New Mars Forums

MarsNews.com and Jim Burk do not evidence any knowledge nor understanding of Infrared imaging nor of the basics of graphics filters and processes required to address  the relevant issues here. Additionally there is a gross lack of objectivity on Burk's part which I have addresssed (with him) in numerous TEM and Anomalies forum posts.

Given that the ongoing discussion here here involves a conversation I had recently with Bamf (Noel Gorelick), I will share this log with you with only some additions put in for clarification purposes of this audience.

***NOTE: there are two image URLs within the log, evidencing currupted data in the Laney image.***

The application of "Equalize" in photoshop or other programs does not distort nor introduce new tonal patterns at all.  Equalize only extends the display of tonal range from absolute black to pure white, thereby "stretching" that tonal range of the image and allowing  already present details to be more readily apparent under visual examination. Photoshop itself writes of the "Equalize function:

I  believe the blockies seen in the Laney version  of the
http://www.sentientstorm.com/cydonia-ta … -dm-eq.jpg
"Equalize" Comparsion image are the direct result of repeated appications of blur and sharpen procedurally applied processes done PRIOR to ENVI which thoroughly and irrevocably corrupt the IR "data'.  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cydonia/m … 8536]Laney applies blur, sharpen and gross adjustments to contrast (Levels, which he refers to erroneously as "equalize")
  to all his images, even those he does gratis for AMES, with these  gross adjustments to "contrast" (levels) making extremely dark areas of the image, which appear to the casual observer as more "crisp" and "clean" but in reality rob the imagery (and in this case "Data") of real detail.

These blockies, though not overtly apparent in the un-equalized image, do represent gross and extreme alterations to the data and are quite readily apparent to the ENVI program when compositing. The fact that these blocky features were induced in varied forms in each individual band is a result of each band having varied tonal variations and varied renditions of the terrian. The employ of each band in the "ratio" of these images, employing one band as a denominator, creates "interference patterns" that result in the so-called "3-D look" of the "City" but which in reality have no resemblance whatsoever to a real IR signatures.
----------------------

Shaun, Incidentally the reason Noel (Bamf) and ASU have not "Blown TEM (Laney) out of the water" in addressing this directly is due to a number of factors.  First as Bamf said in the above log, Laney can simply assert that the grossly improper corruption ot the "not-so-RAW" image he is allledging to have received was how he got it initially (which I viiew as highly unlikely given his own stated apply of these processes indicated by the image itself).  Additionally Laney has failed to specifiy his specifically applied processes overall. Laney has not even stated at all which filter range he used to apply as the denominator in "ratioing" of the bands.Also Laney himself has admitted this blocky "City-scape" has not appeared in all the results he himself does. Beyond that even Laney admits that his partners in this processing, Hoagland and Holger, have not achieved anything like his results doing the same steps:

Herein, Laney obviously thinks he is endowed with some innate skill to create proper and "clean" IR composite results, as they should appear (in his view). However Cydonia is not like the IR imagery he is comparing. Cydonia is an area subjected to wide-ranging aeolian erosion and grain transport with large expanses of this area being covered with varied types of grains from differing lithologic origins. Translation: the IR data SHOULD NOT be coming back with a uniform, pristine color banding across the region. Laney has no surprisinjg "skill" here. He has ony INDUCED the results that were his apriori expectation to see and did so through improper processing and gross apply procudural processing methods that "smoothed" the results, removing noise and creating an overall more homogenous image. Even his own partners could not reproduce his results and should not have been able to do so, assuming they themselves were applying more appropriate pre-processing steps.

It must be recognized here that if these Laney results cannot be at all reproduced then they are not reasonably indicative of "scientifically reproducible results." Additionally,  and beyond doubt, Laney's own admitted application of pre-processing steps (blur, Sharpen & "Equalize") are not supportable as acceptable processing to IR Data.  As I've shown these steps corrupt the DATA.  Beyond this Laney's own image clearly is not pristine and has had these processes applied to it.  Additionally there is no reason to accept Laney's image as valid data given its more-than-questionable pedigree alone.

In short, this entire issue should be long since dead and buried; there is no "buried City" in Cydonia nor anything remotely evidencing artificiality.

Mark S wrote:

Mark, you've not been paying attention.  This is not so much about "faking" results, it is about INDUCING the results from both incompetence in incorrectly applied methodologies in procesing and a overwhelming predispostion that this IR imagery "_MUST_ contain evidence indciative of artificiality", thus becoming a rationalization amounting to "the ends justify the means"...even tot eh point of the ENDS (beleived artificial evidence) justify numerous and conflicting story of the MEANS by which this image was acquired... none of which is feasible.

Is gross ignorance "unethical"? Are gross and abundant methodologies and thoroughly unsupported assertions therefrom "unethical"?  Perhaps they are not. However they are by no means "Science" nor does this anywhere exhibit the applicaiton of the scientific process.

Is there unethical science? Not sure.but the extremely PERSONAL attack agaisnt Carolotto with only a vague attempt at any address of specifics is certainly unethical conduct.

Is bullitt himself unethical and dishonest? I personally KNOW him to be, beyond doubt. Does HoaglAnd himself employ other less-than ethical procedures?  I have seen an email referencing my own responses to Cydonia wherein he said that I had "bitten the hand that feeds me" in my being critical of his Cydonia claims. This certainy does not exhbit and openness to "Peer Review" .. an inherent component of any claims to ascertain if they are objective and reasonably supported. Additionally Hoagland has lost his Enterprise Mission server and forum because of his repeated pressuring to silence numerous opponents.  HOagland's own recent claims of "SABOTAGE" on these forums and his own desire to go seek a new server are ..  extremely misrepresentative and highly DISHONEST.  He was KICKED OUT of the server very unceremoniously.

Beyond doubt there is dishonesty and misrepresentaiton, contradiciton, misdirection and malfeasance in abundance here. all done deliberately with calculation.

Mark S wrote:

No, Mark, Hoagland being a "scientist" is not at all a point of debate.  Hoagland only presents spectacle, showmanship and pseudo-science.  NOWHERE does Hoagland ever entertain NATURAL causes for the features witnessed in Cydonia and he dismisses these outright.  Hoagland's own claims represent EXTREME EXTRAPOLATIOSN beyond what is reasonable from even the known evidences at hand. Some prime examples of these are: 1) Claims of a "Tidal Lock" by another planet simply based upon the bi-modal distribution of seeps evidenced in other's research... yet this Tidal Lock thesis ignores how or why such fluid releases occur mechanically and in time with the MGS imaging 2) Claims of certain features on Cydonia have artificial origine and htn gross extrapoloation to a "Hyperdimansional" mapping wherein MOST  of the points of this diagram are not at all a finite, localized positions (such as the wall).. much less suggestive of the diagram and "Pi" etc etc etc. 3) Claims of an deeply subsurface "City" in Cydonia beneath a mythcial 'poof dust" when there is no such evidence of a dust with those properties and these claims IGNORE COMPLETELY the limitations and capabilitys of both the MOLA LASER and the THEMIS Infrared imaging.

This was written by Mac Tonnies about Hoagland and the Enterprise Mission and is an accurate appraisal, albeit one that is not anywhere nearly enough indepth:

And THIS from a site that calls itself "Cydonia Imperative." Beyond doubt "Enterprise Mission"is undergoing a "Meltdown", with any superficial attempt at "SCIENCE" long since being replaced by a much more extensive and contrived "conspiracy" in a dishonest attempto to bolster the lacking and unfounded evidence. Hoagland is a SHOWMAN.. a modern day "P.T. Barnum". Science is really irrelevant to him unless he wants to give his presentations some veil of credibility.

Mark S wrote:

"NOBODY" has dismissed the possiblity that BAMF hooked up Laney with to descredit Laney?

Mark.. AGAIN you've not been paying attention.

Noel Gorelick and his superior Dr. Chistenson Have dismissed this possibility.

The grossly improper application of processing not only dismisses this possibility but STRONGLY indicates that there is only *ONE* image involved here with Laney only having corrupted that iamge himself by methodologies HE HIMSELF has repeatedly detailed and admitted to performing REPEATEDLY!. Additionally the ONGOING ABSENCE of the presentation of the so-called 'REAL" image in a RAW, unalttered form also corroborates this fact!  To be specific, the EMPLOY of numerous steps of "Gaussian Blur, sharpen, and equalization (repeat) do ROB and ROMOVE from imagery the very detail absent in Laney's imagery but present in ASU's image. 

Additionally the IR signature of the "City" has numerous details with demonstrate this feature is not "REAL" IR data but rather only nduced procussing artificats. WHY would ASU/NASA or anyone want to give Laney "an image" that in TRUTH. .shows nothing..  just as it was anticipated a Daytime Infrared image shoudl show nothing, by Enterprise Mission andHoagland himself.  WHY should this be a surprise?

WHY would you choose to believe in a clandestine and even then extremely difficult image "BAMFing" when all *FACTS* indicate this is nothing more than extremely incompetent processing and analysis by an individual who NOW ADMITTEDLY could not even maintain the sanctity of the original image download? 

Shaun Wrote:

The most recent Hoagland persentation which you reference is only a laudable example of poor (non-existent) science, false assertions, irrelevant assertions and overall is truly intended only as a personal assault and character assasination of Mark Carlotto with intention of slandering and poisoning Carlotto in the eye's of the TEM readers. This attack on Carlotto stems from an utter *FAILURE* to address and refute Carolotts claims.

There is nothing stated in that presentation that is remotely "plausible". The entire presentation is a disgrace on both technical and ethical levels.

Your synopsis of the Hoagland's assertions in this presentaion are that an (Hoagland's) "IR image, though rich in IR information, may be obviously inferior in terms of optical resolution because of the longer wavelength of infra-red light." Shaun, while your assertion is an accurate expression of TEM's case in this presentaiton, the words are inaccurate in describing the "data' and imagery being examined.

These Images avalable on ASU or Hoaglands site, no matter which is being examined, are not strictly "Infrared DATA". These images are TIF files and are representations of the IR data in grayscale tones, with this grayscale having 256 differnet shades to represent the data.  Nonetheless no FURTHER "secret" nor "invisible" data is recorded in these grayscale tones simply *BECAUSE* we are considering "IR DATA".  The relatively much GREATER DETAIL readily witnessed in teh ASU image in comparison with the Laney/TEM image represents the IR DATA and IR DETAIL. This is all there is. In the ASU image one can witness small crater rims and small scarps in the ASU image becuase these features are more directly facing solar raditive heat and do thereby absorb this more so than more oblique features. These same specific details are absent in in the Laney image

Given this greater detail in the ASU IR image, the claim that Laney's so called "REAL" image is the source and the ASU image a lesser derivative thereof is false and impossible. The reverse of this is far more likely and the only possibility here: that the Laney image is a derivate of the REAL ASU Image and this Laney image was derived form an grossly improper handling of the ASU image including failed data handling and source image controls to improper initial processing steps which do so adversely effect this IR DATA (representation) that any and all resulting processing stemming from these steps can only yeild invalid results.

I do have the "Original" Laney image in hand from the Hoagland presentation. Incidentally both the TEM web site and the "anomalies" forum are down due to a memory leak from a program which currupted the linux kernel, as personally relayed to me by the sites owner, Olav, earlier today.  This lates so called "RAW" image that Bullitte began with is nothing of the sort.  This image has alread had gaussian blur and sharpen processes applied to it. Even superficial examination of each individual filter range image's margins shows that the jaggy steps that are present in untouched images released by ASU have been blurred and shaprened to make them somewhat more linear and no longer crisp and sharp. This is the tell-tale sign of what is not only Laney's habitual processing (be it IR or visual imagery) but also en extremely sloppy technique which would have limited these process to the image alone and not distorting the image's margins.

The inclusion of the human IR image and reference thereto is a "red herring".  This human IR image is entirely irrelevant to the TEM Cydonia IR presentation and does not serve any purpose in relaying an FACT about IR data nor imaging that is relevant to promoting TEM's case.

The Human IR image (obviously) represents an *ACTIVE* thermal source, given it is a live human being.  Beyond the temerature differentials of the nose and fingers you do not really see ANY detail as a result of the thermal temperatures on the range scale being differentiated by the image being limited.   There is no slope of the nose side in evidence; no cheekbones in evidence.  One predominant factor in the passive IR emitted by the topography in Cydonia is how the terrain's exposure to the raditive heat source (sun) permits a representation of the terrain.  This does not in any way relate to being "More" information in the human IR image; this is misrepresentative, misleading and, I believe, offered with the intention of being so.   

The only relevance of the human IR image offered in the presentaiton is to detract from the claims of the Cydonia "City". Note that the head hair on the human IR tremendously lowers the radiated thermal energies. This hair is hundreds of very thin strands with indivudual strands loosely touching other strands but not tightly so. This hair head is only perhaps a 1/2 inch thick on the human head, yet it suitably blocks IR radiative energies. Given this notable detail, it should be obvious that even a an active, heated City beneath 100's of meters of "poof dust" would in no way relay thermal energies to the surface.

Here is more addressing the Enterprise Mission's claims:

MOLA
Incidentally the MOLA profile done by Hoagland is improper too. The RCH profile is half real, half false. Real profile. Bad scale. The profile only has a relief of about 200m over about 900km of ground. There's one high blip (the face? +200m) and one low trough (a crater -300m) . They were just unable to use the marsoweb tool properly. They used a "local" profile, but a "regional" scale.The claim of "cydonia is a canyon deeper than the grand canyon" is completely and utterly false.

MOLA Profile: http://tes.asu.edu/~gorelick/mola_profile.gif

Additionally the mapping of the profile line across the visible image is incorrect. ... despite what Hoagland states in his last presentation. Mola and odyssey grid coordinates line up well. Mola/Odyssey and Viking are off. Marsoweb uses a viking background, so the profiles don't line up with the background. MOLA vs Viking is usually about 1/4 degree shift left-to-right and a little up or down, depending on location on the planet..

Regarding Cydonia Daytime IR Processing
Here Laney admits to doing much more than is needed and *BEFORE* Data processing in ENVI - "Like I said it's not a big deal, as blur, sharpen equalization and stretch, and more can all be used in multispectral processing of IR band images. " Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cydonia/message/18536

We know he did more than one step of blur and sharpen, again by his own admission. The net result of these is ACROSS different filter ranges with different details.. so the sharpen and bulur creates different MORE DEFINED lineations.  Furthermore Laney's above mentioned "equalization" of these (again prior to ENVI processing) will make any lineations stand out (and that is his reason to for doing  so again PRIOR to processing and AGAIN working toward a preconceived goal of finding "anomalous structure" that is hidden to him) . Depending on which equalization process he chose, this will create a linear shift of gray tones or. a non linear shift and also heighten already fabricated linear features. No matter what these processes are which Laney himself admits to applying, these are grossly improper to employ when dealing with DATA or data representations.

When you take *ONE* of these images or filter ranges and use it as a denominator to divide all the others by, (this *ONE* chosen by LANEY for no reason other than "MORE" was made apparent) this chosen filter divisor creates interference patterns

... hence all the lineations seen .. with these lineations derived from the  *ONE* filter range in the demonator. These linear patterns ONLY  appear  in wide open expansive areas where there would be NO visible image details because the persence of real coherent detail would overwhelm these induced fabrications.

The fact IS that all linear features parallel the matrix grid of the image margins and this  is no mere chance. This is improper pre-processing which induced image processing  artifacts. It should be obvious but I will point out anyway that filters and applied processes such as "Gaussian blur" and "sharpen" as well as equalization are applied in a  grid pattern within the image. Remember too that the IR data is overlain onto a visual range image, strecthing the IR detail, in a methodoogy Hoagland has presented as "Luminance Layering", thereby expanding these induced lineations to a larger scale.

You've questioned this image being "faked" by others.  What you avoid asking is whether or not this is gross imcompetence. We know there has been been gross incompetence with even the RAW "Real" image, but only now from recent admissions with previously provided "rationale" being that others should attempt the same results as Laney (without his processing steps being listed) and also as a "search for who might have the "REAL"  image beyond laney" which is yet another red herring. The TRUTH is Laney himself no longer had the RAW, untouched "real" image.  This remains true even with the latest image  provided by TEM. These results are due to wide ranging incompetent processing done by Laney using his long established methodolgies applied to visual range images.. with these image 'enhancements' done with the APRIORI prejudice that Cydonia is artificial and there *MUST* be something to be found in the IR image.

There is no stunning secret image.  There is only a currupted ASU image which was currepted by Laney.

This is no vast conspiracy. This is no clandestine passing of a super-secret "REAL" image to one with a big mouth and  arrogance precluding his learning proper methodology. There is no chance of Laney him being goaded to download the image as originally relayed. That is proven false by chronology. There is no chance that he was goaded into processing of a "super secret" image as he claimse to have done and achieved stunning results in earliest exchanges. This too is proven false and impossible by chronology.

This is about ..   an appalling failure in scientific method with only preconceptions and prejudice and ignorance directing results that are induced both in physically in processing  through the analysis thereof.

At best the only "insider" ("Deep Space") you can hope to find is one with  blind beliefs in concert with Hoagland and TEM.  Last I looked, political insiders do not have distinquishing qualifications on their resumes in the areans of geology, remote sensing technologies and aerial image morphologic interpretation.

Mariner,

Why would I need to contact the Russian scientists involved 12 years ago to have an equal or more qualified resolve of this morphology?

What are you basing your belief on that this might be at all artificial and even a "City"?

Mariner

No sorry I am not at all wrong and am *ON TARGET* not only with regard to Burk's alleged 'journalism" which contains no objectivity nor grasp of the facts.. but I am on target about Cydonia overall and the improper methods applied to the ASU IR data, the grossly unfounded and inaccurate conclusions derived therefrom and these rediculous nonsense held forth By Hoagland and Laney that they allege to be "science."

Here is more on Burk TEM's Hoaxed Image

Incidentally I DO know IR analysis. In addition to being a profesional Geologist I also routinely applye such remote sensing surveys and analyses of the resulting data as ground penetrating radar (GPR), magnetometer, electromagnetometer (EM-31 & EM-34), seismic refraction, resistivity.. and Infrared .. in addition to others.

Burk has no grasp of scientific analyses, interpretation of data, proper data reduction and processing methodologies, geology, geomorphology.. nor even mere employ of objetive research in his latest attempt at ....  dare i say .. "journalism".

Burk is neither a scientist nor a journalist and cannot even begin to define the relevant issues here.

And Laney? A researcher?  Laney employs techniques that rob visual imagery of crucial salient image detail and has extended these same grossly inappropriate techniques to processing of Infrared data.. DATA.. creating a result that is entirely invalid and conclusions that cannot even be reasonably supported.  Laney nowhere egages in legitimate "research" and had demonstrated repeatedly that he is extremely challenged in intepretation of 2 dimensional imagery into a 3-D mental appreciation.   He has not bothered to spend a moment of time considering the real normal and natural topography and then goes off and declares that a vague resemblance that is in no way a divergence from that normal topography is an intelligent artificial artistic creation.  This is not research.  The is only mental laziness compounded by his certainty he already knows it all, prohibiting him from learnng anything to improve his stand. Additionally, I personally know for a fact that Laney's honesty & integrity are severely flawed.

Richard C Hoagland an "analyst"?  Hoagland is nothing more than a modern day P.T. Barnum... a showman who wants the attention on *HIM*. How often have you seen Hoagland correct himself or modify his errant posts and assertions about morphologic shapes on Mars? Hoagland cannot even differentiate the evident "Tubes" on Mars from the longitudinal p-waves, or pressure waves, in a fluid pahoehoe-type lava flow, and went so far as to declare this to have "engineering control points". Even once corrected Hoagland never bothered to inform his readers nor educate them on what REAL morphology was represented. With regard to "Ron Nicks" and his support to "Enterprise Mission", I have no idea whether Ron's evaluations are only disregarded when he supports Hoagland or not, but i do know that Mr Knicks shows himself to be repeatedly ignorant of geomorpholgy and often times in ways that could be respolved by simple attention to detail, seen here: Mars Inca City, "The Mars Grid & 'Ron's Hole'" Incidentally this post somewhat addresses the Hydrates Chaos and Russia's Phobos 2 IR image thereof. No, the Russians did not state it was unresolved. Beyond that, the comparison to "A city" was not to suggest it demonstrated anything artificial, nor is this conclusion an option  in Russia's lack of resolve. These features show themselves to be entirely natural in origin.

Here is an analysis of Richard C. Hoagland and the "Enterprise Mission" by ONE who you would think would be a major proponent and supporter of Hoagland given his own site's name of "Cydonia Imperative":.

Incidentally,  Mariner, you might check my own post within this subject area in regard to showing not "artificial engineerings" on Mars but also evidence of a current presence.

The "face" and indeed all of Cydonia are entirely natural morphologies and there is not one single shred of evidence pointing ot any artificiality.. none whatsoever.

Sean,

Well I think  i do a reasonably good job of delineating and describing what is etra-ordinary and explaining why these features are not common nor even merely aberant topography.

You wrote " Certainly, some things look out of the ordinary, but the detail seems blurry and the objects could as easily be natural formations, in my opinion."

Indeed there are blurry and blurred features. Beyond this being a satellite image and as such subject to atmospheric conditions there are features that are clearly generating this blurriness through discharge of exhaust or smoke. One such example is my image above of the "Tech Structure". This featuer is an arupt deviation from the valley floor seen as a abrupt sharp vertical rise with lineations seperating this feature from the floor and indicating even an under shadowing.

Maybe this would be a productive exchange: What specific features don't you "see" or are you unable to recognize and clearly artificial in nature?

I agree with you on the Tubes .. and my long standing presentation on these tubes shows NASA is either lying or incompetent in their Dune analyses, with this analysis even conflicting with NASA/JPL's own initial evaluation.
http://www.zechariasitchin.com/discussi … pic=6]Mars Tubes -- Not a "Trick of Light & Shadow"

It does not take a "rocket scientist" to rocognize that given these details so proximally associatived with the "Tubes" that these forms are not mere "dune trains".

The "Tube Vents"

Addtionally I demonstrate through detail that these "Tubes" have a distinct feature associated with them and at times immediately proximal to the tube lengths themselves.  This feature which i refer to as http://www.sentientstorm.com/p/tubes/tube_paths.jpg]"vents" are surface terminations of subsurface or near surface tube paths(Image LINK).

Elsewhere in what is my preliminary discussion of the Mars "Tubes", I outline why these features must be artificial in nature and even propose an entirely novel, wholly original (and profoundly supported by detail) theory as to the purpose of these tubes whch clearly excludes these as being used for water conveyance or any sort of transportation, given salient and coherent image evidences. 

http://www.geocities.com/marsunearthed/ … .html]Mars UnEarthed Presentation: The "TUBES" 

In brief, my belief of the purpose if these "Tubes" is for the discemination of heated geothermal gases so as to prevent formation of extreme thermoclinal temperature gradients which would otherwise result in thermoclinal cyclonic storms. These thermoclinal cyclonic storms are prevalent on Mars and seen in scales ranging from localized measurments made by Pathfinder's instrument boom to dustdevils and on a global scale to Mars enveloping dust storms.

Incidentally, since the April 2001 imaging of the so-called "face" and subsequent imagings of Cydonia I have seen only powerfully compelling evidences that these features are thoroughly natural in origin.

Cindy Wrote:

But, Cindy, are you skeptical of the details I enumerate and delineate or skeptical of the conclusions indicated by these details?  If you were skeptical of the details then would be encouraged to challenge these in discussion by referencing these directly. However merely being skeptical of these evidences because they transgress our foundationary paradigms is not a reasonalbe cause to dismiss.  Beyond this, there are highly compelling evidences here on Earth from both archaeology and our recorded ancient past that affirm these conclusions and make them more, dare I say, "reasonable".

In outlining the purpose of this section Adrian Wrote

I am puzzled by the phrase "intelligent life of the Cydonia variety".  Is this refering to claims of "relict" features overall, claims of ANY intelligent engineering relict or current, or extrapolations of a vague resemblances of features, such as a a face, to be actuall indended creations and thereby asserting intelligent design?  In Truth "intelligent life of the Cydonia variety" is only a phrase intended to jaundice any such evidence and provide a blanket and 'understood" dismissal.

I do not believe Mars has any evidence of "works of art" or caricatures.

I do no speculate on conspiracies. I only deal in reasonably ascertained evidences without extrolation thereof to extreme conclusions.

I do not believe Mars has any "domes" or "cities".

I do believe a handful of images of Mars shows definatively and conclusively that there are artificial engineerings on Mars surface with these engineerings showing a current and immediate presence as well as indicating a strong liklihood of much larger subsurface engineerings.

The evidence is not at all "inconclusive" and is in fact indicated in a compelling fashion by not only primary image evidences associated with delineation of the primary feature itself but also the support of secondary and tertiary evidences more remote from that feature's defining details.

While assertions of vague resemblances amounting to de facto "proof" of artificiality does not employ the "scientific method", merely ruling out and aprior excluding the evidence of artificial engineerings as "insufficient evidence" is itself dismissing the "scientific method" and amounts to prejudicial exclusion of the possibility without consideration of that evidence. Merely declaring there is "insufficient evidence" when not even referencing a specific consideration demonstrates a refusal to employ even the first step of that "scientific method", this being objective observation and analysis without apriori expectations dictating what is allowed to be present.

http://pub39.ezboard.com/fhuntforplanet … =14.topic]Candor Chasma: Evidence of A Current Presence

Thomas "Tripp" McCann
Professional Geologist

Fluid Water On Mars: Real & Reasonable

MARS:  Water World