Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Phobos · 2002-11-02 21:50:13

P.S.: I nominate Mr. Shaun Barrett as Official Public Relations Spokesperson for NASA.

Wow, I was just going to mention handing the job to Shaun before I read your message. First it's farming on Mars and now it's agreeing that Shaun should be given the reigns over the pr department. Hmm, maybe there's some interdimensional psychic thing going on here or our metal helmets are transmitting on the same wavelengths. I'll consult the cards and see.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-03 00:14:53

I would like to suggest that we do, in fact, attempt to define what a PR image is supposed to look like! As I started to outline in a previous post, why not simply take the data and produce a picture which, as closely as reasonably possible, mimics what the human eye would see if it were right there at the camera?

Therein lies the problem. No data is the same from every single mission. Imagers could (and do) function totally different from one probe to the next. How does one ?define? how MOC images and THEMIS images ?should? look? The fact that THEMIS doesn't work (for the most part) in the visible range should show that it's impossible.

Each mission scientists has to creat custom software to convert raw data to images which the public at large can view. Consider MSSS. They take PDS data and convert it, using a generic method, so that people can browse images of Mars. The problem with this, is all data cannot reliably undergo the same process, since the conditions are different from image to image! How can we run a generic process on images which were taken in the morning, and images which were taken in the afternoon? Sure, we might be able to get a pretty good generic algorithm for each time of the day, and probe inclination, but it's utterly impossible to create a process which guarantees to satisify the scientific process! This is why we have the PDS. Processed images themselves are totally subjective (PDS data is formated, but it's not processed or resampled- by formated, I mean that the raw data is put in a nicer format which is understandable by the NASA software, and that pure raw data is derivable).

And don't worry about my criticism, I hold a lot of resentment towards the conspiracy community for just conflating everything in an unreasonable way. I can totally understand wanting to dig deeper with regards to some suspicious formations. Indeed, the chances of Cydonia having the objects it has is extremely small! But that's no reason to forego the scientific process.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-03 05:52:39

Thanks, Phobos, for seconding my nomination.
Unfortunately, most of the executive positions in my team seem to have been filled.
Would you settle for Executive in Charge of Metal-Helmet Polishing? An important position when you consider we'll be right there at NASA headquarters, where the mind-altering emanations are strongest!!
:0

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-03 06:40:38

Hmmm!
Your last post, Josh, has got me thinking my little scheme is easier proposed than achieved.

Would a small PR department, with state-of-the-art image processing equipment, be able to create images for public consumption from the PDS? I mean images created out of data from all kinds of probes, operating in visible and near-visible parts of the spectrum. The aim being always to get as close to optimum angles of observation, lighting, and surface detail as possible in the final images.
I'm not asking that pure raw data must be derivable from these final images. They're not for scientists to dissect and analyse. All I'm looking for is a centralised department, answerable to NASA and, ultimately, the public, which is demonstrably neutral and transparent and which will do its best to provide images the public can trust.

If this could be achieved, I believe it would go a long way towards pulling the rug out from under the lunatic fringe. They would have much more trouble accusing people like JPL of hiding the facts if they themselves are presented with the facts on a regular basis!
I guess it would add to expenditure at a time when NASA's funding is not as generous as many would like, but it would give NASA an air of openness and transparency. And, after all, it's supposed to be an agency dedicated to the spirit of exploration and discovery, isn't it? And shouldn't we all be allowed and encouraged to take an interest in as much of it as we can?
???

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-03 12:03:08

I don't think NASA would want to take responsiblity for such a department. Mainly because there are people out there who think that they can use presampled images with real scientific value. That would be horrible! What if some images were sampled too darkly one day, accidently, and some ?lines? showed up suspiciously? Sure, it would obviously be the guy who did its responsiblity, but NASA would take the fall. NASA would be in deep shit (at least to the small minority of conspiracy people)

Press: The images you've shown us for the 2003 rover missions, look highly artifical.
NASA: Those images were sampled improperly, it would take great lengths to derive those images from the raw data.
Press: If they were sampled improperly, why did you display them on your PR site?
NASA: One of our mission scientists screwed up the data when he was resampling it. And loaded it to the site.
Mission scientist: I accidently applied several filters which destoryed the integrity of the images. What you see there is more processing, than raw data.
NASA: We take full responsliblity for the mission scientists unfortunate failure to provuide consistent images.
Press: [suspicious] Ahh...

Conspiracy people: OMG, there's a fucking coverup! NASA is fucking with us! Why would NASA do that? Why would NASA claim that the images were ?sampled wrong? when clearly what was done to the images shows that there's something there? I mean, there can be no other explaination except that NASA is trying to pull off a massive coverup! Email your senators!

The only way to shut up conspiracy theorists is to simply release PDS data as it comes down the line. And even then, they'll ?claim? that the data could have been delayed for a certain period of time. So you'd have to release alldata from the very beginning of a mission, every bit, every byte. Is this possible? Certainly. Just release the raw data you give to the mission scientists when you give it to them and be done with it. Is this going to happen? Hell no! The mission scientists are getting paid to do their job, and are granted exclusive rights to work on the data. NASA wants exclusive rights to say, ?Look what we found.? And they don't want crack-pots taking the data and making all sorts of unscientific observations on it.

We pay NASA to find things. It would be silly for them to release data and let other people find things. Personally, yes, I would love NASA to be that open (one must note that they're more open than any other admin in the US government! ), but I don't feel that they're covering anything up.

It's actually conceivable that a mission scientists could release the raw data they recieve. I don't think mission statements say that they can't. But it would be stupid for them, and future grant proposals, to do so, since they would lower their chance of discovery. If millions of regular guys had access to the raw data, we'd find something (that's how we found the water spouts).

Palomar · 2002-11-03 15:00:22

But I would love to give it a try one day, on one condition - that I can ask to have Josh as my Executive IT Officer, and Cindy as my Executive Media Liaison Officer!
What a team we'd make! NASA would be the most popular organisation on Earth (and maybe Mars, too! )

*It's a deal!

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-11-03 21:02:46

Phobos: Wow, I was just going to mention handing the job to Shaun before I read your message. First it's farming on Mars and now it's agreeing that Shaun should be given the reigns over the pr department. Hmm, maybe there's some interdimensional psychic thing going on here or our metal helmets are transmitting on the same wavelengths. I'll consult the cards and see.

*What was that you were saying about "Twilight Zone" theme music, Phobos? Cool! >>on the lookout for it happening to us again<<

--Cindy

Mark S · 2002-11-03 22:39:46

But the whole thrust of the TEM case is that NASA has a hidden agenda and cannot BE trusted!! It's unlikely that Mark S, for instance, is going to believe what Noel Gorelick tells him!

I'm less inclined to believe Gorelick because of his position at the center of the brouhaha, but that doesn't mean I won't listen to other objective debukers of Cydonia.

Laney's case for the "blockies" becomes more tenuous by the day. Still, I can't entirely dismiss it because of the previous Russian photographs of the blockies (the raw data from Phobos 2 shopuld be released to the West as soon as possible, IMHO.)

And I'm still confused as to how TEM could have faked the raw data for the Cydonia daytime pics when they show more detail than the ASU pics at first glance (although I will give them a second look, after reading the thread and finding select details to look for.) It's frustrating, having this conversation and not being an imagine expert (and having bad luck with cameras of all sorts.)

Now that NASA's FINALLY released the nighttime IR of Cydonia, I'm anxious to hear what the rest of you have to say about it. I tried looking at the Face and other objects for signs of a structure but the resolution of the JPEG I downloaded was too poor to make out any details if they exist.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-04 02:08:18

First, let me say, Josh, that I take your point about PR department image releases.
I think you're right that there is no solution to the mental attitude of the dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy buff ... we just can't win against someone who is convinced everyone is lying to him/her.
But maybe the department I suggested could at least cater to the rest of us! Most of us are prepared to accept that image processing can lead to artifacts which might be deceiving, and wouldn't jump to all sorts of irrational conclusions.
The 'I saw it first' syndrome would probably be harder to find a way around, though.

Incidentally,can I ask you about this part of your post?:-

If millions of regular guys had access to the raw data, we'd find something (that's how we found the water spouts).

I seem to remember seeing a vague grainy image once, of what they described as a waterspout. I can imagine Tripp McCann's eyes rolling in his head as I tell you I had a lot of trouble convincing myself that it really was a waterspout!! From memory, there were complaints from the people who believed it to be a waterspout, that mainstream science was largely ignoring what was an important discovery.
Can you direct me to any websites with further images of these alleged eruptions of Martian water? I'd really love to get a better look at them.

Hi Mark S!
In retrospect, I should apologise for taking liberties and using my perception of your views to back my argument!! You could have taken exception to my doing that, but I was relieved to see you took it in the spirit in which it was meant. I understand your position with Noel Gorelick, vis-a-vis the 'blockies' affair ... in theory at least, his word can hardly be accepted as neutral when he's one of the protagonists in the situation!
And I agree with you that TEM are in trouble with this 'city under the sand' assertion. Tripp seems to think the blockies (good word, that! ) are simply the result of Laney's ignorance and arrogance. For what it's worth, my present opinion is that the detail is too realistic in the magnified images to be a result of inappropriate processing. Somebody has probably done some 'artwork' to create the effect! .... Or ... maybe there is a city under the sand!! But TEM's recent deafening silence about it might be telling us which is true!

Mark S · 2002-11-04 12:54:03

I think that TEM is seriously damaging its remaining credibility by starting a subscriber service shortly after this "earth shattering discovery." Last time I checked, science was about the search for truth, not the search for profits.

Still, TEM now has its nighttime Cydonia IR like they've been requesting since May. Will they find something remarkable in it to corroborate the blockies? Or will they scream "conspiracy" upon finding nothing? The most interesting finding will be a second set of "real" nighttime IR, in the same fashion as the daytime IR.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-04 14:33:31

Shaun Barrett, well, my terminology may have been somewhat misleading, but I feel it is still largely correct. They only occur on the edges of gullies, and in that sense, they are side-ways spouts. I don't know what NASA calls them. I believe it's ?Ground water seepage.?

You can actually find the original press release, but the NASA-TV archive is totally messed up! To view some of the past videos, you must go to archive.org and find the actual link. But worry not, I have the relevant link:

http://198.116.66.254:8080/ramgen/water/NASA.smi

This discusses the possiblity of ground water seepage.

And I don't believe the media has been ignoring this (when it happened there was actually some major excitement). It's just, not a really big thing to be caring about, to be honest. Basically, what we have, is underground pockets of water (about the size of a swimming pool or two) exploding out onto the surface of Mars. The only thing it tells us is that Mars can and probably does have subsurface reservoirs. As to liquid water on the surface for any significant period of time... well, we'll see when we get there.

Also, Malin has a nice array of images related to the subject: http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-04 19:34:22

Thanks, Josh!
But I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.

The links you provided are familiar to me and I know the media didn't ignore this very interesting 'gully seepage' thing. In fact there were a number of different reports about it, including Nick Hoffman's alternative hypothesis that liquid CO2 could have caused the features shown. (Though recent studies have cast doubts on the viability of CO2 as the agent of so much resurfacing of Martian slopes.)

I confused what you were talking about with an old image of what some people thought was a vertical eruption of water high into the air, rather like 'Old Faithful' at Yellowstone National Park but on a much larger scale.
The fact that the story never developed is probably a good indication that the photographic evidence was ambiguous and couldn't be verified.

Sorry for wasting your time!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-05 01:58:21

Just as an 'aside', some months ago in my travels on the net, I came across a nice piece of art work portraying a fictional future scene on Mars.

It appears on this page of the lengthy Enterprise Mission files. Unfortunately there is an awful lot of stuff on the page which not many of us would be interested to read(! ), so just scroll down about 1/3rd of the page and look out for a picture of two astronauts climbing a Martian hill.

The picture is actually a poster from the White House Mars Exploration Program, circa 1989 I think. It was commissioned by Boeing and features a quote from President Bush Snr.

If you click on the picture, you can get an enlargement which shows the ruins on the hill in more detail. Look out for the damaged statue featuring a negroid face.
In the background is a silhouetted rocky mesa which could almost be interpreted as 'the Face' (mouth gap on the left and nose profile to the right).

Enjoy!

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-05 10:34:40

Ahah, I think I know which spout you speak of. I saw it before, I believe, on one of the conspiracy sites. It would be interesting to see the image again, so if you come across it, by all means, post it here.

Sorry if I confused things about the water seepage. But I think, now, after the subsurface waterhshed has been discovered, we can safely assume that these seepages are indeed water.

And BTW, those structures in the Mars poster are definitely artificial. It's sort of like a totem poll of sorts. Not unlike the Easter Island statues (although more segmented). One must wonder what the designer was thinking.

wccmarsface@msn.com · 2003-04-10 15:09:29

To: Josh Cryer, Shaun Barrett, ecrasez_l_inflame, Mark S,et al; why all this discussion on the so-called face on mars and those people who somehow think that Mars is ostensibly littered with ancient ruins of some sort of extinct spacefaring civilization in remote antiquity? After all, and please correct me if I am misled, but isn't it true that, given the great epistemology of our knowledge, ancient ruins on other planetary bodies in the solar system are by all means, impossible? Isn't it true that this subject can never ever be a serious scientific query, because, if it were, and if such ruins really existed, it would have the innate potential to undermine everything we know about the history of man and could include some very nasty ideas like: maybe the history of homo sapiens sapiens is vaster and far more than we at present trully know and that, perhaps several hundred thousand years ago, our "unknown ancestors" developed a global technical culture that went to the moon and Mars in a very big way before they, of course, got obliterated in some terrible catastrophe and, a powerful civilization endures total collapse and societal extinction and we are then, therefore, the very distant future descendants of the few survivors on the great Pleistocene Ice Age ravaged earth. It seems that one Richard C. Hoagland champions something like this. And I do not mean to denigrate Mr. Hoagland: I find him to be a very intelligent and well spoken individual and very interesting to listen to on various media venues, but, could he and his friends be right about their basic assertions, at least? Isn't all this about faces and five sided pyramidal structures on Mars very easily debunkable since we have so much unequivocal proof that such "anomalous" structures are exclusively the work of purely natural geological processes? In the end, of course, without ever having yet sent women and men to Mars, how really sure can we be about what is and what is not on the martian surface which is, so inconveniently for us, most of the time hundreds of millions of kilometers away? If those at TEM, SPSR, Mac Tonnies' "Cydonian Imperative" and others of such a pseudo-scientific bent are right about their basic tenet, why should we, given the potential for such great sociological consequences, even bother to seek out this kind of truth, if truth it may be? In the history of science, has there ever been a case of pseudo-science having eventually become accepted by the general at-large scientific community? If there really are ruins of very ancient cities on Mars ( of course, isn't all this so much unadulterated nonsense!), where is the evidence of such here on earth? Is the geological dynamism of our planet so great as to virtually eliminate the traces of sizable cities on earth of say a quarter of a million years ago, the so-called "ooparts", the "Baalbek Terrace" and various claims of underwater ruins off the continental shelves notwithstanding? If our present global culture collapses and dies out, which it very well might due to numerous possible planetary events far outside modern experience, and then there are survivors living at somewhat prehistorical levels for many tens of thousands of years, and a new advanced global society emerges a quarter of a million years from now, how much of our infrastructure could they encounter inwhich they could have a clearly discernable history of our former societal existence? Shouldn't they be able to recover lots of our stuff? Or would they only find curious anomalous traces here and there from time to time, but not enough to change or build a new scientific paradigm? The essence of skepticism is an essential altruism in science. Science requires high, or, I should say, very high standards of evidence. Hypotheses should never be scientifically provable, but only disprovable. Also, the "art" of skepticism should not be outright debunkery based on personal opinions (and never be the grounds for making personal attacks on the character of others regardless of the subject matter of whatever claims they proffer) but, rather, suspension of belief at least if or until the required evidence becomes, well, plainly evident! Indeed, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence, and, most of the time, such extraordinary evidence simply just isn't there. On Mars, all bets are off when women and men are finally on the ground there. I should predict that we will find no such traces of ostensible ruins or any other artifacts of sentient intelligence on the surface of Mars. Perhaps, just in case, the crew should include a woman or a man with some training in anthropology, archeology, or even, philology. You know, just in case is all! wccmarsface@msn.com

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-10 23:54:48

Ahh, welcome aboard, I hope you feel like staying. Adrian made this forum explicitly so that discussion of off topic stuff would be contained. We were getting a few posts a week about TEM/Face On Mars/liquid surface water, so this is just a discussion area were we can accomodate those people easily (Adrian is a really good admin). Plus, we all do like to speculate every now and then about intelligent life.

I believe that NASA herself has planned to send an archeologist to Mars (which, at the time of it being said, I do believe turned a lot of heads over at the TEM forums), but don't quote me on that! It does seem reasonable to send people who would know this sort of thing, and not because we need to satisify some curiosity about suspected ruins, but because, any person good in the field of scientific history is bound to be useful as we study the geology of Mars.

I think that it would be interesting if the conspiracy people put together their collective effort, and designed and built a probe explicitly designed to take up close pictures of Cydonia.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-11 01:04:11

Is that really true, Josh? I never realised NASA had actually specified that an archeologist should be sent to Mars.
If it's so, your argument that it doesn't mean much because a trained archeologist would be useful for other stuff, isn't convincing - at least to me. It seems that sending an archeologist only makes sense if you expect to need one when you get there!

This is probably asking a lot but could you provide any links with more information on this?
???

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-11 02:14:02

Even if that other stuff means qualifying what geologists say in any direction?

What if the Face on Mars (okay, we all know it's not, but what if the features in the area, are shaped like artifical formations?) is shaped like a real face? And a geologist looks at it and thinks that it's just a natural formation? Will the conspiracy theorists believe what a geologist says?

I've done a rather extensive search, to find the original press release I may have read that from. I could've confused it with other similar press releases about Cydonia.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-11 06:23:43

Hey! You may well be right, Josh.
And I'm perfectly happy to send an archeologist to Mars ... really I am.
Hell! .. they can send a philatelist and a numismatist too if they feel like it - just as long as they send somebody before I need help to go to the bathroom!!!

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-11 19:45:25

Wccmarsface raised a point I've often thought about: If every human died today (heaven forbid), and a new species of intelligent beings appeared in, say, 500,000 years (maybe descended from bonobo chimps or something), would they find irrefutable proof that we existed?
Half a million years is too short a time for geological processes to remake the surface, so I suppose many of our major earthworks would still be apparent - especially from the air. Let's assume the new intelligence hasn't achieved space travel yet, so they haven't found the Apollo landing sites on the Moon.

Just how long would it take before all identifiably artificial traces of our existence are erased from the Earth?

Answering this question would probably place significant constraints on TEM's proposed lost Martian civilisation because there seems to be no irrefutable evidence of artificiality on Mars' surface. Even if the Face is supposed to be artificial, where are the other buildings, the roads, earthworks (sorry ... marsworks! ). If they are all so worn away as to be incapable of definite identification, how old would these hypothesised features have to be?

I've got a feeling that, even on Earth where erosion and tectonic activity is vigorous, you would still be able to see plainly the evidence of our civilisation a million years from now.
Any thoughts?
???

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-11 23:10:46

Heh, non-intelligent life leaves tons of evidence (ie, fossils), so... intelligence would arguably leave so much evidence, that knowledge our society would still be discoverable until the sun grows to become a great red giant. Perhaps (assuming the planet isn't destroyed) even beyond that point, until it's a white dwarf. Remember Planet of the Apes? How the Apes discovered that Man was the superior species?

Life leaves evidence of itself where ever it goes.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-14 17:50:59

I've flown over major roads which traverse hilly country. To keep them relatively level, the road construction engineers have resorted to the standard procedure of cutting through the higher ground and bridging the lowest sections (usually stream-cut ravines and faults).
As I've looked at this vista below me, I've squinted my eyes and tried to imagine the same scene hundreds of millenia in the future - perhaps long after our civilisation has passed away and nature has been allowed to to do its work.
I can imagine the road surface being completely degraded and overgrown and the reinforced concrete bridges reduced to sand and rust and buried in vegetation. But the cuttings through the hills in a snake-like pattern, however overgrown, always survive and remain recognisable as obvious artificial works.

Richard Hoagland has proposed that the Cydonia region was host to a race of monumental construction engineers about 500,000 years ago. They produced, he maintains, huge sculptures and pyramids which make those at Giza near Cairo look insignificant by comparison!
Yet, closer examination of the purported constructions reveals highly irregular and ambiguous looking objects which can very easily be interpreted as natural. And there seems to be no convincing evidence of roadways, tracks, earthworks, etc. which might have linked these 'buildings'.
500,000 years is really not a very long time in the geological sense. On Mars, it probably hasn't rained or snowed much in the past half million years, either!
Shouldn't we be seeing much better evidence at Cydonia than we are? Or is there an explanation for why we're not? (Assuming, of course, there's anything artificial there at all, that is!! :;): )
???

Ad Astra · 2003-04-14 20:07:42

The Enterprise Mission has now successfully found a new "face" at Baghdad (formerly "Saddam") International Airport and plenty of purported "parallels" between Iraqi architecture and the features on Cydonia.

After reading the article, I've officially heard everything. Pardon the pun, but these new claims are some really funny Shiite.

Phobos · 2003-04-14 21:48:06

The similarity of those faces in the photographs are definate proof of an Iraq/Mars connection. Now it begs the question, did the little green men whisk Saddam off to Mars in the nick of time? I'm not so sure I want to go to Mars now if Saddam and his little green allies rule the planet.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-15 07:14:13

Ad Astra:-

... some really funny Shiite.

Ha ha !!

I suspect it's highly politically incorrect to find such things amusing but that was clever, Ad Astra. Very entertaining!

[Disclaimer: I have nothing against Shiites, Sunnis, or any other muslim groups. I believe in freedom of worship AND THE FREEDOM NOT TO. Long may all religious and secular folks live together in peace, harmony and respect for each other's individuality. Amen.]

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-11-02 21:50:13

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#27 2002-11-03 00:14:53

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#28 2002-11-03 05:52:39

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#29 2002-11-03 06:40:38

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#30 2002-11-03 12:03:08

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#31 2002-11-03 15:00:22

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#32 2002-11-03 21:02:46

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#33 2002-11-03 22:39:46

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#34 2002-11-04 02:08:18

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#35 2002-11-04 12:54:03

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#36 2002-11-04 14:33:31

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#37 2002-11-04 19:34:22

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#38 2002-11-05 01:58:21

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#39 2002-11-05 10:34:40

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#40 2003-04-10 15:09:29

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#41 2003-04-10 23:54:48

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#42 2003-04-11 01:04:11

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#43 2003-04-11 02:14:02

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#44 2003-04-11 06:23:43

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#45 2003-04-11 19:45:25

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#46 2003-04-11 23:10:46

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#47 2003-04-14 17:50:59

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#48 2003-04-14 20:07:42

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#49 2003-04-14 21:48:06

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

#50 2003-04-15 07:14:13

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Board footer