Tom - Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter question

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />The animation was not supposed to show that it was artificial. It was supposed to show that "eye sockets", "nose", and "mouth" could be reliably and uniquely identified so that the tests for secondary facial features could be applied objectively. (They were the correct size, shape, orientation, and location of the predicted secondary features relative to the primary features, plus no other similar features anywhere on the mesa.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">For the reason I've stated previously, I don't think the objective tests are really objective. To put it simply my basic position is that where the objective tests are needed they are not possible to implement objectively and where they may be implemented objectively they are not needed.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you keep in mind the playing card analogy, I'm simply trying to show that application of the a priori principle to this case was objective, and therefore a second statistical anomaly that was predicted on the basis of the first must be considered significant.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If I understand you correctly, your position is that the inability to rule out artificiality in repeated tests that check for the presence of additional features consistent with artificiality adds statistical weight to the conclusion that the Face is artificial. My position is that measuring the statistical certainty in this way is misguided. Proving artificiality is done by disproving naturalness and this exercise is not amenable to statistical analysis. Artificiality isn't proved by a preponderance of evidence, it is proved with one single point of unambiguous evidence that both contradicts naturalness and confirms artificiality at once. I think determinations as to the likelihood that something is artificial is inappropriate except for guiding decisions on how scarce resources should be allocated to studying multiple candidates.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But I sense that further examples or words are not going to lead to any meeting of the minds. You are not giving me any specifics about why the methodology is flawed. You just don't trust its application because of where it leads.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think the methodology may be as good a thing as we could concieve to eliminate the candidates whose suspected artificiality is disprovable. But they are not capable of providing any positive evidence of artificiality.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The one remaining question on the table that would be interesting for you to address is: If there are artifacts on Mars, what would be required to convince you? Especially, is there anything MRO might show that you would find persuasive? Details in the "glassy tubes", for example? Why not try a few predictions of your own about how we can distinguish natural from artificial for this common feature that MRO is sure to image at high resolution early in its mission.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Artifacts would have to have at least one feature that could not occur naturally. Proof could also consist of multiple artifacts that are individually ambiguous, but their presence together being impossible to explain through any natural cause. For example, if we found multiple occurances of the Face that would constitute proof of artificiality. I don't think that one can conclude artificiality based on the presence of multiple ambiguous features on the same artifact as is the case with the Face. I haven't studied the "glassy tubes" enough to make an informed comment. I may be able to discuss them at a later time.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />Proving artificiality is done by disproving naturalness and this exercise is not amenable to statistical analysis.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In real-world physics (unlike math), one never proves things, we only falsify hypotheses. The a priori principle was used specifically to falsify the natural origin hypothesis. It said nothing by itself to distinguish the artificiality hypothesis from other contenders -- elaborate image faking, the whole space program being staged in a Hollywood studio, etc.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think the methodology ... [is] ... not capable of providing any positive evidence of artificiality.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree. It was enlisted solely to disprove a natural origin, and did so to an impressive degree of statistical probability.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if we found multiple occurances of the Face that would constitute proof of artificiality.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Please clarify. There are, of course, many detailed faces on Mars, and none on any other surface in the solar system yet photographed from space. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</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 jrich</i>
<br />Proving artificiality is done by disproving naturalness and this exercise is not amenable to statistical analysis.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In real-world physics (unlike math), one never proves things, we only falsify hypotheses. The a priori principle was used specifically to falsify the natural origin hypothesis. It said nothing by itself to distinguish the artificiality hypothesis from other contenders -- elaborate image faking, the whole space program being staged in a Hollywood studio, etc.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think the methodology ... [is] ... not capable of providing any positive evidence of artificiality.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree. It was enlisted solely to disprove a natural origin, and did so to an impressive degree of statistical probability.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Tom, I don't understand why you believe your test using a priori predictions has any ability to falsify the natural origin hypothesis. I'm really stuggling to explain why I think you are mistaken. Let me start from scratch.

There are 3 possible outcomes of these tests:

Case 1: I think we both agree that the tests you have used are capable of falsifying the artificial hypothesis. If the follow on visual evidence isn't there for the existence of the predicted features and no additional evidence is revealed, then there isn't any remaining reason to consider the artificiality hypothesis.

Case 2: the predicted features are revealed on the follow on images and so objectively artificial that no further analysis of the artifact is necessary to consider the artificiality hypothesis confirmed. I believe it would be improper to say that the artificiality hypothesis was correct because the a priori predictions were confirmed. It would instead be proper to say that the artificiality hypothesis was correct because the evidence confirmed it. The reason why this distiction is necessary will become clear later.

Case 3: the predicted features are subjectively present on the follow on images. I think you believe this should say "objectively present" and this is a major part of our disagreement. It may be because we define *objectively present* differently. I believe that for a feature like an eyebrow or lips to be objectively present it must satisfy two criteria: there must be a strong concensus among people that view the image that the feature is really there AND that there is a concensus among these people that the feature strongly resembles what it is supposed to be. In other words the eyebrow has to <b>look</b> like an eyebrow. The practical effect of this definition is intended to be that only those features that are obviously artificial will be judged to be objectively present (case 2). I don't know what your standard is, but I'm sure its a lot less strict than mine. Now a second area of disagreement here is that you believe if the predicted features are subjectively present (my definition) on the follow on images, then the artificiality hypothesis is strengthened. I disagree. Since the predicted features are subjectively present they may or may not actually exist. Later images may reveal that they were optical illusions or the hypothesis supporters were subconsciously biased. So whatever support may be deemed to have been given to the artificiality hypothesis is negated by the probability that such support may be subsequently removed by future images. So just as in case 2, the strength of the artificiality hypothesis derives from the quality of the evidence rather than the claims of the successful outcome of the a priori predictions.

Therefore, tests of artificiality using a priori predictions of the discovery of additional features consistent with artificiality are only useful for disproving artificiality and cannot be used to disprove natural origin.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if we found multiple occurances of the Face that would constitute proof of artificiality.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Please clarify. There are, of course, many detailed faces on Mars, and none on any other surface in the solar system yet photographed from space.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I meant a twin of the Face - same size, same apparent features in the same proportions.

I know your going to disagree with a lot that I have said. Please, be gentle. I'm only an amateur.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />I know your going to disagree with a lot that I have said. Please, be gentle. I'm only an amateur.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's a good discussion, and I'm spending the time because I'd love to better understand what's going on inside the head of a dedicated skeptic like yourself on this issue. However, I need to be away for a few days, so let's both take a short break. I'll resist the impulse to answer your last message until the middle of next week, even if I get access from my laptop before then. -|Tom|-

I'm still waiting for responses to me comment that I think the animation is deceptive, because the over-head image of the face clearly shows there are no secondary facial characteristics on the right side. The animation includes photo-manipulations that claim to show what the right-side of the face "might" look like given an over-head photo. Then JPL releases a real over-head photo and it looks nothing like the photo manipulations. What gives? Why are you still pushing the animation, Tom? I don't get it.

Also, in the raw MGS photo (the first photo in the animation, before any manipulation), the only secondary facial characteristic I can see is potential nostrils. To me this is hardly, as Tom says above, "an impressive degree of statistical probability." It only seems impressive if you look at the animation, but the animation relies on photo manipulations that just don't seem to hold up given the real, overhead shot released later by JPL... in my humble opinion.

I'm really going all out here in my criticism because, well, I believe there is a kind of psychological effect that takes place when you stare long enough at these images. Those who have been following the thread called "Nefertiti's family" know that I posted new photos of areas that, to me, really look like facial profiles. I was really convinced when I posted those that they must be artificial, but then others called me to task and I had to admit that I may have developed a visual prejudice simply from staring so long. It is hard for me *not* to see the faces when I look at that area.

So I think perhaps this same phenomenon might be happening with others around the Cydonia face. This tendency towards visual prejudice might also be bolstered by a further prejudice resulting from an understandable suspicion of the JPL fraud. I know this certainly influenced me originally. The fact that JPL messed up the image before releasing it to the public made me think there must be something there they are trying to hide. This could also be creating a visual prejudice, making us think we see something more significant that is actually there.

So in trying to let go of my prejudice, I have to admit that the raw data from the two most recent MGS photos (left-side angle and overhead shot) do not provide a statistically significant "yes" answer to the artificiality test (or a "no" answer to a natural test), given that the only secondary facial characteristics that seem to appear are some potential nostrils.

Again, I don't see pupils, and the eyebrow feature is not a secondary characteristic because the bulge is visible in the original Viking photo and thus comprises part of the primary facial feature that made that photo originally look like a face.

Emanuel

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />I'm still waiting for responses to my comment<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm away for several days. As I stated before, the purpose of the animation was not to show artificiality, but to allow objective identification of the <i>primary</i> facial features so that the test for secondary features could be conducted. The latter was based exclusively on the MGS image, not the animation. The details of that analysis for all secondary features, including the a priori limits set for them, are presented in detail in the 6-author technical paper "Evidence of Planetary Artifacts" under "Peer-reviewed journal publications" at spsr.utsi.edu/ -|Tom|-