02:55 PM
The Bad Astronomer:

After 21 pages, I've had enough.

A.DIM, Outcast, you have been making the same circular arguments for weeks now, with nothing new. When presented with new arguments, you simply dismiss them, and as I point out in the post above, you are researching this on the web instead of where the real work is published, the journals.

And in the end Nereid has the best point: Outcast you have yet to say what is clear evidence of artificiality. Both of you have danced around this. That's got both of you on thin ice for banning.

So I will be very clear. I will not allow further discussion about this until the idea of what constitutes artificiality is discussed. Until that is resolved, this argument will never end.

But this thread will. Locked.

Perhaps folks should take a look at the remote sensing work used in terrestrial archaeology for some ideas here. Both satellite imagery and aerial photography are used by archaeologists in their search for evidence of past human settlements. Here is an interesting piece on the subject:

GIS TECHNIQUES, REMOTE SENSING AND MULTIVARIATE MODELS IN ASSESSING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (http://deis158.deis.unibo.it/archeo/chapt_1.html)

What I gather from looking at this and other materials on the subject is that you can't simply rely upon the shape of an object in order to identify it as a potential archaeological resource. There are other important variables that must be considered in order to narrow down the candidates. That's because symmetry and regular geometric shape is a common occurrence in natural geology. In fact, these materials suggest that its an entirely useless pursuit of time to simply peruse satellite images in search of archaeology. One must know something about the geology and geophysical history of a location in order to know where to look and what to look for.

jt-3d
2005-Aug-28, 03:20 PM
GIS TECHNIQUES, REMOTE SENSING AND MULTIVARIATE MODELS IN ASSESSING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (http://deis158.deis.unibo.it/archeo/chapt_1.html)

What I gather from looking at this and other materials on the subject is that you can't simply rely upon the shape of an object in order to identify it as a potential archaeological resource. There are other important variables that must be considered in order to narrow down the candidates. That's because symmetry and regular geometric shape is a common occurrence in natural geology. In fact, these materials suggest that its an entirely useless pursuit of time to simply peruse satellite images in search of archaeology. One must know something about the geology and geophysical history of a location in order to know where to look and what to look for.

Yes, I agree. But none of this sways the woo. Alas, once they espy some sign of intelligence in a grainy, old, low resolution image, they go nuts. How they recogize it I don't know. Possibly opposites attracting.

Nereid
2005-Aug-28, 03:30 PM
espy some sign of intelligence [snip] How they recogize it I don't know
Yes.

This is precisely the issue, is it not? Frustrating to me is that, despite asking many times, I never got an answer to how anyone could determine 'intelligence' or 'artificiality', from any (kinds of) observations.

Worse, it seems the proponents were unwilling to have a discussion about how such criteria might even be established (i.e. the program whose results would be a working draft of such criteria). :-?

algorithms
2005-Aug-28, 03:59 PM
The "proponents" rely upon their discovery of "anomalies" in satellite images of Mars. I assume what they mean is that the feature in question is anomalous with respect to natural geologic processes, thus implying an artificial, or "intelligent" origin.

The problem here is that "proponents" fail to explain what kind of criteria they are using the determine that something is "anomalous" in natural geology. Most will tend to suggest that the presence of symmetrical or geometric shape implies something other than natural processes. But we know for a fact that natural terrestrial geology is replete with symmetrical shape and regular geometric form - especially in areas where eolian processes dominate. So how is it "anomalous?"

MG1962A
2005-Aug-29, 11:08 PM
This an interesting discussion. A while back I started a thread about the geology of the 'Inca village formation." I was curious what sort of exotic geology could create such an interesting formation.

To my suprise...there were at least three very sound theories - all so good they are competing against each other. All have examples found on Earth. Two could be re-created using plaster of paris sand and water in my own back yard.

So the number of anomalies found on Mars points to a lack of knowledge in geology by the observer rather than evidence they are artifical.

MG

JonClarke
2005-Aug-30, 12:26 AM
I recently had a long discussion about this with another board. I agree it is very hard to pin the Cydonia Clan down to testable statments. However I suggest the claimed evidence seems to come down to the following:

1. It looks like a face and is therefore it is artificial.

2. The "face" is symmetrical and therefore artificial.

3. Othe features in the area (e.g. the "D&M pyramid") are highly regular and therefore artificial.

4. There are significant alignments between various features (e.g. "Tholu," "face," or "pyramid") therefore the feature is artificial.

5. The position of various features in relation to mars, each other and the proportions of the various angles and distances are all numerically significant according to Hoagland's hyper dimensional physics. Therefore the feature is artificial.

6. Fractal analysis of the surface of the "face" and other features shows that they are non fractal and thus artificial (viz Carlotto).

We can safely say that 1 is false based on later images, 2-4 can be shown to be false even by Viking data, 5 requires acceptance of Hoogland's hyper dimensional physics (slightly contentious of itself).

That leaves 6. Identifying artifical structures in remotely sensed data is the province of geomorphologists, geologists, archaeologists, and intelligence gathers. I can safely say that the first three do not use fracal analysis to recognise artificial structures in any of their work. Can anyone speak about the military's analysis of air photos? Carlotto's work was supposed designed to simplifying looking for structures, vehicles etc. Can anyone address how valid this methodology is? It was done at least 10 years ago, when fratcal image analysis was all the rage, but it did not amount to anything in other applications.

By this stage the Cydonia Clan are usually reduced to saying "It is artifical because I say it is."

Jon

algorithms
2005-Aug-30, 02:39 AM
MG1962A: So the number of anomalies found on Mars points to a lack of knowledge in geology by the observer rather than evidence they are artifical.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Those individuals imagining they've found "anomalies" are not very knowledgeable about geology or planetary science. Hence, they incorrectly conclude that something they've found in an image is "anomalous" when it isn't.


JonClarke: Can anyone speak about the military's analysis of air photos? Carlotto's work was supposed designed to simplifying looking for structures, vehicles etc. Can anyone address how valid this methodology is? It was done at least 10 years ago, when fratcal image analysis was all the rage, but it did not amount to anything in other applications.

Well the big problem with Carlotto's "fractal analysis" is that he was working with an image that had been grossly enhanced to the limits of legibility. In otherwords, it was already embedded with the results of image processing algorithms that had produced extrapolated features. So, naturally, his "analysis" seemed to produce provocative results. One wonders what would happen if he attempted to pull off the same stunt with the April, 2001 image.

By the way, folks should notice that neither A.DIM, nor Outcast have attempted to present their case here.

JonClarke
2005-Aug-30, 03:43 AM
Even Carlotto admitted that not all of the "anomolous" features in the Viking image gave anomalous fractal indices, making his whole case borderline at best.

Jon

Yorkshireman
2005-Aug-30, 04:11 PM
Here's the link to Carlotto's fractal paper in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society:

A Method for Searching for Artificial Objects on Planetary Surfaces (http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/martianenigmas/Papers/JBIS1990.pdf)

I wasn't convinced then, and I'm not now!

JonClarke
2005-Aug-30, 09:56 PM
I certainly would not have passed it for publication if I had been an editor of JBIS.

Jon

algorithms
2005-Aug-31, 12:47 AM
Yorkshireman: Here's the link to Carlotto's fractal paper in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society:
A Method for Searching for Artificial Objects on Planetary Surfaces
I wasn't convinced then, and I'm not now!

Indeed. There is a fundamental flaw in Carlotto's methodology. Its that when you are working with a digital image which has been enhanced to the limits of its legibility, one cannot peer deeper for evidence of "self-similarity." And just as important, Mr. Carlotto's work offers no controls which might reveal how frequently fractal analysis of natural objects might not demonstrate self-similarity, particularly with respect to the resolution characteristics and limitations of the cameras used with the Viking orbiters.


JonClarke: I certainly would not have passed it for publication if I had been an editor of JBIS.

The JBIS "peer review" is not particularly rigorous. Never has been.

Archer17
2005-Aug-31, 03:30 AM
..By the way, folks should notice that neither A.DIM, nor Outcast have attempted to present their case here.My computer went on me, sparing me the latter half of that previous cat-box quagmire (probably a good thing :wink: ), but they never had a case themselves .. it was all based on their belief in Sitchin. He said there was artificial structures on Mars and there's enough net-candy out there to feed advocates of Martian artificiality/NASA subterfuge. They were glad to post the candy. That's what they do.. heh, that's all they do.

The thing is, I can't see how/why NASA would: A) think they are able to suppress convincing evidence of Martian "artificiality" indefinitely, B) lack the foresight to realize that and, C) why they would even suppress a potential "shot in the arm" that such artificiality would provide to their budget.

Gillianren
2005-Aug-31, 03:35 AM
I stand by the scenario I posted in the other thread, and if anyone wants to prove to me otherwise, they must explain the motivations in the alternate scenario where I ask for them. (did anyone actually read the alternate scenario? I thought I summed it up pretty well, but it was so close to the end of the thread that I'm not sure anyone caught it.)

if another thread on the same subject starts, I'll probably haul that scenario out again. (this isn't really a thread on the subject; it's a thread on what's wrong with threads on the subject.)

Archer17
2005-Aug-31, 03:41 AM
I stand by the scenario I posted in the other thread, and if anyone wants to prove to me otherwise, they must explain the motivations in the alternate scenario where I ask for them. (did anyone actually read the alternate scenario? I thought I summed it up pretty well, but it was so close to the end of the thread that I'm not sure anyone caught it.)

if another thread on the same subject starts, I'll probably haul that scenario out again. (this isn't really a thread on the subject; it's a thread on what's wrong with threads on the subject.)I've been away for a bit and only read the last post (BA's locking) .. what scenario?

Edited to add: Never mind. I read it. .. I'll leave it at that. :wink:

A.DIM
2005-Aug-31, 01:38 PM
Most of you missed entirely the point of that thread...


Recently in conversation, "The Face" was brought up.
Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't recall the "catbox" fiasco ever being discussed around here.

And so...
NASA vs. Artificial Structures on the Surface of Mars.

To me, this is a well reasoned argument for why "the face" issue persists.

I find myself frustrated upon hearing someone say matter-of-factly "it is just a hill with tricks of light and shadow coupled with pareidolia" or some other such.

Now, while I allow the ETH and consider it plausible that beings once inhabited Mars, in no way do I consider it proven.

So is it wrong to agree, as concluded in the article, that the question is yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years?

"For the time being, the conclusion must be that the basic question of whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered. Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered. NASA's irrational, even bizarre behavior in this matter, which runs counter to the most basic scientific principle that conclusions are drawn based on examination of the evidence, not on a priori beliefs, could simply be motivated by a desire to "save face" (pun intended) after firmly and repeatedly committing itself to a premature dismissal of the formation as natural in 1976. However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public."

...the point being that NASA's own behavior has helped perpetuate the conspiracies.

Only ToSeek acknowledged this.
Perhaps my OP should've been more like his summary and without Fleming's inflammatory "conclusion."

I didn't start that thread to offer evidence of artificiality(I have none), "prove" something (i don't think the issue can be resolved through images), or slander NASA as many of you thought.



And so now on with this thread...

A.DIM
2005-Aug-31, 01:46 PM
Perhaps folks should take a look at the remote sensing work used in terrestrial archaeology for some ideas here. Both satellite imagery and aerial photography are used by archaeologists in their search for evidence of past human settlements. Here is an interesting piece on the subject:

GIS TECHNIQUES, REMOTE SENSING AND MULTIVARIATE MODELS IN ASSESSING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (http://deis158.deis.unibo.it/archeo/chapt_1.html)

What I gather from looking at this and other materials on the subject is that you can't simply rely upon the shape of an object in order to identify it as a potential archaeological resource. There are other important variables that must be considered in order to narrow down the candidates. That's because symmetry and regular geometric shape is a common occurrence in natural geology. In fact, these materials suggest that its an entirely useless pursuit of time to simply peruse satellite images in search of archaeology. One must know something about the geology and geophysical history of a location in order to know where to look and what to look for.


I agree, the remote sensing techniques are a good place to start in establishing what comprises artificiality.
Are there any such examinations of Cydonia that have shown the area to be entirely natural?

Fram
2005-Aug-31, 01:55 PM
Most of you missed entirely the point of that thread...


Recently in conversation, "The Face" was brought up.
Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't recall the "catbox" fiasco ever being discussed around here.

And so...
NASA vs. Artificial Structures on the Surface of Mars.

To me, this is a well reasoned argument for why "the face" issue persists.

I find myself frustrated upon hearing someone say matter-of-factly "it is just a hill with tricks of light and shadow coupled with pareidolia" or some other such.

Now, while I allow the ETH and consider it plausible that beings once inhabited Mars, in no way do I consider it proven.

So is it wrong to agree, as concluded in the article, that the question is yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years?

"For the time being, the conclusion must be that the basic question of whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered. Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered. NASA's irrational, even bizarre behavior in this matter, which runs counter to the most basic scientific principle that conclusions are drawn based on examination of the evidence, not on a priori beliefs, could simply be motivated by a desire to "save face" (pun intended) after firmly and repeatedly committing itself to a premature dismissal of the formation as natural in 1976. However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public."

...the point being that NASA's own behavior has helped perpetuate the conspiracies.

Only ToSeek acknowledged this.
Perhaps my OP should've been more like his summary and without Fleming's inflammatory "conclusion."

I didn't start that thread to offer evidence of artificiality(I have none), "prove" something (i don't think the issue can be resolved through images), or slander NASA as many of you thought.



And so now on with this thread...

First it is a 'well reasoned argument', now it is a inflammatory "conclusion' (why the quotes?) and your intention wasn't to slander NASA... Right.
And I don't recall ToSeek saying that NASA's behaviour helped perpetuate the conspiracy. I don't think they needed any help anyway. ToSeek acknowledged that NASA probably has made mistakes and misjudgments with the release of the first processed image. He wasn't the only one to say so (I did as well).

And once again, you asked two questions in the OP of the other thread;

So is it wrong to agree, as concluded in the article, that the question is yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years?

The part about 'the question is yet unanswered' has everything to do with artificiality and nothing with NASA. The second part has a bit to do with the catbox face (four hours, until the release of the better image), and much with slandering NASA (the rest of those 'many years').

Fram
2005-Aug-31, 01:57 PM
Perhaps folks should take a look at the remote sensing work used in terrestrial archaeology for some ideas here. Both satellite imagery and aerial photography are used by archaeologists in their search for evidence of past human settlements. Here is an interesting piece on the subject:

GIS TECHNIQUES, REMOTE SENSING AND MULTIVARIATE MODELS IN ASSESSING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (http://deis158.deis.unibo.it/archeo/chapt_1.html)

What I gather from looking at this and other materials on the subject is that you can't simply rely upon the shape of an object in order to identify it as a potential archaeological resource. There are other important variables that must be considered in order to narrow down the candidates. That's because symmetry and regular geometric shape is a common occurrence in natural geology. In fact, these materials suggest that its an entirely useless pursuit of time to simply peruse satellite images in search of archaeology. One must know something about the geology and geophysical history of a location in order to know where to look and what to look for.


I agree, the remote sensing techniques are a good place to start in establishing what comprises artificiality.
Are there any such examinations of Cydonia that have shown the area to be entirely natural?

Shifting the burden of proof, A.DIM?

R.A.F.
2005-Aug-31, 02:03 PM
...the point being that NASA's own behavior has helped perpetuate the conspiracies.

Only ToSeek acknowledged this.

Hmmm....from the catbox thread...


I concede that NASA has made "mistakes"...what I don't concede is that there is any evidence of a "cover-up".

So are you now saying that NASA was not involved in a "coverup"??

Why would you post links to people who have the opinion that there was a "coverup" if that's not your opinion??

Nereid
2005-Aug-31, 02:25 PM
Let's not get distracted from 'the main game'.

From 'that other thread' (p14, 9 Aug):
So I emailed Fleming regarding our "discussion" here and he pointed out that what I've stated is as much as he would himself. There was no intent on "proving" artificiality in his articles or in this thread, only to point out NASA's behavior on this issue.

And so, to bring this full circle, I still concur with him that this issue is as yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly on this issue, which, as stated in the OP, has only fueled the artificiality hypothesis and conspiracy theories.
However, here's an extract from A.DIM's OP, repeated here in this thread (my bold): ""For the time being, the conclusion must be that the basic question of whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered. Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered.""

From our discussion, here and in 'that thread', the conclusion must be that the 'artificiality hypothesis' remains unanswerable. It's got nothing to do with what NASA did (release all the scientific data, per their normal release schedules) or didn't do, and everything to do with a vague, untestable idea, essentially devoid of any meaningful content.

CJSF
2005-Aug-31, 02:32 PM
...the point being that NASA's own behavior has helped perpetuate the conspiracies.

Only ToSeek acknowledged this.

Hmmm....from the catbox thread...


I concede that NASA has made "mistakes"...what I don't concede is that there is any evidence of a "cover-up".

So are you now saying that NASA was not involved in a "coverup"??

Why would you post links to people who have the opinion that there was a "coverup" if that's not your opinion??

You know, this reminds me of ol' Jerry's method of posting. On the one hand, you say how hard working NASA and scientists are, and that of course they aren't covering anything up.. they are just inept. THEN you go one and post quotes or drop innuendos that say there must be a cover up.

I had a brief encounter with either Hoagland or one of his "colleagues" about the old and new face images when MSSS released the higher resolution images.

It was amusing (and frustrating) that someone claiming to be an expert image analyst was telling me (a remote sensing graduate student) there were artificial structures BELOW THE LIMIT of spatial detection of the sensor! He was enlarging the image up to 1000X or more, in Photoshop (using its default display resampler), and claiming the artifacts were actual imaged objects, showing regualr and artificial structures.

It amazes me, now that I've been an image analyst/remote sensing professional for 6 years that these claims are STILL BEING MADE.

You can't image objects below the sensor's scale of collection. If you have a sensor that can collect data at 2 meters per pixel, you can't image objects under 2 meters in size! You MIGHT be able to image long highly constrasted objects less than the scale of collection (sometimes called the instantaneous field of view or IFOV), but only in the long dimension. If I wrote my name in 1 meter high letters and used a 2 meter IFOV sensor, The most you would see are some indistinct blobs. If you zoomed in past 100%, guess what you would see? BIGGER LOOKING indistinct blobs.

I'd post some examples if I had the time, but I don't. I hope my explaination is clear enough.

CJSF

algorithms
2005-Aug-31, 02:36 PM
A.DIM: I agree, the remote sensing techniques are a good place to start in establishing what comprises artificiality. Are there any such examinations of Cydonia that have shown the area to be entirely natural?

Your question is off-topic. The purpose of this thread is to have you and Outcast specify what criteria must be met in order to advance the assertion that the so-called "face" and other martian landforms are artificial rather than natural. In stating this criteria, I need you to state the body of science that supports your contention that such criteria for "artificiality" are valid. You refuse to do this. If you continue to refuse to do so, I will ask Mr. Plait to ban you from this forum. Please stay on topic.

R.A.F.
2005-Aug-31, 02:42 PM
The purpose of this thread is to have you and Outcast specify what criteria must be met in order to advance the assertion that the so-called "face" and other martian landforms are artificial rather than natural.

You are of course correct...my last post was also "off topic"...sorry about that. :oops:

A.DIM
2005-Aug-31, 02:42 PM
Man, you guys are quick to the draw... heh .... my posts, magnetic.


First it is a 'well reasoned argument', now it is a inflammatory "conclusion' (why the quotes?) and your intention wasn't to slander NASA... Right.

Right. The argument itself still seems reasonable, regardless of Fleming's inflammatory (eg. "bizarre, dogmatic, significant evidence") conclusion.
"Conclusion" in quotes because there are as reasonable arguments to the contrary. His wasn't meant as the final say.


And I don't recall ToSeek saying that NASA's behaviour helped perpetuate the conspiracy. I don't think they needed any help anyway. ToSeek acknowledged that NASA probably has made mistakes and misjudgments with the release of the first processed image. He wasn't the only one to say so (I did as well).

I'm sorry then, I missed that.


I think an argument can be made that NASA has handled the "Face" situation badly:

- Saying that there were other photos when there weren't
- Providing an extremely low quality image from MGS early on (though I blame the Face proponents for this as well)
- Claiming before MGS that all attempts to image Cydonia would be announced in advance and then not following through
- Claiming (at one point) that there was a high-resolution image and anaglyph of the Face on the web several weeks before it was actually posted

However, I think this is more due to NASA personnel not taking the Face at all seriously (and in some cases resenting the interest it was receiving) rather than a cover-up or anything else nefarious.

This was a much more balanced consideration of the intended topic.
Though if these mistakes were made merely because personel didn't take it seriously, I can hardly agree that objectivity has been employed, and such behavior might well be considered bizarre and dogmatic, considering how science works.


And once again, you asked two questions in the OP of the other thread;

So is it wrong to agree, as concluded in the article, that the question is yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years?

The part about 'the question is yet unanswered' has everything to do with artificiality and nothing with NASA. The second part has a bit to do with the catbox face (four hours, until the release of the better image), and much with slandering NASA (the rest of those 'many years').

OK, and I still say the question of artificiality is yet unanswered, and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding "the face."
IMHO, of course.

A.DIM
2005-Aug-31, 02:46 PM
Perhaps folks should take a look at the remote sensing work used in terrestrial archaeology for some ideas here. Both satellite imagery and aerial photography are used by archaeologists in their search for evidence of past human settlements. Here is an interesting piece on the subject:

GIS TECHNIQUES, REMOTE SENSING AND MULTIVARIATE MODELS IN ASSESSING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (http://deis158.deis.unibo.it/archeo/chapt_1.html)

What I gather from looking at this and other materials on the subject is that you can't simply rely upon the shape of an object in order to identify it as a potential archaeological resource. There are other important variables that must be considered in order to narrow down the candidates. That's because symmetry and regular geometric shape is a common occurrence in natural geology. In fact, these materials suggest that its an entirely useless pursuit of time to simply peruse satellite images in search of archaeology. One must know something about the geology and geophysical history of a location in order to know where to look and what to look for.


I agree, the remote sensing techniques are a good place to start in establishing what comprises artificiality.
Are there any such examinations of Cydonia that have shown the area to be entirely natural?

Shifting the burden of proof, A.DIM?

No, asking a simple question.

Are you ignoring my words above that "I have none" regarding evidence of artificiality so as to employ this stock retort?

A.DIM
2005-Aug-31, 02:53 PM
...the point being that NASA's own behavior has helped perpetuate the conspiracies.

Only ToSeek acknowledged this.

Hmmm....from the catbox thread...


I concede that NASA has made "mistakes"...what I don't concede is that there is any evidence of a "cover-up".

So are you now saying that NASA was not involved in a "coverup"??

Why would you post links to people who have the opinion that there was a "coverup" if that's not your opinion??

Did I ever say NASA was involved in a "coverup," RAF?
No, Fleming did.

I regret linking to his article now, I assure you. I'd have much rather stated my OP as clearly and concisely as ToSeek while maintaining my impression of peculiar behavior and an unresolved artificiality hypothesis.

A.DIM
2005-Aug-31, 02:59 PM
Let's not get distracted from 'the main game'.

From 'that other thread' (p14, 9 Aug):
So I emailed Fleming regarding our "discussion" here and he pointed out that what I've stated is as much as he would himself. There was no intent on "proving" artificiality in his articles or in this thread, only to point out NASA's behavior on this issue.

And so, to bring this full circle, I still concur with him that this issue is as yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly on this issue, which, as stated in the OP, has only fueled the artificiality hypothesis and conspiracy theories.
However, here's an extract from A.DIM's OP, repeated here in this thread (my bold): ""For the time being, the conclusion must be that the basic question of whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered. Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered.""

From our discussion, here and in 'that thread', the conclusion must be that the 'artificiality hypothesis' remains unanswerable. It's got nothing to do with what NASA did (release all the scientific data, per their normal release schedules) or didn't do, and everything to do with a vague, untestable idea, essentially devoid of any meaningful content.

So let's get back on topic here and try to establish what would constitutes artificiality, eh?
You consider the question "unanswerable?"

algorithms
2005-Aug-31, 03:01 PM
Mr. A.DIM: If you don't honor the topic of this thread, I will request that you be banned from this forum. Now, please, I need you to state your evidence-based criteria for determining that a landform on Mars is "artificial" rather than natural.

CJSF
2005-Aug-31, 03:15 PM
...the point being that NASA's own behavior has helped perpetuate the conspiracies.

Only ToSeek acknowledged this.

Hmmm....from the catbox thread...


I concede that NASA has made "mistakes"...what I don't concede is that there is any evidence of a "cover-up".

So are you now saying that NASA was not involved in a "coverup"??

Why would you post links to people who have the opinion that there was a "coverup" if that's not your opinion??

Did I ever say NASA was involved in a "coverup," RAF?
No, Fleming did.

I regret linking to his article now, I assure you. I'd have much rather stated my OP as clearly and concisely as ToSeek while maintaining my impression of peculiar behavior and an unresolved artificiality hypothesis.

Am I the only one who thinks that makes no sense? I agree with R.A.F., why post it then? Also, you can't drop phrases like "peculiar behavior" and then not say WHY you think it's peculiar. HOW is it peculiar? What does that peculiarity mean to YOU? You seem to be casting doubt on NASA's honesty or forthrightness, but then claiming you're not.

CJSF

A.DIM
2005-Aug-31, 03:22 PM
A.DIM: I agree, the remote sensing techniques are a good place to start in establishing what comprises artificiality. Are there any such examinations of Cydonia that have shown the area to be entirely natural?

Your question is off-topic. The purpose of this thread is to have you and Outcast specify what criteria must be met in order to advance the assertion that the so-called "face" and other martian landforms are artificial rather than natural. In stating this criteria, I need you to state the body of science that supports your contention that such criteria for "artificiality" are valid. You refuse to do this. If you continue to refuse to do so, I will ask Mr. Plait to ban you from this forum. Please stay on topic.

Fine, as I've said, I have no evidence for it. Never claimed I did.

When I profered Erjavec's geomorphology study it was summarily dismissed or ignored. Carlotto is dimissed. I imagine DiPietro and Molenarr would be dismissed. Erol Torun too.
And it appears now that even refereed journals like JBIS are unreliable.

All I have is my opinion, and if that is enough for you to request my banning, so be it.

I'm finished here.

R.A.F.
2005-Aug-31, 03:29 PM
I know that it's hard to do but I think that we all should stay focused on the following...


...state your evidence-based criteria for determining that a landform on Mars is "artificial" rather than natural.

The "ball" is in Outcast and A.DIM's "court"...


I'm finished here.

So can we take that to mean that you have no "evidence based criteria"?

Swift
2005-Aug-31, 03:39 PM
Along the lines of the question for this topic, how can one tell whether this:
http://www.newenglandtravelplanner.com/assets/images/nh_images/old_man.jpg

or this:
http://www.rlrouse.com/pic-of-the-day/mount-rushmore.jpg

are artificial? (the first is the Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire (now gone) and the second is Mount Rushmore)

I'd guess someone will say that the second one is much "smoother" or "neater". Maybe the Old Man is artificial and just very ancient and weathered. What will Rushmore look like in 10,000 years?

Let's suppose that space aliens came to a de-populated Earth in the future and found these two things; how would they tell which one was artificial? I especially would like to know the answer to that if the aliens were not humanoid and did not recognize those as faces (let's say the aliens were giant spiders).

I don't have the answers to these questions (in fact, I don't think image analysis can answer them, but that's just MHO). But I think that is the question.

Outcast
2005-Aug-31, 07:35 PM
The "proponents" rely upon their discovery of "anomalies" in satellite images of Mars. I assume what they mean is that the feature in question is anomalous with respect to natural geologic processes, thus implying an artificial, or "intelligent" origin.

The problem here is that "proponents" fail to explain what kind of criteria they are using the determine that something is "anomalous" in natural geology. Most will tend to suggest that the presence of symmetrical or geometric shape implies something other than natural processes. But we know for a fact that natural terrestrial geology is replete with symmetrical shape and regular geometric form - especially in areas where eolian processes dominate. So how is it "anomalous?"

two obvious false statements. first that "proponentes" fail to explain what criteria is involved and second that "proponents" claim that the presence of symmetrical features can only imply something other than natural processes.

the presence of symmetrical terrestrial forms might or might not imply artificiality. the fact that geological processes can, by random or a series of natural processes, produce regular geometrical forms does not imply that any planetary geometrical form can be or will be natural in nature. this is a simple fact.

jt-3d presented a link for Carlotto's paper, which is somewhat of an oddity because a link for the whole lot of the newfrontiersinscience.com archive of papers on the subject had been presented by me earlier in the other thread. this set of papers is criteria and work advanced on the subject of planetery SETI research.

the search for the presence of alien artifacts in our own solar system has been persued and proposed by many scientific minds, one of which was debunker supreme himself: Carl Sagan. so the only thing "woo" about the subject of the search for artificiality and extraterrestrial intelligence in our solar system is the idea that we somehow can be certain of what we will find and specialy where we will find it, as some pretend to be. such woowooisms were thrown around in the other thread and are still being tossed around in here. i call this woowooism because pretending the we're dealing with absolutes in such an uncertain subject is not rational.

either way, i hope this thread will point to an elaboration over the details of the Cydonia artificiality hypothesis papers, whether one is convinced or not with the arguments.

Gillianren
2005-Aug-31, 07:40 PM
no one will be convinced until you tell us a few things. all those things have been asked, repeatedly, in this thread and the other one. calling us liars doesn't help your case.

Superluminal
2005-Aug-31, 09:48 PM
A.dim said all he has is his opinion. Fine, let it rest there until Mars Recon Orbiter can get some better pics. We had a really bad woo woo in our club. But he was convinced that there was nothing there after the catbox pic came out.

I'm suprised BA hasn't locked this thread as well.

Archer17
2005-Aug-31, 09:51 PM
The "proponents" rely upon their discovery of "anomalies" in satellite images of Mars. I assume what they mean is that the feature in question is anomalous with respect to natural geologic processes, thus implying an artificial, or "intelligent" origin.

The problem here is that "proponents" fail to explain what kind of criteria they are using the determine that something is "anomalous" in natural geology. Most will tend to suggest that the presence of symmetrical or geometric shape implies something other than natural processes. But we know for a fact that natural terrestrial geology is replete with symmetrical shape and regular geometric form - especially in areas where eolian processes dominate. So how is it "anomalous?"

two obvious false statements. first that "proponentes" fail to explain what criteria is involved..What criteria?
..and second that "proponents" claim that the presence of symmetrical features can only imply something other than natural processes. If the "proponents" aren't implying artificiality on Mars, what are they proponents of?
the presence of symmetrical terrestrial forms might or might not imply artificiality. the fact that geological processes can, by random or a series of natural processes, produce regular geometrical forms does not imply that any planetary geometrical form can be or will be natural in nature. this is a simple fact.If you or anyone else implies that any formation, symmetrical or not, is not natural in origin, when you even concede that "geological processes can, by a random or series of natural processes, produce regular geometrical forms," then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that such formations are not and can not be formed by the aforementioned natural processes.
..the search for the presence of alien artifacts in our own solar system has been persued and proposed by many scientific minds, one of which was debunker supreme himself: Carl Sagan. so the only thing "woo" about the subject of the search for artificiality and extraterrestrial intelligence in our solar system is the idea that we somehow can be certain of what we will find and specialy where we will find it, as some pretend to be. such woowooisms were thrown around in the other thread and are still being tossed around in here. i call this woowooism because pretending the we're dealing with absolutes in such an uncertain subject is not rational.I'm not aware of anyone that considers the search for ET, whether it's in our solar system or beyond, as "woo woo" and to make such a statement shows you don't even understand the mainstream. What's irrational is when someone claims the concept of intelligent ET and/or artificiality in our solar system should be entertained without the weight of hard evidence.

Van Rijn
2005-Aug-31, 10:17 PM
*sigh* Looks like the same argument all over again.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the possibility of ET artificial structures on Mars or elsewhere. But there is obvious disagreement about how likely it is. We can argue about it until the sun dies, but it is an empty argument without some rules.

A.Dim, Outcast - you are the strong proponents of artificiality or a strong possibility of artificiality. If you have described any objective criteria for artificiality here, I missed it. Actually, my impression was that you were avoiding the discussion.

I would like to see some suggestions for objective criteria. What should we look for? What evidence do we need? This could be a great discussion, and we obviously need to move beyond subjective image interpretation.

Nereid
2005-Aug-31, 11:02 PM
*sigh* Looks like the same argument all over again.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the possibility of ET artificial structures on Mars or elsewhere. But there is obvious disagreement about how likely it is. We can argue about it until the sun dies, but it is an empty argument without some rules.

A.Dim, Outcast - you are the strong proponents of artificiality or a strong possibility of artificiality. If you have described any objective criteria for artificiality here, I missed it. Actually, my impression was that you were avoiding the discussion.

I would like to see some suggestions for objective criteria. What should we look for? What evidence do we need? This could be a great discussion, and we obviously need to move beyond subjective image interpretation.
In fairness, A.DIM did say this:
When I profered Erjavec's geomorphology study it was summarily dismissed or ignored. Carlotto is dimissed. I imagine DiPietro and Molenarr would be dismissed. Erol Torun too.
What would be interesting would be if an "artificiality hypothesis" proponent (A.DIM or Outcast, or any other) could distill the core aspects of these folk's work, into a "discussion draft". I imagine it might look something like this:
- in the absence of in situ observations, the degree to which a structure or formation on a planetary surface may be considered a candidate for 'non-natural origin' can be determined primarily from analysis of images obtained by remote sensors
- the aim of any effort to identify possibly non-natural features is to provide image analysis algorithms that will demarcate obviously naturaly features from those which are not so obviously natural
- such algorithms must be tested with as wide a range of remote images as possible, and calibration of the demarcation must depend upon 'ground truth' (i.e. in situ observations; for Mars this would mean the Rovers, and Sagan station; for the Moon, Surveyors and Apollo data; for ...)
- possible characteristics which may indicate something other than natural origin include {list} (note that this is just the input to some research that would likely take quite a bit of effort)
- non-image inputs may be important too (e.g. magnetic field strength, chemical composition); these would also require development of algorithms, testing and calibration, etc.

For avoidance of doubt: I am NOT saying this is a particularly good way to go about developing an objective test of 'artificiality'; nor am I claiming to know anything about the "artificiality hypothesis" which A.DIM has referred to several times. What I outlined is merely the kind of thing I had thought a proponent would come up with, after a few hours' thought (or after reading the papers A.DIM references).

jt-3d
2005-Sep-01, 12:41 AM
jt-3d presented a link for Carlotto's paper, which is somewhat of an oddity because a link for the whole lot of the newfrontiersinscience.com archive of papers on the subject had been presented by me earlier in the other thread. this set of papers is criteria and work advanced on the subject of planetery SETI research.


I most certaintly did not. I did find Clown Face Mountain (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.880357,-107.229765&spn=0.016856,0.028824&t=k&hl=en) for you though.

Wolverine
2005-Sep-01, 01:38 AM
A.DIM: I agree, the remote sensing techniques are a good place to start in establishing what comprises artificiality. Are there any such examinations of Cydonia that have shown the area to be entirely natural?

Your question is off-topic. The purpose of this thread is to have you and Outcast specify what criteria must be met in order to advance the assertion that the so-called "face" and other martian landforms are artificial rather than natural. In stating this criteria, I need you to state the body of science that supports your contention that such criteria for "artificiality" are valid. You refuse to do this. If you continue to refuse to do so, I will ask Mr. Plait to ban you from this forum. Please stay on topic.

algorithms, while your call for the above criteria is perfectly reasonable, forum participants aren't banned by request. The BA's post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=522615#522615) at the end of the previous thread made it clear that dancing around the artificiality issue is unacceptable. As much as I agree with the bulk of your post otherwise, it was neither fair nor necessary to include what amounts to an empty threat. Apologies for the OT post, just wanted to point this out.

Archer17
2005-Sep-01, 04:58 AM
While me and A.DIM have had our ideological clashes he does have a right to post ATM ideas on this board. My major problem is not what he believes or "allows" but his lack of candor. I've been here since May '03 and am well aware of what he's about. What I find insulting is A.DIM's propensity to deny the motivations behind his posts here. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if one allows the possibility of Sitchin's interpretations being factual, then the following must have merit:

* Ancient ET intervention in the affairs of men.

* UFOs as alien spacecraft.

* Nibiru exists.

* Artificial structures on Mars.

A.DIM has often reacted negatively to my assertions that he has an agenda here, but I believe the motivations for all of his posts are an attempt to trumpet his Sitchinesque "allowances" on this, a skeptically oriented, mainstream board .. his recent Martian artificiality innuendos being just the latest manifestation of this agenda. Look at his posting history, all of them meet the above criteria. I actually don't even have a problem with that as I relish a chance to do my part in what this board (and attached web site) is all about .. addressing hokum. The thing I don't like is the consistent refusal/inability of A.DIM to make a stand regarding his posts when called on it, instead we get innuendos, denials, and obfuscation. That to me is just lame.

Outcast is not as English-savvy and is to be commended for overcoming the language barrier to post here but his posts often devolve into rhetorical ramblings. Even more so than A.DIM, I can almost see him spitting out "skeptic" and "debunker" with a virulence way above a simple difference of opinion. Outcast is still talking out of both sides of his mouth (so to speak) regarding Martian artificiality I've noticed.

While I think both A.DIM and Outcast are entitled to their opinions (whenever they stop dancing long enough to actually come out and state them), they haven't shown me that they understand the mainstream enough to understand why their beliefs or, as A.DIM would say, "allowances" are not generally accepted here. We ask for proof/hard evidence and when none is forthcoming we are told that we are wrong for not considering the possibility that what they bring here is viable anyway. That approach will not work and is destined to create the kind of contentious back-and-forth's we have seen all too often. Instead of discussion, we get rhetoric.

As I've said back in the other "cat-box" thread, there can not be a satisfactory resolution regarding this so-called "issue." Those that insist on keeping the Martian artificiality myth alive refuse to believe their own eyes when Cydonia was re-examined and instead, rely on some others to tell them what they want to hear. Without the Viking images there would be no debate here. While those that suggest a reasonable discussion of what would constitute artificiality mean well, it all comes down to the Viking images and the allusions of hanky-panky regarding the later Cydonia images by those that won't let go.

Outcast
2005-Sep-01, 07:16 AM
*sigh* Looks like the same argument all over again.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the possibility of ET artificial structures on Mars or elsewhere. But there is obvious disagreement about how likely it is. We can argue about it until the sun dies, but it is an empty argument without some rules.

A.Dim, Outcast - you are the strong proponents of artificiality or a strong possibility of artificiality. If you have described any objective criteria for artificiality here, I missed it. Actually, my impression was that you were avoiding the discussion.

I would like to see some suggestions for objective criteria. What should we look for? What evidence do we need? This could be a great discussion, and we obviously need to move beyond subjective image interpretation.
In fairness, A.DIM did say this:
When I profered Erjavec's geomorphology study it was summarily dismissed or ignored. Carlotto is dimissed. I imagine DiPietro and Molenarr would be dismissed. Erol Torun too.
What would be interesting would be if an "artificiality hypothesis" proponent (A.DIM or Outcast, or any other) could distill the core aspects of these folk's work, into a "discussion draft". I imagine it might look something like this:
- in the absence of in situ observations, the degree to which a structure or formation on a planetary surface may be considered a candidate for 'non-natural origin' can be determined primarily from analysis of images obtained by remote sensors
- the aim of any effort to identify possibly non-natural features is to provide image analysis algorithms that will demarcate obviously naturaly features from those which are not so obviously natural
- such algorithms must be tested with as wide a range of remote images as possible, and calibration of the demarcation must depend upon 'ground truth' (i.e. in situ observations; for Mars this would mean the Rovers, and Sagan station; for the Moon, Surveyors and Apollo data; for ...)
- possible characteristics which may indicate something other than natural origin include {list} (note that this is just the input to some research that would likely take quite a bit of effort)
- non-image inputs may be important too (e.g. magnetic field strength, chemical composition); these would also require development of algorithms, testing and calibration, etc.

For avoidance of doubt: I am NOT saying this is a particularly good way to go about developing an objective test of 'artificiality'; nor am I claiming to know anything about the "artificiality hypothesis" which A.DIM has referred to several times. What I outlined is merely the kind of thing I had thought a proponent would come up with, after a few hours' thought (or after reading the papers A.DIM references).

Nereid,

thank you for those starting points. allthough i've stated before that the artificiality criteria used to speculate over Cydonia's artificiality hypothesis (yes i refer to it as speculation) is expounded in the following page and subsequent presented papers:

http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/martianenigmas

if you're saying that i should extract a compendium of such criteria and present it here i'll see if i can find the time for that, but im convinced that if one reads the material presented in these pages the criteria and the work that was done will be obvious. an introdutory examination of remote sensing techniques would also be helpfull.

Archer17
2005-Sep-01, 08:00 AM
..if you're saying that i should extract a compendium of such criteria and present it here i'll see if i can find the time for that, but im convinced that if one reads the material presented in these pages the criteria and the work that was done will be obvious.. No, it's not "obvious" Outcast .. nor is it even current (among other things).

I await your compendium.

Outcast
2005-Sep-01, 08:23 AM
Outcast is not as English-savvy and is to be commended for overcoming the language barrier to post here but his posts often devolve into rhetorical ramblings. Even more so than A.DIM, I can almost see him spitting out "skeptic" and "debunker" with a virulence way above a simple difference of opinion. Outcast is still talking out of both sides of his mouth (so to speak) regarding Martian artificiality I've noticed.


archer,
though i should resent that you (again) chose to engage in a psychological/personal evaluation of my (and A.dim's) character i have no problem admiting that sometimes i can get over argumentative. other times i guess the language barrier just makes me appear like that. understand that im not foaming from the mouth when im trying to argue my ideas with any of you, why you're trying to portray me as a raving lunatic is anyone's guess but i think it serves your purpose.

yes, i've said that im not convinced of Cydonia's artificiality and for the moment i stay on the fence and listen to both sides of the argument. even so, more odd (or maybe not) than Nasa's "mistakes" on this issue is the fact that none of the "skeptics" (a word which you made sound dirty) wants to deal with the work that has allready been done in this issue. the excuse for that is merely opinion based and contends that somehow the several Phd's, ranging for geology to astronomy, that looked into this matter are all "woowoos" and should be sumarily dismissed. which ever way you want to paint this fact it is still as unobjective as it gets.

you say we do not present evidence but in the other thread i presented Fleming's paper about an issue with the MOLA data and no one was willing to deal with it. the evidence problem is your (and others) personal problem because it seems that any evidence that derives from my posts is considered, by your own self appointed authority, either not valid or not deserving of consideration, and my sources accused of woowooism or whatever as long as they support any subject that is considered taboo. even when the evidence comes from people who know what they're talking about.

besides, for someone accusing me of misunderstanding the "mainstream" (does having most of Sagan's books, even the "Demon hunted World", count as beeing in the know regarding "maintreamness"?) you should at least understand the difference between asking for proof and asking for evidence. they're very different things and if i could somehow provide proof for artificiality on Mars or anywhere else for that matter, then i wouldnt even be discussing this subject in here.

one thing i agree with you and that is that there can not be a satisfactory resolution regarding this issue.

Outcast
2005-Sep-01, 08:35 AM
..if you're saying that i should extract a compendium of such criteria and present it here i'll see if i can find the time for that, but im convinced that if one reads the material presented in these pages the criteria and the work that was done will be obvious.. No, it's not "obvious" Outcast .. nor is it even current (among other things).

I await your compendium.

its not? why is that? have you read those papers?

for sure, its not the most "current" data, if one assumes that current is anything posterior to 1998/2001.

allthough it seems Erjavec has been addressing the most recent images taken by the MGS/MOC:

http://www.lauralee.com/erjavec2.htm

Fram
2005-Sep-01, 08:42 AM
you say we do not present evidence but in the other thread i presented Fleming's paper about an issue with the MOLA data and no one was willing to deal with it. the evidence problem is your (and others) personal problem because it seems that any evidence that derives from my posts is considered, by your own self appointed authority, either not valid or not deserving of consideration, and my sources accused of woowooism or whatever as long as they support any subject that is considered taboo. even when the evidence comes from people who know what they're talking about.


Seeing the paragraph of Fleming A.DIM quoted in the OP in the other thread (and which is already repeated in this thread as well), I seriously doubt that he knows what he is talking about, and I definitely consider him a woowoo.

Van Rijn
2005-Sep-01, 09:48 AM
..if you're saying that i should extract a compendium of such criteria and present it here i'll see if i can find the time for that, but im convinced that if one reads the material presented in these pages the criteria and the work that was done will be obvious.. No, it's not "obvious" Outcast .. nor is it even current (among other things).

I await your compendium.

its not? why is that? have you read those papers?


Of course it isn't obvious. If it was obvious, why would we be asking you the question? As for those pages: Yes, I have read them, and if there is a list of objective criteria for determining artificiality, I don't see them.

Below is the opening statement on Carlotto's web page. I've highlighted and commented on points of interest. These comments are some of the thoughts that occur to me when I read material like this.


On the surface of Mars lies a formation that looks remarkably like a humanoid face. Forever staring up into the vastness of space [very provocative, questionable and subjective statement], it has attracted our attention. For some, that is why it is there, beckoning us to come and explore. Others believe that it is simply an odd looking geological landform - a formation carved over the ages by the random forces of nature.["simply" "odd" "random" - interesting word choices. "Odd" is a subjective statement. While there is a large random factor in geological processes, there are many physical rules as well. "Simply" suggests "trivial" and "dull." This appears to be an attempt to downplay this suggestion, that it would be wrong to think it merely an "odd" but "random" formation.], It is our imagination and our desire to find other life in the universe that makes us see it as an intelligently crafted object.[Subjective again - it makes the author see it as an intelligently crafted object perhaps. I consider it only a possibility.]

And perhaps this is all that could be said of the Face on Mars [Declarative statement - Not "formation of interest" mind, but "Face on Mars."]. Provided it was alone. But it is not alone. Nearby are other strange looking objects.["not alone" "strange looking objects" - More subjective declarations] Some quite geometrical in shape. A number of them look like pyramids ["look like"? Subjective again], one apparently five-sided. Moreover the objects seem to be arranged ["seem to be"? subjective. ] on the Martian surface in an organized pattern. Again, maybe it is our imagination tricking us into seeing something that is not there. But there is more [More what? I haven't seen anything solid yet.]...

What I see on these pages is someone taking an area on Mars and looking for reasons it could be artificial. If there are actual rules, what are they? And given those rules, what happens if they are applied to any random area on Mars, Earth or the moon?

So please tell me - what are the criteria you derive from these pages?

Regarding:



allthough it seems Erjavec has been addressing the most recent images taken by the MGS/MOC:

http://www.lauralee.com/erjavec2.htm


Erjavec's statements here don't appear nearly as subjective and provocative as Carlotto's. However, I'm not a geologist so I can't evaluate it properly. What objective criteria do you derive from this article?

algorithms
2005-Sep-01, 02:02 PM
Unfortunately no one here has yet specified evidence-based criteria for determining whether or not a landform found in satellite images is artificial.

Earlier I had posted a link to a page on the subject of remote sensing methodologies for terrestrial archaeology. What's clear about that is that archaeologists do not peruse through multiple satellite images to discover landforms that appear "anomalous" to natural geology. That's not how they use the technology. And if it doesn't work here, why would anyone think it would work on Mars millions of miles away?

Most of the assertions for artificiality in the landforms at Cydonia are based upon an erroneous belief that symmetry and regular geometric shape are not derived by natural geologic processes. What "face" advocates haven't done is pull from the field of geology systematic evidence that would rule out natural processes behind the kind of crude symmetry and geometry some people think they see in the massifs at Cydonia.

And it gets worse. Here are two land form features at Cydonia that Mark Carlotto calls "anomalous:"

http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/martianenigmas/Articles/April_2000/others.html

Not once does Mr. Carlotto explain why he has labeled these rather amorphous non-descript mounds "anomalous." The reader is left wondering what criteria does Carlotto use to call anything he sees in satellite images "anomalous."

Therein lies the problem. If one can't adequately explain why something is "anomalous," then why are we talking about it at all? If, as Carlotto asserts, those two mundane mounds are anomalous to natural geology, then using whatever unstated standard Carlotto is using we may as well call the entire planet of Mars "anomalous" and artificial - kind of a ruddy, scarred and pocked-mark "Death Star" runaway from a Star Wars remake.

Both A.DIM and Outcast delude themselves by imagining that a debate here is reflected as a debate among planetary scientists. Not so. Planetary scientists, as a whole, see nothing unusual or anomalous to natural geology on the plains of Cydonia Mensae. Within the field of study beyond bulletin board discussions like these, there is no debate.

madamwitty
2005-Sep-01, 02:43 PM
I most certaintly did not. I did find Clown Face Mountain (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.880357,-107.229765&spn=0.016856,0.028824&t=k&hl=en) for you though.

Looks more like a baboon face to me :-)

Outcast
2005-Sep-01, 05:15 PM
Not once does Mr. Carlotto explain why he has labeled these rather amorphous non-descript mounds "anomalous." The reader is left wondering what criteria does Carlotto use to call anything he sees in satellite images "anomalous."

Therein lies the problem. If one can't adequately explain why something is "anomalous," then why are we talking about it at all? If, as Carlotto asserts, those two mundane mounds are anomalous to natural geology, then using whatever unstated standard Carlotto is using we may as well call the entire planet of Mars "anomalous" and artificial - kind of a ruddy, scarred and pocked-mark "Death Star" runaway from a Star Wars remake.


3. Detecting Manmade Objects
A major focus in artificial intelligence and machine vision has been on the problem of recognizing instances of known objects in imagery (see, for example Ballard and Brown [20].) The problem of recognizing an unknown object as an instance of a known object or class of known objects involves comparing features of the unknown object that can be computed from the available data to those of known objects and selecting the object with the best match.
The problem of recognizing unknown or unexpected objects, and the related problem of detecting man-made objects embedded in natural terrain are fundamentally different. One possible approach might be to try to determine the characteristics that are common to all man-made objects. For example, one thinks of man-made objects as having flat surfaces, sharp boundaries, and different brightness from the background. Unfortunately, due to lighting conditions, imaging geometry, and obscuration, the strong linear features that one might expect are often not there.
An alternative approach based on modeling the background has recently been proposed by Stein [21]. His approach does not rely on an explicit model for man-made objects (e.g., that they are rectangular in shape or brighter than the background); rather, it is based on the observation that
man-made objects tend not to be self-similar in structure and so fractals should be poor models for man-made objects. The method is based on estimating the fractal dimension of the image intensity surface within a rectangular window that is about the size of the objects one would like to detect, along with the error that results from assuming fractal or self-similar behavior. The technique used to estimate the fractal dimension involves computing the surface area A(r) of the image intensity surface as a function of scale r (see Appendix A). The metric properties of self-similar sets scale according to a power law as noted in Eq. 4. The fractal dimension of the image intensity surface is estimated by performing a linear regression of log A(r ) vs. logr . A measure of the degree to which
the image intensity surface lacks self-similarity e is estimated by summing the residuals of the linear regression over scale, i.e.

Surfaces that are not self-similar will not follow a power law relationship, hence the residuals in Eq.6 will be large and so e will be large.
An entire image is processed by repeating the above process on a pixel-by-pixel basis within a "sliding window". Two images are produced: one is the local fractal dimension D(x, y) , i.e., the fractal dimension of the portion of the image intensity surface within the rectangular window
centered at (x,y); the other is the local fractal model-fit image e(x, y). Fig. 3 shows an image of military vehicles embedded in natural terrain (a) along with the computed fractal dimension image (b) and fractal model fit error image (c) for R = 10 scales and a 21 by 21 window.
For natural textures on earth, typical ranges can be used for thresholding the fractal dimension image in order to generate detections. At the upper end, terrestrial observations by Mark and Aronson [15] indicate that fractal dimensions over short scales are less than about 2.5. At the low
5 end, it has been observed that discontinuities in the image intensity surface (e.g., due to shadows, object boundaries, and obscuration) produce fractal dimension estimates that are below the topological dimension. Thus, for detecting man-made objects, regions whose fractal dimension is not greater than 2.0 and less than 2.5 are considered anomalous. The fractal model fit is another independent measure of anomalous behavior. Unfortunately, since the fractal model fit error is a relative measure, absolute thresholds do not exist. If the relative
frequency of occurrence of man-made objects is small however, the model fit image can be thresholded at a given false alarm rate (the probability that a man-made object may be detected when one is not actually present). The detection result (d) in Fig. 3 indicates possible man-made objects where the fractal dimension is not between 2.0 and 2.5, and where the fractal model fit error is greater than the 90th percentile. Three of four vehicles have been detected with two "false alarms".
Lack of data like that compiled by Mark and Aronson limits the use of the fractal dimension for anomaly detection on Mars. For the imagery processed in the next section, the fractal dimension is used only to remove some object and shadow boundary effects by eliminating regions whose fractal dimension is less than 2.0. The unthresholded fractal model fit error image is used by itself in the remaining areas to indicate the degree to which the data lacks the self-similar behavior of terrain on a
local basis.

4. Preliminary Mars/Viking Orbiter Results
Fig. 4 is a mosaic of parts of three Viking frames: 35A72, 35A73, and 35A74. A 1280 by 1024 pixel area is shown. This is the area in Cydonia that is currently under investigation by a number of individuals [9-12]. The resolution is about 50 meters per pixel and the total area shown is
approximately 3000 sq. km.
The result obtained by applying the anomaly detection technique to the imagery over this area is shown in Fig. 5. The image was produced by combining the fractal dimension and model fit images as described in the previous section and shows the top four detections. R = 10 scales and a 21 by 21 pixel analysis window were used. The analysis window thus covers an area about 1 sq. km and is near the upper scale limit for self-similarity based on Mark and Aronson's results for terrestrial landscapes. The "face" [9] was found to have the largest fractal model fit error which implies that it is the least natural object in this area. Close-ups of the face are shown in Fig. 6. A number of objects in the "city" [11] also have large fractal model fit error. Close ups of one of those objects, the "fortress" [12] are shown in Fig. 7.† As was seen earlier in the example in Fig. 3 the object detection technique may indicate the presence of a man-made object when there is no such object (false alarms) and may fail to detect a man-made object when one is there (missed detections). In Figs. 4 and 5, several features which appear to be natural seem to exhibit a certain degree of non-fractal behavior. On the other hand, several other unusual objects (e.g., the "cliff" [11] and the "D&M pyramid" [9]) do not appear to be anomalous by this technique.


Mark J. Carlotto and Michael C. Stein
A Method for Searching for Artificial Objects on Planetary Surfaces
http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/martianenigmas/Papers/JBIS1990.pdf

Archer17
2005-Sep-01, 06:19 PM
Outcast is not as English-savvy and is to be commended for overcoming the language barrier to post here but his posts often devolve into rhetorical ramblings. Even more so than A.DIM, I can almost see him spitting out "skeptic" and "debunker" with a virulence way above a simple difference of opinion. Outcast is still talking out of both sides of his mouth (so to speak) regarding Martian artificiality I've noticed.


archer,
though i should resent that you (again) chose to engage in a psychological/personal evaluation of my (and A.dim's) character i have no problem admiting that sometimes i can get over argumentative. other times i guess the language barrier just makes me appear like that. understand that im not foaming from the mouth when im trying to argue my ideas with any of you, why you're trying to portray me as a raving lunatic is anyone's guess but i think it serves your purpose.I never characterized you as a raving lunatic. I simply decribe how you come across in your posts.
yes, i've said that im not convinced of Cydonia's artificiality and for the moment i stay on the fence and listen to both sides of the argument. even so, more odd (or maybe not) than Nasa's "mistakes" on this issue is the fact that none of the "skeptics" (a word which you made sound dirty) wants to deal with the work that has allready been done in this issue. the excuse for that is merely opinion based and contends that somehow the several Phd's, ranging for geology to astronomy, that looked into this matter are all "woowoos" and should be sumarily dismissed. which ever way you want to paint this fact it is still as unobjective as it gets.I don't buy into those dubious links you post. As the BA pointed out (http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=522613&sid=9f27015415fd2949cbd7bc7 2da4756a8#522613) in the other thread, if you were serious about looking at this issue objectively you would need to rise above using google to net-mine. Nothing you have posted has qualified artificiality on Mars .. heck, you're not even convinced.
you say we do not present evidence but in the other thread i presented Fleming's paper about an issue with the MOLA data and no one was willing to deal with it. the evidence problem is your (and others) personal problem because it seems that any evidence that derives from my posts is considered, by your own self appointed authority, either not valid or not deserving of consideration, and my sources accused of woowooism or whatever as long as they support any subject that is considered taboo. even when the evidence comes from people who know what they're talking about.If there was real evidence of Martian artificiality we wouldn't be having this conversation Outcast. I don't buy Fleming's arguments and wonder why these so-called "experts" aren't making noise outside of pseudo-scientific sites if they really know what they are talking about. I also notice that, like yourself, they have a fetish for the '76 Viking images. Why is that? I think it's because they were the only images that implied possible artificiality. If this "evidence" of yours is so compelling, why are you still "on the fence?" :-k
besides, for someone accusing me of misunderstanding the "mainstream" (does having most of Sagan's books, even the "Demon hunted World", count as beeing in the know regarding "maintreamness"?) you should at least understand the difference between asking for proof and asking for evidence. they're very different things and if i could somehow provide proof for artificiality on Mars or anywhere else for that matter, then i wouldnt even be discussing this subject in here.I'm well aware of the difference in meaning between "evidence" and "proof" and while I never expected to see the latter, I haven't seen any evidence to reopen a dead issue. The Viking images were intriguing but this isn't 1976 any more.
one thing i agree with you and that is that there can not be a satisfactory resolution regarding this issue.I don't even understand your reason for posting in this thread. You say you are not convinced which is in line with the majority here. What's left? You're not going to make anyone more open to the possibility if that's your goal. I'd need to see some real evidence - not papers from dreamers that try to use fractals to make something out of nothing.

R.A.F.
2005-Sep-01, 06:33 PM
I don't buy into those dubious links you post.

Agreed...fact is every time I see the name Mark Carlotto I cringe. He's just not an objective source for information on this subject.

Swift
2005-Sep-01, 06:40 PM
Just my humble opinion, but I find algorithms' question about how would one objectively show artificiality by a visual examination of an image interesting (see my posting above comparing Mount Rushmore and the Old Man in the Mountain). This could some day be an important question if, for example, we send probes to other star systems.

I do not find this endless discussion about the Mars Face interesting. Algorithms, you might think about moving your question to BABBling and make it more generalized than Mars.

Gillianren
2005-Sep-01, 07:52 PM
correct me if I'm wrong, here, but those pictures came out in some month before December, 1976, right? if that's true, and numerically speaking, it almost certainly is, those pictures are older than I am. I turn 29 in December. given that, to my understanding, technology sent into space is about 10 years behind technology available on Earth, what we are doing is looking at a fuzzy picture taken with a roughly 40-year-old camera and sent with 40-year-old technology, and we're expecting to see, what, chisel marks?

algorithms
2005-Sep-02, 02:05 AM
Swift: Just my humble opinion, but I find algorithms' question about how would one objectively show artificiality by a visual examination of an image interesting (see my posting above comparing Mount Rushmore and the Old Man in the Mountain). This could some day be an important question if, for example, we send probes to other star systems.

Thanks Swift. I thought your photographic comparison was instructive.

I do not believe that its possible to determine "artificiality" just from satellite imagery unless the features in question are patently obvious and and distinctive in composition. We can train orbital spectrometers on Cydonia and learn the composition of the massifs there. In fact, that's been done and there's nothing exceptional about the native materials that the so-called "face" consists of.

Obviously, an alien settlement of the size and composition of New York City would be easy to discern. But attempting to cull archaeology from the remnant of an eroded basaltic plain would not be particularly easy to achieve through simple digital imagery under any circumstances.

But what helps us with Mars is that we know a great deal about its geophysical history. And I can state with 110% certainty that Mars has never enjoyed an environment that would be capable of supporting an intelligent civilization with the technological capacity of carving a face out of a two square mile pile of lava.

Regards,
Algorithms

Outcast
2005-Sep-02, 02:10 PM
I never characterized you as a raving lunatic. I simply decribe how you come across in your posts.

have it your way, Archer. you can play word games all day if you want, just remember that this is how you characterized me:


I can almost see him spitting out "skeptic" and "debunker" with a virulence way above a simple difference of opinion.

vir·u·lent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vīry-lnt, vīr-)
adj.

Extremely infectious, malignant, or poisonous. Used of a disease or toxin.
Capable of causing disease by breaking down protective mechanisms of the host. Used of a pathogen.
Bitterly hostile or antagonistic; hateful: virulent criticism. See Synonyms at poisonous.
Intensely irritating, obnoxious, or harsh.


I don't buy into those dubious links you post. As the BA pointed out in the other thread, if you were serious about looking at this issue objectively you would need to rise above using google to net-mine. Nothing you have posted has qualified artificiality on Mars .. heck, you're not even convinced.

you have the right to dismiss any and each one of my references no matter where they come from as long as its understood that the "dubious" proposition is opinion based.


If there was real evidence of Martian artificiality we wouldn't be having this conversation Outcast. I don't buy Fleming's arguments and wonder why these so-called "experts" aren't making noise outside of pseudo-scientific sites if they really know what they are talking about. I also notice that, like yourself, they have a fetish for the '76 Viking images. Why is that? I think it's because they were the only images that implied possible artificiality. If this "evidence" of yours is so compelling, why are you still "on the fence?"

real evidence? evidence is evidence. either the evidence proves the point or it doesnt. evidence does not by itself prove an hypothesis, only the testable and repeatable use of scientific or empirical methods can do that. evidence, sometimes, can even be subjective.

ev·i·dence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-dns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
Something indicative; an outward sign.

the "experts" have published their results in peer review journals, i believe thats how much "noise" a scientists will do (or should do) regarding any issue. the ridicule factor was set from the start and later reinforced by a number of opinion based articles which enforced arguments from authority in rather unobjective terms. and i dont see how making "noise" would help. maybe they should have been selling t-shirts or something?

i dont have a fetish for the 76 Viking images. why many of those papers are dealing with the 76s era images can only be explained by the fact that most of those papers were indeed made in the 20 year time span that took JPL to produce new images of the area. you can thank the "experts" noise for that by the way.

i've explained before why i sit on the fence.


I don't even understand your reason for posting in this thread. You say you are not convinced which is in line with the majority here. What's left? You're not going to make anyone more open to the possibility if that's your goal. I'd need to see some real evidence - not papers from dreamers that try to use fractals to make something out of nothing.

the reason is simple: i want to get feedback on the arguments that i find the most compeling. untill now i've seen too much mud slinging but little objective interpretation. the OP in this thread was a good start, also Nereid presented interesting points. the question is, if you're not interested in debating the issue why do YOU post in this thread? i wonder if its not solely to target a couple of people...

Nereid
2005-Sep-02, 02:23 PM
[snip]
i want to get feedback on the arguments that i find the most compeling.
Apart from A.DIM's 'NASA acted in a peculiar way' (my summary), what are these?

If they have any aspect which relates to the "artificiality hypothesis" (whatever that is, AFAIK, no proponent has stated it yet), in what way to you find them at all compelling, given that you haven't shared with us (yet) how you would go about creating an objective test for 'artificiality' (for avoidance of doubt: this is about the method by which one constructs such criteria, or tests, not the test itself!)?
[snip]untill now i've seen too much mud slinging but little objective interpretation.
Would you permit me to make a contrary view?

I've seen nothing objective from any proponent yet, as it relates to "the artificiality hypothesis", but I've seen plenty of mud being slung by the folks who wrote the websites to which Outcast and A.DIM provided links. I've also seen repeated questions as to the core aspect of the proponents' case being repeatedly not answered by those proponents.
the OP in this thread was a good start
Yes, algorithms' post was excellent, wasn't it?

BTW, did you comment on it? If so, I seemed to have missed your comment.

Swift
2005-Sep-02, 02:58 PM
<snip>I do not believe that its possible to determine "artificiality" just from satellite imagery unless the features in question are patently obvious and and distinctive in composition. We can train orbital spectrometers on Cydonia and learn the composition of the massifs there. In fact, that's been done and there's nothing exceptional about the native materials that the so-called "face" consists of.

I agree absolutely, as I've said before in these disscussions. I do not believe that any amount of image analysis or manipulation can prove artificiality. On Earth, ultimately someone has to go to the site and do the field work. So IMHO, the only possible question for Mars would be "is there enough evidence for one to propose a visit to the site, either by a machine (rover) or by humans". Given limited resources and everything else that we would like to investigate on Mars, I would say no, not even close. I don't really see that it is as question any more, but I, at least can not prove it to the satisfaction of those who still think it is an open question.

Archer17
2005-Sep-02, 04:33 PM
I never characterized you as a raving lunatic. I simply decribe how you come across in your posts.have it your way, Archer. you can play word games all day if you want, just remember that this is how you characterized me:


I can almost see him spitting out "skeptic" and "debunker" with a virulence way above a simple difference of opinion.

vir·u·lent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vīry-lnt, vīr-)
adj.

Extremely infectious, malignant, or poisonous. Used of a disease or toxin.
Capable of causing disease by breaking down protective mechanisms of the host. Used of a pathogen.
Bitterly hostile or antagonistic; hateful: virulent criticism. See Synonyms at poisonous.
Intensely irritating, obnoxious, or harsh.Virulence doesn't mean "raving lunatic."
real evidence? evidence is evidence. either the evidence proves the point or it doesnt. evidence does not by itself prove an hypothesis, only the testable and repeatable use of scientific or empirical methods can do that. evidence, sometimes, can even be subjective.

ev·i·dence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-dns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
Something indicative; an outward sign.Evidence, to apply the definition you provided: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. Something indicative; an outward sign is something that your "expects" and by association you and A.DIM haven't provided. Baseless claims and links are not evidence. The real evidence - the followup Cydonia images - blew the Face out of the water.
.. the ridicule factor was set from the start and later reinforced by a number of opinion based articles which enforced arguments from authority in rather unobjective terms..Are you aware that this is exactly what you and A.DIM have done here?
i dont have a fetish for the 76 Viking images. why many of those papers are dealing with the 76s era images can only be explained by the fact that most of those papers were indeed made in the 20 year time span that took JPL to produce new images of the area. you can thank the "experts" noise for that by the way.Still doesn't explain why outdated arguments are employed now. Your so-called "experts" clamored for a second flyby and when they got it and the Face didn't look artificial, we are told that NASA is engaged in subterfuge, ie lying to the public.
..i want to get feedback on the arguments that i find the most compeling. untill now i've seen too much mud slinging but little objective interpretation. the OP in this thread was a good start, also Nereid presented interesting points. the question is, if you're not interested in debating the issue why do YOU post in this thread? i wonder if its not solely to target a couple of people...Why am I posting here? Simple. I don't believe in Martian artificiality and NASA subterfuge. That to me is pseudoscience and should be addressed. BTW, what are you debating Outcast? Your official position is you don't have one. Well I do. There's no artificial structures on Mars - the so-called "evidence" you and A.DIM have linked to is pseudo-scientific malarkey, and the innuendos of NASA subterfuge in lieu of real evidence by the artificially proponents is more slander than anything else.

algorithms made a good astronomical point when he pointed out that conditions on Mars were not conductive to any kind of flourishing Martian civilization in the past. What's left? An ET Martian base? While I don't buy that either, I can't rule out the possibility that ET dropped in some time in the ancient past. But to bother with a massive monument that seems to have lasted up to 1976 before suddenly (and conveniently) eroding doesn't wash.

Outcast
2005-Sep-02, 04:40 PM
BTW, did you comment on it? If so, I seemed to have missed your comment.

indeed, apparently you did.
algorithms asked which criteria might have been used to evaluate potential artificial structures thus i posted the following related reference:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=524964#524964

the fractal model was originaly proposed by M. C. Stein (Fractal image models and object detection, Vol 845, pp 293-300, 1987) of the Society of Photo-optical Instrumentation Engineers. its based in the following proposition:

the observation that man-made objects tend not to be self-similar in structure and so fractals should be poor models for man-made objects. The method is based on estimating the fractal dimension of the image intensity surface within a rectangular window that is about the size of the objects one would like to detect, along with the error that results from assuming fractal or self-similar behavior. (Carlotto and Stein)

nevertheless, i believe that this model should be applied to the new higher resolution images if it hasnt been allready.

a more recent analysis using THEMIS images is available here:
http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/Papers/v01n01a/v01n01a.pdf

Outcast
2005-Sep-02, 05:29 PM
Evidence, to apply the definition you provided: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. Something indicative; an outward sign is something that your "expects" and by association you and A.DIM haven't provided. Baseless claims and links are not evidence. The real evidence - the followup Cydonia images - blew the Face out of the water.

"baseless claims" is your opinion and you certainly must know what i currently think of your opinion. certainly "links" are not "evidence" but why bother playing semantics?


Quote:
.. the ridicule factor was set from the start and later reinforced by a number of opinion based articles which enforced arguments from authority in rather unobjective terms..
Are you aware that this is exactly what you and A.DIM have done here?

no, but im aware that that is what you have done several times. particularly true since i try never to play the authority card unless my sources are summarily dismissed.



Quote:
i dont have a fetish for the 76 Viking images. why many of those papers are dealing with the 76s era images can only be explained by the fact that most of those papers were indeed made in the 20 year time span that took JPL to produce new images of the area. you can thank the "experts" noise for that by the way.
Still doesn't explain why outdated arguments are employed now. Your so-called "experts" clamored for a second flyby and when they got it and the Face didn't look artificial, we are told that NASA is engaged in subterfuge, ie lying to the public.

the second fly-by images apparently are still being evaluated as testified by this paper which uses THEMIS imagery: http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/Papers/v01n01a/v01n01a.pdf

if you've read the "links" provided you would have known this instead of employing baseless claptrap arguments.


algorithms made a good astronomical point when he pointed out that conditions on Mars were not conductive to any kind of flourishing Martian civilization in the past.

that is no doubt a point but there are other speculative scenarios regarding Mars history. i dont believe there are any scientific conclusions regarding this subject and apparently one is free to use any scenario which supports one's postulations, as algorithms and now you have done.

Archer17
2005-Sep-02, 08:45 PM
Evidence, to apply the definition you provided: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. Something indicative; an outward sign is something that your "expects" and by association you and A.DIM haven't provided. Baseless claims and links are not evidence. The real evidence - the followup Cydonia images - blew the Face out of the water."baseless claims" is your opinion and you certainly must know what i currently think of your opinion. certainly "links" are not "evidence" but why bother playing semantics?You haven't provided evidence Outcast and by your own admission links are not a substitute. There's nothing semantical about it.
Quote: .. the ridicule factor was set from the start and later reinforced by a number of opinion based articles which enforced arguments from authority in rather unobjective terms..
Are you aware that this is exactly what you and A.DIM have done here?
no, but im aware that that is what you have done several times. particularly true since i try never to play the authority card unless my sources are summarily dismissed.You have to be joking. You posted more links to your so-called "experts" than Bayer has asprin and by assigning these "experts" the expertise necessary to overthrow mainstream thinking along with implications of NASA subterfuge it is you and A.DIM that attempt to play the 'appeal to authority' card. I don't even post links outside of pointing out what people here (including you) have posted.
the second fly-by images apparently are still being evaluated as testified by this paper which uses THEMIS imagery: http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/Papers/v01n01a/v01n01a.pdf

if you've read the "links" provided you would have known this instead of employing baseless claptrap arguments.I did read your links and find them primarily revisionist and the qualifications of Carlotto lacking. The follow-up Cydonia images are there for all to see. That, and not analytical hocus-pocus, is what shot the Face down. The Face turned out not to be the curiosity that the initial Viking images implied and citing someone who wants to use fractal analysis to overturn what is obvious to anyone who looks at the followup images won't cut it. Carlotto, like other Face-peddlers, attempts to keep this myth alive by asking us to not to believe what we see with our own eyes. There's a reason Cydonian artificiality is not taken seriously by the majority of scientists/astronomers Outcast .. and the reason is simple. The Face is not a face and there's no evidence of other artificial structures. Fractals won't change that.

algorithms made a good astronomical point when he pointed out that conditions on Mars were not conductive to any kind of flourishing Martian civilization in the past. that is no doubt a point but there are other speculative scenarios regarding Mars history. i dont believe there are any scientific conclusions regarding this subject and apparently one is free to use any scenario which supports one's postulations, as algorithms and now you have done.While you are entitled to whatever speculative scenario that floats your boat, I disagree that the artificiality premise has equal merit. It's wishful thinking, unsupported by mainstream science. Evidence of water on Mars, whether past or present and the possibility of microbial life is a far cry from an ancient Martian civilization that carved faces out of their terrain. I noticed you didn't include/comment on my observation about the alleged Face supposed surviving for millennia only to decompose within the last couple decades. Talk about "speculative scenarios!"

Gillianren
2005-Sep-02, 09:31 PM
no, but im aware that that is what you have done several times. particularly true since i try never to play the authority card unless my sources are summarily dismissed.

leaving aside your grammar (which is hard for me to do, hence my proofing of all MT's posts before I respond to them), if your sources are dismissed, what makes you think we won't dismiss your "authority" just as easily if, as you suggest, we're just dismissing them out of hand because we don't agree with them?

you say you have no stance, yet you have consistently alleged misconduct on NASA's part on a scale unmatched unless you also believe Apollo was a hoax. (do you?) this is libel, you know, and while they don't prosecute people accusing them of all sorts of horrible things, I've always felt they ought to. maybe it'd make people a little more likely to back up their claims--which you'd have to, if they do decide to sue you, if you wanted to get off.

Van Rijn
2005-Sep-02, 09:40 PM
Mark J. Carlotto and Michael C. Stein
A Method for Searching for Artificial Objects on Planetary Surfaces
http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/martianenigmas/Papers/JBIS1990.pdf

Okay, to me, this does appear to have a suggestion for a method to evaluate the possibility of artificiality. Sorry if this has been discussed before, but does anyone know if the suggested techniques have any validity? That is: Leaving aside the entire Mars issue, these authors and the images they used, are these techniques used by others for earth investigations, are there image processing programs available that could be tested, etc.?

Archer17
2005-Sep-02, 11:42 PM
Mark J. Carlotto and Michael C. Stein
A Method for Searching for Artificial Objects on Planetary Surfaces
http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/martianenigmas/Papers/JBIS1990.pdf

Okay, to me, this does appear to have a suggestion for a method to evaluate the possibility of artificiality. Sorry if this has been discussed before, but does anyone know if the suggested techniques have any validity? That is: Leaving aside the entire Mars issue, these authors and the images they used, are these techniques used by others for earth investigations, are there image processing programs available that could be tested, etc.?The various image processing techniques rely on someone to interpret it, therein lies the rub. Regarding the fractal analysis mentioned, let's have a look at the Carlotto/Stein paper - here's (http://spsr.utsi.edu/articles/jbis1990.html)a non-pdf link BTW.

Regarding the "Face" we read:
The "face" [9] was found to have the largest fractal model fit error which implies that it is the least natural object in this area. Close-ups of the face are shown in Fig. 6. A number of objects in the "city" [11] also have large fractal model fit error.So far, so good. Then we read (bolding mine):
..As was seen earlier in the example in Fig. 3 the object detection technique may indicate the presence of a man-made object when there is no such object (false alarms) and may fail to detect a man-made object when one is there (missed detections). In Figs. 4 and 5, several features which appear to be natural seem to exhibit a certain degree of non-fractal behavior. On the other hand, several other unusual objects (e.g., the "cliff" [11] and the "D&M pyramid" [9]) do not appear to be anomalous by this technique.While the authors try to apply damage-control to these inconsistencies, the limitations of this analysis in the context of artificiality and bias of the authors are apparent.

JonClarke
2005-Sep-03, 06:43 AM
False positives and false negatives are the reason why geomorphologists, geologists, and archaeologists don't use mathematical methods to look for artifical features in images. I have no idea what military image analyists use. If they do use Carlotto's mathematics it might explain a lot.... :lol:

Jon

Van Rijn
2005-Sep-03, 09:50 AM
False positives and false negatives are the reason why geomorphologists, geologists, and archaeologists don't use mathematical methods to look for artifical features in images. I have no idea what military image analyists use. If they do use Carlotto's mathematics it might explain a lot.... :lol:

Jon

Yes, I know that real world image recognition software is a nightmare to develop. It is a given that it would provide false positives and false negatives. And, frankly, given the complexity of image recognition software I have serious doubts that this could do better than flipping a coin. But this is a suggested method for evaluating artificiality, and I don't think it would be fair to flatly dismiss it unless it is clear that it must depend on subjective interpretation or it has been tested objectively and shown to have a large margin of error.

If no one else uses algorithms based on this concept, that itself would suggest it isn't effective. So, again, if anyone (including A.Dim and Outcast) has anything solid on this that is not from these authors and doesn't involve Mars, please speak up.

Archer17
2005-Sep-03, 11:37 AM
False positives and false negatives are the reason why geomorphologists, geologists, and archaeologists don't use mathematical methods to look for artifical features in images. I have no idea what military image analyists use. If they do use Carlotto's mathematics it might explain a lot.... :lol:

Jon

Yes, I know that real world image recognition software is a nightmare to develop. It is a given that it would provide false positives and false negatives. And, frankly, given the complexity of image recognition software I have serious doubts that this could do better than flipping a coin. But this is a suggested method for evaluating artificiality, and I don't think it would be fair to flatly dismiss it unless it is clear that it must depend on subjective interpretation or it has been tested objectively and shown to have a large margin of error.Just because Outcast invoked Carlotto doesn't mean that suddenly we have a viable method for evaluating artificiality. Outcast, who claims to be impartial (giggle), invoked these guys - who are not exactly objective - and I used their own paper to point out the unreliability of their dubious fractal analysis.

Why would you think that we must allot those that make extraordinary claims a "wide margin of error" before it's considered "fair" to dismiss their conclusions?

Van Rijn
2005-Sep-03, 12:36 PM
Just because Outcast invoked Carlotto doesn't mean that suddenly we have a viable method for evaluating artificiality.


Of course not. As I said, it was a "suggested method for evalauting artificiality." And, again, I would be very interested if there was information on the use of this concept by people other than Carlotto and Stein for more "down to Earth" uses.



Outcast, who claims to be impartial (giggle), invoked these guys - who are not exactly objective - and I used their own paper to point out the unreliability of their dubious fractal analysis.


The quotation you presented only said that there was a margin of error, which is absolutely no surprise. It gave no indication what that margin would be. Is it large or small? As I said, I suspect it is large but I don't know that with certainty.



Why would you think that we must allot those that make extraordinary claims a "wide margin of error" before it's considered "fair" to dismiss their conclusions?

Ahem. I don't think that. Apparently you misread what I said. In fact, I said that I wouldn't want to flatly dismiss a suggested method for evaluating artificiality unless it is clear that it depends on subjective evaluation or the method has been tested objectively and shown to have a large margin of error.

Archer17
2005-Sep-03, 07:07 PM
Just because Outcast invoked Carlotto doesn't mean that suddenly we have a viable method for evaluating artificiality.
Of course not. As I said, it was a "suggested method for evalauting artificiality." And, again, I would be very interested if there was information on the use of this concept by people other than Carlotto and Stein for more "down to Earth" uses.If you google for "fractal analysis" you'll see that it is used in a wide variety of applications, including terrestrial geology. I'm not saying this image processing tool is necessarily hokum, like all tools what it can provide depends on the person using it.

Outcast, who claims to be impartial (giggle), invoked these guys - who are not exactly objective - and I used their own paper to point out the unreliability of their dubious fractal analysis.The quotation you presented only said that there was a margin of error, which is absolutely no surprise. It gave no indication what that margin would be. Is it large or small? As I said, I suspect it is large but I don't know that with certainty.Fractal analysis is a tool for image processing, not the arbiter. Do a google for Carlotto and see if you feel he has objectivity here. He's one of the most die-hard Martian artificiality proponents. Now ask yourself, who did the fractal analysis? How can we gauge the merit of such an analysis when we have Carlotto/Stein grading this technique as if we knew some structures were artificial? While I'd rather read about some woo woos actually trying to prove their case like Carlotto/Stein here instead of the typical knee-jerk NASA slander, I find their bias disqualifies them.

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Sep-03, 08:12 PM
i dont have a fetish for the 76 Viking images. why many of those papers are dealing with the 76s era images can only be explained by the fact that most of those papers were indeed made in the 20 year time span that took JPL to produce new images of the area. you can thank the "experts" noise for that by the way.


That's funny-- it seems to me the lack of successful missions from 1976 to 1996 (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/chronology_mars.html) might be more to blame.

Your continual efforts to malign NASA and the planetary scientists involved is tiresome. Very much so. That's a broad hint.

Van Rijn
2005-Sep-03, 09:47 PM
If you google for "fractal analysis" you'll see that it is used in a wide variety of applications, including terrestrial geology. I'm not saying this image processing tool is necessarily hokum, like all tools what it can provide depends on the person using it.


I know, but the question is: Can their particular application work with any effectiveness when applied objectively? I'm not betting on it, but I'll leave it as an open question for now.



Fractal analysis is a tool for image processing, not the arbiter. Do a google for Carlotto and see if you feel he has objectivity here. He's one of the most die-hard Martian artificiality proponents. Now ask yourself, who did the fractal analysis? How can we gauge the merit of such an analysis when we have Carlotto/Stein grading this technique as if we knew some structures were artificial? While I'd rather read about some woo woos actually trying to prove their case like Carlotto/Stein here instead of the typical knee-jerk NASA slander, I find their bias disqualifies them.

I already had checked out Carlotto, and I commented here on what I thought of some of Carlotto's statements - many were provocative, questionable, and extremely subjective. This is specifically why I asked if there were others using this technique for earth applications and if it could be tested objectively on other material. Obviously this particular subject is too controversial and the bias of the authors is too strong to trust their results. Despite that, it is conceivable that they are using a technique that could have merit.

It comes down to this: Sure, I'm very skeptical of this thing, but if I'm going to completely dismiss it, I'd like the reason to be on very solid ground. The bias of the authors is a major check mark against it, but that isn't a technical argument.

Again, for A.Dim and Outcast: If you can show others are using this technique on earth in an objective way - such as plugging random images into an analysis program and getting an "artificiality indicator" that has a high probability of being correct- it would go far to bolster your case.

(And for Archer17 - yes, I realize there would be more to a proper experiment than that to maintain objectivity, but I'm not going into details here.)

Nereid
2005-Sep-04, 12:22 AM
Can their particular application work with any effectiveness when applied objectively?
Ah ha! A nice hook for one of my 'hobbies'!! =D>

In medicine, it has long been SOP to employ 'double blind' trials, and when researching the placebo effect, to even think else is to disqualify yourself as a serious player.

But what about astonomy/planetary science/cosmology/astropysics? Surely the researchers are pure, honest scientists, able to detect their own personal biases and put them to one side? And even if they can't - au contraire, they proclaim bias in the strongest possible terms - there's always the 'independent validation', right (as in, you can do the observation/experiment yourself, and see if you get the same result)? (you can see some of what I'm talking about in the UT thread More from Arp et al. (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5972)).

On to Carlotto et al.

There are two immediate, and obvious, tests:
1) if you take Carlotto's paper, can you reproduce the results? The more you can reconstruct the instantiations of the algorithms, use similar (but not the same) NASA data, etc the better.
2) to what extent did Carlotto 'calibrate' his method, using 'ground truth' data, and known artificial structures? To what extent is this calibration reproducible? Without this, all Carlotto has done is replace a highly subjective 'artificiality test' with another, uncalibrated 'artificiality test' (but masked as 'objective').

Archer17
2005-Sep-04, 11:26 AM
Van Rijn - I don't think we are that far apart, we are just approaching this from different angles. I am dismissing Carlotto's analysis because he has an obvious bias and (cue a trumpet blast) Cydonia doesn't look artificial. You want to know if, in the hands of an impartial interpreter, such a technique would be a viable arbiter of artificiality. No. It could indicate possible artificiality, but not prove it. When you get down to it, you don't need fractal analysis to "imply" artificiality .. anything that looks unnatural does that. The '76 Viking images did that without fractal analysis.To me Carlotto's fractal analysis is a red herring, an effort to keep a myth alive with a complicated-sounding image processing tool.

R.A.F.
2005-Sep-04, 12:05 PM
I am dismissing Carlotto's analysis because he has an obvious bias...

That is the MAJOR problem I have with these "folks"...

They know what they will "find" before they start their "investigations".

It's no wonder that they "find" what they are looking for...and that is simply not how an objective scientific investigation "works".

Superluminal
2005-Sep-06, 02:18 AM
All I have to say about this thread is: It urts me ead.