Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point is, that it is unlikely there will be an alien standing posing for the camera, so we have to find evidence of where they have been or structures they have made, or left lying around on the surface.
Look at the rock at the top left quarter of this link given below and see that it shows what looks like reinforced concrete with metal rods sticking out of it.
This is the original NASA picture. in black and white. The coloured one below does not come from this particular black and white image.
It certainly does NOT look as if it is a natural rock. If you think it is, maybe you can show us other natural rocks which look like this on Mars.
After reading all the posts on this thread I have a challenge for those of you who insist that Urbancharlotte must provide proof to back up her belief that aliens exist.
That really underpins the whole alien debate and also the god debate and evey other 'cult v orthodoxy' debate. Where is the burden of proof? Logic says it is on those making the claim, for Gods, aliens, Bigfoot, nessie and all the ressie.
Producing mars faces, squares and broken rocks will really not cut it. It is too much the "If you can't explain this away then my claim must be right!" argument. That is not logic. One may dismiss where logic says the burden of proof is, but then one has abandoned any claim to logical and thus scientific, credibility.
All we can say is that those features may look unexpectedly regular - or irregular in the second photo. The logical stance must be to say that it is unexplained until we know more. The Ark formation looked too boat - like to be a mere rock outcrop but that is what it is. The mars face looked too face - like to be natural and all sorts of statistics were fiddled to 'prove' that it had to be artificial. However, a subsequent photo under different lighting and it didn't look quite so good and a close up in detail and it was nothing like.
However, even if we say that it might be the relic of a long - gone Martian civilization, what then? It doesn't mean that it has to be a marching camp established by alien scientists on their way to earth to pour a pipette of DNA into the primordial soup. It is a leap of Faith from an evidently long gone civilisation to anything of more than adacemic interest.
We really do need more than the odd unexplained feature and a demand to be 'disproved'.
Of course sometimes disproof isn't enough. I recall the post on Moche trepanning or elongated skulls. When they were shown to be more in line with relatively recent Indian culture, then that was dismissed with vague hints that there were 'features' about these skulls which could not be explained. Similarly, the mars - face photos weredismissed as fakes by NASA covering up the truth. For those determined to 'Believe' even disproof won't sway them.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-12-2010 at 05:19 AM..
That really underpins the whole alien debate and also the god debate and evey other 'cult v orthodoxy' debate. Where is the burden of proof? Logic says it is on those making the claim, for Gods, aliens, Bigfoot, nessie and all the ressie.
Producing mars faces, squares and broken rocks will really not cut it. It is too much the "If you can't explain this away then my claim must be right!" argument. That is not logic. One may dismiss where logic says the burden of proof is, but then one has abandoned any claim to logical and thus scientific, credibility.
All we can say is that those features may look unexpectedly regular - or irregular in the second photo. The logical stance must be to say that it is unexplained until we know more. The Ark formation looked too boat - like to be a mere rock outcrop but that is what it is. The mars face looked too face - like to be natural and all sorts of statistics were fiddled to 'prove' that it had to be artificial. However, a subsequent photo under different lighting and it didn't look quite so good and a close up in detail and it was nothing like.
However, even if we say that it might be the relic of a long - gone Martian civilization, what then? It doesn't mean that it has to be a marching camp established by alien scientists on their way to earth to pour a pipette of DNA into the primordial soup. It is a leap of Faith from an evidently long gone civilisation to anything of more than adacemic interest.
We really do need more than the odd unexplained feature and a demand to be 'disproved'.
Of course sometimes disproof isn't enough. I recall the post on Moche trepanning or elongated skulls. When they were shown to be more in line with relatively recent Indian culture, then that was dismissed with vague hints that there were 'features' about these skulls which could not be explained. Similarly, the mars - face photos weredismissed as fakes by NASA covering up the truth. For those determined to 'Believe' even disproof won't sway them.
The point I was trying to make is that neither side can prove,beyond a shadow of doubt,their belief to be fact.
I believe that we are not the sole occupants of this universe. That is not because of anything I have seen,it's because statisticly,we can't be. But that's my opinion,and no religious views or conspiracy theories were involved in forming it.
Why do we have to provide proof anyway? It should be enough for science to investigate anything that looks interesting and in the case of Mars there are so many things that are (or should be) interesting that we should have enough to investigate for years and years.
So why not do that? The answer is I dont understand what reason there could be for all of this secrecy and censorship.
The problem I have is that, having seen many rover and orbiter photographs of Mars and also photographs of the Moon too, there are always parts of the images which are censored or blacked out and that really offends me, and it should offend you too. Why should that be necessary? I don't know, and this is the truth, there are areas which are blacked out and smudged in these images which have not as yet been explained why they are there. This makes me wonder what is being hidden for the need to be covered up.
Maybe, just maybe, if there was a good reason then I could understand and not be offended but somehow I doubt it. I believe that the information in these images should be available to everyone. It is not a conspiracy, it is a fact that this censorship is there and it cannot be put down to "it needs to be compressed to be placed on the internet" as a reason.
Also - IF there are aliens out there our safety depends on knowing about it and not taking NASA's word that everything is fine. The government have shown that they have not been truthful before and so they need to prove their trustworthyness now.
After reading all the posts on this thread I have a challenge for those of you who insist that Urbancharlotte must provide proof to back up her belief that aliens exist.
Please provide proof that they don't exist.
That statement shows that you know nothing about logic. Google "falsifiability" and educate yourself on the topic.
Plus, he/she can believe whatever the eff they want. We're not asking that she prove she believes. We're asking for proof that the examples she is showing us are not naturally-occurring formations, because we've shown many examples of such. Simplest explanation and all, and she's given us nothing as far as proof.
Because you're the ones saying "these are alien structures". To that, we say, give us proof.
Frankly, I would be ecstatic if it were true. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be stupid about it and believe without questioning first. That's for religious fools and little kids who still believe in Santa Claus. We're not stupid, we don't fall for just any wild claim that comes down the pike.
That statement shows that you know nothing about logic. Google "falsifiability" and educate yourself on the topic.
Plus, he/she can believe whatever the eff they want. We're not asking that she prove she believes. We're asking for proof that the examples she is showing us are not naturally-occurring formations, because we've shown many examples of such. Simplest explanation and all, and she's given us nothing as far as proof.
Ok. I'll rephrase just for you.
You want Urbancharlotte to prove that the evidence she has offered up are not naturally occurring in whatever environment they exist. That makes sense. But, can you prove that they are?
Frankly, I don't think that either possibility,at this point in time,can be. Proof would require hands on examination of the material shown in the photographs. That isn't possible,at least not this week.
Logic would dictate that until absolute proof exists, no opinion on the subject is right OR wrong.
The point I was trying to make is that neither side can prove,beyond a shadow of doubt,their belief to be fact.
Quite. But the point I was making is, 'So..?' Agreeing to differ or everyone entitled to their own view is a recipe for peddlers of all sorts of whacky theories to claim that, just because you can't disprove it, their speculations are as valid as claims with a much better basis - but which cannot be proven 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'.
The real question here is, using sound reasoning, what level of credence can we give to such claims? Though those pics are intriguing, we cannot go off half - cocked and claim them as hard evidence for some theory of aliens, no matter how much some would like us to. It is frustrating that we can't do a dig and see whether its anything more than a martian sand - formation or a curious rock formation but we really can't say anything more than that and the upshot is that it is nice to see the photos but they cannot and should not be used as support for any speculative theories.
Quote:
I believe that we are not the sole occupants of this universe. That is not because of anything I have seen,it's because statisticly,we can't be. But that's my opinion,and no religious views or conspiracy theories were involved in forming it.
But what's your opinion based on? It's is actually foolish and closed - minded to just say 'well that's my opinion'. And I am sure you can do better than that. I am willing to entertain on a statistical basis that there are likely to be many other lifeforms. I am pretty even on whether they are posessed of technology that could bring them here. Just because we can't imagine doing it, doesn't mean that no - one could or can. But there is no basis for presenting that as a useful hypothesis or anything other than a mere speculation. Rather like the 'God - have you looked everywhere in the universe' argument, this is not so much about whether there could be aliens (or gods) somewhere out there, but whether there is any spoor or sign for them here.
Whether there is any hard evidence for visiting aliens (or gods) takes a lot of forms. None of it, if we are looking for any scientific credibility, has yet cut the mustard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
does that describe it better for you?
