Post by Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe on Jun 17, 2004 23:02:31 GMT -6
From AstroViewer NGC2207
My question is why are you using the picture that folks like " jim hogland" try to proclaim it is a face on mars ? when in fact it isnt.
From Chicago Astronomer Joe
Well, I like it.
Mainstream science has yet to discredit it...and I don't think Hoagland is all that off. Anomolies exist on the Planet and The Bad Astronomer refuses to debate him, and some points that he states a good ones.
I could have used Nancy Leider's Planet X pic...but of course...that would be silly!
From AstroViewerNGC2207
Are you serious? ... Jim Hogland?
It seems that if you have grazed by Phil Plait's site it is all there in black & white.
wwwbadastronomy.com
I never thought a real ametuer astronomer would hold that person ( jim hogland) would hold his wacked out nonsense any higher than spuedoscience montra geared to profit from the ingnorant of science fact.
There are enormous amounts of information out there for the reading that plainly shows that Hogland is nothing more than a scammer.
From Sarwat
Hello astroviewer,
In the light of what I have seen and read, I don't think there is a huge face on Mars, atleast not the one that has been properly documented. Still I think each claim should be objectively judged. As scientists we should ask whether such and such claim is adequately supported rather than the character of the person making that claim.
Don't shoot the messenger, we are not concerned with that. Verify the message.
I don't know much about hoagland and plait but I see both approaches being of placing the horse before the cart. Decide on a theory and pick/twist the facts to suit it. The scientific method is the other way round. Plus neither of the two theories makes predictions that can be verified by reasonable sources.
Now let me go to my bunker and duck for cover...
Sarwat
From Astroviewer
Ok point dooly noted....
The "face on mars pic was the one taken from voyager back in the late 70s ... only a one way pic was taken.
Now that there have been quite a few other craft sent with the ability to orbit around mars the same area has been photoed exstesivly. I dont have them at hand at the moment buit they are in NASA and probably in one of the mars mission craft websites.
The fact of the matter is is that the so called face pic and the ones who forgo with it want to give credence that intelligent life was sometime on mars.
In fact it is total nonsense. Yes mars at onetime had oceansthats as much as we do know and , in time maybe at best microbrial life ( but we don't know that as of yet.)
When one studies and researches the facts of mars the conclusions are right there.
Even though mars may have been simular like earth it take billions of years and kindness of nature for complex life to take hold.
Mars never got this chance in several reasons.. it is lengthly so if folks would like me to continue on this let me know.
From Sarwat
agree, and not only that, even if intelligent life evolved on mars, it is highly unlikely that it would so closely resemble humans. Whenever we think of intelligent life, we always come up with something similar to known lifeforms.
Even today, we are finding ancient bacterial forms
that can survive at several atmospheres of pressure and 125 degrees celsius of temperature. I think presence of water by itself does not prove anything, neither does the absence of it. Alien lifeforms may well be using liquid methane the way we use water ;-).
Glug Glug Glug...ptooo darn! there is carbon dioxide in my methane.
I'll stop talking now...looks like I am going overboard.
From Chicago Astronomer Joe
There are current images from orbit that clearly show flowing water on the surface of the planet. There is also some of vegetation. Plenty of anomalies to ponder thru. And images accessed directly from NASA/Malin control without post production bastardization of the images.
Plait, although a person I hold in great esteem, has shown to be too hard nosed, narrow visioned and mainstreamed. We cannot accept what NASA exclusively sthingyfeeds us, and must examine all sources to conclude reasonable conclusions. In the same manner, it would be stating that the belief in the bible is the sole and real one, and all others a farce. It just isn't smart to do.
No, I like Hoagland and his theories. I'll post some of the water pics soon, perhaps tonight.
From Astroviewer
Ok I gotta make a stance here Chicago ...
There is zero vegitation growing on mars
As for water we have pics of what is called seeps .. but it isnt confirmed wether it is really seeps or caused by wind erotion or even from something current... although it would make sense that if some water were under surface. And when mars came closer to the sun some water may have thawed and seeps to the surface.
But none of that is conclusive as of yet.
As for vegitation ... i would love to see the proof .. other than something from Hogland. And what exaclty is mainstream ?
Other than one persons work is peer reviewed and held up to the standards og science acedamia
Science in general is not something that is puttogether and everyone agrees on the theories or conclusions of ... it is all peer reviewed and scrutinized.
Now when it comes to folks like Hogland .. McCanney and several others .. none of there claims are peer reviewed at all. So what do they do ?
They hit the internet to get anyone they can to buy into their nonsense.
You might think that Phil Plait is mainstream. But he hits it all on the nailhead!!! Everything he puts out. Not only that he confirms what he says with other "professionals" in the field.
I wish others like him would do what he is doing. But as he sayed .. they dont want to give the psuedoscientific scammers more ammo.
From Chicago Astronomer Joe
No, mainstream science at one time or another has done more damage to the progression of human knowledge than the wackos and kooks with preposterous theories.
Mainstream had us believing, (with the blessing of peers, the church and those who taught the facts), that:
The Earth indeed was Flat, center of the Universe, unchanging or the playground of the Gods...
Mainstream had us believe that man could not:
Travel faster than 25 miles per hour, tolerate space travel nor for that matter...fly...
Mainstream said that all ills were caused by spirits, bad blood, punishments and a vengeful god. Hell, even George Washington's death was brought on quicker thru mainstream beliefs on blood letting.
All these tested, retested and proven to be factual. Just like we were all taught to do.
If it were not for the unorthodox and "weird" individuals with crazy notions like: microbes causing disease, mysterious waves that talk thru the air invisibly or crazy talk of splitting something you can't even see - The Atom...we would still be in the dark ages.
To say Hoagland is nuts just because his "peers" say so, does not make him wrong. He's accredited, worked for NASA, was Cronkite's science adviser, and is either stupid or brave enough to challenge anomalies plainly visible.
No, to close one's mind to what is not comfortable and not shake up funding or peer opinion is playing it safe, and the darling of complacency. Ignoring alternate theories is just as bad as putting faith in a good luck charm because it's been proven to work.
