Faces from the Chasmas

Now that I've said that much, let me throw another wrench into the works. Here is a question for everyone. Take a look at this picture below. On the left, we have the picture of Viracocha - on the side of a mountain in Peru. On the right, we have the nazca monkey.

Based solely on what can be seen in these images, which one would you rank higher, as presenting better evidence of artificiality, and why? Assume these features are found on Mars and that they do not occur on Earth. Would you add to or revise the criteria I previously listed? Make your case for the one you choose as the better evidence for artificiality on Mars. What is the criteria you used?

I mentioned overprocessing as a danger to check in any analysis, so here is a visual example. The first two images below are nasaview processed mariner9 shots of shallow gullies on the landscape (the second one is simply inverted to help alleviate the problem of contour reversal), the third image is an example of how the original image can be overprocessed to look like something artificial. This example is called the "martian airport" which you guys may recognize as a popular Mars anomaly.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gorme</i>
<br />But the best definition of logic like mathematics is that it should be a tautology, that its axioms imply the answer. So if the evidence for artificiality is good enough it should imply that answer, as much as 2+2=4. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Right. As it is used in writing a computer program.

So, rather than saying the "logic was faulty", on second thought it would have been more accurate of me to say that the logic was non-existent. When the logic is faulty, you get bugs and system crashes. When it is essentially non-existent, you never get to compile the code in the first place, meaning that, in essense, there is no program at all.

Which takes us back to "subjective", and it goes something like this:

<b>I</b> see it.
<b>I</b> think it looks like a face.
Therefore, <b>I</b> say it's a face.
If if has enough detail, it must be artificial.
<b>I</b> define "enough".

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You would also know then that not everything can be proven, at some point you presume certain axioms and then rules in regard to those axioms. Or to be more precise the rules are themselves axioms. A good example of this is Euclid's that parallel lines never meet which looks like a proof but is in fact an axiom. That is, he presumed this is self evident but it is not. However this axiom led to Gauss's testing of this from 3 mountain tops to see if a triangle constructed with mirrors and surveyor like measurements added up to 180 degrees in real life. Of course Einstem realised from Gauss and Riemann that space need not be flat and if it is curved then parallel lines might well meet.

Aristotle said it best, "not everything can be proven or the chain of proof would be endless". Fermat recognized this to form a whole new kind of proof called infinite descent, where a proof implies a smaller proof without end and so is impossible in some cases. Mathematics is built in Peano's axioms, that numbers are things that are different from each other and some are "bigger" than others. One cannot prove this, one has numbers with this property, makes mathematics with it and then finds it describes the universe fairly well. One could argue equally that if space is elastic then there is really no such thing as one thing being equal to or bigger than another thing except in a particular reference frame.

So in any science, even writing code one has certain axioms that cannot be proven. Code might seem obviously correct until you try and run it on a different processor. So ultimately one has to form some axioms in regard to this kind of research, and try to falsify data according to those axioms. For example:

1. The images are accurate if the formations are large enough, i.e. if something is too small or overprocessed then it might not be evidence of anything other than how compression algorithms work.
2. The images are not doctored, i.e. that NASA has not inserted fake artifacts or removed some. Whether some images appear to be tampered with is not a path to proving artificiality. One might also argue that something is artificial or tampered with, perhaps by NASA to build a public desire to go to Mars sooner.
3. Geology and physics on Mars is similar to Earth. So something that geologists say is impossible from what they know is a reasonable criteria for artificiality. Unknown processes is not sufficient, the process must be impossible like rivers running uphill, dunes forming in patterns that the wind cannot do on Earth, faults in angles that cannot occur on Earth, etc. A control here is to use other Martian geology to prove the same geological and physical rules apply on Mars. Also there is no real evidence from planetary science that Martian geology is fundamentally different in regard to volcanism, faulting, wind and water erosion, glaciation, etc. If this was not true then no one could write papers about Martian geology.
4. Statistically beyond a given confidence level mainstream science can regard something as proven. If this is not true then most of science on Earth would also be discarded. So if a statistical argument is sufficiently rigorous, with a high enough number of features, and compared to normal data then it is justifiable to call it a proof. One can argue that extraordinary claims require a higher confidence level but one cannot make this absurdly high and accept unpopular mainstream statistical proofs as well. Otherwise the argument is just an excuse to ignore inconvenient conclusions.
5. Science is not omniscient and always predictable. It means nothing either way as to whether the mainstream thinks there are artifacts on Mars, one might be curious as to why they reimage Cydonia so much though. Just because clever people who haven't examined all the data don't think there are artifacts doesn't mean there aren't any. Many people assume there is nothing there or some boffin in NASA would have found it first. Science has always been a progression of unexpected and anti intuitive discoveries. So unless something has been proven natural on Mars we really don't know it is.

I believe there are some formations on Mars that might be artificial. They aren't explainable geologically and statistically are arguably beyond a confidence level we would apply on Earth. That might also indicate they are new geological processes as well though.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by marsrocks</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">rd: Which takes us back to "subjective", and it goes something like this:

I see it.
I think it looks like a face.
Therefore, I say it's a face.
If if has enough detail, it must be artificial.
I define "enough".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think it goes more like this: I see something that looks like the pattern of a face (subjective).

Do others see the pattern? (subjective).

If it is generally recognized as a pattern, (subjective), then therefore all we have is that there is a pattern of a face in the landscape.

We still should have no conclusions at this point. We can't leap from here to the conclusion that just because there is a pattern, that it was created by intelligent design. All art, is after all, an illusion. We see the patterns in our minds. Some of the patterns we see were solely the creations of our minds, while others were the creations of artists.

(I think debunkers get hung up before they ever get past this point, because they think admitting the existence of a pattern, means that they are admitting that it is artificial, which is not the case).

Now assuming the pattern exists, we continue... and really -begin- some analysis of it:

How vague or definite is the pattern?

Can we detect any landscape alterations that may have been required to create such a pattern?

Is the design oriented in a north-south or east-west orientation; or in similar fashion based on previously known poles of the planet?

Is there other evidence of artificiality or intelligent design?

Are there geometric formations (rectangular depressions, pyramids, square grids, etc. etc.) nearby?

Is there a composition involved which include complementary elements? - i.e. a man and woman in the same artwork; a dog and cat, cat and mouse, two or more of the same feature; and if so, are multiple elements represented in the same scale? If there are multiple complementary elements, are they oriented with one another in an intelligent manner, represented by geometry or global polar position?

Are there similar compositions nearby that are in the same scale?

Are there other elements of the design denoting that an intelligently guided hand played a role in its creation?

If we are looking at an artistic composition, how detailed are the features? How great an adjustment must be made to the original image to bring out the features during image processing? Does the feature really exist or is it a creation of the image processing (see the Martian airport).

How permanent/protected is the feature? Is the feature on a cliff or on the ground? Is it in stone or is it in loose soil? How do weather conditions effect the ground or stone of that feature?

How does the feature hold up in three dimensional representations?

Has the feature been imaged more than once, if so, how does it hold up in other images?

...

From here, what I would suggest would be not making a conclusion about the ultimate issue - that is whether the pattern occurred as a result of intelligent design or landform alteration, but how does the feature rank when compared to other discovered features, and why?

This prevents dilution problems, because vague images stay relegated to the bottom of the list, while the better features rise to the top of your list. You also begin to apply more and more objective criteria to make determinations, and explain why a particular feature belongs at the top or bottom of your list. Once these factors become better known, people searching for these features start looking for the ones that fit the criteria at the top of your list, and our search becomes more intelligent.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

All of this is worth considering because mainstream science does the same thing with less controversial subjects. However in many cases even on Mars appearences are deceiving in geology. For example many ravines in craters look like they are caused by water but they might also be caused by avalanches of dust, even of from CO2.

My guess is if there are any artifacts on Mars then some of the formations researchers have found, even seemingly far fetched, might well turn out to be artificial as well. If there is no proof though we probably won't know until we go there or they are reimaged extensively. So many researchers are just compiling a list of interesting formations that may get checked latter if one artifact becomes proven, or its evidence becomes credible enough to be examined by the mainstream.

I think however it is a good idea to look at a formation skeptically and try to show that it does not occur elsewhere in part with known natural geology. For example using dunes as part of a formation one should be able to make a study of dune shapes and show none of them are like this formation.

Here is a set of dune types for comparison:

[url] www.harmakhis.org/dunes/dunes.htm [/url]

Also here is a set of images that reminded me of Cydonia, most if not all natural:

[url] www.ultor.org/like%20cydonia/likecydonia.html [/url]

A lot of these turned out to be related to glaciation and volcanic activity under ice, which are the same processes found in Cydonia.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think it goes more like this: I see something that looks like the pattern of a face (subjective).

Do others see the pattern? (subjective).

If it is generally recognized as a pattern, (subjective), then therefore all we have is that there is a pattern of a face in the landscape.

We still should have no conclusions at this point. We can't leap from here to the conclusion that just because there is a pattern, that it was created by intelligent design. All art, is after all, an illusion. We see the patterns in our minds. Some of the patterns we see were solely the creations of our minds, while others were the creations of artists.

(I think debunkers get hung up before they ever get past this point, because they think admitting the existence of a pattern, means that they are admitting that it is artificial, which is not the case).

Now assuming the pattern exists, we continue... and really -begin- some analysis of it:

How vague or definite is the pattern?

Can we detect any landscape alterations that may have been required to create such a pattern?

Is the design oriented in a north-south or east-west orientation; or in similar fashion based on previously known poles of the planet?

Is there other evidence of artificiality or intelligent design?

Are there geometric formations (rectangular depressions, pyramids, square grids, etc. etc.) nearby?

Is there a composition involved which include complementary elements? - i.e. a man and woman in the same artwork; a dog and cat, cat and mouse, two or more of the same feature; and if so, are multiple elements represented in the same scale? If there are multiple complementary elements, are they oriented with one another in an intelligent manner, represented by geometry or global polar position?

Are there similar compositions nearby that are in the same scale?

Are there other elements of the design denoting that an intelligently guided hand played a role in its creation?

If we are looking at an artistic composition, how detailed are the features? How great an adjustment must be made to the original image to bring out the features during image processing? Does the feature really exist or is it a creation of the image processing (see the Martian airport).

How permanent/protected is the feature? Is the feature on a cliff or on the ground? Is it in stone or is it in loose soil? How do weather conditions effect the ground or stone of that feature?

How does the feature hold up in three dimensional representations?

Has the feature been imaged more than once, if so, how does it hold up in other images?

...

From here, what I would suggest would be not making a conclusion about the ultimate issue - that is whether the pattern occurred as a result of intelligent design or landform alteration, but how does the feature rank when compared to other discovered features, and why?

This prevents dilution problems, because vague images stay relegated to the bottom of the list, while the better features rise to the top of your list. You also begin to apply more and more objective criteria to make determinations, and explain why a particular feature belongs at the top or bottom of your list. Once these factors become better known, people searching for these features start looking for the ones that fit the criteria at the top of your list, and our search becomes more intelligent. [MR]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> All of this is worth considering because mainstream science does the same thing with less controversial subjects. However in many cases even on Mars appearances are deceiving in geology. For example many ravines in craters look like they are caused by water but they might also be caused by avalanches of dust, even of from CO2.

My guess is if there are any artifacts on Mars then some of the formations researchers have found, even seemingly far fetched, might well turn out to be artificial as well. If there is no proof though we probably won't know until we go there or they are reimaged extensively. So many researchers are just compiling a list of interesting formations that may get checked latter if one artifact becomes proven, or its evidence becomes credible enough to be examined by the mainstream. [Gorme]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

MR's comments are interesting and very similar to a list I labeled (somewhat incorrectly I think) "<i>a priori </i>predictions" awhile back. They amount to a sort of preponderance of logical and empirical evidence argument. Gorme's comments (sampled above) are on target as usual. He also challenged, I think, Sagen's famous dictum that "extraordinary theories require extraordinary proofs." That dictum is only true in so far as it is because of the practical bottom line that science is what scientist's say it is ( a dictum derived from Kuhn). If the scientific community requires extraordinary proofs in any instance, you have to give it to them; if the theory is true, the proofs will be there. Rd, as always, has some good point but he is hampered by two key logical flaws as it were. 1- he has taken to giving too much credence to mainstream opinion on this subject, even uninformed mainstream opinion (the 50 million Frenchmen rule). 2- he switches "logic" in midstream often, a thing he was always good at spotting in others. I think I know the reason for this but such discussion is not appropriate for this forum. All in all, good debate. [Neil]

During the mid-twentieth century when archeologists and anthropologists began to discover stone artifacts from early Homo erectus cultures, critics scoffed and pointed out that the so-called stone tools could barely be distinguished from naturally occurring chips of rock and pebbles. And they were right. More was needed than rocks that vaguely resembled some theorist's conception of primitive man's knives, axes, cutters, etc. But there was more, much more. There were common artifacts often found with skeletal remains from a certain period and a certain region; there were stone implements that were obviously imported into the region they were found in, and there were many other "coincidences" and patterns. Construction methods were slowly understood, to the point that now some specialists can reconstruct many of the common implements from each period using the original techniques.

This is the kind of thing that will happen IMO eventually with regard to Mars artifacts. Here is an assortment of Oldowan artifacts, which are barely indistinguishable from pieces of rocks. [Neil]