New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#76 2002-10-12 16:31:55

Mark S
Member
Registered: 2002-04-11
Posts: 343

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

What I mean to say is that there is no evidence that Hoaglund or anybody at Enterprise Mission in faking results or doing anything that is scientifically unethical.  Such a charge is the strongest and most damaging accusation that can be made against a scientist.

Whether Hoaglund is a scientist is a point of debate.  I think that Hoaglund believes in the veracity of his work and the scientific soundness of his methods, and I don't believe that he would present false information to prove a notion that he had found to be false.

Nobody has ever dismissed the possibility that BAMF (Noel Gorelick ?) hooked Laney and TEM up with falsified information in order to discredit them.  If so, then Gorelick and whoever else within NASA / ASU responsible for the fraud should be "excommunicated" from the scientific community.  The same fate should befall them if, as Hoaglund claims, they've been tampering with the original data and perpetuating a fraud on the American taxpayers and the scientific community.


"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"

Offline

#77 2002-10-12 17:04:56

Nirgal82
Member
From: El Paso TX, USA
Registered: 2002-07-09
Posts: 112

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

Oh, you don't have to worry about me trying to defend TEM,
I have recognized them long ago for the quacks they are.
In regards to the "cloud," I was just trying to see if you knew, you never answered me before so I thought I'd mention it again.
I don't think that is very honest of you to use something that you obviously know about in order to "hook" people into the presentation.
I have not said anything about the rest of the site's content, I lack the ability to construct a proper critique, however I can say this, I does seem that liquid water is probably commonly found on the martian surface if you know where to look for it.  I made this judgment based on your photos and explainations, as well as a study that Chris McKay participated in that I linked to from your discussion forum.
I have also seen many MOC images that appear to contain a sort of dirty liquid.
They appear in many craters south of -60 degrees, near the south pole.  This correlates with Mars Odyssey's findings of hydrogen concentrations around the south pole.
They look like ponds of some sort of liquid (determined by how sharp the boundery is between this "liquid" and the surrounding crater floor) filled with what some have called floaters (potential lifeforms)
I'll find the link that another member of this forum provided in another thread and repost it.
I'm not totally convinced of this of course as MSSS writes these features off as "defrosting sand dunes," I will list some image numbers for these things.
Anywho, you seem on the level Tripp, what do you think these are?

Your friendly neighborhood Martian...
-Matt


"...all matter is merely energy condensed into a slow vibration.  We are all one consiousness experiencing itself subjectively.  There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves."  -Bill Hicks

Offline

#78 2002-10-12 17:43:45

Tripp
Member
From: Valley Forge
Registered: 2002-09-22
Posts: 16

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

[b:post_uid0]Mark S wrote:[/b:post_uid0]

What I mean to say is that there is no evidence that Hoaglund or anybody at Enterprise Mission in faking results or doing anything that is scientifically unethical.  Such a charge is the strongest and most damaging accusation that can be made against a scientist.[/quote:post_uid0]

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.

[b:post_uid0]Mark S wrote:[/b:post_uid0]

Whether Hoaglund is a scientist is a point of debate.  I think that Hoaglund believes in the veracity of his work and the scientific soundness of his methods, and I don't believe that he would present false information to prove a notion that he had found to be false.[/quote:post_uid0]

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:

" TEM's fault is not its willingness to address possible conspiracies and hidden knowledge, but its certainty that such conspiracies exist based on conveniently "symbolic" evidence... TEM's appeal is comparable to that of "The X-Files"--which, interestingly, TEM occasionally uses as a source. As entertainment, TEM fills a void with its inimitable formula of paranoia and science; Hoagland and Bara have created a thoroughly postmodern venue in which fact and fiction are broken down into pixels and liberally blended. TEM's role is seated more in myth-making than "science" in any conventional usage of the word.
[b:post_uid0]SOURCE:[/b:post_uid0]Secret Agendas, Life on Mars, and The Enterprise Mission: An Epistemological Meltdown[/quote:post_uid0]
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.

[b:post_uid0]Mark S wrote:[/b:post_uid0]

Nobody has ever dismissed the possibility that BAMF (Noel Gorelick ?) hooked Laney and TEM up with falsified information in order to discredit them.  If so, then Gorelick and whoever else within NASA / ASU responsible for the fraud should be "excommunicated" from the scientific community.  The same fate should befall them if, as Hoaglund claims, they've been tampering with the original data and perpetuating a fraud on the American taxpayers and the scientific community. [/quote:post_uid0]


"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? 

[b:post_uid0][i:post_uid0]"Eliminate all other factors,
and that which remains must be the truth.”[/i:post_uid0][/b:post_uid0]

Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes"
...The Essence of Occam's Razor,Deductive Reasoning & the Founding Principle of Scientific Inqury[/quote:post_uid0]


<a href="http://pub39.ezboard.com/fhuntforplanetxfrm56">Mars UnEarthed Forum</a>

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/marsunearthed">"Mars UnEarthed" - Web Site</a>


<i>The *PROOF* Is Out There...</i>

<i>.. Per Ardua Ad Astra </i> ~ Through Struggle To The Stars!

Offline

#79 2002-10-13 02:24:21

Shaun Barrett
Member
From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Registered: 2001-12-28
Posts: 2,843

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

Tripp wrote this on Oct. 12th:-

Nirgal

You seem to be "stuck" on this. I wouldn't be so hasty to award yourself so much wisdom in this matter. The "rain cloud" was only a small part of a much larger presentation - thabe being the presence of fluid "water" bodies on Mars surface; the presence of these fluid bodies are the subject of the presentation which you reference.The "cumulus cloud" was only a hook and a tenuous conclusion to the matter.[/quote:post_uid9]

    Tripp, I find this statement of yours quite extraordinary!
    You have based your whole argument for the existence of intelligent industrial activity in the Mariner Valley on your self-proclaimed expertise in the interpretation of satellite images. Whenever I have disagreed with your interpretation of an image, you have been very quick to blame my (admitted) lack of experience in differentiating between mundane geological surface features and what you describe as intelligent artifacts.
    Now, when it turns out that you are capable of confusing an entire valley, Hebes Chasma, with a raincloud, you blithely dismiss that part of your presentation as "only a hook"! This is astonishing!

    Here is an excerpt from near the end of your  "Water World" presentation:-

This image is from MSSS image AB1-08503 and shows a clearly evident cumulus cloud with PRECIPITATION streaming down beneath it!!! Not only are there fluid water bodies on Mars and evidence of the long frozen surface thawing out even at non-equatorial latitudes, but Mars also has *RAIN*!!! It is highly unlikely that this cloud is streaming down Clathrate. While Mars must certainly have a unique Geology and environment, this precipitation seems in all likelihood to be WATER and that Mars has a developed ecosystem![/quote:post_uid9]

    I believe a 'hook', in the way you are attempting to use it, is a literary device designed to capture the attention of your audience, rather like a 'catchy' heading for a newspaper article. But such a 'hook', while perhaps exaggerated for effect, must still bear a recognisable resemblance to the truth. Otherwise it is no longer a 'hook', but a fabrication.
    What you have stated in the above quote speaks for itself. It is plainly obvious that you have either mistaken Hebes Chasma for a cloud raining water, or you have fabricated a complete fantasy in an attempt to add weight to your argument for surface water on Mars.
    If it's the latter, a comment you made in your last post here becomes particularly ironic:-

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.[/quote:post_uid9]
    If it's the former, then maybe it's time to enact the code of honour you laid claim to when you said to Nirgal82 (in no uncertain terms):-

There is one difference between Laney and myself beyond qualifications, intellect, ability and experience: my own presentations and theses are not static nor mired in the concrete of arrogance and ignorance and I am more than willing to admit when I have been mistaken.[/quote:post_uid9]

    I am also taken aback by your aggressive response to Nirgal82's attempt to point out your 'raincloud' discrepancy. You accuse him of getting "extremelly off topic", for one thing, and then accuse him of having his own agenda of "unbridled, blind support for Enterprisemission", for another.
    Admittedly the discussion of rainclouds on Mars should probably be in the "Water On Mars" forum or the "Candor Chasma .. " forum, but since all of this is relevant to the "Intelligent Alien Life" subject in general, I think that objection is rather lame.
    And Nirgal82 has stated that he is no supporter of TEM. In fact, I don't recall him ever having said anything to indicate a blind uncritical devotion to Richard Hoagland. That unprovoked attack by you appears to have come about simply because Nirgal82 had the temerity to ask you the same question twice. A question, it seems in retrospect, you were hoping would go away!

    Speaking of questions that just won't go away! ... I'm STILL curious to hear of any of your fellow geologists who share your belief that intelligent industrial activity is going on in the Mariner Valley.
    And I'd STILL like to know what the NASA employees at United Space Alliances, who asked for your opinion about the pictures of Mariner Valley, thought when they heard your report. Do they also share your excitement? And, if they do, can we expect an announcement from NASA any time soon?

    I fear that unless you can give an adequate response to all of the above points and questions, my already severely shaken confidence in your veracity and credibility will be totally undermined.
    Harsh words, to be sure. But no harsher than some that you have used toward others at this website.
                                           :angry:


The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

Offline

#80 2002-10-13 10:32:28

Mark S
Member
Registered: 2002-04-11
Posts: 343

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

"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.[/quote:post_uid0]
O.J. Simpson is not a murderer because O.J. Simpson says so.  And while we're at it, let's release all of the inmates in the prisons, because they all say that they're innocent wink

When foul play is afoot and nobody can be trusted, one should not take the words of the accused without a grain of salt (duh.)  Working for NASA does not automatically give Gorelick and Christiensen crediblity, and neither should working for TEM discredit Keith Laney.  For all those who call Richard Hoaglund a charlatan, you should look at Hoaglund's book about Europa and the work he did for CBS News in the 1960s.


"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB