How to Mainstream the Artificiality Question

Why would you want to prove any of this? Would that not spoil the fun that this topic generates? If you what to prove stuff there are lots of science topics that could be investigated for flaws, fraud and flim-flam.

Greetings;

Ephemeral

I would like to comment on a few of the points you talked about..

1 )"I strongly believe that the research deserves respectful consideration,
not ridicule and measly crumbs of possibly tainted data from the ‘scientific’ community."

I agree with this statement. Except to add if data is tainted....(god forbid)
consider the tainting meter...1%

---

100% how much has it been tainted..

For since I am one who believes the "data" is tainted as others might also sometimes suspect.

The differences between my position and others would fall on the scale of the tainting meter.. I tend to believe it's closer to 99 percent.. Which is much farther up that scale then most have traveled..


2 )"Proving the artificiality of Martian structures to a majority of skeptics
mostly hostile to the hypothesis is a daunting challenge."

I don't believe you can prove anything to skeptics.. Only the curious seek knowledge.

Hi:

To Jim:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why would you want to prove any of this? Would that not spoil the fun that this topic generates? If you what to prove stuff there are lots of science topics that could be investigated for flaws, fraud and flim-flam.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Currently, the artificiality proponents are few and the resources at their disposal are minimal.

Bringing more participants to the debate would certainly add to the 'fun' (the more the merrier), and a public debate could en up providing the resources and tools we are sorely lacking.

'Proving stuff' is a lot of fun (that is why murder mysteries are an enduringly successful genre) and, though I agree that a lot of scientific research could be investigated, Martian artifacts happens to excite me the most because of the many ramifications the question has.



To Trinket:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The differences between my position and others would fall on the scale of the tainting meter.. I tend to believe it's closer to 99 percent.. Which is much farther up that scale then most have traveled..
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The key word in my post was '<u>possibly</u> tainted': I happen to think that , no matter how entrenched in their self-interest, and no matter how much peer-pressure mainstream scientists are exposed to, a sizable proportion of these individuals chose their activity out of a spirit of exploration and adventure.

Maybe I am naive, but I am betting on some of that spark still being alive within and relying on that to:

. hope that some will admit facts once proven to them (or opposite facts being disproved)
. hope that if any manipulation is occurring, some will have the courage, sooner or later, to bring the truth out.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't believe you can prove anything to skeptics.. Only the curious seek knowledge.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Once again, I do not believe that a majority of scientists are bureaucrats completely adverse to new findings.

And even if this was the case, place a skeptic in front of a charging bull, and she/he will not deny bovines' existence.

All that is necessary to accelerate the awakening of the public and the scientific community is the sharing of raw data, and the exchange of arguments epistemologically valid.

If it does not happen because of obstruction, then you call attention to that fact and ask why, in a very public fashion (as was done before when confronting Dr. Malin)


To everyone:

The key points of what I suggest are:

. no interpretation of images - I do not dismiss the analysis of images, it is very important and worthwhile work, but it gives an easy escape to the doubters (as in 'we are trained to spot faces since early infancy', etc) - but raw data from radar and spectrography would be a more 'respectable' basis to the mainstream community, besides buttressing artificiality's case.

. a public debate - here again, no escape for the skeptics: they would have to explain their point of view and defend it, engaging at last in a meaningful way the proponents of artificiality




Ephemeral

The essence of ever changing reality is the permanence of its transitory nature.

What is so special about this topic rather than say some other one that needs investigating? Do you know for example the energy flux from the mantle of Earth is excluded from climate models? Why is that if the ocean would be a lot colder if that energy did not flow into the ocean? There's a mystery for you. And there are lots on things like that going on all the time right in front of your nose which you know nothing about.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ephemeral</i>
<br />The remedy I have in mind would be two-fold:

. put the ball in the camp of the doubters by asking them to prove non-artificiality
. rely on other data than images<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Unfortunately, your plan is D.O.A right here with this first rememdy you're suggesting (although the second one has merit).

You have to remember that the doubters on this message board (of which I'm one of them) at least give the subject enough consideration to discuss how alot of these images might be, (or maybe even probably are)pareidolia, and are open to the possibility that your second suggestion might change things drastically. But try bringing this subject up to the people you come in contact with in your everyday life, and you'll find that the vast majority would never entertain the subject far enough to even look at the data. "No thanks" is the answer I usually get. Either that, or they just look at you, wait until you finish talking, and then go back to whatever they were talking about. If I was to guess what percent of the population you might get to even think about it, I'd probably put it at 1% or less. So, who do you think you're going to get to shift the burden of proof to?

Although, I do agree with you that "proof by analyzing images" (the kind of images we've seen so far) is a non-starter. The more you study this subject, the more sure you become that you're never going to crack either side, not just the skeptics. The believers will never believe it's pareidolia, just like the skeptics will never believe it's artificial, unless and until we really see something that simply cannot be denied. I know Tom has said many times that there is no level of detail that might not have happened by chance, but I disagree with that. I believe there is a level of detail that would be convincing to the vast majority of people. The problem is, we've never seen it yet, so it's still safe to assume that the reason why we haven't seen it yet, is because it doesn't exist in the body of data collected so far.

rd

Hello:




<u>To Jim</u>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> What is so special about this topic rather than say some other one that needs investigating?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Every individual is limited in time and energy, so she/he has to choose among all the fascinating mysteries vailable.

Without posting a very long list, here are a few reasons Martian artifacts are 'hot' for me:

. limited human intelligence: if there is or was other forms of consciousness right next door to Earth, let us try to get acquainted with it

. origins: could we be related to past Martian intelligent life?

. Earth's future: what happened to Mars? If intelligent beings lived there, did they keep a historical record of events?



<u>To rderosa</u>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But try bringing this subject up to the people you come in contact with in your everyday life, and you'll find that the vast majority would never entertain the subject far enough to even look at the data.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I experience the same reactions, but I am not in contact with scientists in my everyday life; maybe you are.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If I was to guess what percent of the population you might get to even think about it, I'd probably put it at 1% or less<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

1% or less of the public is quite a few people, and I am guessing that would be more than the current figure.

NASA, JPL, ESA, etc., all theses agencies depend on public funding, and the congressmen who control the budgets depend on reelection: 1% is no negligible figure to the latter.

Also, once an issue becomes more visible, awareness of it tends to snowball.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So, who do you think you're going to get to shift the burden of proof to?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I should have listed the two points of the 'remedy' in reverse order.

Bearing in mind that all steps are given as much publicity as possible, here is how the scenario could work:

1) Raw data of of subsurface radar and surface spectrographic observations is obtained - if the data is not released, a big public fuss is made (along the same lines as the Mc Daniel Report).

2) Assuming data is released, the artificiality proponent community stufdies it, publishes its conclusions, and looks for students interested in taking on peer-review or refutation as a project (graduate students would be best).

3) If - as I hope - the artificiality verdict is unambiguous enough, at this point headlines shift from 'University of X Looks at Face on Mars' to 'Martian Face Hollow and Artificial' and the burden of proof has shifted.

Overoptimistic? Naive? Maybe.

But if you had told me that anybody would be successful in forcing JPL to image the Face, I would not have believed you.

Meanwhile, we must strike the iron while it's hot, while Mars Express is still orbiting Mars.

I'll keep you all posted on my efforts to obtain raw data from ESA.




Ephemeral

The essence of ever changing reality is the permanence of its transitory nature.