|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 4, 2005 9:59:38 GMT -4
Fine, I remove my request for you thinking that the rocks and the mountains are, but the Mars structures are so obvious. you will not convince anyone that all these structures are coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 4, 2005 10:35:08 GMT -4
I agree with you that there are many people who will never be convinced that various features on Mars are "coincidence" (if they are drawing parallels to actual structures on Earth) or in general just natural features.
There are a lot of people who will continue to believe it no matter how many pictures are taken at any resolution. They will say the pictures are faked; they will say the features were somehow modified (presumably by large-scale demolition!); they (like Richard Hoagland) will mine the data for arcane mathematical bits and give it fancy names like "hyperdimensional physics" and apply lots of heapin' helpins' o' word salad.* They want to believe.
OK, fine. No one can prove something is not artificial, and cleverly made to look like eroded geological features. It's not about science at this point; it's about the faith these people have that there must be gods or aliens that did this stuff.
* Mmmmm.... word salad......
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 4, 2005 10:45:51 GMT -4
LoTR. Quick explaination of how science works. An observation is made and then explainations are given. The simpest of those is then considered the most likely until it can be falsified, in other words shown to be wrong, that it doesn't match another obseravation. Once that has been done the next simplest explaination is taken and so on. It you want a more complex theory to be considered over the simpler ones then you have to proof that the simpler ones don't match the observations, and that your one does. You have to provide proof, and pointing to a photo and saying "it's obvious" isn't proof.
Consider the "Tubes." The simplest explanation is that they are natually formed sand dunes. Other dunes can be show to exist in similar formations both elsewhere on Mars and on Earth. A resonance mechanism based on wind in the canyons and is well known on Earth, can be shown to create wave forms that would be consistant with the dunes and can be shown to make dunes. The dunes react as one would expect under that mechanism, becoming closer with the narrowing of the canyon, and becoming further apart when the canyons widen. They also act as predicted by the mechanism when they are obstructioned, or the canyon depth changes. A 3D stereogram of the area also shows that they are dune shaped. Thus the evidence of observation that they are dunes is overwhelming because all of the observations are explained by the dune hypothesis. To claim that they are anything else requires proving first that they aren't dunes. I cn point out a number of observations that would not be consistant witha life form or an artifical structure, including the varying distance between the dunes and the way they split on faced with an obstruction or off shoot valley.
The same with the rest. Until you can prove that the "face" isn't just a natural forming hill then you can't argue for its being artifical. Waving at a low resolution photo taken in the 1970's just isn't good enough, especially with better images. Pointing to a mountain and saying "it looks like...." isn't good enough because unless you can prove that it is impossible for a mountain to naturally occur in that shape, all you have in a mountain that's a neat shape.
This is where puedoscience falls down all the time. You can't just wave your hands and claim "it looks likes.. so it is" or "it's obvious." You have to show it can't be the simpler thing first, and as of yet you haven't even come close to meeting the burden of proof in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 4, 2005 10:52:14 GMT -4
...but the Mars structures are so obvious.
No, they aren't. They just "look like" things. The fluffy bunny I "see" in clouds isn't really there either, even though the resemblance may be striking.
Study the phenomenon of pareidolia. Learn the psychology behind it. It's simply how the human mind works.
...you will not convince anyone that all these structures are coincidence.
Actually only a very small minority of people actually believe that these "structures" are anything other than natural rock formations. And these people cling to their beliefs regardless of any evidence or argument.
Your Cydonia pictures are of such low resolution that simply the pixelization makes them look more regular than they are.
The "face" has been been thoroughly and completely debunked, even to the point of its former proponents accusing NASA of having destroyed it.
What you think are "obviously" tubes other people think are "obviously" the skeletons of gigantic alien life forms. Which of these two "obvious" -- and mutually exclusive -- conclusions is the right one? What's so funny about that is that they crop away and ignore all the information showing that the "tubes" are actually valleys -- indentation, not protrusions! And the wavelike sand dunes in them are things that happen on Earth too. I live in a desert, remember.
The supposed similarity between a pile of dirt on Mars and a pile of dirt in England end with them both being piles of dirt, and that's why they look alike.
Insisting that things are "obvious" is merely a clever way of saying you can't find an objective argument that works. Similarity -- especially geometric similarity -- can be measured. But if you simply ask people to agree that two things are similar you have to first acknowledge that you're begging the question and second, you have to acknowledge that if you ask people for their opinions then you won't necessarily get the answer you wanted and there's nothing you can do about it.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 4, 2005 11:30:52 GMT -4
There are many ppl who believe the things are not artificial bcz they can't get it that NASA is laughing at them. And if you want to speak psychology, it is proven that if everybody else will look down on you if you say something, you are less likely to state it and you will pretend not to say it. That is why there are no too many HB in this forum. An experiment was done were a shorter line existed among two other lines. everybody in the class was asked to say it is equal to the other two, except one person. that person didn't say it was not equal, he just abided by what most ppl said. Deep in their hearts, everybody knows that when Nefertiti is there with all her details, then it isn't coincidence. Everyone who sees the triangle with the well engraved circle in it, says it is not coincidence. Everybody when sees the hill, the crater and the pyramid reduced scale match to the ones on earth, will say it is not coincidence. i DON'T NEED TO GO OVER EVERYTHING. i THINK i MADE MY POINT CLEAR.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 4, 2005 12:23:54 GMT -4
There are many ppl who believe the things are not artificial bcz they can't get it that NASA is laughing at them.
NASA isn't laughing at anyone. But intelligent people all over the world may be laughing.
And if you want to speak psychology, it is proven that if everybody else will look down on you if you say something, you are less likely to state it and you will pretend not to say it.
That may be true, but it does not follow that the reasons why people might look down on you are necessarily unjustified. If you say something like, "G.W. Bush is a space alien," people will look down on you. And for that reason you may regret having said it. But people look down on you in that case not because they're brainwashed, but because you said something farfetched and indefensible.
In any case you're arguing in circles. You're trying to say that everyone would believe these "obviously" correct answers if they weren't being told otherwise. You haven't considered the possibility that no one believes them because they aren't "obvious".
Deep in their hearts, everybody knows that when Nefertiti is there with all her details, then it isn't coincidence.
No. Everyone does not "know" this, or any of the other things you mentioned. In fact most people think those ideas are crackpot. They don't need NASA or anyone else to tell them that. They can draw their own conclusions.
All you're doing here is vigorously begging the question.
i DON'T NEED TO GO OVER EVERYTHING. i THINK i MADE MY POINT CLEAR.
Not at all. You've simply made an assertion and insisted that you are right. If anyone disputes it or expresses a different belief, you simply lambast them for being intimidated or brainwashed.
I think you need to get used to the idea that your arguments just aren't convincing, and that's why people don't express a lot of belief in you.
You keep referring to things as "obvious". That's a cop-out. See, the one salient aspect about things that are "obvious" is that those are the things for which you can make the strongest arguments. That's what makes something obvious.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 4, 2005 12:24:13 GMT -4
Please keep this thread on topic. Mars is not part of the Apollo program.
If you want to discuss supposed structures on Mars then I suggest you start a new thread in the "Beyond Belief" section of the forum.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 4, 2005 13:00:00 GMT -4
That is why there are no too many HB in this forum.
I don't think so. I think it's far more likely that most HBs simply can't stand having their arguments rigorously examined, by a group with considerable collective expertise, in an environment where ridicule and other appeals to emotion rather than reason are (though not eliminated) deprecated in favor of coherent arguments and solid evidence.
An experiment was done were a shorter line existed among two other lines. everybody in the class was asked to say it is equal to the other two, except one person. that person didn't say it was not equal, he just abided by what most ppl said.
Have you noticed that the regulars here actually correct each other, rather than simply going along with every statement in favor of their position? And how often do HBs/CTs tolerate skepticism on their own forums?
Deep in their hearts, ...
Deep in your heart, you believe it. But please don't presume to speak for everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 4, 2005 13:26:44 GMT -4
There are many ppl who believe the things are not artificial bcz they can't get it that NASA is laughing at them.NASA isn't laughing at anyone. But intelligent people all over the world may be laughing. And if you want to speak psychology, it is proven that if everybody else will look down on you if you say something, you are less likely to state it and you will pretend not to say it.That may be true, but it does not follow that the reasons why people might look down on you are necessarily unjustified. If you say something like, "G.W. Bush is a space alien," people will look down on you. And for that reason you may regret having said it. But people look down on you in that case not because they're brainwashed, but because you said something farfetched and indefensible. In any case you're arguing in circles. You're trying to say that everyone would believe these "obviously" correct answers if they weren't being told otherwise. You haven't considered the possibility that no one believes them because they aren't "obvious". Deep in their hearts, everybody knows that when Nefertiti is there with all her details, then it isn't coincidence.No. Everyone does not "know" this, or any of the other things you mentioned. In fact most people think those ideas are crackpot. They don't need NASA or anyone else to tell them that. They can draw their own conclusions. All you're doing here is vigorously begging the question. i DON'T NEED TO GO OVER EVERYTHING. i THINK i MADE MY POINT CLEAR.Not at all. You've simply made an assertion and insisted that you are right. If anyone disputes it or expresses a different belief, you simply lambast them for being intimidated or brainwashed. I think you need to get used to the idea that your arguments just aren't convincing, and that's why people don't express a lot of belief in you. You keep referring to things as "obvious". That's a cop-out. See, the one salient aspect about things that are "obvious" is that those are the things for which you can make the strongest arguments. That's what makes something obvious. JayUtah and all I can't just keep on posting, but I will make it clear. NO , it is not similar that George Bush is an alien and MARS photos are faked. NO, it is not just that it is obvious to me only that these things are "obvious", many share me my belief, and I have spoken to quiet a good sample of them. NO, it is not that my arguments are not convincing that is why people don't express belief in me. NO, it is not only obvious, there exists mathematical calculations, narrowing down of maps, and measuring angles in the Avebury case and other cases.YES, it is really far fetched that all these detailed things exist, now, almost as farfetched is the idea that George Bush is an alien. YES, it becomes biaseness and fanatacism when one doesn't want to see something, I can notice this clearly here. YES, maybe ppl think these ideas are crackpot when they see that it is the mighty NASA, but try asking someone that is it possible that these photos exist on another planet? There is a man at the street there claiming that they are. I don't think they will answer by yes. You can keep your beliefs that are tooooo absurd to be taken into consideration, that ALL these artifacts that are architectually realted , detailed in many instances, are faked. Me and many in this world will not, not bcz they take things forgranted, but bcz they are not that absurd. It is just IMPOSSIBLE that ALL these connections exist together. It is like the probability of pulling the needle from hatch. bye for ever
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 4, 2005 14:11:14 GMT -4
The problem with all these conspiracy theories is that they are believed "deep in the heart". That's the wrong organ. I'm sure many sincerely believe, and many more at least hope, that their beliefs have some kind of objective justification as well. But the objective world is harsh and skeptical (properly so), and simply doesn't respond to vigorous expressions of belief, denials of skepticism, or begged questions.
It's no more naturally credible that some line of sand dunes on some planetary surface is an alien fossil or an alien subway tube, than it is that the Virgin Mary should suddenly appear in a tree knot or a cheese sandwich. People -- even well-informed people -- have been seeing canals on Mars, mining camps on the moon, Soviet revolutionaries in their shower curtains, and religious icons in their lunches since time immemorial. If you look hard enough, you can find Kermit the Frog in other Mars photos. You can probably find naughty anatomical bits in the lunar orbital photos.
Most people do lean toward the idea that these similarities or "suspicious" regularities are just coincidences. But the true believers can't seem to get beyond this. As soon as anyone expresses the least skepticism in the "looks like, therefore must obviously be," line of reasoning, immediately the discussion shifts to what rats NASA must be for suppressing "true" information and for disinforming the public about the "true" nature of the find. Why the rush to dismiss and vilify critics for wanting nothing more than evidence that transcends one person's opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Martina W. on Oct 4, 2005 14:15:33 GMT -4
but anyone with the slightest gumption knows that Nefertiti with all her details, even the eyelashes, can't be coincidence. Sorry, but the former archaeologist in me is running amok when I read that. I know Nefertiri since I was a child, the most famous bust of her is in a museum right around the corner where I live. What you linked to may remotely resemble Disney's Snow White with a Nefertiri crown but it does not resemble her: Apart from that the ancient Egyptians would never have depicted shoulders that way. So please go and read up on pareidolia.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 4, 2005 15:20:57 GMT -4
I believe someone may have found their avatar for this board!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 4, 2005 15:32:02 GMT -4
NO , it is not similar that George Bush is an alien and MARS photos are faked.
You're missing the point. Just because people object to something you think is obvious doesn't make them brainwashed. You're trying to come up with some reason why legions of people don't seem to agree with you. You haven't considered that it's because your beliefs aren't widely shared. You've fastened onto this model of disbelief in which people who disagree with you can only have done so irrationally or as the result of intimidation, and you're unwilling to consider another model.
NO, it is not just that it is obvious to me only that these things are "obvious", many share me my belief...
"Many" in the sense of vocal individuals with TV shows or blogs, or "many" in the sense of a significant or majority segment of the entire population?
NO, it is not that my arguments are not convincing...
Any rational person must consider the possibility that it's his fault no one believes him. And whether one's arguments are convincing or not is for others to decide.
NO, it is not only obvious, there exists mathematical calculations, narrowing down of maps, and measuring angles in the Avebury case and other cases.
I have seen them; they employ various mathematical tricks to exaggerate the precision of their computations far beyond that which is supported by the data. They also rely on the unfounded premise of salience or uniqueness -- the computed "similarities" or "coincidences" are not shown to be any more rigorous or numerous than those obtained from chance data.
Mathematics can be a great tool of discovery for those who know how to use it. But it can also be a great tool of deception and obfusction when given to those who are simply impressed by it and don't put it to a rigorous test.
YES, it is really far fetched that all these detailed things exist...
Continuing to beg the question is not a defense against accusations that you're begging the question.
YES, it becomes biaseness and fanatacism when one doesn't want to see something, I can notice this clearly here.
No. Most certainly it is not. If you're going to base your argument on strictly subjective opinions, then you have no basis for argument when somone else's subjective opinion differs from yours. Whether you realize it or not, showing someone a photo and asking them to agree that it represents a certain thing is a subjective argument.
YES, maybe ppl think these ideas are crackpot when they see that it is the mighty NASA...
Please.
First, you're arguing both sides of the fence. Either everyone believes you, or some people don't believe you. In one breath you argue that everyone must really agree with you. Then in another breath you acknowlege that there are people who disagree with you. It can't be both.
Second, you have no evidence that those who disagree with you have done so because NASA has told them to.
Third, you have no evidence that they disbelieve you for any external reason.
Fourth, NASA does not currently enjoy much widespread credibility in American society today. People are likely less disposed to believe something that NASA tells them, especially if it tends to contradict their common sense.
No. You have simply manufactured a big bad straw man out of NASA and are trying to pin blame on them for the fact that very few people objectively see what you see in these images.
|
|
|
Post by Martina W. on Oct 4, 2005 16:54:12 GMT -4
Fourth, NASA does not currently enjoy much widespread credibility in American society today. And may I politely point out that not everyone contributing to this thread is a citizen of the USA?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 4, 2005 16:58:10 GMT -4
Sure -- I was assuming the non-American posters wouldn't have any allegiance whatsoever to NASA, or any special reason to be intimidated by them. The notion that people are intimidated or starstruck by NASA really only applies to Americans -- and not even to them.
|
|