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.
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.
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."
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.
Yep but logic would also dictate that, since no opinion has much to go on, we should be agnostic about the conclusions and that means logically we shouldn't believe anything one way or the other, and logically, that means that you cannot expect to present them as evidence of anything. That you have posted them (beg pardon, not you, you just mentioned them and other evidences of Urban charlottes) strongly implies that you are actually arguing that they must be given credence as artificial formations (and thus proof of aliens) unless we can prove that they are not.
Yep but logic would also dictate that, since no opinion has much to go on, we should be agnostic about the conclusions and that means logically we shouldn't believe anything one way or the other, and logically, that means that your cannot expect to present them as evidence of anything. That you have strongly implies that you are actually arguing that they must be given credence as artificial formations unless we can prove that they are not.
No, the default position is that they're naturally-occurring until proven otherwise.
No, the default position is that they're naturally-occurring until proven otherwise.
Well, yes. But I didn't want to get dragged into the argument of why (on the basis of the corpus of past experience and evidence) the naturalistic standpoint is the logical default. Just the implication of not knowing either way is enough to make them non - evidence of anything.
No, the default position is that they're naturally-occurring until proven otherwise.
Here is a video that explains some of the formations we found on Mars. This video also explains exactly how NASA censored the photos to make them look like natural formations.
Here is a video that explains some of the formations we found on Mars. This video also explains exactly how NASA censored the photos to make them look like natural formations.
Regarding this video...I went to the NASA mars photo gallery, and tried to confirm what the speaker was saying...Near the beginning of the tape he says that it is impossible for a meteor impact to raise walls around craters, but if one looks at the many images in the gallery it is obvious that many if not most craters on Mars have raised walls around their perimeter..
Since that statement was untrue, his credibility is kaput as far as I'm concerned.
Quote:
Former NASA astronaut Buzz Aldrin mentions there being a "monolith" on Mar's moon. He also suggests that it is in fact artificial.
No, he did not suggest that it was artificial...He said that the universe put it there, if you choose, God put it there...
What?? You cannot see a large rectangular compound 1/3rd of the way up the photograph on the left edge?
OK, so here is a picture of it without an arrow.
does that describe it better for you?
No, I haven't because I have no idea, but if it is not a natural geological feature then something else must have created it.
Thanks oc. I appreciate the image. It does indeed help better pinpoint exactly what you were talking about. Yes, I did see that shape, but still wasn't sure if you were talking about that, or one of the rocks farther off in the distance. It may have been perfectly clear to you, but since you had not specified it earlier, it left nothing more than guessing at what you were talking about because there are a lot of things in that photo.
The shape is interesting, but inconclusive for a number of reasons, including that only part of the shape shows in the photo. It might be a rectangular, or it might be more squared in shape. Or (what we don't see) the unseen portion might not have any straight lines at all. While you're stating that you don't know if the shape is due to natural causes or might be artificial, your general assumption seems to lean to its origin being something unnatural, therefore if must've been made by some kind of ET lifeform. After all, you earlier stated that it could not be caused by wind and sand. Still, all we're seeing in the photo is an effect of dust and sand.
You've asked for an explanation that it may be a formation of natural causes, not artificial causes. I don't know if I'm right, but here's a natural explanation.
First of all, please keep in mind that Mercury Cougar showed some examples of very strange looking formations right here on Earth (page 5, post 42). Those images show that nature can and does produce some strikingly odd shapes. That said, there's no reason to think that similar oddities of various sorts can not possibly exist on other rocky planets and moons. Some of these things may indeed have an artificial look to them, but it doesn't mean they must be artificial.
It's difficult to tell the scale of things we're looking at in the overall photo. It appears the Rover is looking down into a depression, possibly an eroded crater. It also appears the shape is located at an elevation higher than the floor. If the entire depression was cause by an impact, then it's possible the shape is from part of the underlying rock layers that had broken off because of the impact, leaving a shelf. That the break left such an appearance is just a matter of coincidence. Over time, wind blown sand has collected and built up giving a more exaggerated appearance of distinct lines.
The lines could have also been caused by smaller rocks that simply fell where they did, and again over time, windblown sand and dust has built up and covered the rocks. Whatever the cause, it shows a slight depression 'inside' the lines. Below is the image which I've lightened up to better see it since the original is quite a bit darker.
If you look toward the top right of this image, you'll also see a line that seems to have a strange curve to it that's almost circular. By your reasoning, this too might be thought of as something that can't happen in nature, but indeed it can.
I have no doubt that Mars has a lot of interesting curiosities in store for us that are yet to be discovered. Mars is certainly different than the Earth. But it also has phenomena that are similar to those on Earth. For example, we've known that there are huge dust storms on Mars for quite some time, but we didn't know there were dust devils, just like on Earth, until they were photographed. Now we realize that dust devils happen rather frequently, leaving behind telltale trails in the dust on Mars.
On page 5, post 41, you said: "The weathering on Earth is not really quite the same as that on Mars since we have different processes at work as well as different atmospheric conditions." True, there are some different processes and atmospheric conditions, but some things are quite similar. For example, the surface winds on Mars contribute to shaping the surface of the planet. That's true here on Earth as well. We have some pretty strong evidence that Mars' past was probably warmer than it is now, and contained shallow oceans. The evidence is from examining the mineral composition of exposed rock layers, as well as photographs of ancient shore lines that receded as the water evaporated from the surface. We also know that glaciers moved on the Martian surface leaving behind rocks as the glaciers melted in patterns that are found on Earth. The point being that certainly some processes which are found here on the Earth are not necessarily unique to the Earth. They can be found elsewhere on other planets. We also know that clouds form in the Martian atmosphere, albeit rather wispy. And it's not just Mars, but other planets also contain phenomena similar to those on Earth, although some being more extreme than here on Earth. The point is that winds on the Martian surface can have similar effects to winds found on Earth.
A big difference is that because the atmosphere on Mars is so weak and because it appears Mars doesn't seem to have any known active plate techtonics or current volcanic eruptions, Mars has been able to preserve its ancient impact craters much better than the Earth.
Yep but logic would also dictate that, since no opinion has much to go on, we should be agnostic about the conclusions and that means logically we shouldn't believe anything one way or the other, and logically, that means that you cannot expect to present them as evidence of anything. That you have posted them (beg pardon, not you, you just mentioned them and other evidences of Urban charlottes) strongly implies that you are actually arguing that they must be given credence as artificial formations (and thus proof of aliens) unless we can prove that they are not.
Nope!
What I was trying to say was that until there IS verifiable proof,for or against , both sides of this arguement are equally valid.
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.
Thanks oc. I appreciate the image. It does indeed help better pinpoint exactly what you were talking about. Yes, I did see that shape, but still wasn't sure if you were talking about that, or one of the rocks farther off in the distance. It may have been perfectly clear to you, but since you had not specified it earlier, it left nothing more than guessing at what you were talking about because there are a lot of things in that photo.
