Planet of Art..

Trinket,
You seem like a nice person and since no one else is talking we can talk. But let's keep it friendly.

I don't believe the purpose of science is to try to convince the type of people who think Saddam (or Bush) attacked the world trade center. Science is about using scientific method and some type of internally consistent logic. Science has a long history of successes and practical applications, which advance us and ultimately make our lives better. Science must be about something that can be falsified or at least verified in some convincing way.

New theories like yours and mine, and a few others, are often rejected by most scientists and scholars (let alone those who believe in conspiracies about the world trade center attack). So that doesn’t really bother me. What does bother me is the difficulty that we advocates of artificiality on Mars seem to have in discussing this subject in a reasonable way.

I have given my specific objection to your position, but that was over a year ago, and it bears restating. I respectfully assume that you are serious about your position, so here is my reaction:

1- If NASA (and its contractors) can not be trusted at all to give us accurate information and un-doctored imaging, then it seems logically inconsistent to form any opinion at all about the content of those images. Our main task should then be to try to prove the illegal tampering.

2- You seem to be drawing your (visual) conclusions based on what NASA actually gives us; this would seem to be, as I said, internally inconsistent. Namely, why should we be treating fakes as if they were not fakes? (If that’s what you believe they are.)

3- You have had some good intuition IMHO about faces at multiple scales, yet you never seem to try to prove that or anything else actually. And as I said yesterday, you never present faces that are at least arguable, but just images where we have to guess at where the faces are and why we should think of them as artificial; and most seem pareidolic at best, as I said yesterday.

If this is your choice, that’s your right, and the moderators seem to have no objection. I just wanted to discuss what is actually going on here, in my opinion.

Neil

So you two don't feel neglected, I'll comment briefly. We have surveyed many different types of people, and noted that people have very different criteria for determining what is real or important or interesting, and what is not. So opinions about imagery will differ, and differ passionately.

My goal has been to find criteria that are objective, meaning that they exist in the outside world and not just in certain minds. It is a way of meeting the "controls against bias" requirement of scientific method. So I discount my personal opinion of the images and seek what I can prove or demonstrate objectively.

My own mind has great difficulty with artistic imagery. I can see very little of it without keys. And even with keys, I find little of it convincing. That would apply to ~ 90% of everything I receive, including roughly 90% of whay each of you has put forward. However, my wife has an artistic mind, and notices things I cannot, such as the use of proportion, perspective, and other techniques of professional artists, which are extremely unlikely to arise by chance in a natural landform.

So as I said, I discount my own biases and keep looking for what I can prove objectively. And in cases where I think we do have objective proof, I look for context, relationships, and other features that might give the ensemble of images meaning. But I try not to confuse those two very distinct goals.

I appreciate that you two are on similar journeys of discovery, and I watch with interest to see what progress you each make. But we haven't had anything as dramatic in the last five years as the hundred or so anomalous images that turned up in the first 50,000 MGS image releases. So I do now suspect that some imagery is being withheld, and every week that goes by without a HiRISE image of a glassy tube (which must take some effort to avoid) increases that suspicion.

I do not suspect that imagery we get is being tampered with because that is not in the interests of the potential tamperers, and because they have been careful to leave the raw images intact in the two cases where a special "media release" image was prepared because the raw image would not have supported the official JPL position. -|Tom|-

<font color="limegreen">hi hope everyone had a great weekend..</font id="limegreen">

<font color="yellow">1- If NASA (and its contractors) can not be trusted at all to give us accurate information and un-doctored imaging, then it seems logically inconsistent to form any opinion at all about the content of those images. Our main task should then be to try to prove the illegal tampering.</font id="yellow">

In life we always can't pick and choose the quality of our sources or the acuracy of the information we receive from them. "However" we can scrutinize it according it's known truthfulness. Although the nasty weezle eyed redheaded step child was lying , you still wanted to hear his sobbing story. You just would receive it differently than you would if you trusted him.

Because of the new "MRO" I really believe someone wants this stuff out ( And quite possibly they might not understand whats taking this public so long to catch on.) "Greyscale and muted yes " but still the most stunning images to date.

<font color="yellow">3) You have had some good intuition IMHO about faces at multiple scales. </font id="yellow">

No intuition whats so ever Neil .. Once you understand the art is planet wide .. you no longer need to search for it.. It's that simple.. It's more of a case of where are we ?
ok wheres the Art at..

When you see a face on Mars it seems your trying to treat it as isolated instance of art..
Hey Lets Name it.. etc.etc

I'm trying to display Ying and Yang type images.. I would rather tom and his wife argue over which of the many faces I might have been trying to portray rather than select an area so you can ignore the rest..

Truth or Not.. Can't you hear how ridiculous it sounds when someone says .. Mars is a artistically created object..

Gee you'd think one of those NASA Scientist might have mentioned that in the past.. Volcano's that aren't volcano's..

Sandstorms that pop up when ever mars is about to be imaged by hubble..

hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_002195_1745

hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_004324_1060

Trinket, these are cool. I think they should all be addded to the "Faces in the Chasmas" thread. Then the casual reader will have an opportunity to see all the great finds in one location. rd