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.
Originally posted by azureskys
reply to post by Druscilla
I do believe that wildspace was debunking the video and was saying that if anything the spot looked
more like a boot print, not that he/she thought it was one at all.
Ya know jokingly.
That's true, but I also made this thread to address the anomaly-seeking community which is prevalent here on ATS, and provide examples of investigation that can provide the solution. If I were an anomaly-seeker, I'd want to make sure that what I found isn't just a case of pareidolia due to images being old and low-res, or due to me not understanding what I'm looking at.
Originally posted by qmantoo
The anomaly hunter does not have access to the rovers or to the satellites which NASA has.
Take a search for life for example. What could be done by anomaly hunters to prove life ? Nothing, since science has already declared that Mars is lifeless and has a built-in bias towards NOT finding life.
Please do not say that the budget would increase if NASA found life. That old one. It will never be announced due to the Brookings Report which basically told NASA that the population and particularly the science community could not handle the announcement. (page 103)
"If plant life or some subhuman intelligence were found on Mars or Venus, for example, there is on the face of it no good reason to suppose these discoveries, after the original novelty had been exploited to the fullest and worn off, would result in substantial changes in perspectives or philosophy in large parts of the American public, at least any more than, let us say, did the discovery of the coelacanth or the panda." – page 103, n.34
This is nieve. Think about this for a moment. If your future depended on towing the official line, would you step out and become known as a rebel? No, you would not. In fact, at that stage of your career when you do not have work experience behind you, you are more likely to want to present yourself as a good company man who can be a team player. Not as a maverick scientist who gets no funding.
But they do have access to all the publically available images and data. A lot of those come not from NASA but from various universities and institutes who have partnered with NASA or ESA. The HiRISE camera, for example, is operated by the University of Arizona.
Technically, you are correct and science would not make such a statement. However, I have seen many people on here (who may or may not be actual scientists) say that the data does not support this position. Now, whether you like it or not, these people are going to believe that the available data is correct and life does not exist on Mars. Therefore, as normal human beings, it is going to bias their view when considering other evidence because at the back of their mind they already believe that it does not exist and the official data they have seen supports their belief.
You're mistaken, science hasn't declared, and cannot declare, that Mars is lifeless. We simply haven't found any evidence of life on Mars (past or present), but we may do so in the future.
NASA are not investigating signs of life and publishing the findings. It is that simple. Where they find something which looks as if it may be a fossil, they grind it away. When they find something which looks as if it may be something unusual, they say it is a clip fallen from the rover. It may be a clip from the rover, but they need to show others on the rover which match it so that folks can see it matches. No. There is absolutely no attempt to find life. No 'future mission' will find life either. Don't kid yourself.
...Would NASA be designing such a mission if they were hell-bent that there could never be any life on Mars?
Yes, because thats what government do. They ask experts to write reports and these reports cite other data and experiments and reports written by other eminent scientists. It is highly likely that other governments have had similar reports done for them and it is highly likely that the results are the same with the same conclusion. Even down to quoting the Brookings Report in their references at the end.
So you make the assumption that all governments and the whole of scientific community base their position on one speculative report?
See, there you go again. Assuming what the space agencies would have you believe. Telling us all what is trotted out by NASA.
If Mars has or ever had life, it would most likely be microbes or other primitive life forms.
Of course not, and I agree with you, as their day to day lives are so miserable that they have far more important things to care about. This is obvious that poor people from 3rd world countries do not think the same way as richer people from the West. I live in a developing country and I can see this going on all around me. There are people who care for the environment for example, and there are people who just want to make ends meet and make a living. These last set of people are the ones who are not concerned with preserving the rain forests, they just need more land to raise their cattle and to become richer and feed their families. Hence the destruction of the rain forests and the reduction of animal and plant species in the world.
I don't think people in Syria, Brazil, Ethiopia, or many other parts of the world, will care even a tiny bit for life on Mars.
Originally posted by qmantoo
1) this is a conspiracy site. What do you expect?
2) old should not be a problem.
3) lo-res is really not our fault if nothing better is available. However, if it IS, then I agree we should use the best available and show different views of the same anomaly taken at different times.
4) understanding?? Ahh, thats where you have been clever because you can always answer that science does not accept our viewpoint.
Originally posted by qmantoo
This is nieve. Think about this for a moment. If your future depended on towing the official line, would you step out and become known as a rebel? No, you would not. In fact, at that stage of your career when you do not have work experience behind you, you are more likely to want to present yourself as a good company man who can be a team player. Not as a maverick scientist who gets no funding.
Technically, you are correct and science would not make such a statement. However, I have seen many people on here (who may or may not be actual scientists) say that the data does not support this position. Now, whether you like it or not, these people are going to believe that the available data is correct and life does not exist on Mars. Therefore, as normal human beings, it is going to bias their view when considering other evidence because at the back of their mind they already believe that it does not exist and the official data they have seen supports their belief.
NASA are not investigating signs of life and publishing the findings. It is that simple. Where they find something which looks as if it may be a fossil, they grind it away. When they find something which looks as if it may be something unusual, they say it is a clip fallen from the rover. It may be a clip from the rover, but they need to show others on the rover which match it so that folks can see it matches. No. There is absolutely no attempt to find life. No 'future mission' will find life either. Don't kid yourself.
Yes, because thats what government do. They ask experts to write reports and these reports cite other data and experiments and reports written by other eminent scientists. It is highly likely that other governments have had similar reports done for them and it is highly likely that the results are the same with the same conclusion. Even down to quoting the Brookings Report in their references at the end.
See, there you go again. Assuming what the space agencies would have you believe. Telling us all what is trotted out by NASA.