PDA

View Full Version : NASA the CONSPIRACY generator



Pages : [1] 2 3

Dfrank
2007-Aug-19, 03:36 PM
I do not think we need to drift off from space topics. NASA is a conspiracy lovers dream come true. They can generate more doubt and reason to wonder why than any other government agency except for congress but thatís another forum now.

Example, Take a look at this false color image.

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/081/1P135369807EFF10CGP2417L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg


Now keep in mind the money time and effort it took to get to Mars. Keep in mind that the main reason for going there was discovery. Keep in mind everyone is watching. Their motto is follow the water.

That image above was as close as they got. You would think they might go over and take a look. I believe that if anyone was suited up on the Mars surface with me we would go over and take a look. There is no way to pass up such a juicy target, it is just a few feet away, NOT NASA.

They passed a closer look up to go look at another rock. This goes against human nature and logic. I can understand why people might thing NASA was being less than totally honest.

Dfrank

Maksutov
2007-Aug-19, 03:49 PM
I do not think we need to drift off from space topics. NASA is a conspiracy lovers dream come true. They can generate more doubt and reason to wonder why than any other government agency except for congress but thatís another forum now.

Example, Take a look at this false color image.

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/081/1P135369807EFF10CGP2417L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpgOK, it's a false color image of a part of the surface of Mars.
Now keep in mind the money time and effort it took to get to Mars. Keep in mind that the main reason for going there was discovery. Keep in mind everyone is watching. Their motto is follow the water.

That image above was as close as they got. You would think they might go over and take a look. I believe that if anyone was suited up on the Mars surface with me we would go over and take a look. There is no way to pass up such a juicy target, it is just a few feet away, NOT NASA.As you said it's a false color image. What's the problem? Are you mistaking the blue tints for water?
They passed a closer look up to go look at another rock. This goes against human nature and logic. I can understand why people might thing NASA was being less than totally honest.

DfrankDfrank, you really need to reassess what you've written in your various posts. There seems to be some kind of unsupported obsession growing in them.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-19, 03:57 PM
You may be right. Am I the only one thatís sees the ponding in that trench? If I am I apologize.

A mental illusion for sure.

Dfrank

Orion437
2007-Aug-19, 04:10 PM
The sand waves create the ilusion.

But i canīt blaim you.

Just look at this image. Itīs just looks like a pond, even with an incredible star-fish like object in the bottom.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/088/1P135996327EFF1413P2285L2M1-BR.JPG

Neverfly
2007-Aug-19, 04:25 PM
Yeah that is sand. I can take similar photographs that lead you to believe there is water ( or many other things) when the truth is quite boring.

And that is the ticket isn't it?
To those of us that this stuff is unfamiliar- we think we found something. We get all excited.
I'm glad I don't pay Hoaglands underwear bill.

But to the folks at NASA, its all quite humdrum and routine. They were all over this picture, recognized what it showed with a practised eye and went on to the next.
They don't always think about how the common person will react to seeing it.
The common person doesn't always think about the experienced guys at NASA yawning at such photos- of the likes they have seen so many they have dreams about looking at photos...

The reason most people don't understand the motivations of the teams at NASA is because... they don't work there. They don't diddle over this stuff every day, day in day out, with a lot of knowledge about the lighting, landscapes, weird conditions and photo-taken-then bundled-transmitted-recieved -and interpretted that most people not in that line of work aren't aware of.
Run on sentence. Remember to breathe as you read it.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-19, 04:30 PM
Here is the famed "Face on Mars as appeared back in the 70's...

Neverfly
2007-Aug-19, 04:31 PM
Now here is the same "face" as taken recently with better resolution and a different angle. It doesn't look much like a face anymore...

Neverfly
2007-Aug-19, 04:33 PM
And the last one. As you can see
ANY resemblance to a face is totally gone now.

When that photo first was taken, the folks at NASA even said "Sheesh! It looks like a face!" They chuckled and passed it on. Because they were well aware that it was not a face at all. But I don't think they quite realized how many people would think it really was and end up with a cult following...

Dfrank
2007-Aug-19, 04:39 PM
I can understand from a few hundred miles up that things may get a little fuzzy. This was a few feet away. I understand the jpeg haze. To say this dust is going to form a flat surface pond and discolor the trench area, I am not aware of such a dry process. That is what threw me.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-19, 04:51 PM
I can understand from a few hundred miles up that things may get a little fuzzy. This was a few feet away. I understand the jpeg haze. To say this dust is going to form a flat surface pond and discolor the trench area, I am not aware of such a dry process. That is what threw me.

Yeah but it's more common than you think. In such photos
and photos like these, you are LOOKING for something...anything.

But I can show you Earth taken photos with the same effect.

A good way to look at it is to think about Hand Drawing a picture.
You start drawing say a portrait or a scene
And suddenly you find yourself aware of puzzling minor details that you never noticed before.
For me I'm astounded every single time- by shadows. Seriously. They are always much darker and wider spread than I had originally noticed. Wrinkles in clothing etc do it to me too. When I observe the minute details so I can accurately draw it... I see things that look quite strange.
Like saying a normal word over and over again until it sounds funny and not normal anymore.

I never noticed how pronounced and strange a tiny mole on a friends face was... Until I drew her protrait for her.

ETA: It isnt just JPG artifacts. It is angle, lighting, atmospheric ( or lack of) conditions... many many things that can mislead.

Even your own eyes will do it in the desert. You are thirsty and see a mirage of water. Next thing you know- that datburned puddle got up and ran a 100 feet further on.

Hold still puddle! I thirst!
Now look... the things just teasing me...
C'mere you!

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-19, 04:52 PM
dfrank...in the other "Mars water" thread (I don't know why you felt the need to start another one), you posted that you "didn't know" if NASA were involved in a cover-up or not.

Now in this thread you seem to be strongly implying that NASA is involved in a cover-up.

So which is it??

Neverfly
2007-Aug-19, 04:59 PM
IS it a few feet away by the way? Can we confirm the distance?

Dfrank
2007-Aug-19, 05:01 PM
R.A.F

I did not intend for this to become the same tread. When I first started it I gave an example of how I believe conspiracies get started. The example was why didnít they go and take a closer look.

One reply was they knew what it was already, yawned and drove on. This may be true. They may be able to look understand the process and move on. Regular people like me would say why, are they hiding something, are they stupid, just like your reply in the other thread.

The birth of conspiracy. That was my point here.

Dfrank

Neverfly
2007-Aug-19, 05:14 PM
I hope you can see the simplicity of it then.

I just went and read the other thread- as I don't go to ATM much...

But Dfrank you seem to indeed believe that there is a hydro-cycle and possibly life on Mars.

The images themselves are not much more than pretty pictures.
They are used primarily as a slight visual aid. We like a picture to go with the data.

But in truth, they play a (relatively)minor role in the study of the planet.
Anyone who feels this is a wrong statement tell me so!

The studies about the planets are done many ways with many techniques and tools. We know quite a bit about Venus but don't have many photos of it. The danged camera keeps melting. Awful ungrateful of the camera...

You also mentioned more than once- that you were seeing something that everyone else wasn't. Isn't that a clue?
You mentioned that other forums are mean.

Well, sometimes people get frustrated when a person won't listen to reason. Without controlling the temper first- a mean post can result. It's NOT that they are mean people by any means. Its that they get frustrated when a person will simply NOT listen to reason and science but keep repeating statements that have already been shown clearly to be incorrect.

I get mean too, sometimes.

ETA: (edit to add) by the way: there is no such thing as "common sense science".

Dfrank
2007-Aug-19, 05:32 PM
Neverfly,

Humans are visual creatures. I think the visible data must match the numerical data.

To give a map of Mars showing bound hydrogen is cool. How is it bound? Ice, or in the rocks themselves. Good data to have but inconclusive. The key to most of my frustration is how easy it is to ignore the visible data when it goes against the mainstream. I feel like a cow being prodded along to the slaughter.

I like to see and if my Earth eyes are no good anywhere but Earth that would be a shame. Space exploration would be moot.

You cant be mean on this forum, thatís the rules.

Dfrank

dgavin
2007-Aug-19, 05:35 PM
R.A.F

I did not intend for this to become the same tread. When I first started it I gave an example of how I believe conspiracies get started. The example was why didnít they go and take a closer look.

One reply was they knew what it was already, yawned and drove on. This may be true. They may be able to look understand the process and move on. Regular people like me would say why, are they hiding something, are they stupid, just like your reply in the other thread.

The birth of conspiracy. That was my point here.

Dfrank

The reason the rovers search out rocks, is that any history of water on the surface of mars would be recorded in the rocks. They have an abrasion tool that can be used to grind of a bit of the surface of a rock, and examine the lower layers for evidence of water, and other geological processes.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-19, 05:43 PM
My point exactly,

They go to the rocks to look for water, even if they need to drive around a pond to get there.

The birth of conspiracy.

Dfrank

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-19, 05:51 PM
...even if they need to drive around a pond to get there.

The only "pond" is in your mind.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-19, 05:55 PM
The key to most of my frustration is how easy it is to ignore the visible data when it goes against the mainstream.

Why is it that you believe your "interpretation" to be superior to actual mission scientists interpretation?????

Grashtel
2007-Aug-19, 05:56 PM
They go to the rocks to look for water, even if they need to drive around a pond to get there.
Except that the picture doesn't show a pond, liquid water cannot exist on the surface of Mars because the atmospheric pressure is too low, if there was a pool of liquid water on Mars it would just boil away. The extreme thinness of Mar's atmosphere has been known about for a long time and verified from sources other than NASA (if you are willing to spend the money and time you can even do it yourself). The properties of water have been known for an even longer time and are extremely well supported, and are quite easy to verify.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-19, 06:00 PM
...liquid water cannot exist on the surface of Mars because the atmospheric pressure is too low...

Evidently Dfrank doesn't believe that.

Which is actually Dfrank's problem evaluating evidence...he bases his conclusions on belief and not on evidence.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-19, 06:00 PM
The only "pond" is in your mind.

Exactly. And yet you refuse to "see" that. Dfrank, You said we are visual creatures. I said that we LIKE to have the visual... But it by no means is compelling evidence. The eyes are notoriously unreliable.

You said that if the visual doesn't meet up with ... ALLLL the other available data... That that must mean that ALLLL the other data is wrong?!
That is totally backwards from reality.

Oh, and because there is a rule that says I must be nice
doesn't mean I have to be nice. It just means Ill have to accpet the price to be mean.

In just THIS very short thread- you have all the answers you need to see why there is no pond.
Why they went to look at rocks.
Why there is no conspiracy.
if at this point you continue to talk about ponds, puddles and conspiracies in any manner that is NOT an intelligent question, one can only assume that you have no interest whatsoever in knowing the truth...
You are only interested in the pretty picture you paint inside your mind. :neutral:

Neverfly
2007-Aug-19, 06:02 PM
I was amused by that too, because he said he studies atmospheric science.
It seems that doesn't include Martian atmosphere. Maybe all planets have a Terran astmosphere

JayUtah
2007-Aug-19, 06:19 PM
The birth of conspiracy.

No, the birth of a conspiracy theory -- people applying their inexperienced personal interpretations to things, disregarding the state of the art, and then insisting that those interpretations must be the only correct ones because they appeal to intuition.

Science was invented prcisely because common sense doesn't succeed very often at explaining the whys and wherefores of the natural world. The scientific method is a systematic way of eliminating what you think you know in favor of what you can truly observe with as little interference as possible from unconscious guesswork.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-19, 06:37 PM
Like Spontaneous Generation JayUtah?
The visual evidence was that old rags spawned rats and that rotting meat spawned flies.
And good luck convincing the common man of the time otherwise!
There were holes in the rags then rats appeared!
There was just meat- then little crawly things growing in it-that turned into flies!

JayUtah
2007-Aug-19, 07:06 PM
Yes, good examples. Intuition works well enough as a defense mechanism. That's why we evolved it. If "bad air" and "bad water" are observed to cause illness, intuition says to keep away from them. But as a method of understanding it's not very useful. In fact, it's counterproductive for that. You don't learn about microbes if you dwell on notions of evil spirits, even if that wrong notion helps you evade death.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-19, 07:11 PM
Ok, I did not want to go into this on this thread but you guys are piling on.
Lets start with the atmospheric pressure sense that is an area I claim to have a little knowledge.

I say 6.1mb of pressure is the triple point of water and has been exceeded at the Rover site. There seems to be some high level scientific people here, What say you.

Dfrank

JayUtah
2007-Aug-19, 07:16 PM
Your only evidence that the feature is water is that to you it looks like water. Why did you not expect to be challenged for real evidence?

Dfrank
2007-Aug-19, 07:29 PM
Wait a minute; I thought we were going to do some science here. I am an atmospheric type guy. You guys and gals seem to think pressure is a problem at the rover site I say it is not.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-19, 08:09 PM
I am an atmospheric type guy.

Exactly what does this mean?? It certainly tells me nothing of what you have accomplished in schooling/advanced degrees, that sort of thing.

So please...expond on what you mean by "atmospheric type guy"?


You guys and gals seem to think pressure is a problem at the rover site I say it is not.

...and saying "it is not" makes your claim extraordinary. By the rules of this board, the burden on proof is on you to demonstrate that your claim is a reasonable interpretation of the available evidence.

...but If all you're going to say is "it looks like water to me", or "I don't see a problem", then this conversation isn't going to last very long.

Direct question...can you present evidence that will back up your claim of standing water on Mars??

If you cannot, then please withdraw your claim.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-19, 08:10 PM
Don't paint all your critics with the same brush. One person brought up pressure.

Yes, some points on the Martian surface have atmospheric pressure above the triple point, which makes liquid water possible if certain thermal conditions also are met. You're an "atmospheric guy," so finish the problem.

Please state your claim clearly. Initially you said that "some people" would wonder why NASA would pass up standing water. Then when that was challenged as a naive expectation, you asked if you were "the only one who saw ponding" in the photograph. You then implied that we were accusing you of having a "mental illusion" by questioning your interpretation. You must be clear, because these rhetorical tricks are a common feature of conspiracist arguments. It is possible to hypothesize that you misinterpreted the photograph without also necessarily suggesting that you are mentally ill or deluded for having done it.

Do you have any evidence besides your interpretation of this photograph that what it depicts is liquid water?

Dfrank
2007-Aug-19, 08:24 PM
My water images were speculation. The argument I am hearing is it can not be water, I believe pressure was the prime concern. I challenged that assumption. There is no way to prove an image contains water, but we do know the conditions that it can exist. I said it looked like water.

There seems to be some confusion as this thread seems to have got tangled up with the other. I apologize if you thought that was my claim. This thread was started to express my opinion on how conspiracy theories start.

As far as my background I will not give out particulars on my personal identity, this being an open internet forum. I will say I have worked as a weather forecaster and studied meteorology all my life.

Dfrank

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-19, 09:42 PM
I say 6.1mb of pressure is the triple point of water and has been exceeded at the Rover site. There seems to be some high level scientific people here, What say you.

Dfrank

This was discussed in your previous thread. Did you forget it? There are both pressure and temperature issues. At that pressure, there is a very narrow temperature range where liquid water can exist: Too high and there is vapor, too low and there is ice. During summer the maximum recorded atmospheric temperature during the day was too high, and it dropped well below freezing every night. There would only be a brief period with a "just right" temperature. That would not be conducive to bodies of liquid surface water existing for extended periods.

Ultimately, as previously noted, there could be rare eruptions of liquid underground water. Given the conditions, it is expected that most underground water would be extremely well frozen permafrost. All of this means that, if you're going to suggest an image shows flowing surface water, you are going to need very good evidence to support it. You haven't provided it.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-19, 09:50 PM
Now keep in mind the money time and effort it took to get to Mars. Keep in mind that the main reason for going there was discovery. Keep in mind everyone is watching. Their motto is follow the water.

That image above was as close as they got. You would think they might go over and take a look. I believe that if anyone was suited up on the Mars surface with me we would go over and take a look. There is no way to pass up such a juicy target, it is just a few feet away, NOT NASA.

They passed a closer look up to go look at another rock. This goes against human nature and logic. I can understand why people might thing NASA was being less than totally honest.


The flaw in your argument is the assumption that NASA scientists would come to the same conclusion as you. If they didn't see it as an indication of liquid surface water, or interesting in some other way, they would have no reason to investigate it.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-19, 10:08 PM
Van Rijn

ďThere are both pressure and temperature issues. At that pressure, there is a very narrow temperature range where liquid water can exist:Ē

As discussed earlier,

There is a big difference between air temperature and water temperature. For example, if a cup of pure water was placed in a room with the ambient air temperature of 100c the water in the cup would not boil till the temperature of the water in the cup was 100c at Earth slp.

I would think any water on a ground that was -65c on nightly bases would lengthen the window of the liquid state. There is no water temperature data and any correlation to ambient temp would be an uneducated guess.

Dfrank

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-19, 10:24 PM
I would think any water on a ground that was -65c on nightly bases would lengthen the window of the liquid state. There is no water temperature data and any correlation to ambient temp would be an uneducated guess.

Dfrank

Freezing ground temperature is going to lengthen the time for water to remain liquid?

Anyway, you've already said that this is speculation, so do you withdraw your claim of suspicious NASA behavior?

Dfrank
2007-Aug-19, 10:34 PM
No sir,

I am just trying to explain at 6.1 mb the temperature of the water would need to be near 10c. To say an ambient air temperature of 20 or 30c would mean the water would boil is not correct. It would depend on the water temperature.

We do not know the underground dynamics that would produce these liquid eruptions I suspect it is some type of brine containing salts and possibly other antifreeze agents.

I think they should have taken a look. Just yawn and driving away could provide some people with the idea that they might be hiding something.

The birth of a conspiracy.

Dfrank

Jason Thompson
2007-Aug-19, 10:53 PM
I think they should have taken a look. Just yawn and driving away could provide some people with the idea that they might be hiding something.

But the idea without evidence is meaningless. Do you have evidence that they are hiding something? These guys have been studying Mars for years, some even for decades now. Do you know what information they have accompanying that picture? What local time was it? What was the pressure at that site at that time? What was the temperature doing at that time? in short, can you show us that the experts whose job it is to actually study the stuff coming back from the rovers had any reason to believe there might have been liquid water there, beyond what your eyes tell you?

Handwaving about the general case does not a coherent theory make. Bring some specifics to your argument.


The birth of a conspiracy.

No, as Jay already said, the birth of a conspiracy theory. If there is a real conspiracy it was born a long time ago.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-19, 10:55 PM
No sir,

I am just trying to explain at 6.1 mb the temperature of the water would need to be near 10c. To say an ambient air temperature of 20 or 30c would mean the water would boil is not correct. It would depend on the water temperature.


. . . with freezing ground temperature and air temperature usually at freezing or (sometimes) boiling temperature, with only a brief window during some summer days of a "just right" temperature. As I pointed out in a prior post here, and in other posts in other threads, that would not be conducive to bodies of liquid surface water existing for extended periods. Do you disagree?



I think they should have taken a look. Just yawn and driving away could provide some people with the idea that they might be hiding something.

The birth of a conspiracy.


But you've already said that this is speculation! NASA has a team of scientists to set priorities of what should be investigated. Why is it a conspiracy if they don't choose to investigate something you say yourself is simply speculation?

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-19, 11:11 PM
Just yawn and driving away could provide some people with the idea that they might be hiding something.

That is your characterzation of what happened...that JPL/NASA was ignoring something that they should have seen as important. Will you be providing evidence to back up your characterization?...or will the handwaving continue?

Dfrank
2007-Aug-19, 11:18 PM
I think there are a lot of conspiracy theories about NASA. The faked moon landing, hiding the colors of Mars just to name a couple.

The purpose of this thread was to show how NASA will never run dry of new conspiracies. The, what looks like water, was just an example of how they get started.

An unproven conspiracy is just a conspiracy theory. I hear you say they have all this data why it could not be water. I think we have gone through pressure and temp. Do you have privy to all this other data that you speak of?

Dfrank

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-19, 11:24 PM
The purpose of this thread was to show how NASA will never run dry of new conspiracies.

NASA is not responsible for conspiracies. It is the scientifically uninformed who create them out of whole cloth.

You do understand that right??

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-19, 11:44 PM
I think there are a lot of conspiracy theories about NASA. The faked moon landing, hiding the colors of Mars just to name a couple.


True, and there are common themes running through the moon hoax and Mars color CTs, including limited understanding of technical issues and suspicion of authority.



The purpose of this thread was to show how NASA will never run dry of new conspiracies. The, what looks like water, was just an example of how they get started.


Yes, folks that have frequented the BAUT CT forum are quite familiar with conspiracy theories based on "Look at the picture" arguments.



An unproven conspiracy is just a conspiracy theory. I hear you say they have all this data why it could not be water.


More accurately, what you're hearing is that your personal speculation about Mars images doesn't demonstrate suspicious NASA action. You have shown no evidence that they would come to the same conclusions about the images as you, so there is no reason to expect them to follow the actions you would prefer.

Related to the water issue, we have discussed why liquid water would likely be quite rare on the Martian surface, and would require some pretty specific conditions to occur.



I think we have gone through pressure and temp. Do you have privy to all this other data that you speak of?

Dfrank

This is your claim. Have you gone through other information?

Dfrank
2007-Aug-19, 11:49 PM
RAF,

Most Conspiracy theories are a little out there. I think most do it to sell a book and make money on the scientific uninformed.

In my opinion NASA gives them a lot of material thatís all, and they show no signs of stopping.

Dfrank

Dfrank
2007-Aug-19, 11:55 PM
Van,

As far as I know temperature and pressure is it. I did not know of anything else that would regulate temporary surface water on Mars, I thought you knew something I did not

Dfrank

01101001
2007-Aug-20, 12:29 AM
In my opinion NASA gives them a lot of material thatís all, and they show no signs of stopping.

Is NASA conspiring or not? Be clear. Thanks.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 12:39 AM
I donít think anyone can prove they are. The act like it and will give us plenty of conspiracy theories, as I stated in post 1.

Dfrank

01101001
2007-Aug-20, 12:56 AM
I donít think anyone can prove they are. The act like it and will give us plenty of conspiracy theories, as I stated in post 1.

So, you're not convinced they are, and you're certainly not claiming they are. Good.

Now what?

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 01:57 AM
My water images were speculation.

But apparently NASA is somehow remiss for not addressing that speculation, no matter how farfetched it may be. Explain how that works. Yes, people may form conspiracy theories around it based on their inexperience or prejudice, but why is that anything but those people's problem?

The problem is not that you speculated, but that you seem to want that speculation to be taken for something more than what it is.

The argument I am hearing is it can not be water...

No, one such argument was made. Most everyone else seems to be wondering why some regular guy's knee jerk reaction should have any legitimate bearing on the operation of a space mission being conducted by well-trained operators and qualified scientists.

...we do know the conditions that it can exist.

The conditions also allow for the presence of ice cream. So if I speculate that it's a puddle of Cherry Garcia and provide no other evidence, is NASA acting strangely for not stopping the rover to see?

There are other reasons for rejecting the puddle-of-water interpretation.

This thread was started to express my opinion on how conspiracy theories start.

Agreed. But you implied that the reasons for which they arise ought to be addressed by NASA. If uninformed people get the wrong idea from their intuition and decide to base an accusation upon it, why is that anything more than an unfounded, speculative accusation? Why does that create an obligation for someone else.

Just because you were fooled into thinking that might be water doesn't mean the operators of the spacecraft don't have a better means of making that determination and have more experience observing these special photographs, and thus made the right decision to move on.

Donnie B.
2007-Aug-20, 02:11 AM
This whole thread was prompted by Dfrank's interpretation of the image linked in the OP, correct?

I assume the feature he's referring to is the small teardrop-shaped area located top center, at the end of what appears to be a valley bottom. If that's correct, I have a couple questions.

Does anybody know what it looks like in real color, rather than this false-color image?

Is there any way to determine the scale of this feature? The rover cameras can make quite small objects look large. It seems to me that the feature could be as small as a fist or as big as a few meters across, but that's really a guess. Can we get a better estimate of its distance and size?

Has anyone determined an "official" explanation of this feature? I have seen similar things consisting of wind-blown sand in dune areas.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that there was some liquid water on the surface. Under the prevailing conditions, would it be just sitting there, or would there be some expectation of activity -- steam, mist, etc.?

I think the answers to these questions could explain NASA's lack of interest in the feature. Not that any of that would put a damper on anyone who's looking for conspiracies under every blueberry-encrusted rock.

Honestly, Dfrank, why would NASA not investigate possible surface water, if such a thing were even remotely possible? It would be a stunning discovery, and the investigators would give substantial parts of their bodies to make a finding like that!

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Aug-20, 03:31 AM
I think Nasa is more of conspiracy magnet.

01101001
2007-Aug-20, 03:59 AM
This whole thread was prompted by Dfrank's interpretation of the image linked in the OP, correct?

I assume the feature he's referring to is the small teardrop-shaped area located top center, at the end of what appears to be a valley bottom. If that's correct, I have a couple questions.

Does anybody know what it looks like in real color, rather than this false-color image?

(I am disappointed the Dfrank still hasn't come to post original source material to go with his speculation. Do you not care that your are offering up manipulated images instead of originals with provenance? I'll help once again. Please learn how. Save your readers some effort. Thanks.)

From OP: false-color manipulated image (http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/081/1P135369807EFF10CGP2417L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg)

Probably one of the images used in the composite manipulation (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/081/1P135369807EFF10CGP2417L5M1.HTML)

Thumbnails nearby, Opportunity :: Sol 81 :: Panoramic Camera (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_p081.html)

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/081/1P135369807EFF10CGP2417L5M1-THM.JPG (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_p081.html)

Sol 81 was a few days before Fram Crater (press release images (http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040421a.html)), Meridiani Planum, between its landing in Eagle, and the larger Endurance Crater.

Closer to the caramel colors of Mars:
almost the same subject (http://www.lyle.org/~markoff/pds/257/1P135369752RAD10CGP2417L257C1.JPG)
From lyle.org :: Opportunity :: sols 81-100 (http://www.lyle.org/~markoff/Opportunity_pds_index_0081_0100.html), processing by slinted, I think.

I can look up the methods to accurately gauge size of objects imaged by the pancam. It's not hard to compute, but will take some hunting. Is it really worth it?

I doubt there's a readily available official explanation. It's not a remarkable image. It might be described buried in someone's report, somewhere.

Water sitting there? Like if the rover peed it? It would rapidly evaporate.


Honestly, Dfrank, why would NASA not investigate possible surface water, if such a thing were even remotely possible? It would be a stunning discovery, and the investigators would give substantial parts of their bodies to make a finding like that!

Really. If they spotted water they'd trumpet it to the world. They've trumpeted hints of ancient water! They proclaimed past damp soil that formed salts and concretions and festoons. They were so proud they beamed. They shouted out about the current water frost. They keep "following the water", in current and future missions. It's simply ludicrous to suggest they wouldn't flaunt an image of standing liquid water. No way.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 04:22 AM
I think Nasa is more of conspiracy magnet.

Yes, I was about to say something substantially similar. NASA is not the generator of conspiracy theories that involve them. Theories are generated by the people who speculate. NASA is not generating doubt and suspicion, as the original post says, by failing to account for all the idle, uninformed speculation that could be brought to bear. What about someone who says that NASA is passing up a rock that looks to him like an alien artifact? Is NASA on the hook to investigate and dispel every improbable notion that people try to pin on them?

As I said, the problem is with the notion that such speculation somehow creates a legitimate suspicion or a legitimate burden on NASA's part to dispel it. I'm not convinced by appeals to common sense or assertions that people are highly attuned to visual sensation. Why is NASA bound to respect any old regular guy's knee-jerk expectation? Without that obligation there's no "conspiracy" to hide some presumed truth.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 04:28 AM
In my opinion NASA gives them a lot of material thatís all, and they show no signs of stopping.

NASA doesn't "give" anything of the sort. The facts are simply what they are. If other people wish to misrepresent them or remain ignorant of them, it's not NASA's fault. The proponent of an idea has the burden to prove he has investigated his idea appropriately, and it's the reader's responsibility to remain appropriately cautious -- caveat lector. It's not the duty of the accused to forestall all possible accusation.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 04:52 AM
Giving NASA a blank check of trust is not going to happen as long as they behave in peculiar ways. This is not the first time they put their self in a questionable light.

I hear you say that they are great scientist and they know. To treat the American people like mushrooms and ask them to follow along behind the piper is not how it is done here. We ask question here. When they do that their credibility is out the window.

The truth is they had no way of knowing for sure what discolored that trench or what was ponding at the bottom. Wind and dust is just a catch-all. If their attitude is, we know and if you donít too bad little man, then they deserve all the conspiracy theories they get and they will generate plenty.

Dfrank

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 05:00 AM
Giving NASA a blank check of trust is not going to happen as long as they behave in peculiar ways. This is not the first time they put their self in a questionable light.

I hear you say that they are great scientist and they know. To treat the American people like mushrooms and ask them to follow along behind the piper is not how it is done here. We ask question here. When they do that their credibility is out the window.

The truth is they had no way of knowing for sure what discolored that trench or what was ponding at the bottom. Wind and dust is just a catch-all. If their attitude is, we know and if you donít too bad little man, then they deserve all the conspiracy theories they get and they will generate plenty.

Dfrank

What you just said makes absolutly no sense at all.

If you actually READ all the posts in this thread, you would understand where it is that you are wrong.

NASA is NOT treating people like "mushrooms" and telling them to follow without question.
AT ALL.
You seem to be inventing notions to back up your original claim...

Serenitude
2007-Aug-20, 05:04 AM
Giving NASA a blank check of trust is not going to happen as long as they behave in peculiar ways. This is not the first time they put their self in a questionable light.

Poisoning the well. Statement rejected.


I hear you say that they are great scientist and they know. To treat the American people like mushrooms and ask them to follow along behind the piper is not how it is done here. We ask question here. When they do that their credibility is out the window.

You will cite your evidence that NASA treats the American people "like mushrooms". Such a statement must be backed up. NASA is also a very interactive organization for knowledge - you don't have to "follow along behind like the piper", but you must have a basic, fundamental understanding of the technologies at play. NASA doesn't have the resources to launch a rover everytime a layman on the internet sees a color enhanced picture, misunderstands it, and cries "That looks interesting!" That NASA cannot physically accomplish this is not evidence of a "conspiracy".


The truth is they had no way of knowing for sure what discolored that trench or what was ponding at the bottom. Wind and dust is just a catch-all. If their attitude is, we know and if you donít too bad little man, then they deserve all the conspiracy theories they get and they will generate plenty.

Dfrank

The truth is that they have scientists who have dedicated thier lives to knowing how to look at these pictures and hedge their bets, based on the extrapolated data, on where the most promising sites to find (x) are. Thier mission is driven by knowledge slightly higher than anonymous internet people thinking "Whoa - that touched up, color-filtered photo sorta looks like a pond." I once had a fajita shell with a very convincing cat on it. It's a pretty well-known phenomena, but I'm sure you already know what it's called, if you're this intense into this debate ;)

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

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 05:09 AM
I'm going to interject a moment and point out that he said :




The truth is they had no way of knowing for sure what discolored that trench or what was ponding at the bottom. Wind and dust is just a catch-all. If their attitude is, we know and if you donít too bad little man, then they deserve all the conspiracy theories they get and they will generate plenty.

Dfrank

he didn't refer to a member as "little man".

I still dont make much logic out of the statement though.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 05:22 AM
Giving NASA a blank check of trust is not going to happen as long as they behave in peculiar ways.

NASA is not asking for a blank check of trust. You are. You ask us to accept your personal intuition and speculation as the standard by which others' behavior is to be judged.

You have presented no evidence that NASA has acted "in a peculiar way." They simply failed to do what your layman's intuition says should have been done. You continue to beg the question that your intuition gives the right answer.

I hear you say that they are great scientist and they know.

Straw man. I merely say they are better trained than you and more experienced than you in interpreting these photographs. Therefore unless you can provide some better evidence than your infallible common sense, I will continue to believe that NASA's interpretation is more likely than yours to be correct.

To treat the American people like mushrooms and ask them to follow along behind the piper is not how it is done here.

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

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

We ask question here.

No, you make an accusation. You say NASA is wrong for not having done what you say should have been done. You have the burden of proof to show your view of the data is correct. Please satisfy it.

When they do that their credibility is out the window.

I'm perfectly capable of judging for myself which explanation has the most credibility. Currently yours doesn't.

The truth is they had no way of knowing for sure what discolored that trench or what was ponding at the bottom.

How do you propose to discern proper coloration from a false-color photo? Do you know what "false color" means? Please explain your understanding of that description.

How do you know that feature was the result of any liquid ponding? At times you say you're a "regular guy." At other times you say you're an "atmosphere type guy." Do you claim any expertise above that of the layman? If so, what? If not, why does your opinion create an obligation on anyone else's part?

How do you know what procedures NASA employed to interpret that particular feature? Are you aware of any, or are you merely assuming in this case?

...then they deserve all the conspiracy theories they get and they will generate plenty.

Failure to mitigate the willful ignorance of others does not constitute the "generation" of conspiracy theories. Uninformed speculation generates conspiracy theories, pursuant to a preconceived distrust toward the accused. Is your distrust based on evidence or is it preconceived?

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 05:28 AM
If their attitude is, we know and if you donít too bad little man...

Isn't this, in fact, your attitude? Aren't you the one demanding that we believe your personal judgment about what's in this photo, on no better evidence than it seems to you to be the right answer? You're the one telling us that "logic" demands the rover have been driven over to investigate that feature. Aren't you in fact trying to tell us that you know, and if we don't then too bad?

damienpaul
2007-Aug-20, 05:35 AM
To treat the American people like mushrooms and ask them to follow along behind the piper is not how it is done here.

I would like to point out here that, many people globally utilise the resources that NASA freely provide. I have always found that NASA's resouerces to be honest, and can readily in some cases supported by other observations.

I just showed that picture to my students - and I agree with them - it appears to be dunes and other aeolian features - can't see any water.

By the way, I am a qualified climatologist and agree with Van Rijn's statement earlier in the thread:


. . with freezing ground temperature and air temperature usually at freezing or (sometimes) boiling temperature, with only a brief window during some summer days of a "just right" temperature. As I pointed out in a prior post here, and in other posts in other threads, that would not be conducive to bodies of liquid surface water existing for extended periods.

further stated by many other members here. (and no, I am not saying that due to consensus)

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-20, 05:40 AM
I hear you say that they are great scientist and they know. To treat the American people like mushrooms and ask them to follow along behind the piper is not how it is done here. We ask question here. When they do that their credibility is out the window.

The truth is they had no way of knowing for sure what discolored that trench or what was ponding at the bottom. Wind and dust is just a catch-all. If their attitude is, we know and if you donít too bad little man, then they deserve all the conspiracy theories they get and they will generate plenty.

Dfrank

Dfrank, I really don't understand you. You have stated that your ideas about water in images are speculation, yet you also condemn NASA for not basing their decisions on your personal speculation.

If NASA actually did think there was running water, why would they, in your opinion, not want to investigate it?

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 06:09 AM
Damienpaul,

Glad to have a fellow on the thread. I am sorry you misunderstood my explanation in regard to water temperature regulating water stability. I did not say that for any other reason than it is a true scientifically provable reality.

With no water temperature data the real window for water to be stable would be a guess with no bases in reality.

Dfrank

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 06:17 AM
Van,

I stated they were speculation because that is all they can be. No close up study was done.

I condemn NASA for not doing a close-up study of the area

Why would they not investigate? In my opinion they either knew what it was based on previous studies from inside Endurance crater or another location, they are so smart that they think they can tell from just the visible data like me or they are stupid. I donít think they are stupid.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 06:20 AM
See why I abandoned this one?

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 06:22 AM
Van,

I stated they were speculation because that is all they can be. No close up study was done.

I condemn NASA for not doing a close-up study of the area

Why would they not investigate? In my opinion they either knew what it was based on previous studies from inside Endurance crater or another location, they are so smart that they think they can tell from just the visible data like me or they are stupid. I donít think they are stupid.

Get a job working there and see the inside of it.
You will probably be disappointed in how mundane the truth really is.
But at least you will know the truth.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-20, 06:28 AM
With no water temperature data the real window for water to be stable would be a guess with no bases in reality.


Water temperature won't long be different from that of the environment surrounding it, so it is hardly a guess to point to the severe limits on liquid water in that environment.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 06:32 AM
Do you work there? I would hope it would not be mundane. If looking around on another world would not get you jazzed up I do not know what would. If what you say is true and it is a mundane place you are right I would be disappointed. I would think it would be every scientist dream to explore another world.

Dfrank

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 06:36 AM
Van,

Without the water temperature data and not knowing how much heat is needed to reach instability or the heat transfer ability of the air and ground we just donít know.

Dfrank

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-20, 06:42 AM
Van,

Without the water temperature data and not knowing how much heat is needed to reach instability or the heat transfer ability of the air and ground we just donít know.

Dfrank

Are you saying that physics works differently on Mars?

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 06:50 AM
Do you work there? I would hope it would not be mundane. If looking around on another world would not get you jazzed up I do not know what would. If what you say is true and it is a mundane place you are right I would be disappointed. I would think it would be every scientist dream to explore another world.

Dfrank

Okokok I concede i worded that badly :p
It would be VERY EXCITING:D

But in the way just as you said: Exploring other worlds.

Not in the sense that you are finding photographic evidence of martians!

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 06:54 AM
Van,

No the physics are not different, it is the numbers.

Water temperature, -20c, -10c, -5c, 1c. Ground temperature -20c, -10c, 5c. How far does the solar heat penetrate the surface material? Could it always be -10c just a centimeter below the surface even during max heating? What would be the heat transfer rate? Would the cold ground render the solar heating moot?

It is just a lot of stuff we do not know. A lot more than ambient air temp for sure.

Dfrank

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-20, 07:03 AM
Van,

I stated they were speculation because that is all they can be. No close up study was done.


Specifically, it is your speculation. You have not shown any reason NASA should be bound by your speculation.



I condemn NASA for not doing a close-up study of the area


. . . for not following your speculation. Got it. We've heard this before, but it doesn't explain your conspiracy claim.



Why would they not investigate?


Why would they investigate?



In my opinion they either knew what it was based on previous studies from inside Endurance crater or another location, they are so smart that they think they can tell from just the visible data like me or they are stupid. I donít think they are stupid.

I don't think they are stupid either. I think they didn't investigate further because they didn't see anything interesting there to investigate. But this still doesn't answer my question:

If NASA actually did think there was running water, why would they, in your opinion, not want to investigate it?

You're claiming a conspiracy, presumably something about them hiding water. Why would they bother?

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 07:04 AM
Neverfly,

I am not looking for Martians, just water

Dfrank

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 07:10 AM
Neverfly,

I am not looking for Martians, just water

Dfrank

You seem to be finding it... Regardless of whether it is really there or not.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 07:15 AM
Why NASA does what it does is only known by them. They have demonstrated to me they do what they do without requard to the citizens who sent them there. An explanation to the, truth of the anomaly is not something the feel a need to do. I guess they would just leave us to guess, ponder, and if they did a real good job have you follow along and not ask questions.

Even the Phoenix Lander on it way even as we speak is looking only for past life. Now why would the word it that way?

http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/20070804a.html

Dfrank

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 07:17 AM
Neverfly,

Time will tell.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-20, 07:20 AM
Van,

No the physics are not different, it is the numbers.

Water temperature, -20c, -10c, -5c, 1c. Ground temperature -20c, -10c, 5c. How far does the solar heat penetrate the surface material? Could it always be -10c just a centimeter below the surface even during max heating? What would be the heat transfer rate? Would the cold ground render the solar heating moot?

It is just a lot of stuff we do not know. A lot more than ambient air temp for sure.

Dfrank

You have atmosphere temperature and pressure, you have solar insolation. You can, with great confidence, conclude that liquid surface water would not be stable for an extended period of time.

Serenitude
2007-Aug-20, 07:22 AM
Dfrank - you have yet to demonstrate there IS an anolomie.

Also, you do not have the priviledge of being selective in who you reply to. You will answer every challenge posted to you. Consider this warning #2. You are running out of warnings.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 07:23 AM
Dfrank
Your posts are entirely comprised of speculation.
About NASA and their motives and behavior...
About the photo and what's in it...

Lets go to a website and LOOK at ALL the photos they make readily available. This is just ONE photo!
You are being unreasonable, selfish, biased and assuming much more than logic or evidence can back up.

Maybe you should step back and consider EVERYTHING that has been said by everyone in this thread
And the fact that other forums got "mean" and WHY they did.

Im sure you're a nice person. If we worked together Im sure we would get along. Im not attacking your character. Im attacking your tunnel vision and closed-mindedness. You reject logic and evidence in favor of one simple photo.
NASA took the photo and released it quite willingly to the public. Im sure it was analyzed and re-analyzed. With MUCH MORE data than just what the eye suggests.
I honestly am at a loss as to why you keep denying that.

ETA: I personally have no problem with the idea of there being water on Mars. At all.
I look forward to new discoveries. But that doesnt allow me to speculate wildly. These guys studied years of schooling and worked hard to get their jobs. I wish I had that job. They aren't goofy guys that cant tell when they see water. They arent hiding ANYTHING by making the photo public are they?
They KNOW what they are looking at.
If one of my customers acted to me like you are acting to NASA, Id storm off the jobsite in a huff.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-20, 08:02 AM
My question was:

If NASA actually did think there was running water, why would they, in your opinion, not want to investigate it?

And your answer was:


Why NASA does what it does is only known by them.


So, you don't know why they wouldn't investigate this if they agreed with your speculation.



They have demonstrated to me they do what they do without requard to the citizens who sent them there.


You have not demonstrated that to anyone else.



An explanation to the, truth of the anomaly is not something the feel a need to do.


You have not demonstrated that there is an anomaly to explain.



I guess they would just leave us to guess, ponder, and if they did a real good job have you follow along and not ask questions.


Questions are fine, but you're making unfounded accusations.

ineluki
2007-Aug-20, 09:09 AM
They have demonstrated to me they do what they do without requard to the citizens who sent them there.

Why do you write "citizens" when you mean "ME"?

Whose wishes should NASA fulfil?

Sibrel: Look at this rock
Rene: No, look at that one
White: No, no, that one
Icke: Examine this lizard

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 11:32 AM
I conceed

Dfrank

Maksutov
2007-Aug-20, 11:51 AM
I conceed

DfrankOh no you don't.

As the original replier to your OP, I can see that there are a host of questions (including the one I asked you in my reply) that you haven't answered yet.

Answer them in a straightforward fashion with objective evidence, or admit you don't have answers. If it's the latter, then, after such an admission, conceding becomes a viable option. And hopefully a learning experience.

You can't take it and go home. It's not your ball.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 12:06 PM
I will answer your questions. I do not want anymore question on this subject. I will take me all day to try and find the ones I did not.

Maksutov

1. OK, it's a false color image of a part of the surface of Mars.

The image is on Meridiani Mars taken by Opputonity Rover sol 80.

2. As you said it's a false color image. What's the problem? Are you mistaking the blue tints for water?

I said it was false color because it is. True color is an opinion. The blue tint is nothing to do with water. The water in the bottom of the trench is less blue than the surface material in that filter set.

I think that is it for you.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 12:21 PM
Neverfly ask

IS it a few feet away by the way? Can we confirm the distance?

That was an estimate from the image angle based on past images and how far up the horizon is in relation to the foreground.

Grand_Lunar
2007-Aug-20, 12:23 PM
To think all this started because of a misinterpretation of a false color image, something that appears a lot in NASA images (examples; images of Jupiter and Saturn by the Voyagers).

I do hope you learned something here Dfrank; do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to misinterpretation.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 12:29 PM
RAF ask

Why is it that you believe your "interpretation" to be superior to actual mission scientists interpretation?????

I do not. I believe they saw the same thing.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 12:35 PM
Grand lunar,

My interpretation was not based on false color. The anomalies show up just fine in grayscale. My concession is based on my ability to see all the questions and answer them. I am going back now and try and catch up.

If I post again I will be more diligent to answer all questions no matter what.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 12:43 PM
JayUtah ask

Your only evidence that the feature is water is that to you it looks like water. Why did you not expect to be challenged for real evidence?

I did expect it. References to my mental state and the lack of my scientific understanding I did not expect. I should have in retrospect. They locked Galileo in his house.

Nice wig.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 12:51 PM
JayUtah ask

Your only evidence that the feature is water is that to you it looks like water. Why did you not expect to be challenged for real evidence?

I did expect it. References to my mental state and the lack of my scientific understanding I did not expect. I should have in retrospect. They locked Galileo in his house.

Nice wig.

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

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

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

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 12:52 PM
JayUtah ask

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

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

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 12:56 PM
My interpretation was not based on false color.

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

The anomalies show up just fine in grayscale.

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

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 12:56 PM
Neverfly ask

IS it a few feet away by the way? Can we confirm the distance?

That was an estimate from the image angle based on past images and how far up the horizon is in relation to the foreground.

So that is your estimation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 01:01 PM
Jason Thompson ask.

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

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


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

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 01:08 PM
No, Nasa does not release a lot of temperature data.

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

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

Maksutov
2007-Aug-20, 01:09 PM
I will answer your questions. I do not want anymore question on this subject. I will take me all day to try and find the ones I did not.

Maksutov

1. OK, it's a false color image of a part of the surface of Mars.

The image is on Meridiani Mars taken by Opputonity Rover sol 80.

2. As you said it's a false color image. What's the problem? Are you mistaking the blue tints for water?

I said it was false color because it is. True color is an opinion. The blue tint is nothing to do with water. The water in the bottom of the trench is less blue than the surface material in that filter set.

I think that is it for you.What is your objective evidence that what is in the bottom of the trench is water?

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 01:10 PM
Dfrank, while you are madly answering questions..
I have a personal one for you.

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

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

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

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-20, 01:12 PM
RAF ask

Why is it that you believe your "interpretation" to be superior to actual mission scientists interpretation?????

I do not. I believe they saw the same thing.

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

Humble fellow aren't ya.


They locked Galileo in his house.

And now the obligatory comparison to Galileo.

Difference is, Galileo was a scientist.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 01:14 PM
Neverfly,

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

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

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

Dfrank

Maksutov
2007-Aug-20, 01:14 PM
Looks like we're getting very close to Godwin time.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 01:17 PM
If a person who was mentally ill or deluded may not be aware of his state.
When you find yourself seeing things that other people should see I think you would wonder yourself.

I want to be very clear on this point.

In your second post you said

You may be right. Am I the only one thatís sees the ponding in that trench? If I am I apologize.

A mental illusion for sure.

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

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

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 01:20 PM
I think there comes a point when you get an understanding that it is just a bunch of processes, matter moving from one state to another trying to reach equilibrium. You can really see it in your mind.

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

It can be a little overwhelming

Only if you don't understand how it works.

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

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 01:23 PM
Maksutove,

Looks like we're getting very close to Godwin time

Please explain

Dfrank

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 01:27 PM
Neverfly,

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

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

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

Dfrank


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

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

MARCO!

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

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

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

Maksutov
2007-Aug-20, 01:27 PM
Maksutove,

Looks like we're getting very close to Godwin time

Please explain

DfrankDrop the "e", please.

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

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

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 01:31 PM
Serenitude,

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

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

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 01:33 PM
References to my mental state...

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

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

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

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

They locked Galileo in his house.

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

Nice wig.

Thank you.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 01:37 PM
The term little man was used to describe how NASA looks at the regular guy, not a poster.

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

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

Vonstadt
2007-Aug-20, 01:39 PM
Just chiming in because this conversation reminded me of somthing I read that was neat and kinda relavant! :) (I hope)

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

Here is the source linkie :

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/mgs-20061206.html

(Either way I found it interesting :) )

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 01:45 PM
Looks like we're getting very close to Godwin time
Please explain

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

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

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

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 01:50 PM
JayUtah

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

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

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

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

jrkeller
2007-Aug-20, 01:50 PM
Here's some more Martian Temperature data (http://mars.sgi.com/ops/asimet.html). A different mission, but data nevertheless.

jrkeller
2007-Aug-20, 01:51 PM
BTW, search time - 10 seconds

Vonstadt
2007-Aug-20, 01:55 PM
and yet some more http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/science/weather.html

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

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 01:58 PM
JayUtah

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

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

I will do some reading and practice the quoting system.

Dfrank

Maksutov
2007-Aug-20, 01:58 PM
Dfrank, what is your objective evidence that what is in the bottom of the trench is water?

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 02:00 PM
I would never accuse you of being a Nazi or such.

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

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 02:02 PM
jrKeller,

What is your point with the Pathfinder data.

Vonstadt
2007-Aug-20, 02:06 PM
Yikes I posted a duplicate link! Sorry!

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 02:07 PM
JayUtah

Galileo only in the sense that he was not a good salesman either and we both got whooped. He also made some bad decisions, I do that a lot. We both loved thinking. I think that is were the similarities end.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 02:10 PM
and yet some more http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/science/weather.html

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

to quote a famous chef...
BAM!

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 02:11 PM
(snip)
Again, you seem very heavily prejudiced against NASA. Might that type of prejudice be a more proximal generator of conspiracy theories tha(n) NASA's supposed misfeasance?

THIS is a quotable quote. May we adopt it?

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 02:12 PM
JayUtah

Galileo only in the sense that he was not a good salesman either and we both got whooped. He also made some bad decisions, I do that a lot. We both loved thinking. I think that is were the similarities end.

True. You are refusing the evidence that is right in front of your eyes Dfrank.

Why?

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 02:15 PM
Ok I am starting to get the feeling that some of you think I have not taken the time to look at all the data available on surface conditions on Mars.

Is that the case? If it is I will put together my understanding of the dynamics of the Martian atmosphere for you guys to look at and ask questions.

If you would like that should I post it here of in another place. I would also need some time to put it together but I should have a lot done in a few hours.

Dfrank

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-20, 02:16 PM
Any comparison between you and Galileo elevates you and lessens him.

Which is why I imagine you are doing it.

But it's time to stop now...you are not Galileo...

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 02:17 PM
I was not elected.

Then kindly don't attempt to represent them. You're trying to give your argument strength by extending it inappropriately to the entire American public, but you have no evidence that your views are shared by more than just a few people.

I have talked to a few that saw several water anomalies at the Opportunity site.

Do you speak for them? Are they able to provide more objective evidence than you? Why do you classify them as "water" anomalies when you can't prove that there's even a remote possibility they could actually be water? Aren't you jumping to conclusions?

In this thread it was the decision to drive away.

Instead of what? Your belief that any decision was made at all is based on your supposition that the feature in question was in any way anomalous and represented in any way something that experienced mission operators felt any need to investigate. Just because it's new and interesting to you doesn't mean it's objectively so.

Earlier you pointed out that people reach a level of understanding where a paradigm shift occurs and they conceptualize differently the things that they see and hear. You said it in the context of thermodynamic analysis and implied that you had reached this point. But you seem unwilling to believe that such a paradigm shift can occur in image interpretation, and that others may have reached it while you have not.

You simply have no evidence that NASA somehow consciously believed the same as you, and consciously chose to overlook that bird in the hand in search for another in the bush. You don't seem aware of the likely extent to which you're just making stuff up.

I guess anyone who makes a claim wants you to follow along, and yes that would make me the piper.

Then if you are no better in your attitude and approach than what you accuse NASA of, will you kindly stop trying to judge them hypocritically?

Uninformed speculation would be your opinion.

You have admitted to your interpretation being speculation. And you have declined to establish any sort of expertise that would make your speculation especially informed, hence we default to its being uninformed. (One is presumed uninformed until he substantiates differently.) Hence I argue that my opinion is well supported by fact, and that I am justified in characterizing your claims as uninformed speculation.

Since you have extolled the virtue of intuition alone, it's a fair bet that you may not even agree with the notion of informed judgment. If so, you will not get very far here.

Vonstadt
2007-Aug-20, 02:19 PM
Well my point by sharing the data was to point out how the presence of water in the photo is unlikely given the surface conditions.

Water would evaporate or freeze away given the conditions present on the surface.

The links were just so you could see for yourself and use the numbers given by the NASA data to verify it.

That was all

Vonstadt
2007-Aug-20, 02:21 PM
That and I thought the first article was kinda nifty

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 02:22 PM
Ok I am starting to get the feeling that some of you think I have not taken the time to look at all the data available on surface conditions on Mars.

Is that the case? If it is I will put together my understanding of the dynamics of the Martian atmosphere for you guys to look at and ask questions.

If you would like that should I post it here of in another place. I would also need some time to put it together but I should have a lot done in a few hours.

Dfrank

It is very much the case.

Please feel free to use any mathematics, statistics, links ( legitimate links not CT links), measurements, raw data, processed data and quotes from the guys at NASA and leading scientists as you require;)

Maksutov
2007-Aug-20, 02:22 PM
Dfrank, what is your objective evidence that what is in the bottom of the trench is water?

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 02:24 PM
Well my point by sharing the data was to point out how the presence of water in the photo is unlikely given the surface conditions.

Water would evaporate or freeze away given the conditions present on the surface.

The links were just so you could see for yourself and use the numbers given by the NASA data to verify it.

That was all

Don't be so humble- you were dead on:p

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 02:28 PM
Ok I am going to get started on my Mars atmospheric thermal profiles, general weather patterns and such. I will post it here. Please hold any further questions until I have completed this.

Thank you,

Dfrank

Donnie B.
2007-Aug-20, 02:50 PM
I'm interested in Dfrank's (implicit) claim that Martian surface conditions might mediate the Martian atmospheric conditions enough to allow standing liquid (or frozen) water to persist.

I'd like to propose some areas for investigation of this claim. These questions should not be interpreted as demands for a response from Dfrank (though that would be nice) but as an invitation to general discussion of the point.

1) What is the surface temperature on Mars? What are the daily and seasonal variations of the surface temperature? (I'm referring to the actual surface soils, not the air temperature at the surface.)

2) What is the subsurface temperature profile (e.g. temperature with increasing depth) near the surface? How does this profile change on a daily and seasonal basis?

3) How does the surface temperature interact with the air temperature?

4) On the basis of the first three questions, is there any combination of air pressure/temperature and soil conditions that would provide an environment compatible with liquid water? If so, how long would these conditions last?

In other words, what is the likelihood that the feature in Dfrank's image was either a puddle of water at the time it was imaged, or was once a puddle at some earlier time?

I suspect that the answer is "extremely unlikely", but I really don't know where to dig up the data on soil temperatures that would settle the issue.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 02:56 PM
Before you get all excited about misplaced rigor, let's understand clearly what you intend to prove. We're not interested in a comprehensive picture of Mars climate, 99.9% of which would be irrelevant to the problem at hand. We're looking for whether we can rule out liquid water at the time and place depicted in the photo.

If we can, there's no need for further speculation that the apparent pool is caused by standing water; that hypothesis will have been disproven according to the data.

If we cannot, that's still not a case for standing water there, nor even a case that NASA should have taken a closer look. Failing to eliminate the pooling-water hypothesis by one means does not mean it cannot be conclusively eliminated by other means, such as by optical properties or its sure identification as some other feature.

My oven is an unsuitable environment for ice cream because of observable and deductible thermal properties. My freezer is a suitable environment because of those same deductions, but that doesn't mean that there is actually ice cream in it. That determination would have to be based on observation. And I don't have to taste everything in the freezer to ascertain whether it's likely to be ice cream. I can tell visually from a distance that the block of frozen peas is not ice cream, so there's no need to investigate further.

The question is whether NASA has invited criticism by behaving improperly. Therefore your burden of proof is in the objective propriety of your notion of correct behavior. Don't lose track of that in your rush to write a dissertation on planetary climatology.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 03:14 PM
JayUtah

I conceded some time ago. I was in the process of trying not to leave any questions unanswered. There is not enough data to prove it is or is not water. There is not enough evidence to prove NASAís mind set or its rationale for not investigating.

You win, I lose.

Sense I do have an understanding of atmospheric properties and behavior and the hydro cycle and micro-climates of Mars I would like to present and discuss. Is there a place on this forum for such?

Dfrank

Vonstadt
2007-Aug-20, 03:20 PM
Well Im trying to find if there is any data on the Mars surface conditions for Jan 11 2005

Since this photo is from Oppurtunity on day 81

I just back tracked the link from the photo given to the original and that is the day the photo was taken

Jason Thompson
2007-Aug-20, 03:20 PM
Ok I am going to get started on my Mars atmospheric thermal profiles, general weather patterns and such. I will post it here. Please hold any further questions until I have completed this.

Thank you,

Dfrank

We don't need that. We see from the available data that there are temperatures and pressures on Mars that at some times may combine to just the right conditions for liquid water to exist on the surface. This, I would say, is borne out by observations over the past few years from orbit such as:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/science/space/07mars.html?ei=5088&en=39b6ddb43c35856b&ex=1323147600&pagewanted=all

What we are asking is:

Is there any evidence that conditions at the location in your picture were suitable for liquid water at the time the picture was taken?

Is there any reason to suppose that it actually is liquid water, beyond your interpretation that it looks a bit like it?

Given the number of press releases from NASA and ESA regarding evidence of water on Mars, is there any reason at all to suspect that in this instance they would bypass such a chance to confirm liquid surface water if they actually thought for a moment that it might be there?

A long dissertation on Mars's general climate won't answer the specific questions that are pertinent to your claim.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-20, 03:21 PM
There is not enough evidence to prove NASAís mind set or its rationale for not investigating.

This has been covered already. NASA's rational is not in question here...your rational is.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-20, 03:24 PM
You win, I lose.

Finding the truth of the matter is not a "contest" to be won or lost.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 03:25 PM
Jason Thompson,

I conceded a while back. Do you still need to answer questions after your posted concession?

Dfrank

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 03:30 PM
RAF,

My rationale was it looked like a target of interest and should have been investigated. I thought I made that clear. You may not like my rationale, but it is what it is.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 03:34 PM
For those interested in looking at and discussing the Mars atmosphere and hydro cycle, I thing we can go to general science discussion

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 03:43 PM
Yes, ATM maybe
If you concede that there is no conspiracy to hide water on Mars by NASA.

Waspie_Dwarf
2007-Aug-20, 03:46 PM
RAF,

My rationale was it looked like a target of interest and should have been investigated.
No that was not you rational. Your rational was that it looked to YOU like a target of interest and so should have been investigated. That is a big difference.

Jason Thompson
2007-Aug-20, 03:49 PM
Jason Thompson,

I conceded a while back. Do you still need to answer questions after your posted concession?

Dfrank

The questions I asked are simply restatements of questions asked earlier in the thread. To my mind they have not been answered adequately, before or since your concession, so I would say they still require an answer.

You claimed that there was something that looked to you like liquid water in a Mars photo, and that NASA did not stop to look is somehow suspicious. When pressed for evidence that they behaved in a suspicious fashion you gave us a general discussion of the fact that conditions on Mars can allow standing liquid surface water, and that NASA should have gone and looked at it, but you were unable to provide any specific reason why this instance should be considered a special one other than you say it is. Your whole discussion is based on NASA passing it up for some suspicious reason that you are unable or unwilling to even speculate at. You appear not to consider that the people at NASA who make a living studying these images might be able to interpret them better than you, that they are not obliged to share your interpretation, or that they may have more data to base their decisions on than just a picture.

I would, therefore, like to see simple answers to the questions I posed. Please bear in mind, however, that I am not demanding facts and figures, or temperature data or anything like that. If you have it, provide it. If you do not, then say so. 'I do not have that information' and 'I do not know' are acceptable answers to questions. What gets us annoyed is the behaviour offered by many conspiracy theorists and ATM proponents whereby they evade or ignore the questions they do not have firm answers for.

So, do you have temperature and pressure data for the location and time of the picture that supports the possibility of standing liquid water? I would say you do not. Is that correct?

Given that, do you have any other evidence that it might be liquid water, beyond your purely visual interpretation that it looks like it might be and that conditions on Mars can occasionally combine such as to allow liquid water to sit on the surface? I would guess not. Is that correct?

And given that NASA and ESA have not been shy of publishing evidence of past and current water flow on Mars, can you provide a sensible reason that they would deliberately ignore water in a rover picture, rather than simply moving on because they identified it as something other than water? I would guess not. Is that correct?

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 03:50 PM
Waspie,

To say it looked like to me would be more correct.

Neverfly,

I have conceded.

Kelfazin
2007-Aug-20, 04:05 PM
Even the Phoenix Lander on it way even as we speak is looking only for past life. Now why would the word it that way?

http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/20070804a.html

Dfrank

It's unclear to me if you are saying the sole purpose of the Phoenix Lander is to find past life, or if you are saying the astrobiology experimentation will only focus on past life, but it's wrong either way. What the article specifically says about this is


The mission will study the history of the water in the ice, monitor weather of the polar region, and investigate whether the subsurface environment in the far-northern plains of Mars has ever been favorable for sustaining microbial life.

That doesn't say anything about looking only for past life. "Ever" indicates all times, including right now.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-20, 04:08 PM
For those interested in looking at and discussing the Mars atmosphere and hydro cycle, I thing we can go to general science discussion

Well, you can start there, but if you are to talk about standing water on Mars, then it'll be moved to ATM.


RAF,

My rationale was it looked like a target of interest and should have been investigated. I thought I made that clear. You may not like my rationale, but it is what it is.

emphasis mine.


I have conceded.

Where exactly have you "conceded"?? You're saying the same thing you've always said, that NASA should have investigated.

You need to drop that before you can "concede" anything.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 04:08 PM
Jason Thompson,

ďSo, do you have temperature and pressure data for the location and time of the picture that supports the possibility of standing liquid water? I would say you do not. Is that correct?Ē

Temperature data is available, looks like a max Temperature of +3c. On sol 80 I would say yes it would support liquid water.

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

ďGiven that, do you have any other evidence that it might be liquid water, beyond your purely visual interpretation that it looks like it might be? I would guess not. Is that correct?Ē

Visible data is all that is available, and my interpretation is all that it was based on.


And given that NASA and ESA have not been shy of publishing evidence of past and current water flow on Mars, can you provide a sensible reason that they would deliberately ignore water in a rover picture, rather than simply moving on because they identified it as something other than water? I would guess not. Is that correct.

Depends on what you call sensible. If you believe that there are religious people who would like for earth to be the only place life exist and that they influence a lot of the budget of NASA then yes. If you do not believe that then the answer would be no.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 04:11 PM
RAF

I can not concede what I believe. I can concede that I can not prove it.

01101001
2007-Aug-20, 04:16 PM
Temperature data is available, looks like a max Temperature of +3c. On sol 80 I would say yes it would support liquid water.

Pressure? Windspeed? Humidity?

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 04:16 PM
Kelfazin,

My interpretation was wrong, my bad.

Dfrank

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-20, 04:17 PM
Depends on what you call sensible.

Sensible?...oh, you mean like this?...


If you believe that there are religious people who would like for earth to be the only place life exist and that they influence a lot of the budget of NASA then yes.

You have absolutely NO EVIDENCE for what you say...you're just making "stuff" up.

Not "sensible" at all.

Jason Thompson
2007-Aug-20, 04:25 PM
Temperature data is available, looks like a max Temperature of +3c. On sol 80 I would say yes it would support liquid water.

Even with the minimum being tens of degrees below freezing? WHat I was asking is do you have the actual pressure and temperature data for that particular location at that particular time? What was the temperature and pressure then? I'd say you do not. Is that correct?

[quote]Visible data is all that is available, and my interpretation is all that it was based on.

Right. So why should your interpretation automatically be correct?


Depends on what you call sensible. If you believe that there are religious people who would like for earth to be the only place life exist and that they influence a lot of the budget of NASA then yes. If you do not believe that then the answer would be no.

That makes no sense. NASA has published plenty of data about the flow of liquid water on Mars, and constantly talks about the search for water on the planet. If those people were influencing NASA and were trying to cover it up, why did they not prevent those images and stories getting out?

Once again, we are entering the realms of concocting hugely elaborate and incosistent scenarios in order to support your own pet theory. This is very familiar, believe me.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 04:30 PM
Binary,

I have found no other weather data for that day. I do not believe the rovers are equipped with an anemometer.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 04:33 PM
Jason Thompson,

ďSo, do you have temperature and pressure data for the location and time of the picture that supports the possibility of standing liquid water? I would say you do not. Is that correct?Ē

Temperature data is available, looks like a max Temperature of +3c. On sol 80 I would say yes it would support liquid water.

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

ďGiven that, do you have any other evidence that it might be liquid water, beyond your purely visual interpretation that it looks like it might be? I would guess not. Is that correct?Ē

Visible data is all that is available, and my interpretation is all that it was based on.


And given that NASA and ESA have not been shy of publishing evidence of past and current water flow on Mars, can you provide a sensible reason that they would deliberately ignore water in a rover picture, rather than simply moving on because they identified it as something other than water? I would guess not. Is that correct.

Depends on what you call sensible. If you believe that there are religious people who would like for earth to be the only place life exist and that they influence a lot of the budget of NASA then yes. If you do not believe that then the answer would be no.

Hit the QUOTE button at the bottom right of the persons post that you wish to quote and the quotes will automatically be formed for you Dfrank.

If religious people had financial control over NASA I doubt there would be any space program!

you have traveled from minor CT into the absurd!

DO not make a statement that has no basis.
This is NOT the forum for discussing could-be's, maybe's, what if's and "I think there's a cover up I canot or will not try to prove exists."

Speculation is pretty much pointless- so don't bother.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 04:35 PM
My rationale was it looked like a target of interest...

According to your judgment.

...and should have been investigated.

According to your judgment.

You may not like my rationale, but it is what it is.

It's not a matter of liking it or disliking it. It's a matter of asking whether it's founded upon anything other than supposition. If you're going to accuse people of deception and call their judgment into question based on what you would have done, you have the burden of proof to show that your judgment is objectively reasonable. Apparently you can't.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 04:38 PM
(SNIP)

Once again, we are entering the realms of concocting hugely elaborate and incosistent scenarios in order to support your own pet theory. This is very familiar, believe me.

Absolutely!

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 04:38 PM
Jason,

Sensible is an openion.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 04:41 PM
I think that is were the similarities end.

Hogwash. Galileo wrote extensively on his observations and used sound logic to prove that his proposal was objectively correct. You are nothing at all like Galileo, and you are not being unfairly persecuted.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 04:44 PM
The things a human believes is personal. The external stimuli for these conclusions are just as varied as individuals themselves.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 04:45 PM
If you believe that there are religious people who would like for earth to be the only place life exist and that they influence a lot of the budget of NASA then yes.

Are you claiming that this is why NASA did not follow up on your alleged "water anomalies?"

Fazor
2007-Aug-20, 04:46 PM
The things a human believes is personal. The external stimuli for these conclusions are just as varied as individuals themselves.

Okay, if these beliefs are personal and vary from human to human, then why do you say NASA was wrong because they didn't share your belief? (i.e., "they should have followd up and invistigated the area").

Or are you saying, it's okay if you believe something different than someone else, but they are suppose to believe everything you believe?

In other words, you can't have it both ways; and "belief" is no basis for scientific investigation.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 04:48 PM
The external stimuli for these conclusions are just as varied as individuals themselves.

Hogwash. The truth is not different for you than it is for everyone else. What you choose to believe and why is your own business. Foisting your subjective beliefs off onto others and judging them for acting in a way that contradicts those beliefs is prejudiced, unfair, and irresponsible. If you are alleging that your beliefs are objectively true, then you have the burden to supply objective proof before expecting anyone to accept that allegation.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 04:51 PM
JayUtah

Wow I just thought of something. The same force that stopped Galileoís beliefs and sent him to his house could still be raining influence today. Nah, thatís too crazy. Similar though

Dfrank

Nicolas
2007-Aug-20, 04:52 PM
The things a human believes is personal. The external stimuli for these conclusions are just as varied as individuals themselves.

That's why we ask a factual backup of your belief.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 04:54 PM
JayUtah

It would seem I have a lot to learn. When does expressing an opinion end and forcing your beliefs began?

Dfrank

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 04:56 PM
When does expressing an opinion end and forcing your beliefs began?

When you accuse others of impropriety in failing to act according to your personal opinion.

And that is the true generator of conspiracy theories: people who cannot separate belief from fact and who prejudice themselves against people on that basis.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 04:57 PM
Fazor,

NASA is not an individual

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 04:59 PM
The same force that stopped Galileoís beliefs and sent him to his house could still be raining influence today. Nah, thatís too crazy.

Since you've insinuated this twice, I'm going to ask my direct question again: Do you believe NASA failed to follow up on your "water anomalies" because they are being inappropriately influenced by a religious organization or movement interested in suppressing evidence of life on other planets? Please explicitly state whether you are arguing this point or not.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 05:05 PM
JayUtah,

And that is the true generator of conspiracy theories: people who cannot separate belief from fact and who prejudice themselves against people on that basis.

The battle between belief and fact has been around for a long time. The world was round started as a belief. If beliefs can become facts then how do you say someone with a different belief is wrong?

Waiting for that answer.

Dfrank

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 05:11 PM
JayUtah,

Do you believe NASA failed to follow up on your "water anomalies" because they are being inappropriately influenced by a religious organization or movement interested in suppressing evidence of life on other planets? Please explicitly state whether you are arguing this point or not.

Thatís the way I feel JayUtah. There is no way to prove that. We are not allowed to discuss religion or politics, are we?

Dfrank

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 05:13 PM
If beliefs can become facts then how do you say someone with a different belief is wrong?

Because not all beliefs become facts. I do not affirm that your belief is wrong, nor must I in order to dispute or disbelieve it. You have the burden to provide objective proof for your belief if you wish it to be established as fact. Until you are willing to do that, judging others for their disbelief in your statements is prejudicial.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 05:16 PM
JayUtah,

And that is the true generator of conspiracy theories: people who cannot separate belief from fact and who prejudice themselves against people on that basis.

The battle between belief and fact has been around for a long time. The world was round started as a belief. If beliefs can become facts then how do you say someone with a different belief is wrong?

Waiting for that answer.

Dfrank

Because the belief was irrelevant to the fact the world is not and was not flat.

The point is not to just adopt or accept a belief based on what you want or what is popular. But on what is true and provable.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 05:18 PM
JayUtah asked you to look into Quoting.

In a later post I told you how.
Im certain now Dfrank that you are not reading the posts people make.
Just skimming them and looking for something to refute at this point.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 05:23 PM
I have been typing so fast and trying to answer all the questions. should we take a time out and let me try and fiquire this out?

Orion437
2007-Aug-20, 05:23 PM
Visible data is all that is available, and my interpretation is all that it was based on.

And given that NASA and ESA have not been shy of publishing evidence of past and current water flow on Mars, can you provide a sensible reason that they would deliberately ignore water in a rover picture, rather than simply moving on because they identified it as something other than water? I would guess not. Is that correct.

Depends on what you call sensible. If you believe that there are religious people who would like for earth to be the only place life exist and that they influence a lot of the budget of NASA then yes. If you do not believe that then the answer would be no.

Technically, you should take this religious teory far beyond if you would like to make a point. Do you think that El Vaticano sends a letter to NASA asking to hide all proofs of possible water on mars? I think that "Da Vinci Code" type of thinking is baseless. Religions donīt have that much support these days.

Usually this "Religion" concept joins with Economics, Politics, Culture, War and , trying to demostrate how the visceral changes in those aspects could make an alien disclosue, a very dangerous one.

Lots of talking with little support on it.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 05:24 PM
Thatís the way I feel JayUtah.

Then why has it taken five pages for this prejudice to come to light?

There is no way to prove that.

Then it does not apply. I don't accept judgment based on imagination.

We are not allowed to discuss religion or politics, are we?

The moderators will advise us whether this discussion is disallowed under rule 12(C) or any other rule. In that there seems to be an exception for the impact of these contentious items on space programs and policy, I would say that a discussion of whether religion (organized or otherwise) inappropriately restricts NASA's exploration policy -- specifically in its search for extraterrestrial life -- is on-topic.

But as you've admitted you have no actual evidence, I see this new twist more as an attempt to steer a failing argument into the guardrail to avoid further embarrassment. At best it's disingenuous to have embarked on a debate that you knew all along was based in something that couldn't be discussed here.

So exactly what factual evidence do you have for anything you've claimed in this thread?

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 05:27 PM
I have been typing so fast and trying to answer all the questions. should we take a time out and let me try and fiquire this out?

excellent notion;)

You get to typing and defending and thinking about so many things at one time- you can get pretty scattered and looking at what you are trying to say is like looking through fractured glass.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 05:28 PM
...should we take a time out and let me try and fiquire this out?

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

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

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 05:36 PM
JayUtah,

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

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

Dfrank

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 05:41 PM
JayUtah,

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

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

Dfrank

belief founded in fancy and fantasy.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 05:43 PM
Viking data reversal?

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

This is woo woo speculation.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 05:45 PM
belief founded in fancy and fantasy.

Fancy and fantasy is an openion.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 05:46 PM
Fancy and fantasy is an openion.

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

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 05:48 PM
Viking data reversal?

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

This is woo woo speculation.

Sorry Neverfly,

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

Dfrank

Nicolas
2007-Aug-20, 05:50 PM
Poisoning the well again? Fine, but in order to get away with it you'll have to prove Harvard can't be trusted, or has a general tendency of being untrustworthy.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 05:52 PM
ok give me a minute

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-20, 05:53 PM
Harvard is the same guys who posted the liquid water map projections based on ambient air temp. I can not in good conscience believe anything they say.

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

Would you call that an example of objective reasoning??

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 05:55 PM
Like I said earlier, denying the evidence as it slaps him in the face.
I officially give up on this thread. I tried being nice, supportive and encouraging.

Oh well...

It worked on Niin.

One out of 100 isn't so bad right?

Fazor
2007-Aug-20, 06:01 PM
Fazor,
NASA is not an individual

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

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

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 06:07 PM
Neverfly,

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

Dfrank

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 06:20 PM
The last "proof" someone showed me was the Paluxy River footprint pictures "proving" that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
I hope this proof is a wee bit more scientific...

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 06:30 PM
Ok,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dfrank

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 06:52 PM
...just years of seeing the influence of the church in politics.

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

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

Repeatedly speculating does not make the speculation any more valuable.

I believe you are a knowledgeable fair person JayUtah.

I owe it all to the wig.

I have no proof, just a belief.

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

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 06:53 PM
With all of these unknowns how would you produce such a map?

Would this affect your prejudice in any way?

Serenitude
2007-Aug-20, 07:01 PM
And so we come to the (usual) meat of the proposal - "The evil overlords, who are actually (x) are secretly controlling (y)...."

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

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

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

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

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

Jason Thompson
2007-Aug-20, 08:20 PM
The battle between belief and fact has been around for a long time. The world was round started as a belief. If beliefs can become facts then how do you say someone with a different belief is wrong?

Waiting for that answer.

Dfrank

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

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

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

Jason Thompson
2007-Aug-20, 08:22 PM
Jason,

Sensible is an openion.

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

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

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 10:08 PM
Dfrank - you have recurrently been asked a question - provide your evidence that there IS an anomaly. Please read Maksutov's repeated requests, and Jason's clarifications.

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

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

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


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

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


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

Well I aunt a coward

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

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

Dfrank

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 10:15 PM
Jason Thompson,

Beliefs become facts when objective evidence supports them incontrovertibly

That is a comfortable place to be, donít ya think.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 10:17 PM
I do not understand. If an anomaly is something that does not fit in the current model than it is an anomaly

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



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


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


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

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



Well I aunt a coward
Evidence!:p .. couldn't resist!:p



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

Dfrank

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

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

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 10:19 PM
Jason Thompson,

Beliefs become facts when objective evidence supports them incontrovertibly

That is a comfortable place to be, donít ya think.

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

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 10:19 PM
JayUtah,

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

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

Would this affect your prejudice in any way

Yes, they had no idea

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 10:24 PM
If an anomaly is something that does not fit in the current model than it is an anomaly

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

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

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

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

Kelfazin
2007-Aug-20, 10:26 PM
Dfrank, if you're not going to use the quote function, will you at least bold the quoted text using either the button with the big B or putting and tags around the text?

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

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 10:29 PM
Irishman posted this link in the other thread.
I stole it and dragged it over here.

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

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

Kelfazin
2007-Aug-20, 10:31 PM
Irishman posted this link in the other thread.
I stole it and dragged it over here.

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

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

Specifically:

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

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 10:35 PM
Would this affect your prejudice in any way
Yes, they had no idea

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

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 10:36 PM
Neverfly,

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

That is am opinion. A dry dusty Mars should not produce an image that shows dampness or pooling. Anything else is an anomaly

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

The power of religion has been demonstrated throughout history. To say it does not exist today would demonstrate an ignorance of reality.

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

All I have is history. If this forum will allow we will debate

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 10:40 PM
Would this affect your prejudice in any way
Yes, they had no idea

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

JayUtah ,

The Harvard study was based in fallacy Please reread my explination. If you have any questions I will answer

Dfrank

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 10:44 PM
Neverfly,

That is am opinion. A dry dusty Mars should not produce an image that shows dampness or pooling. Anything else is an anomaly
It doesn't show dampness or pooling. Yours is also an opinion. Read JayUtahs rebuttle to this in the post above.
It remains a normal photograph- NOT an anomaly.

The power of religion has been demonstrated throughout history. To say it does not exist today would demonstrate an ignorance of reality.

Again. Your opinion. Personal one at that. Red herring. Irrelevant to the topic at hand- Back it up- cite your references and sources with legitimate evidence to show how it pertains to this photograph or withdraw the statement.


All I have is history. If this forum will allow we will debate

The forum allows it just fine. The trouble is that YOU are not allowing it.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 10:47 PM
The Harvard study was based in fallacy

As is your own argument. Why should we excuse your fallacious argument but be bound to reject someone else's argument you say is fallacious? You are applying logical rigor selectively in your favor.

01101001
2007-Aug-20, 10:47 PM
Dfrank: is religion also impacting the space programs of Russia, all the ESA nations, and China, Japan, and India, for instance? Their scientsts have access to the same images you claim to have analyzed. They've gazed at your "water features", surely.

Where are the planetary geologists from other countries shouting their agreement with you? What? What religion is it that controls them all?

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 10:52 PM
A dry dusty Mars should not produce an image that shows dampness or pooling.

Begging the question. You have the burden to prove the image shows "dampness" or "pooling." It is not an anomaly for everyone simply because you choose to interpret it that way. You display little understanding of the difference between belief and fact.

The power of religion has been demonstrated throughout history.

Handwaving. Do you have any actual evidence that NASA is being improperly influenced by religion? Yes or no.

All I have is history.

You have made a specific, testable allegation. Vague references to "history" are not suitable evidence for such a statement. If I accuse you of theft, and you ask for my evidence that you have stolen anything, am I allowed to make sweeping statements such as, "People have been stealing things throughout history?" No -- you have a right to demand specific evidence that pertains to my accusation.

Similarly you have the burden of proof to support your specific allegation or to withdraw it.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 10:56 PM
NeveryFly,

It doesn't show dampness or cooling. Yours is also an opinion. Read JayUtahs rebuttle to this in the post above

Anytime an image changes that is a result of photo emission. For that to happen there must be a change in the medium.

Again. Your opinion. Personal one at that. Red herring. irrelevant to the topic at hand- Back it up- cites your references and source with legitimate evidence or withdraws the statement

I do not think we can dismiss the power of religion in science. I can not in good conscience withdraw my statement

The forum allows it just fine. The trouble is that YOU are not allowing it

I am here.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 11:01 PM
Anytime an image changes that is a result of photo emission. For that to happen there must be a change in the medium.

I have no idea what you just said. Are you now saying that the image was altered, doctored or falsified?


I do not think we can dismiss the power of religion in science. I can not in good conscience withdraw my statement
It still has no bearing nor relevance if you BELIEVE this is so or if it pangs your "conscience" to admit that you have no evidence to back up the claim.

If you want my own personal opinion: I dont believe that it does. See? We are getting nowhere with this method of debate. That is why evidence is needed.

I am here.

Here giving Red Herrings and squabbling instead of focusing on the issue. Several posts later- You have yet to provide any evidence, cites, references, etc.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 11:02 PM
NeveryFly,

Anytime an image changes that is a result of photo emission. For that to happen there must be a change in the medium.
.

Maybe you are referring to lighting?

Serenitude
2007-Aug-20, 11:09 PM
Dfrank - at 8 pages, we have come to an impass.

You are now handwaiving another unprovable claim - somehow religion is controlling NASA, with no other "evidence" than at some point in history some religion or other had impact somewhere, somehow, on someone(s). We at BAUT are already fairly familiar with the subject of religious history - I, myself, intensely so, and have used this knowledge to personally and convincingly debunk "Ancient Astronaut", "Nibiru", and other CT/ATM topics.

Here is the impass we are currently at: You are still dancing and speculating, whilst providing nothing of substance. Your next post in this forum will contain 2, and only 2 things:

1: A scientifically convincing analysis of the site you claim to be an anomoly, including all figures, graphs, maths, statistics, photo-analysis, etc... you used to verify your claim, and it will then be put to the crucible of reason and science.

2: You will provide, not a paranoid "Duh!", sweeping generalization of religious interference, covered by the "For those that have eyes that can see..." logical fallacy, but you will provide specific examples of religious interaction, specifically it's retardation of specific programs at NASA. In particular, you will demonstrate a clear and followable, causal link between religion and why your newly, scientifically explained anomoly was not explored.

ANYTHING in your next post, other than satisfying these 2 requirements, will earn you suspension in relation to the severity of the post. There will be no questioning of this decision. There will be no answers to any other questions on the table.

As you have indicated you are advanced in years and this knowledge has been accumulating in your head for some time, I expect the answer to be reasonably forthcoming, ie; if it appears to be ad-hocked and googled at the last second, you may temporarily lose posting priviledges for trolling, which is an acceptable suspension under the civility and decorum rules.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 11:09 PM
"Gentleman, Don't confuse me with facts! My mind's made up!"

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 11:23 PM
JayUtah,

With all due respect.

Begging the question. You have the burden to prove the image shows "dampness" or "pooling." It is not an anomaly for everyone simply because you choose to interpret it that way. You display little understanding of the difference between belief and fact.

There must be a change in the medium for the image to show a difference in any filter. There was a difference. What was the etiology?

Hand waving. Do you have any actual evidence that NASA is being improperly influenced by religion? Yes or no.

All I can offer is my mentor Galileo. Was he suppressed?

You have made a specific, testable allegation. Vague references to "history" are not suitable evidence for such a statement. If I accuse you of theft, and you ask for my evidence that you have stolen anything, am I allowed to make sweeping statements such as, "People have been stealing things throughout history?" No -- you have a right to demand specific evidence that pertains to my accusation.

Specific evidence in the face of historical suppression is like asking Sadom Hussein for patriots under distress

01101001
2007-Aug-20, 11:35 PM
Dfrank: before you do anything else, read this recent article (http://www.bautforum.com/1053682-post220.html). Don't miss it. Don 't post without reading it.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 11:36 PM
I do not think we can dismiss the power of religion in science.

You're not being asked to discuss the power of religion in science. You're being asked to provide evidence for your claim that an inappropriate religious influence has caused NASA to curtail its search for life on Mars. If you don't understand the difference, then you have not properly investigated your beliefs.

I can not in good conscience withdraw my statement

Will you at least concede that, being a purely subjective belief, it is inappropriate as a basis for judgment of others?

The forum allows it just fine. The trouble is that YOU are not allowing it

The forum disallows religious advocacy or polemics. It does not disallow discussion of the influence you allege.

It seems you're trying to warp this into a discussion of the validity of religion simply so you can walk away from it at our expense.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-20, 11:38 PM
There must be a change in the medium for the image to show a difference in any filter. There was a difference. What was the etiology?


This is not an answer to the question. What is the evidence that the image shows "dampness" or "pooling"? (Please note that an answer of "I don't have any" is acceptable.)



Hand waving. Do you have any actual evidence that NASA is being improperly influenced by religion? Yes or no.

All I can offer is my mentor Galileo. Was he suppressed?


So, should we take this as an answer of, "No, I have no evidence"?

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 11:40 PM
There must be a change in the medium for the image to show a difference in any filter. There was a difference.

What hogwash are you spewing now? I fully understand the imaging system used on MER. Don't handwave about basic imaging principles as a means of evasion. What is your factual evidence that the substance in question is water?

All I can offer is my mentor Galileo. Was he suppressed?

Evasion noted. My question stands.

Specific evidence in the face of historical suppression is like asking Sadom Hussein for patriots under distress

Evasion noted. My question stands.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-20, 11:48 PM
Dfrank: before you do anything else, read this recent article (http://www.bautforum.com/1053682-post220.html). Don't miss it. Don 't post without reading it.

This should be emphasized. Dfrank, I would strongly suggest you answer Serenetude's questions before you go any further. I would also strongly recommend clear and specific answers. I doubt that vague assertions (as you have been giving) will be considered acceptable. I certainly wouldn't accept them.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-20, 11:52 PM
Serenitude,

If you can not understand photon distribution and why it makes a differences in grayscale or otherwise we shall discuses.

Dfrank

Grand_Lunar
2007-Aug-21, 12:05 AM
It's somewhat amusing, Dfrank, that you told me the image wasn't false color, but grayscale, and yet in your first post, you call it a false color image. So, which is it?

Looking at it myself, the image is clearly false color. That is not water.
I've see an image of Europa in falst color look similar to this.

If I understand correctly, this image makes use of assigning differnt colors to different channels of light. This allows certain elements, minerals, or chemicals to show up more clearly. Hence, the appearence.

No conspiracy. Just good, clean, planetary science.

A bit of advice for you Dfrank; the phrase "I don't know" is an acceptable answer to the questions put to you.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-21, 12:06 AM
Dfrank, I hope you are composing a real answer to Serenitude's questions. If you can't answer the questions, please say so.

captain swoop
2007-Aug-21, 12:16 AM
why is this still here?

Dfrank
2007-Aug-21, 12:16 AM
Here we go, color I love it, I will wait for Sereniitude

Photos by Hortonheradawhow

Dfrank

Dfrank
2007-Aug-21, 12:21 AM
Lets get down dude

Neverfly
2007-Aug-21, 12:24 AM
:neutral:

Dfrank
2007-Aug-21, 12:25 AM
Lets talk black bodies

JayUtah
2007-Aug-21, 12:25 AM
If you can not understand photon distribution and why it makes a differences in grayscale or otherwise we shall discuses.

Word salad. Kindly stop trying to bluff with vague buzzwords and answer the questions.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-21, 12:27 AM
...assigning differnt colors to different channels of light.

And/or algebraic combinations of channels that correspond to different wavelengths.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-21, 12:30 AM
When asked to put up or shut up, it's sad how few CTers and ATMers are willing to utter the three simple words, "I don't know," even when it is obvious that they can't answer a question and failure to answer will likely be detrimental to their posting privileges.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-21, 12:36 AM
JayUtah

Word salad. Kindly stop trying to bluff with vague buzzwords and answer the questions

I have got a guy with a girlís picture wearing me out

No word salad we will progress That is what makes a difference in photography. There need to be a definition otherwise the camera can not differentiate.

Dfrank

JayUtah
2007-Aug-21, 12:38 AM
I have got a guy with a girlís picture wearing me out

Personal attack noted.

That is what makes a difference in photography. There need to be a definition otherwise the camera can not differentiate.

I am fully aware of how photography works. I am also fully aware of how the MER imaging system works. I do not need to be instructed by you in basic photometry. What I need from you are the answers to the questions I have asked. Kindly provide them now.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-21, 12:42 AM
I have got a guy with a girlís picture wearing me out

Personal attack noted.



In all fairness, he was talking about me.
And meant it as a joke. I got the joke though it still baffles me that my avatar looks like a girl... :think:
Maybe it's too small to be seen clearly...
I must enlarge my avatar!!

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-21, 12:47 AM
though it still baffles me that my avatar looks like a girl... :think:
Maybe it's too small to be seen clearly...
I must enlarge my avatar!!

Well, the avatar face looks androgynous at best.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-21, 12:47 AM
JayUtah

I have been attacked by Neverfly. The image of women wooed me. Her name was Ross repelled me. It is hard to know who my friends are here. Your questions are unknown I shall look back

Dfrank

Neverfly
2007-Aug-21, 12:57 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Well, we have evidence NOW that he is much more in tune with visual percpetion than reality:p

Dfrank
2007-Aug-21, 12:59 AM
JayUtah,

What hogwash are you spewing now? I fully understand the imaging system used on MER. Don't handwave about basic imaging principles as a means of evasion. What is your factual evidence that the substance in question is water?

Water is speculation but the difference in the photon emission to the cameras is significant. If there was not a difference there would not be a difference in the image in grayscale or false color.

Dfrank

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-21, 01:07 AM
Water is speculation but the difference in the photon emission to the cameras is significant.


How is it significant to your argument? We're back to the same question, what is the evidence?

Dfrank
2007-Aug-21, 01:14 AM
Van,

Photon emission is what differentiates in the visible light spectrum. Makes things seem gray or white. The photo guys try and hide things using the visible, infrared and ultraviolet spectrum. I know and understand. The photo guys can not get much past me.

Dfrank

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-21, 01:21 AM
Van,

Photon emission is what differentiates in the visible light spectrum. Makes things seem gray or white.


I think everyone here is familiar with the basic principles. A camera would hardly be useful without light. :wall:



The photo guys try and hide things using the visible, infrared and ultraviolet spectrum.


Still another unsupported allegation.



I know and understand. The photo guys can not get much past me.

Yet, when asked to provide your evidence, you evade. Funny that.

Dfrank
2007-Aug-21, 01:23 AM
You can make me look stupid but nobody can debate me one on one.

Dfrank

Dfrank
2007-Aug-21, 01:25 AM
Jim.

It was