It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mars and the it's just rocks skeptics

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
Skepticism is fine but pseudoskepticism is not.


Once again, you throw out the label of "pseudoskepticism" in regards to responses you do not like.

Please define pseudoskepticism as something other than "a statement that doesn't agree with you."


Originally posted by polomontana
I have made a simple and logical statement and look how much ire it has caused.



No, you didn't. You are saying because we do not know everything there is to know about Mars, that we should operate under the assumption that there are rocks that, because they look odd, may not be rocks.

Plus, it is very absurd to think that our probes would just happen to land in an area that just happens to have fossils, alien artifacts, etc. The chances of that are, pardon the pun, astronomical. Even on a planet like Earth, with billions of people, the chances would be low.


Originally posted by polomontana
The correct response is you don't know.


No, the correct response is "We do know." Until such time as it can be proven (or at least, enough evidence can be shown to cast doubt) that a rock is not a rock. The preponderance of evidence says they are rocks.


Originally posted by polomontana
I also know that the just rocks excuse will be like swamp gas and weather balloons if these things keep showing up in pictures.


You are using out-dated and cliched explanations to support your argument. Your characiture of a skeptic does nothing to support your case.


Originally posted by polomontana
This case will also get weaker if NASA confirms what they already suspect is the case about Mars and sustaining life.


On the contrary, rocks will still be rocks. Even if Mars was shown to have been able to sustain life, it does not mean it did, or that it arose beyond the microbial-level. You are making leaps of logic based on absolutely no evidence.


[edit on 4-6-2008 by SaviorComplex]




posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I'm skeptical, it's like nature's way of saying "show me". I do like to look at the interesting anomalies people find on pictures of the Moon and Mars. I find them entertaining but I would not start declaring how these pictures include skulls and alien artifacts.

When I see a close-up photo of something unexplainable I am very thrilled about the finding. Looking at pictures of rocks with Paint-made red circles on them just don't do it for me anymore.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
Just like every pic or video of a U.F.O. is fake or a weather balloon, I'm noticing how skeptics speak with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY as to what's on Mars. Everything is just rocks.


Yeah and to a CT or someone suffering to delusional paranoia.....all rocks on Mars are 3 ft high aliens or evidence of intelligent life

I'm noticing that conspiracy theorists also speak with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Just think the coldest temp on mars is -195 degrees F (-125 degrees C) and The average temperature is about -80 degrees F (-60 degrees C).I dont of much life besides bacteria that can survive those condictions.Some bacterial spores have been discovered in rock and are estimated to be 250 million years old.So unless there is tiny polar bears,i would say the only life can possibly be bacteria.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
skeptic - a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
dictionary.reference.com...

pseudoskeptic - those who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics'
en.wikipedia.org...

debunker - an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated, unscientific or pretentious. en.wikipedia.org...

There are differences but overlap too.
However, why shouldn't people disagree with an assertation made by anyone?
The only problem I've seen on ATS (in all forums) is the disrespect with which posters treat each other. I know the T&C don't require us to be completely nicey-nicey but common sense should keep most situations in control and respectful.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
Just think the coldest temp on mars is -195 degrees F (-125 degrees C) and The average temperature is about -80 degrees F (-60 degrees C).I dont of much life besides bacteria that can survive those condictions.Some bacterial spores have been discovered in rock and are estimated to be 250 million years old.So unless there is tiny polar bears,i would say the only life can possibly be bacteria.


Despite sitting just outside the Goldilocks Zone, Mars may have once been able to support life. While there is no scientific law that states that life will arise on a planet simply because said planet may be hospitable to life, let's say for the sake of argument that it did arise, and that it evolved beyond the microbial level. Any bones left on the surface, or fossils exposed at the surface, would have had to survive millions, if not billions, of years of meteor-impacts and scouring dust-storms. The chances of a human probe landing on the planet right next to bones that just happened to survive would be, again pardon the pun, astronomical. The same goes for any artifacts on the surface. Further, millions of years of exposure to the elements would so change any bones or artifacts as to be near unrecognizable as such.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysterychicken
pseudoskeptic - those who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics'
en.wikipedia.org...

debunker - an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated, unscientific or pretentious. en.wikipedia.org...


I find these definitions a bit lacking. Perhaps that is not the right word, but they bother me.

For instance, the pseudoskeptic. Under the definition provided, they are nothing but the polar-opposite of the true believers. The believer is not an agnostic to these things, but accepts them beyond all reason and logic, to the point of religious fanaticism. (Yes, yes...this is a characiture of the believer, but I am using an absurdity to illustrate my point).

Or take the debunker definition. Under this definition, a debunker is innocuous, and even a benefit to the search for "the truth."

Neither of these definitions warrants the wrath and vitriol believers have towards "pseudoskeptics" or "debunkers." But since they carry negative connotations, the believers use them as labels to distract from debate.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
your retarded you F A G n i g g e r



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


I don't disagree. I think that (these among many other) descriptive terms are misused to imply certain characteristics to people who one disagrees with or don't like. If one implies a certain negative quality that others don't see through it creates a situation where someone loses merit even if they don't deserve so. Conversely, if someone does deserve being derided so be it but the words don't deserve to be misused.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by polomontana
Just like every pic or video of a U.F.O. is fake or a weather balloon, I'm noticing how skeptics speak with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY as to what's on Mars. Everything is just rocks.


Yeah and to a CT or someone suffering to delusional paranoia.....all rocks on Mars are 3 ft high aliens or evidence of intelligent life

I'm noticing that conspiracy theorists also speak with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY


ANYONE speaking in absolute certainity is usually a fool. There is no difference between a pseudoskeptic and a delusional conspiracy theorist BECAUSE BOTH ARE CLOSE MINDED!

Did you get that? True skepticism is the right path. Ask questions AND LISTEN TO ALL SIDES OF STORY before formulating opinions. What I usually see on conspiracy forumns are that people join just to mock the oppposing side and anyone that disagrees gets labeled a disinformation agent.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
ANYONE speaking in absolute certainity is usually a fool. There is no difference between a pseudoskeptic and a delusional conspiracy theorist BECAUSE BOTH ARE CLOSE MINDED!


Not necessarily. It is not closed-minded or foolish to believe a rock is just a rock when the preponderance of evidence says it is a rock. That is being rational and reasonable. Closed-minded would be still believing it is a rock in spite of a preponderance of evidence saying otherwise.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


I am sure there are rocks on mars however there are also unconfirmed reports of "artificial monuments" such as the THE FACE and TETRAHEDRAL PYRAMIDS.

Just because these reports are unconfirmed from nasa does that mean we should ignore them and believe 100% what they spoon feed us? Sorry but I prefer progress over stagnation.


I question everyone. That means all the conspiracy theorists and all the "experts'. As an agent to Richard Hoageland once said "The lie is different at each level".



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


"If the universe is truely infinite, so then must be the posibilities"
-Stephen Hawking


I totally agree with this line of thinking.
The skeptics say "no way" because they're challanging the status quo. They've seen a million different bigfoot/loch ness images and every single one has been debunked as a hoax.

The believers say "i think it could be" because the idea, that there is a life form on another planet is so exciting and invigorating, that it inspires hope in all of us.

Both have valid pointers, so lets not be too biased. I say you should give your opinion of the matter, and maybe even give a few examples as to why you think you're right (a simple "becuase im always right" doesnt mean anything here)

I think that life exists on Mars. But i dont think its going to be little men with space-aged technology. I think it'd be very primitive life.

I've seen skeptics say that the humanoid rock can't be anything other than a rock because its only 8" tall. Well,t he smallest human on our planet is 28 inches tall. So how is this outside the realm of possiblity?

Mars 'does' have an atmosphere. It could not support life for us, but who's to say that life on mars requires the same things we do, in the same quantities? even on our own planet, Life Thrives in conditions that humans never could.


Im almost forced to think of the new version of the movie The Time Machine
Where it depicts civilization retreating back to its infantcy.


The main reason i believe that mars currently supports a primitive form of life (maybe equivilent to a spider monkey
)
and support the idea that Mars once supported thriving civilization is this

Slowly, but naturally, as stars loose their power - they also loose their gravitational pull, thus, planets move further way, orbits become longer, etc etc (basic solar system stuff)

Some scientists claim that billions of years ago, the planet was a huge mess of volcanic activity and lava, basically hell on earth.

Could it be because it was too close to the sun? Could it be that Mars once lay then, where earth does now? And if so - why isnt it possible that 'humannoids' existed there?
Even if you believe in God (and i do) this is not outside the realm of possibilities.

My God its great to think of the "what if's" of Mars

Could you imagine turning on the news and seeing a rover's footage of a little monkey-like creature scurrying across the surface of another planet?

Could you imagine how that would unite the entire world?
Something so small and so insignificant makes us all aware that we, too, are small and somewhat insignificant.

I marvel at the possibiltiies

How about you



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Hi and thanks for the reply. Please allow me the luxury of breaking down your post into small segments and replying where I see fit.


Originally posted by QBert
"If the universe is truely infinite, so then must be the posibilities"
-Stephen Hawking

I totally agree with this line of thinking.


Personally, I think the universe is finite rather than infinite. It SEEMS infinite to us and other low life forms because we only have access to 3 dimensions.


Originally posted by QBert
The skeptics say "no way" because they're challanging the status quo. They've seen a million different bigfoot/loch ness images and every single one has been debunked as a hoax.


A real skeptic says: "anything is possible". The pseudoskeptic you are alluding to and incorrectly characterizing stubbornly defends the status quo with very little, if any, regard to new hypothesis/theories. In example: "The experts are usually right and who are you to question us"


Originally posted by QBert
The believers say "i think it could be" because the idea, that there is a life form on another planet is so exciting and invigorating, that it inspires hope in all of us.


That depends on what theory the believer believes in. If we discovered hostile life in our solar system would we be excited or terrorized?


Originally posted by QBert
Both have valid pointers, so lets not be too biased. I say you should give your opinion of the matter, and maybe even give a few examples as to why you think you're right (a simple "becuase im always right" doesnt mean anything here)


I don't know the truth. I am merely repeating some "interesting" hear-say. It is very possible that an ancient space farring civilazation once existed on mars and only a few monuments in cydonia are left as proof. Of course nasa claimed the 'FACE OF MARS' was an "optical illusion" but I don't buy it.

On the other hand, hostile aliens could be living miles beneath the martian soil and we would never find out other than from contactees, alien abduction stories, government whistleblowers, etc. I do believe there is a covert space program that few people are aware about and a small percentage of them are interested in telling us common folks. The public branch of NASA is probably severe disinfo and it is becoming more apparent each day.

Just my 2 cent opinion!


Originally posted by QBert
I think that life exists on Mars. But i dont think its going to be little men with space-aged technology. I think it'd be very primitive life.


little men=grays?


Originally posted by QBert
I've seen skeptics say that the humanoid rock can't be anything other than a rock because its only 8" tall. Well,t he smallest human on our planet is 28 inches tall. So how is this outside the realm of possiblity?


I am not aware of the proportions of 'THE FACE' but I think its much bigger than just 8 feet. An interesting study was done by the Mars Anomaly Research Group and the study concluded that it was most likely an artificial monument. Unfortunately these people are not taken seriously, at least not officially.



Originally posted by QBert
Mars 'does' have an atmosphere. It could not support life for us, but who's to say that life on mars requires the same things we do, in the same quantities? even on our own planet, Life Thrives in conditions that humans never could.


Exactly. We often assume that certain conditions must be met before life can exist. Probably not true. The universe is both predictable and unpredictable.


Originally posted by QBert
Im almost forced to think of the new version of the movie The Time Machine
Where it depicts civilization retreating back to its infantcy.

The main reason i believe that mars currently supports a primitive form of life (maybe equivilent to a spider monkey
)
and support the idea that Mars once supported thriving civilization is this

Slowly, but naturally, as stars loose their power - they also loose their gravitational pull, thus, planets move further way, orbits become longer, etc etc (basic solar system stuff)

Some scientists claim that billions of years ago, the planet was a huge mess of volcanic activity and lava, basically hell on earth.

Could it be because it was too close to the sun? Could it be that Mars once lay then, where earth does now? And if so - why isnt it possible that 'humannoids' existed there?
Even if you believe in God (and i do) this is not outside the realm of possibilities.


Once again, why do "we" assume religion is blocking disclosure? Does the bible specifically say that "we are the only intelligent species in the solar system"? Please show me evidence.

Also are you aware that a lot of ancient texts have been discarded from the bible and organized modern religion ignores them? Off hand I don't remember which they are but I do remember reading about this. Ask the secret societies.



Originally posted by QBert
My God its great to think of the "what if's" of Mars


That depends on "who is running the show". If aliens are using the moon and mars as a platform to attack earth then how would it be "great"?

Great only for them I suppose.



Originally posted by QBert
Could you imagine turning on the news and seeing a rover's footage of a little monkey-like creature scurrying across the surface of another planet?

Could you imagine how that would unite the entire world?
Something so small and so insignificant makes us all aware that we, too, are small and somewhat insignificant.

I marvel at the possibiltiies

How about you


I fear the possibilities and the "fact" that we are not being told ANY AMOUNT OF TRUTH makes it all the more sinister. Quite scary!



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Wow. Okay so you can pick apart things i say. But make sure you get them right man.

your response to

Could it be because it was too close to the sun? Could it be that Mars once lay then, where earth does now? And if so - why isnt it possible that 'humannoids' existed there?
Even if you believe in God (and i do) this is not outside the realm of possibilities.



was


"Once again, why do "we" assume religion is blocking disclosure? Does the bible specifically say that "we are the only intelligent species in the solar system"? Please show me evidence. "



I never said the bible said ETs didnt exist. I actually said quite the opposite. I think that the bible leaves open the possibility of ETs. You dont have to be a devout atheist to believe in ET intelligence.

Because i firmly have faith in God and Christ, and i still believe that Earth isnt the only inhabited planet.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by QBert
You dont have to be a devout atheist to believe in ET intelligence.


Actually a devout atheist is less inclined to believe in ET because the majority of our great science community says: "Show me the proof before I believe in anything you say" while a religious person is usually more open minded to far fetched claims.

In my opinion, the perceived inability of many science experts to accept religious and quasi-religious texts as Et evidence plays a big role in this massive cover-up. We have incomplete religion on one hand misleading everyone and science on the other hand calling religion "mythology for the weak minded". The two rarely co-operate and thus we stagnate.

Sorry to go off-topic but I couldn't resist discussing this common fallacy.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


but seemingly you COULD resist retracting your incorrect statement as well, i see.

Your statement said to be religious is to deny the existance of ET's

thats not true what so ever, and if you did a single google search, you'd find that im right.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by QBert]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I dunno

I try to keep an open mind when somebody presents their theories or what they claim is proof, be it Nasa saying they found water on the moon or Martian bacteria in a meteorite.

First I say cool


Then I say show me how you came to the conclusion!

For me I don't just scream BLASPHEMER when somebody asks

" Hey does this look like a Skull to you? "

Sometimes I see what they are talking about and others
I have to ask for them to point out where to look.

Sadly and most of the time

I See Rock!







[edit on 5-6-2008 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
It's a simple case of intellectual honesty vs. dishonest.

An intellectually honest individual will realize limits to the empirical scientific method as well as the imagination and come to an honest conclusion about what resides on the surface of Mars.

One must releaze that previous patterns do not necessarily influence future events, as exemplified by Hume and his postulate that we can never be certain that the Sun will rise tomorrow. We have patterns of evidence that such images on mars are alike to rocks on Earth. It is a gap in logic to make conclusions based on this. The same could be said for skulls, etc.

Both the "imaginitive" and "scientific sides" of the sides are absolutely illogicaly in making a positive statement in any direction. Leaving the only honest conclusion as "I don't know," as previously stated. There are those that will be uncomfortable with that, but which pill are you going to take Neo?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
With a nod to the great Isaac Asimov, here are NGC's Three Laws of Evidence:

All data is presentable as long as it is honest in it's gathering and has some logical foundation.

All data may be interpreted as the presenter sees fit, as long as it is presented as an interpretation, and it does nott conflict with the first law.

All speculation on data is acceptable, as long as it is presented as such, and does not conflict with the first two laws.

*These are my personal opinions, and may not reflect ATS policy.
*



new topics




 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join