**AMAZING** Artifact On Mars!! Original JPL Picture source included!!

Originally posted by thrashee

It might not be a rock, RF. But it's absolutely reasonable to assume it is, regardless of scientific data (or the lack thereof).

Its also reasonable to assume, that it is not, regardless of the tiny data we do have (non-scientific data).

Originally posted by thrashee
We've been over this before. It seems you are attempting to argue from the standpoint of "Because you can't prove it's a rock, you can't disprove it's anything else."

No, I am arguing that no scientific analysis can be made from a single 256 gray scale image, stereo pair or not.

Originally posted by thrashee
And that's technically correct. We can't. However, in such cases, reason presumes. Let's pretend that we're NASA administrators (and to placate certain people here, let's assume NASA is not privy to any kind of inside knowledge or attempting to hide anything from the public). Let's say we see this picture. Would this warrant developing and launching a probe to Mars specifically to analyze this "rock", or whatever it is? Would several hundred millions of dollars of a price tag be justified on this photo alone?

No. It would be somewhat repetitive and a waste of resources to launch any mission to re-examine something that could have been examined the first time. However, that does not rule out any potential re-visit to any area of interest by a manned mission for further investigation if the areas of interest are within reasonable reach of the landing site.

Originally posted by thrashee
I don't think so. I think the most we'd come up with is, "Hey, it looks rather interesting, but there's really no compelling reason to think this isn't just some funky natural formation of some sort."

Sure there is a compelling reason to think it may not just be another funky natural formation of some sort...perhaps not to NASA, but to us who only get a fraction of the data, but pay for so much more, that alone is cause for wanting to know more...and there is alot more to Mars than just funky natural formations.

Originally posted by thrashee
I'm thinking it would take a hell of a lot better pictures than have ever been posted here on ATS to warrant such a mission. Some have been vaguely interesting, but quite honestly, most of them are obvious stretches of the imagination (one particular Moon photo even went so far as to label a "building" as a fueling depot).

Here I agree, it would take better pictures of a less fuzzy blurry nature to warrant a mission. But honestly, do you really think that all that money spent, sheesh I dont even want to try to figure the exact 3rd decimal point accuracy count, that there are no better, less than fuzzy blurry pictures of areas of interest? After all, we got satellites that can take pictures of letters on a dime in the grass in the middle of Central Park in New York since the mid 90's, you would think that those same photographic abilities would be used for looking at the Moon or Mars or at a passing diamond shaped asteroid.

If we just sat on our butts and assumed everything just becasue of what is currently known, how is science and discovery expected to evolve? On assumption only? On reason only? How is knowing accomplished by not doing?

There was a time when it was assumed that life could not exsist at the deepest depths of the oceans. But...because of presistance and drive to find out, cameras capable of withstanding the enourmous pressures of the deep oceans were lowered and low and behold...life was discovered!

Now if the notion of assuming had been followed, we would not have learned and expanded our science and knowledge about life right here on Earth that exists in those areas of interest.

Certianly the approach of doing is far more contributing to knowledge than just sitting around assuming things.

I dont think mankind would be as advanced in knowledge and technology today had we just sat around assuming that something is or is not.

It is never impossible until it is impossible. And you dont get to impossible until all possibilities are exausted.

We have yet to exaust the possibilities..by a very long shot.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 18-2-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by mi2sense

 

Science is based on factual data, not benevolance. Without data, there is no science fact, just assumption.

Now we have 1 256 gray scale image...filled with stuff.

Take that 256 gray scale image of an area surrounded with similar stuff here on Earth.

Could you from just looiking at 1 256 gray scale image tell me the makeup of those rocks?

No you cant.

You and a couple others here seem to just shovel aside the scientific reason for those rovers being up on Mars, and why they have geological filters on that pancam, and want to declare my reasoning as bogus when I point and provide direct scientific data that there is no way whatsoever your going to tell anyone that this rock is indeed a rock and that object is also a rock when you have no clue what either is made of...because you rely on a 256 gray scale image and your benevolance rationalizing because mars is known to have rocks. Earth has rocks too..is that all there is?

Ya ok.

WHUTEVER!!!

However, you are the one being benovelent.

This is exactly why I think you are not being scientific RFB, I don’t think you could find one scientist on the face of this earth that would match your 50% chance that this is not a rock. You want to somehow justify in your mind that you think you are providing a reasonable doubt that this is a rock and ALL I SEE is wishful thinking.

Equivocation is the logical fallacy of negative proof and for the record RFB, you have provided no “direct scientific data” that supports your claim; so why would you continue in this foolishness? It is an invalid argument to try and insist that “X is true because there is no proof that X is false.”

I was just taking you at your own words. You agreed with me that you think that the other objects in this photo are rocks. Therefore, My scientific reasoning is based on the fact that all the scientists in the world also agree with me that there are many ROCKS in this photo and I know it’s a shocker that you agree with me very much in the face of not one shred of geological data; but the fact remains that I can’t agree with your speculation being “direct scientific data” that that object is anything other than a rock in a familiar shape. It’s ridiculous and there is a much more likely chance that those other many many rocks are from earth because they match exact representations of the rocks found here on earth. This wrench/eel speculative debate is so far fetched it is purely founded on men’s imagination and the only thing scientific about it is that human grey matter is coming up with the hoaky idea.

How many times have I stooped down on the ocean shore to pick up something I thought was something else, just to find out it was just a rock? If humans do this millions of times on our earth, then I find my amazement is 100% justified at the silliness of some who find the same kind of “suggestion” of such a find when the odds are mathematically proven to not only be unlikely, but superlatively unlikely and par for the course among the galactically challenged day dreamers.

I think you’re missing a very important factor RFB, that to put that object in the context of objects found on this earth would change the matter completely. We have proven life on earth scientifically, we have not on Mars.

reply to post by mi2sense


Just becasue scientists around the world agree on something does not mean it is conclusive. Many things that sicentists around the world that agreed on something one time, have changed their minds and opinions later after more data was gathered. And that has occured more than once.

Scientists used to believe that Mars had no frozen ice under the surface. Odyssey changed that with its findings back in 2001.

Scientists believed at one time that the Earth was flat...and then later proven wrong and again changed their beliefs.

In those and many more examples, what changed those beliefs of scientists was data, more of it, which provided proof to come to a different conclusion.

I dont see where your point is in saying that I am being benevolant. I am being quite logical in making the point that science is prediction, science is testing, science is based on data..all of which in turn gives us the answers.

Right now, with just 1 image of a particular area in 256 gray scale, that is far from enough data to conclude 100 percent that there is nothing there but rock material, when the data in hand is not even conclusive in itself.

It is a mere image, showing stuff. Yes rocks, and do we even know the composition of those particular rocks? Do we, and the scientists around the world say that there is only one type of rock with one type of composition?

No we dont. And neither should we do that for what is on Mars.

And without geological and mineralogic data, we are 50/50 at saying this object is definately a rock comprised of the same material as that rock, or this rock in the same scene.

I can go outside right now and get a picture of rocks scattered across the landscape and I guarantee you that within that picture there will be a variety of rocks with diverse minieralogic compositions, to which that in itself identifies each onto its own. And if I had a camera that had those geological filters attached to the lens, I could determine what those compositional differences were between each rock and identify those elements.

Now if I were to throw something into that field that had similar texture and brightness and contrast and had a shape that could be viewed as a rock, and then took a 256 gray scale image of that same area, posted it, would you be able to identify it from the rocks around it and say for certian without a doubt that it too is a rock?

I doubt it.

You most likely would assume that everything in that image would be rocks..because according to you, rationalizing that because the scene has rocks, that everything in that scene is a rock, yet have absolutely no data to confirm that assertion...only rationalization and assumption based on presumption.

That is not how science works. Science works by collecting data, examining that data, get more data to confirm conclusions, re-examine, and when all data is in, then final conclusions can be made.

As I have stated, and will continue to state, that single 256 gray scale image is not enough data to tell us the compositional makeup of that object being called a wrench/eel or whatever. A 256 gray scale image can make a piece of rubber look just like a piece of lava rock, yet you would not know which is which because both would have that same dark shade in the 256 gray scale image.

Unless you had the data that tells you the mineralogic makeup of each, you can only assume that both are rocks because you know that rocks are there, yet in fact, you would be only 50 percent correct.

Try it yourself. Grab a camera, find an area of rocks, varying types of rocks, find an area with a variety of dark shade rocks, and then have someone find a blob of dark shade rubber or dired up tar that you dont know what it looks like or its shape and have them throw it into the scene while closing your eyes. Then take a 256 gray scale image of the scene and then see if you can spot that dark shade material amongst the other dark shade materials mixed in with the ligher shade material.

I bet you will not be able to find or clearly identify the rubber or tar from the other identically looking materials in that scene, much less determine which one is rock, and which one is rubber/tar.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 18-2-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by RFBurns
Sure there is a compelling reason to think it may not just be another funky natural formation of some sort...perhaps not to NASA, but to us who only get a fraction of the data, but pay for so much more, that alone is cause for wanting to know more...and there is alot more to Mars than just funky natural formations.

Why do you keep on saying that we do not get all the data?

Do you have any real information about it?

Try it yourself. Grab a camera, find an area of rocks, varying types of rocks, find an area with a variety of dark shade rocks, and then have someone find a blob of dark shade rubber or dired up tar that you dont know what it looks like or its shape and have them throw it into the scene while closing your eyes. Then take a 256 gray scale image of the scene and then see if you can spot that dark shade material amongst the other dark shade materials mixed in with the ligher shade material.

Even then it would not be the same, because the photo would be a greyscale version of how the scene looks in visible light, while the photos from the Rovers show a limited wavelength (in this case between 416nm and 456nm)

reply to post by RFBurns


reply to post by RFBurns


What is conclusive is that you agree with me RFB. Your own better judgment determines that the more than supermajority of the objects in that photo are rocks and you need to argue with yourself not others. Making an appeal to the fallibility of man is hardly debatable and trying to depict yourself as the one making an argument for the necessary data is very funny in deed. Go get your data before making statements like you have provided “direct scientific data”. Photos are not direct scientific data in the face of absolutely no geological data at all.

Like I said, you are arguing from a faulty premise that X is true because there is no proof that X is false and all the speculation in the world is subject to confirmation via the scientific method. You are still at ground zero with no geological data and it is a pure lie that you have a 50/50 chance (probability) of being right. Out of one side of your mouth you argue the great probability that even all the scientists can be wrong that the objects in the photo are rocks, but then you give yourself this huge 50% margin? Delusion.

I suggest that everyone run away from such a thinker that would award themselves such a margin with the conclusive determination you offer; “we don’t know”.

You are just arguing for arguments sake, not truth’s sake.

I did get a chuckle out of you using the same thing I’m trying to say of your doubt of me being able to identify a single object with the zero probability of “I doubt it”. And you wonder at my doubt? You dismiss my speculation with overgeneralization that I am just rationalizing. What do you think your speculations are? You put too much worship in your grey matter.

Is the law of averages a science? If not, then where do you get off using it to assign a 50/50 chance that you are right? I don’t think an honest person can look at that photo and say that the law of averages is 50% in their argument’s favor; that it is something different than the other 99.99% of it’s surroundings. You can try and take the argument against the other matter in that photo also not being rocks, but the point is that it is plain to see that 99.99% of that photo are not wrenches or eels.

Why do you keep on saying that we do not get all the data?

Do you have any real information about it?

Thank you ArMaP, my point exactly.

RFB’s argument for me doing an experiment by photo taking only makes my point. We are not talking about a 50/50 chance of him being right over me, but rather the law of probability that RFB is right about this object on Mars.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by mi2sense]

Just out of curiosity, how fares our *AMAZING OMGFG* evidence for life on Mars?

Laughing. My. Ass. Off.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Why do you keep on saying that we do not get all the data?

Because it has been proven time and again that NASA, and their various contractors such as Malin and ASU, have held back data, sometimes for months, and then release that data only after a massive public outcry for it occurs.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Do you have any real information about it?

If you have been keeping track of NASA's every project and keeping track of their contractors handling of that data, you would not need to ask that question.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Try it yourself. Grab a camera, find an area of rocks, varying types of rocks, find an area with a variety of dark shade rocks, and then have someone find a blob of dark shade rubber or dired up tar that you dont know what it looks like or its shape and have them throw it into the scene while closing your eyes. Then take a 256 gray scale image of the scene and then see if you can spot that dark shade material amongst the other dark shade materials mixed in with the ligher shade material.

Even then it would not be the same, because the photo would be a greyscale version of how the scene looks in visible light, while the photos from the Rovers show a limited wavelength (in this case between 416nm and 456nm)

Anyone can get a filter with a 416-456nm wavelength and slap that in front of their camera. If you can buy Gen-3 NR equipment, you can certianly get your hands on a simple blue UV filter in the 416-456nm wavelength.

Funny you guys keep dancing around the fact that no 256 gray scale image, especially one from a blue UV filter with a narrow wavelength rage cannot give us the information to determine compositional makeup of what is in that image. Why deny the obvious?

I think my entire postion here has been on that fact alone, that this single image is no way to determine mineralogic data on what is in that image.

You guys can go ahead and assume about this one particular image all you want based on the "rational" conclusion that rocks are on Mars. Well rocks are on Earth too...but there is alot more here as well.

Ignore the fact that a very long time ago Mars was once a little Earth, and that life most probably evolved there. Just because it seems too far out of your paradyme to accept even NASA's own analysis of the past of Mars, well sorry I guess you are barking at the wrong tree here...go bark at NASA's scientists and planitary geologists about it.

If the missions of the rovers were to gather up simple 256 gray scale images for eye candy, then there would be no need for a filter wheel on any of those rovers. But they do have those filters for a reason, and did use them in many of those datasets. They are right there on the MER raw data pages.

And no one can deny that NASA used those geologic filters in many areas of interest, and did not use them....so far as we know....on other areas. After 40 years of lies and lame excuses, I wont just take the same old song and dance like you guys want to. Dance their dance all you want, but the rest of us will keep looking and will keep a fire lit under NASA, as we have been for the last 15 years..and we have been successful in getting what we paid for.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
Funny you guys keep dancing around the fact that no 256 gray scale image, especially one from a blue UV filter with a narrow wavelength rage cannot give us the information to determine compositional makeup of what is in that image. Why deny the obvious?

The obvious is simply this: you cannot determine the geological qualities of said specimen from said photograph. This does not mean, however, that ANY possibility under the sun is equally rational. Poor reasoning.

I think my entire postion here has been on that fact alone, that this single image is no way to determine mineralogic data on what is in that image.

Great. So in other words, nothing conclusive can be obtained from this photograph. So what are we left with? Nothing other than logical conclusions. They don't all carry the same weight, by the way.

You guys can go ahead and assume about this one particular image all you want based on the "rational" conclusion that rocks are on Mars. Well rocks are on Earth too...but there is alot more here as well.

See...now you're contradicting your own logic. Just because there is a lot more here does not mean there is a lot more there. Period.

Ignore the fact that a very long time ago Mars was once a little Earth, and that life most probably evolved there. Just because it seems too far out of your paradyme to accept even NASA's own analysis of the past of Mars, well sorry I guess you are barking at the wrong tree here...go bark at NASA's scientists and planitary geologists about it.

Obviously you are appealing to erroneous conclusions made by scientists of yesteryear. Just because once upon a time scientists thought the universe was geocentric does not make it true.

If the missions of the rovers were to gather up simple 256 gray scale images for eye candy, then there would be no need for a filter wheel on any of those rovers. But they do have those filters for a reason, and did use them in many of those datasets. They are right there on the MER raw data pages.

While this sounds authoritative, it's not. You cannot truly speak for why NASA employed any measure.....unless, of course, you are/were employed by NASA?

And no one can deny that NASA used those geologic filters in many areas of interest, and did not use them....so far as we know....on other areas. After 40 years of lies and lame excuses, I wont just take the same old song and dance like you guys want to. Dance their dance all you want, but the rest of us will keep looking and will keep a fire lit under NASA, as we have been for the last 15 years..and we have been successful in getting what we paid for.

Right. So we should just believe your claims here, rather than give you the same "song and dance". Because this always makes for a hearty argument?

Originally posted by mi2sense

What is conclusive is that you agree with me RFB. Your own better judgment determines that the more than supermajority of the objects in that photo are rocks and you need to argue with yourself not others.

The only one I see arguing here is you. Arguing that I, and others, who have the freedom of thought and the freedom to ask questions, should just set that aside and be like you and just be rational about everything.

Sorry..but you can be like that. I, and others will not.

Originally posted by mi2sense
Making an appeal to the fallibility of man is hardly debatable and trying to depict yourself as the one making an argument for the necessary data is very funny in deed. Go get your data before making statements like you have provided “direct scientific data”. Photos are not direct scientific data in the face of absolutely no geological data at all.

I dont make any appeals to anyone. I simply point out the evidence that anyone can see for themselves. Nice try in turning it around, but I am sure that these folks can find the evidence for themselves and see for themselves.

Originally posted by mi2sense
Like I said, you are arguing from a faulty premise that X is true because there is no proof that X is false and all the speculation in the world is subject to confirmation via the scientific method. You are still at ground zero with no geological data and it is a pure lie that you have a 50/50 chance (probability) of being right. Out of one side of your mouth you argue the great probability that even all the scientists can be wrong that the objects in the photo are rocks, but then you give yourself this huge 50% margin? Delusion.

Again, nice try to derail the point. The point is that you, nor I nor any geologist can 100 percent say that this object is made up of this and that and is definately a rock just by looking at a simple gray scale image, just becasue said object "looks" like a rock.

If science only went by looks, we are wasting our time and effort with all the extra equipment put on these rovers and orbiting probes.

Originally posted by mi2sense
I suggest that everyone run away from such a thinker that would award themselves such a margin with the conclusive determination you offer; “we don’t know”.

Oh this one is real good. What your telling people is to curl up in a corner, not use their brains at all and think for themselves. I doubt you will get a huge following with that one.

Originally posted by mi2sense
You are just arguing for arguments sake, not truth’s sake.

On the contrary, I am just pointing out the obvious. It is you who keeps arguing for arguments sake. Again, dont bark at the wrong tree, go bark at NASA for the missing datasets.

Originally posted by mi2sense
I did get a chuckle out of you using the same thing I’m trying to say of your doubt of me being able to identify a single object with the zero probability of “I doubt it”. And you wonder at my doubt? You dismiss my speculation with overgeneralization that I am just rationalizing. What do you think your speculations are? You put too much worship in your grey matter.

Actually I am making it so simple that a pre schooler could understand it. What you are doing is making it more complex by rationalizing when it is not necessary and filling in the blanks with the repetitive rationalizing.

Its all right there on the MER raw dataset websites. Some datasets are complete, some are not. I did not make the MER raw dataset websites, NASA did. Again, go bark at NASA.

Originally posted by mi2sense
Is the law of averages a science? If not, then where do you get off using it to assign a 50/50 chance that you are right? I don’t think an honest person can look at that photo and say that the law of averages is 50% in their argument’s favor; that it is something different than the other 99.99% of it’s surroundings. You can try and take the argument against the other matter in that photo also not being rocks, but the point is that it is plain to see that 99.99% of that photo are not wrenches or eels.

Suppse we had that missing dataset of geological filter images. What would they tell us?

You dont know do you? Neither do I. Well unfortunately since neither of us have that kind of data, its a 50/50 chance that the object in quesiton is a rock, or it is not. A gray scale image can make dozens of things within it appear the same brightness, contrast, texture and look. It doesnt tell us anything about one object's composition vs another.

Originally posted by mi2sense
RFB’s argument for me doing an experiment by photo taking only makes my point. We are not talking about a 50/50 chance of him being right over me, but rather the law of probability that RFB is right about this object on Mars.

This isnt about me being right over you. Obviously however, you seem to be hot and heavy in proving to everyone here that you are right over anyone, including me.

Nice try to run me off on this subject but your gonna have to work on it till the day when either I croak over or you, whichever comes first.

Ready for the long haul....hope so.




Cheers!!!!

Nothing to see here folks move along! Spirit was having technical difficulties so it was using a wrench to fix itself. Evidently, it could not reach the bolts so it bet the wrench and tossed it. Honest.


All jokes aside, nice find!

Originally posted by Equinox99
Nothing to see here folks move along! Spirit was having technical difficulties so it was using a wrench to fix itself. Evidently, it could not reach the bolts so it bet the wrench and tossed it. Honest.


All jokes aside, nice find!

Yuk yuk yuk......in other words, this *must* be a wrench simply because it *looks like* a wrench! Yuk yuk yuk...this is ATS logic at its finest!

Yuk. Yuk. Yuk.

Originally posted by thrashee

The obvious is simply this: you cannot determine the geological qualities of said specimen from said photograph. This does not mean, however, that ANY possibility under the sun is equally rational. Poor reasoning.

Im not the one shoving rational into the subject here.

And finally, someone is in fact seeing the obvious as I have been pointing out over several pages. You cannot determine the geological qualities of said specimen from said photograph. Now if we had the geological datasets, we could. But we dont have that. So you are 100 percent correct that we cannot say said object is made up of the same thing as object b that we still have no idea what its make up is.

Originally posted by thrashee

I think my entire postion here has been on that fact alone, that this single image is no way to determine mineralogic data on what is in that image.

Great. So in other words, nothing conclusive can be obtained from this photograph. So what are we left with? Nothing other than logical conclusions. They don't all carry the same weight, by the way.

Nothing scientifically conclusive can be obtained by this one photograph, especially compositional differences from one object to another.

Originally posted by thrashee

You guys can go ahead and assume about this one particular image all you want based on the "rational" conclusion that rocks are on Mars. Well rocks are on Earth too...but there is alot more here as well.

See...now you're contradicting your own logic. Just because there is a lot more here does not mean there is a lot more there. Period.

So does that mean we exclude what was in the past on Mars? Does that mean we do not include the whole history just because you or I were not around to witness that history, thus exclude anything from that history in our findings?

What kind of screwed up thinking is that? We have found objects dating back tens of thousands of years right here on Earth and even with those facts we will exclude any past history about Mars just to fit it in the rational box?

I dont think so. You can..but me..no, I will keep my mind far more open than that...thank you.

Originally posted by thrashee

Ignore the fact that a very long time ago Mars was once a little Earth, and that life most probably evolved there. Just because it seems too far out of your paradyme to accept even NASA's own analysis of the past of Mars, well sorry I guess you are barking at the wrong tree here...go bark at NASA's scientists and planitary geologists about it.

Obviously you are appealing to erroneous conclusions made by scientists of yesteryear. Just because once upon a time scientists thought the universe was geocentric does not make it true.

As I stated to your partner there, I dont appeal to anyone. I simply point out the facts that anyone can go see for themselves...even you. Do you need the URL to the MER raw dataset websites?

Originally posted by thrashee

If the missions of the rovers were to gather up simple 256 gray scale images for eye candy, then there would be no need for a filter wheel on any of those rovers. But they do have those filters for a reason, and did use them in many of those datasets. They are right there on the MER raw data pages.

While this sounds authoritative, it's not. You cannot truly speak for why NASA employed any measure.....unless, of course, you are/were employed by NASA?

Oh geez..more attempts to derail the facts. Go read the mission plan and sepcifications on the rovers for yourself. See clearly what those rovers were built for, their purpose to send them to Mars, and the mission goal plus the extended mission goals. They were not sent there to simply test remote robotic capabilities and to take ugly gray scale images.

No I dont work for NASA. But I do have a few contacts within NASA and JPL, the guys who built those two rovers.

Originally posted by thrashee

And no one can deny that NASA used those geologic filters in many areas of interest, and did not use them....so far as we know....on other areas. After 40 years of lies and lame excuses, I wont just take the same old song and dance like you guys want to. Dance their dance all you want, but the rest of us will keep looking and will keep a fire lit under NASA, as we have been for the last 15 years..and we have been successful in getting what we paid for.

Right. So we should just believe your claims here, rather than give you the same "song and dance". Because this always makes for a hearty argument?

Nope, go find it for yourself, at the MER raw dataset websites. As I said before, I did not make the NASA websites, NASA did. It is THEIR published datasets, not mine. I am merely pointing out how some datasets use all the geological filters and some do not.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
They were not sent there to simply test remote robotic capabilities and to take ugly gray scale images.

Quite right..

They are micro mining laboratories

I would like you to ask your friends the rover makers about the following statement...

On the mining-thing. I can only state that in the broadest of senses mining operations have taken place on the lunar surface and are presently being conducted on Mars (and continue on a micro-scale, on the Moon). Although the use of terminology, 'mining' has been downplayed (by NASA) and there exists an 'internal memo' , what has actually taken place on the Moon and on Mars are micro-mining operations, complete with chemical/geological analytical capability, in situ.

---snipped--- (the debunkers have not the need to know

)
Use of terminology, e.g., 'mining', could be considered (by some countries) to constitute a violation of the International Space Treaty. Thus, NASA is real-careful about use of terminology that could be considered a breach of 'Policy and Protocol'. I can give you this stuff as it's 'public information'. You have to look between the spaces/lines for more info and draw your own conclusions.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Because it has been proven time and again that NASA, and their various contractors such as Malin and ASU, have held back data, sometimes for months, and then release that data only after a massive public outcry for it occurs.

I thought you were talking about this specific case of the rovers, since that is what we have been talking about.

Did that happened with the rovers' photos?

Anyone can get a filter with a 416-456nm wavelength and slap that in front of their camera. If you can buy Gen-3 NR equipment, you can certianly get your hands on a simple blue UV filter in the 416-456nm wavelength.

Then you should have said that, I was just pointing that just taking a grey-scale photo of some rocks to try to find an object that is not a rock is not the same as taking a photo through a short band filter.

Funny you guys keep dancing around the fact that no 256 gray scale image, especially one from a blue UV filter with a narrow wavelength rage cannot give us the information to determine compositional makeup of what is in that image. Why deny the obvious?

Who is "dancing around" anything? I even said (although not explicitly, but I thought you would understand) that a grey-scale photo would show more than a photo taken through that 416-456 nm filter.
I also agreed that we only have "geometric" data and not geological data.

It's obvious that only one photo, with 256 or even 4096 (12 bits) shades of grey will never show us the composition of the objects we see on it, it will only show us how those objects reflect the light in that particular wavelength.

I think my entire postion here has been on that fact alone, that this single image is no way to determine mineralogic data on what is in that image.

Yes, I have noticed that, you said it in 12 posts (if I did my counting correctly ).

You guys can go ahead and assume about this one particular image all you want based on the "rational" conclusion that rocks are on Mars. Well rocks are on Earth too...but there is alot more here as well.

I only said that this is a rock because almost all of the non-rock people were talking as if there was any proof that this is not a rock.

It's obvious that I (or anyone else) can say for sure if this is a rock or not, even with all the filters, an object completely covered with dust will look like it has the same composition as the dust, so only a direct analysis of the object can say for sure what it's composition is.

Ignore the fact that a very long time ago Mars was once a little Earth, and that life most probably evolved there. Just because it seems too far out of your paradyme to accept even NASA's own analysis of the past of Mars, well sorry I guess you are barking at the wrong tree here...go bark at NASA's scientists and planitary geologists about it.

I do not ignore the fact that Mars was different from what it is now, but you do not have any real data to call it "a little Earth" and the "most probably" about the past existence of life is just that, a probability. And I don't understand why you are talking about do not accepting NASA's analysis, where did I said that?

And no one can deny that NASA used those geologic filters in many areas of interest, and did not use them....so far as we know....on other areas. After 40 years of lies and lame excuses, I wont just take the same old song and dance like you guys want to. Dance their dance all you want, but the rest of us will keep looking and will keep a fire lit under NASA, as we have been for the last 15 years..and we have been successful in getting what we paid for.

I can only accept what they say about their missions because they are their missions, why should I accept what some unknown person tells me about other people's works?

As I accept what you say about your own opinions and you own work, I accept what they say are their own opinions and their statements about their work, but that does not mean that I accept that as facts, I accept them just as their statements.

Originally posted by RFBurns
You cannot determine the geological qualities of said specimen from said photograph. Now if we had the geological datasets, we could. But we dont have that. So you are 100 percent correct that we cannot say said object is made up of the same thing as object b that we still have no idea what its make up is.

Agreed, we can't. So we're left, again, with using reason until something can prove otherwise. The point here is that we could take almost any picture from Mars that IS a photograph of rock, and state that without geological data, we can't PROVE it's a rock, so it might be a Martian Campbell's soup can. Relying on the "we don't know for sure" line of thinking in order to include any possibility is tenuous. But technically correct.

So does that mean we exclude what was in the past on Mars? Does that mean we do not include the whole history just because you or I were not around to witness that history, thus exclude anything from that history in our findings?

Of course not. I'm not stating we should exclude anything. I am stating that Earth cannot be used as a comparison for what we should expect to find on Mars. We could find something from Martian history, and that would honestly be a great scientific discovery. But I don't think we should count on it.

What kind of screwed up thinking is that? We have found objects dating back tens of thousands of years right here on Earth and even with those facts we will exclude any past history about Mars just to fit it in the rational box?

Again, this is not what I'm arguing....but just because we've found things on Earth dating back however long does not logically mean we should expect to find similar things on Mars.

Ignore the fact that a very long time ago Mars was once a little Earth, and that life most probably evolved there. Just because it seems too far out of your paradyme to accept even NASA's own analysis of the past of Mars, well sorry I guess you are barking at the wrong tree here...go bark at NASA's scientists and planitary geologists about it.

Woooh there...Mars has similarities to Earth, and may have been more similar to Earth in the past, but how much it truly was Earthlike--especially along the one criterion we're concerned about here (supporting life)--is still up for debate.

Nope, go find it for yourself, at the MER raw dataset websites. As I said before, I did not make the NASA websites, NASA did. It is THEIR published datasets, not mine. I am merely pointing out how some datasets use all the geological filters and some do not.

Ok, fair enough.

So much arguing back and forth about an object that can not be determined one way or another. THere is no way to prove it is not a rock or prove that it is one. It looks like many things, much like those inkblot (Rorschach) tests. Light and shadows can play tricks to make things look different from what they actually are. Pictures from a source where the physical evedence can not be physically observed, can only suceptable to it could be this, it could be that.
For example, the OP states he thought the picture posted looked like a wrench, to me it looks like a fossile of some sort. There is no evidence to support either of these theories, so it is just an intersting picture nothing more.

Just a few thoughts that I thought might help out this long running debate.

reply to post by AlienCarnage


That has been my whole point from my post 1. Not enough data to say either way.

"ArMap"..Actually I wasnt refering to you dancing around the issue of what I am pointing out. Your actually participating and contributing to the issue. It is the other two that are trying to rationalize the point, and the point once again, is that the L7 and R1 image, which forms a stereo pair (3D) using the blue UV filter, is not enough data to determine composition of the object in question. Though it has a "similar" look and texture to the surrounding objects which are probably rocks, that doesnt mean that we just quit and say "oh its a rock because other things in the image are rocks".

"trashee"....I submit to you that it is not logical to rationalize when other data could have been gathered, and most likey has been gathered. Do you honestly think that the geologists are not going to utilize every bit of scientific equipment on that rover to determine what that might be in that scene? Cmon..don't be so naieve. Millions of dollars spent on a piece of equipment and it runs into an unsual object amongst other objects, and they are just going to take a 3D image with only one filter of it and not even bother to find out for sure what it is..only assume and rationalize that its just another one of the "rock" boys???

Hardly scientific, and hardly logical. I am sure they got that extra data, and I would bet that the data clearly shows that object that some have dubbed "wrench" and "eel" is no rock, and is why we do not have that extra datasets on the MER raw data website. They WANT us to apply assumption and just say its a rock. Well we do not even have the data that tells us that it is a rock in the first place. NASA just assumes that there is still dumb people out here and that we take their word for everything.

Well that is not how the world works anymore. Unfortunately NASA is still stuck in the timezone of decades ago when resources of today were not available to the average person with an interest.

I still stand on the statement that its 50/50 of this object being just another one of the rock boys. No data to confirm either way. I wont outright say that it is a rock just because there are rocks in the image. The rocks are not even the issue anyway, it is the strange shaped object that is the issue. And along with that issue, is the issue of not having the rest of the data to tell us exactly what it is.

I think that is being pretty darned rational, and quite logical.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
"trashee"....I submit to you that it is not logical to rationalize when other data could have been gathered, and most likey has been gathered. Do you honestly think that the geologists are not going to utilize every bit of scientific equipment on that rover to determine what that might be in that scene? Cmon..don't be so naieve. Millions of dollars spent on a piece of equipment and it runs into an unsual object amongst other objects, and they are just going to take a 3D image with only one filter of it and not even bother to find out for sure what it is..only assume and rationalize that its just another one of the "rock" boys???

While this thinking seems reasonable, RF, the problem is that you're leaping one conjecture on top of another. Because this object looks interesting to you or others does not mean it's so interesting to them.

Hardly scientific, and hardly logical. I am sure they got that extra data, and I would bet that the data clearly shows that object that some have dubbed "wrench" and "eel" is no rock, and is why we do not have that extra datasets on the MER raw data website. They WANT us to apply assumption and just say its a rock. Well we do not even have the data that tells us that it is a rock in the first place. NASA just assumes that there is still dumb people out here and that we take their word for everything.

Here again, you're throwing in yet another conjecture: first we have the possibility this isn't a rock, then we're assuming NASA has data that proves it's not a rock, and now we're on to claiming that because NASA has this data and has not made it public, that they're hiding something from us. Do you see why this type of snowballing conjecture making is a bad idea? You're supporting the conjecture that this isn't a rock with a string of more conjectures--all of which can't be proven any more than the first conjecture. It's a stack of cards that is as fragile as the one card on the bottom.

I think that is being pretty darned rational, and quite logical.

Your thinking does make sense, RF, but unfortunately we're no better off with it than where we started even considering whether this is a rock or not. Worse, this type of thinking has a habit of falsely reinforcing the original conjecture, as I elaborated above.

reply to post by RFBurns

Millions of dollars spent on a piece of equipment and it runs into an unsual object amongst other objects, and they are just going to take a 3D image with only one filter of it and not even bother to find out for sure what it is..only assume and rationalize that its just another one of the "rock" boys???

Hardly scientific, and hardly logical. I am sure they got that extra data, and I would bet that the data clearly shows that object that some have dubbed "wrench" and "eel" is no rock, and is why we do not have that extra datasets on the MER raw data website. They WANT us to apply assumption and just say its a rock. Well we do not even have the data that tells us that it is a rock in the first place. NASA just assumes that there is still dumb people out here and that we take their word for everything.

There is no proof that they at NASA saw something odd in the picture. Yes to us it may look interesting, but then again these pictures are coming to them and they have to make decisions on what to do net, at the time they might have seen nothing interesting and moved on. It is also possible that after not seeing anything interesting the first time round, that they now see something in this image as well, but it is too late for them to go back and get another look, They would have to be sending another lander around the same area to warrent looking at the area again, otherwise it would be a waste of money to go looking just for this one anomally, especially if it turned out to be nothing. This is all conjecture because none of us (as far as I know) works fo NASA and can confirm or deny this. So all we can do are make guesses about the anomaly and what NASA may or may not have done when the picture was first taken.

Well when the conclusive undisputable data comes in...if ever...then we cal all look back upon it and then say for sure one way or the other.

Till then, I wont limit my thinking in the matter. It is my world I live in, I am the one who must deal with my own thoughts and beliefs, and I refuse to follow the one explanation fits all scenario.

There are millions of others in this world who do the very same thing. I am not alone..neither are we.



Cheers!!!!