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.

 

**AMAZING** Artifact On Mars!! Original JPL Picture source included!!

page: 12
81
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Quite the contrary. You call it negative proof, we call it simple data to further enhance the opposite point of view. If you want to call it negative proof that a skeptic must provide, that only tells me that your behind the 8 ball wondering if you can hit it into the corner pocket with no que ball or stick. In other words, your far behind the game and need to play catch up.


Ok, so in other words, you really don't grasp the concept of burden of proof, do you? Or you're simply choosing to utterly ignore it. Whatever you want to call it, RF, the point remains the same: if you burst in with an extraordinary claim, it's up to you to support that claim. You don't do this by turning around demanding that those who don't believe you support alternative claims. I'll say it again: it just doesn't work that way.

You understand I'm distinguishing between claims and proof, and simply discussing an idea, right? Please refer to what I said regarding how the OP might have gone differently.

Actually, you know what? I'm wrong. I reread the OP and he was not definitively stating that this is one thing versus something else. He mentioned his opinion, and he allowed for other possibilities. So to the OP, my apologies for jumping on you.



Again I have provided the core reason why it cannot be proven to be either a odd shaped rock or an actual artifical object, and that is using actual scientific data, not conjecture or opinion or speculation. We simply do not have the necessary data to be conclusive either way.


And it's good that you did that. But seriously, I could have saved you the trouble. It doesn't take much to conclude that no one here on ATS, even zorgon, will be able to definitively prove squat about what's on Mars. It's just not going to happen. I can pull up any random image of Mars, pick any random desolate scene, point to a rock, and then come here and say "Prove this is or is not a rock."

No one will be able to.

So the only thing we're left with is rational thought and reason. And as I said before, it's entirely more plausible that such things are rocks than they are anything else because we KNOW rocks exist on Mars, and we have NO REASON to believe anything intelligent has put something there (other than a rover, of course). Is it possible? Sure. So are fairies and unicorns on Jupiter. Is it likely? Not so much.

The thing that kills me about these posts is that most often the "artifacts" truly are hard to see as such unless you really want to see them that way. I cannot count the number of images where I've literally had to stare until I even vaguely saw what the OP claimed. This one is certainly clearer than others, to be fair, but it's still certainly not extraordinary.



I refer to the over 15 years of participating in many forums.


Ok, you've been around for awhile then. Please tell me how many of such photos that you've seen have been proven to be artifacts.



So ATS is specific and caters to skeptics that do not need to provide anything other than their own personal opinion? Hardly friend, hardly.


Logical principles is not opinion. Burden of proof is not opinion. I know you want to simply whisk them away because they don't give you anything against which you can counter, but that's exactly what demonstrates why the argument is weak. Regardless, I've offered you a very logical breakout on why this is likely not an artifact.



To deny ignorance you need to be knowledgable, and in order to be knowledgable, you need the data to back up that knowledge.


See, here's the problem. You're still not getting the concept of burden of proof.



I can sit here and make claims left and right, and not a single one of those claims would mean a bowl of beans without data. A skeptic who claims that someone else's claim is not real or untrue, without providing any collaborating data to back that up, has no basis to make such a statement or even be considered at all.


Ok, now I know you don't understand it. How many times must I say this? Your claims are rubbish until you prove otherwise. If a skeptic replies to your claim stating that he doesn't believe you, and your claim is unsupported, that is not in itself a claim that must be supported. Understand? I can't make this any simpler for you. When you rely on such logic, you're committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You're essentially saying that because a skeptic can't "prove" his claim (even though he doesn't have one), yours isn't incorrect. This is just bad logic. Through and through. I'm sorry you don't wish to believe me, I'm sorry you think this is just an excuse, but Google it. This principle has been around for a long, long, long time. So again: it's not up to the skeptic to "disprove" someone else. It's up to the person making a claim to support that claim.



There is no burden of proof issue. Believers have always posted something, a picture, a theory, an example, something to use as their backup to attempt to prove their belief. However, and quite unfortunate, that is not always the case with the opposing point of view.


Ok, are you intentionally being this thick? WE DON'T HAVE TO. If you post a picture of a unicorn on here and claim unicorns must exist, are you honestly trying to argue that unless skeptics don't post "opposing pictures" (whatever the hell that would be), then your unicorn claim is probably true? Is this honestly what passes for logic and reason with you?



For a skeptic to claim that something someone has posted is untrue or unreal...it is expected for them to show WHY it is untrue or unreal. And if a skepitc is so sure of their statement, there is no reason why they cannot provide that data to back up their claim. Saying something isnt real or untrue is a claim, just as someone saying this is real and true, that too is a claim.


Ah, we're finally getting somewhere. Notice that in my original reply, I didn't claim this was a rock formation. I stated that HIS claim was unsupported and proved nothing. If I HAD claimed it was nothing but a rock, then I'd have to back that up. However, simply rejecting or disbelieving the original claim does NOT have to be supported. Think about that for a moment: if it did, you could logically run around to anyone proclaiming that some mythical creature named Boojabe is real, and if people didn't believe you, they'd have to justify or prove why. See, that's called shifting the burden of proof. You're not "owed" proof for why your claim is unacceptable; rather, it's your job to prove otherwise.



You use burden of proof as a one way ticket to give yourself a quick exit to the task of proving your point. Its an old worn out playing card. What is very ironic is that instead of providing evidence to the contrary, one just throws out rant after rant, repetitive use of old excuses such as burden of proof


No, I use it because it's a valid, fundamental principle of logic and scientific theory, and because for some convenient reason, believers have the darnedest time wrapping their heads around it. Could it be simply that they know they have no proof, and so want to belittle the principle itself?

There's nothing ironic about it. Unless, of course, you still remain in la-la land failing to understand what burden of proof really means.

Look, I know you think it would groovy if skeptics provided "counter" evidence, I know you think this would make things more fair or more interesting. And hey, I understand that. It's why I tried rationally explaining that even if we don't know either way, there is still a more rational choice. But, I hate to be callous, no matter how much you want to ignore this burden of truth issue, it's simple fact. Regardless of how much you don't like it, there it still is.




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Here is another example for you that shows that is just a natural break of the rock - common:





posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism
 





What has happened is you have processed it until you could see what you thought was there rather than looking to see what detail was available in the image. Your contrast is so high it eliminated the bottom ridge and exaggerated a shadow to look like a break between the elements of that single rock. To be fair I'm working with more levels than you are and it takes some practice to pull out those details. I've been restoring some historic photo's recently and honed my skills and increased my tool set.

The vesicular texture (in Geological term which is not the same as texture in Graphics) of this rock is the same as the texture of most all of the rocks in the original photo, but were too bright for your eye to pick out until I enhanced them by changing the mid-range values.

I should have mentioned I added a tiny bit of Sepia to make it easier on the eye.


[edit on 2/10/2009 by Blaine91555]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I should say that I'm on your side. Nothing would thrill me more than to open a thread and find a smoking gun image of a genuine artifact on Mars.


Thank you for looking. I know it can be very time consuming and tedious. It is appreciated.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I have some doubts about that being just one rock, but I think that the "handle" goes all the way to the ground, so it's not a "bridge" but a "wall", if you know what I mean (I am struggling with a lack of vocabulary at the moment, sorry
).


And why don't people use a better photo instead of that exaggeratedly contrasted photo? Something like this one (from the radiometrically corrected image).




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I should say that I'm on your side. Nothing would thrill me more than to open a thread and find a smoking gun image of a genuine artifact on Mars.


Thank you for looking. I know it can be very time consuming and tedious. It is appreciated.


Hey, no problem man; it's all good fun. This is the first thread i have done in a while and im just delighted with the responce from everyone. There has been a really cool atmosphere from 'beleivers' and 'sceptics' alike, and everyone s input has been really appreciated


Back to the 'One rock' theory...

This is an image posted by ArMap on page 4. It is from the original, I think he lightemed it but it is untouched by me
I have only enlarged it.

I think this picture illustrates best, the top end of the Handle 'lifting off'

The bottom have of the handle you say is bonded is hard to disprove; exept with the eye for some
(i have to REALLY push my self to see what you're seeing).

But the top half, is DEFINATELY disconnected and standing proud of the rock's 'structure'.




Cheers


AoN

EDIT: ArMAP! yer beat me to it


[edit on 10-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


DAMN DUDE
you beat me to it


AoN



Edited for to many LOLs, looks kind of annoying


[edit on 10-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm
Here is another example for you that shows that is just a natural break of the rock - common:




Sorry....I just don't get it


That rock is so faaAAAAAaa...................................



















..........................................aaAAAAAAAaaarrr away from what we're talking about, im not sure what you're point is.

That rock looks perfectly natural. It's a very nice rock


I've seen many rocks like that on holiday.....But i ain't NEVER seen a rock...a TRUE ROCK, like the one posted.

Thanx for your thoughts anyway dude, but that rock is NO comparison


AoN

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
That image is a collage evidently. Notice at the upper left and absolutely straight line of shadow then abruptly below it is various shapes fully illuminated. Notice also, at the extreme left of the "skull" that there is a vertical straight line at the edge of its face. That ain't normal either. So basically, what we are offering conjecture about is NOT the true scene.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Your image also shows the continuous ridge on the bottom. I don't understand why you cant see it. It is not hidden?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
So why is the image only 312kb in size


Nasa must be using cellphone cameras.

Three lines.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


OK, you are using a completely different image. I wondered about where that detail was coming from. Where is a link?

Found it, thanks. I was looking for a link.


[edit on 2/10/2009 by Blaine91555]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Your image also shows the continuous ridge on the bottom. I don't understand why you cant see it. It is not hidden?


I take it your talking about the ridge indicated by the RED lines.

Yes! It does indeed look like the rock comes out further than it previously looked


But what appears to be the optical illusion?

We must take in to account the ENTIRE structure. The VISUAL ASPECT of the objects handle 'on' the rock, as indicated by the BLACK 'line.

And the apparent 'depth of field' between the tip of the object and the 'back edge' of the bolder. As indicated by the BLUE line.






Cheers


AoN



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


In the first post dude. The one that says External link


Second line

AoN

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
What's the big deal? it probably is a wrench. The set builders in Hollywood accidentally left it on the ground while they were taking the picture. Duh.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee

Look, I know you think it would groovy if skeptics provided "counter" evidence, I know you think this would make things more fair or more interesting. And hey, I understand that. It's why I tried rationally explaining that even if we don't know either way, there is still a more rational choice. But, I hate to be callous, no matter how much you want to ignore this burden of truth issue, it's simple fact. Regardless of how much you don't like it, there it still is.




Science has nothing to do with being rational dude. Science is based on data. Cold, hard data, to which you have yet to provide any data, just personal opinion about how real scientific analysis is done. If science did things your way, we would still be riding horses and living without modern convienience.

The burden of truth falls onto those who run around thinking they know it all yet show very little of what they actually do know, but pour out endless words and dress it all up so it sounds like they do have something other than rocks in their head. Right here, right now in this thread, there are skeptics putting forth data that provides another prospective on the original claim. They dont seem to be having a problem with providing data to support their counter claim...so what makes you so special that you think you are immune to doing the same?

Well its been interesting debating this with you but unless you got something to contribute to this thread's original topic such as data like the others are presenting,..all I can say is... as NASA just loves to say...nothing here for you, move along.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


In the first post dude. The one that says External link


Second line

AoN

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]


Thats the one I used. ArMap did not put a link in and thats why I missed it. To get it at full res you have to click on the image in his post. That image has far more mid-range making detail easier to pull out of it.

I can't understand why NASA is using lousy 8 bit images like these considering when it was launched. I have an old consumer level camera with better quality (12 bit) from Nikon that was around then.

I just don't see it I guess. I still see a single rock. There just is no break there. The largest images available in your link to the Raw images are not as good as the source ArMap used.

I understand what you are saying about the illusion and I agree that is possible. But I still see a rock no matter if it is two or one and that fracture is not only possible in that type of rock it is normal.





posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Science has nothing to do with being rational dude. Science is based on data. Cold, hard data, to which you have yet to provide any data, just personal opinion about how real scientific analysis is done. If science did things your way, we would still be riding horses and living without modern convienience.


Actually, rational thought is applied all throughout science, but ok...that wasn't my point. I was simply stating that I did provide something: a rational explanation of why this being a wrench is improbable. You stated I didn't offer anything but a cop out call on burden of truth, so I was responding to that.



The burden of truth falls onto those who run around thinking they know it all yet show very little of what they actually do know, but pour out endless words and dress it all up so it sounds like they do have something other than rocks in their head.


In other words, the burden of truth falls upon whoever you don't like in a given discussion, or whoever you think is spouting what to you is nonsense. How wonderfully subjective a criteria that is!

Unfortunately, you're still wrong. Whoever makes a claim assumes the burden. It's frankly as simple as that. Whether I'm the coolest skeptic in the world or the meanest doesn't make a lick of a difference here.



Right here, right now in this thread, there are skeptics putting forth data that provides another prospective on the original claim. They dont seem to be having a problem with providing data to support their counter claim...so what makes you so special that you think you are immune to doing the same?


I'm immune by virtue of the fact that I'm not positing some claim here. I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but this goes back to burden of truth. Just because you don't seem to like the fact that I'm pointing out what's logical and rational doesn't mean all of a sudden I must present cold, hard data to support a claim I never made. Not how it works. And as I said, I did contribute something: a rational explanation of which scenario is more probable, and a free lesson in logic 101 to boot!


[edit on 10-2-2009 by thrashee]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


PNG is not full res. PNG is just another form of compression, much less lossy than jpg. What is needed is uncompressed TIF.

What is available on the NASA published datasets is not what they get from the rovers. That is just the format they publish that data in, and definately could be better with the uncompressed TIF format.

Who cares if the files end up being 300 mb each. Next to the actual raw data that comes from the rovers, its far better to have it in TIF than JPG or PNG.

Then we can really see detail, but still we will not be able to see if the composition of this is in fact exactly like the rock behind it, next to it, or in itself.

If we are looking at something fossilized, it will appear in a gray scale image like any other natural object in that frame. If we had the other geology information, we could then find out this object's makeup, its compostion, and compare to another object in the frame..ie rock.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee

Actually, rational thought is applied all throughout science, but ok...that wasn't my point. I was simply stating that I did provide something: a rational explanation of why this being a wrench is improbable. You stated I didn't offer anything but a cop out call on burden of truth, so I was responding to that.


No thought in science happens without data. That data can go against your rational thinking and totaly ruin your theory. If you even bothered to really read what I posted, you will find that no where do I state that this is a wrench. I only re-state what someone else called it as an example, or in simpler terms, gave it a name for the lack of a better name, other than rock.


Originally posted by thrashee
In other words, the burden of truth falls upon whoever you don't like in a given discussion, or whoever you think is spouting what to you is nonsense. How wonderfully subjective a criteria that is!


My likes or dislikes of someone has nothing to do with it. What it does have everything to do with is that both provide evidence to make their case. And as I have said, there are plenty of people in this thread alone who are doing just that. For some reason, you seem to want to dance around that fact and continue to spout this nonsense to either boost a deflating ego, or to simply derail this thread's progression.


Originally posted by thrashee
Unfortunately, you're still wrong. Whoever makes a claim assumes the burden. It's frankly as simple as that. Whether I'm the coolest skeptic in the world or the meanest doesn't make a lick of a difference here.


Other than to your world it makes all the difference since you are the only one so far who is arguing that no one else is required to provide proof. Again, look at the posts in this thread, plenty of opposite points of view and they are providing data to back those point of views.



Originally posted by thrashee
I'm immune by virtue of the fact that I'm not positing some claim here. I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but this goes back to burden of truth. Just because you don't seem to like the fact that I'm pointing out what's logical and rational doesn't mean all of a sudden I must present cold, hard data to support a claim I never made. Not how it works. And as I said, I did contribute something: a rational explanation of which scenario is more probable, and a free lesson in logic 101 to boot!


Keep telling yourself that and boost that deflated ego some more. Obviously there are people here that understand logic more than you do, and on a much wider prospective. They provide data, discussion. All you are doing is derailing this thread.

Now again, unless you got something to show us about this object which is the topic of this thread, I dont think its worth anymore of my time or your time to continue your rant debate or for me to even be replying to it any further.

End of discussion with you as far as I am concerned...unless you got something to show about this object.

Thanks but I dont pay attention to flawed biased logic lessons. Go try it on someone else.

Isnt it interesting folks, how our "logical" friend here is focusing on this one thread?


Cheers!!!!


[edit on 10-2-2009 by RFBurns]



new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join