Jump to content

The Face On Mars - How the skeptical argument falls flat on the 'face'

Guest caTASHtrophe

By Guest caTASHtrophe
in Speculations

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest caTASHtrophe

Guest caTASHtrophe

Posted
Posted

detailed-face-on-mars.jpg

 

 

Isn't it interesting how Face "skeptics," in their simplistic yet smug way, magically transform into psychologists when dealing with the artificiality issue? Espousing the "seeing faces in the clouds" explanation for the Face's 98% symmetry, wholly non-fractal (non-random) nature, and exquisite "facial" detail, has become the norm ever since astronomer-cum-psychologist Carl Sagan made it chic to do so early in the game.

 

The fact is, before the MGS imagery came in, the Artificiality Hypothesis made specific predictions--the hallmark of the scientific method--that finer facial details would appear in high resolution images. Not things like "nose hairs" or "pimples" or other random blemishes, but integral features such as pupils, eyebrows, lips and nostrils and bilateral symmetry. Those predictions were confirmed. (Take a look at the similarly sized, paired nostrils at the tip of the nose in the new image…the odds of those being there by chance are miniscule, given the overall facial context of the landform.)

 

Having little else to support their side of things the skeptics will, of course, repeat their pseudo-psychologist mantra: I see faces in clouds, I see a Man in the Moon, I see Jesus in a tortilla chip, I see the Virgin Mary in my martini. The problem is that none of these illusions retain their forms in three dimensions as the "face" does. None of them would respond positively to computer algorithms designed to detect artificiality, as the "face" has done.

 

Skeptics will claim that there are a million similar formations out there. Fine. If they're ubiquitous then it should be very easy to find some examples for comparison. Find them and prove it. Show us the money, so to speak.

 

It is also astonishing to hear the argument being spewed about so freely by self-styled skeptics that "there is no evidence for a previous Martian civilization, therefore the Artificiality Hypothesis is unlikely." Suppose we turned the hypothesis around and asked: is there evidence of a former civilization on Mars? In fact, the "face" itself may be that evidence. How ironic.

 

There is no reason whatsoever that would lead us to believe that a former civilization could not have resided on Mars, or at least "camped out" temporarily. Carl Sagan himself wrote in "Intelligent Life in the Universe" that it was fully possible that Earth is visited by a space-faring civilization as frequently as every 10,000 years. The "Brookings Report," an investigation conducted by 200 scientists on behalf of NASA, and presented to Congress, concluded much the same thing: NASA could very well find ruins on Venus, the Moon and Mars during its space activities. The "face" may be a fulfillment of that prediction. Isn't this how science is supposed to work?

 

 

Here's what the skeptics want us to do in order to maintain their fallacious "face in the clouds" argument:

 

Dismiss the fulfilled predictions of the Artificiality Hypothesis

 

Dismiss the objective computer fractal analysis and confirmed three-dimensionality of the "face" mesa

 

Dismiss the informed opinions of experts such as Carlotto, Van Flandern, Fleming and others with long track records of following the scientific method and "doing things the right way" (such as publishing in peer reviewed journals)

 

Dismiss the early writings of Carl Sagan (who also, by the way, called for high resolution imagery of the "face" to test the Artificiality Hypothesis)

 

Dismiss the findings of a 200 member panel that predicted we might find just such a feature on Mars

 

Here's what skeptics want us to believe, after we've dismissed all the above:

 

There are dozens, hundreds-maybe even billions-of rock formations that can be interpreted as having near perfect bilateral symmetry with random crater impacts and random uprisings coincidentally placed where the eyes, pupils, eyebrows, nostrils and lips are present on a face.

 

(No skeptic has ever presented a single comparable example of these "common" illusions, but rest assured that they're out there…somewhere.)

 

There is not a single shred of evidence for a civilization on Mars. WARNING: The "face," even though it meets numerous criteria for artificiality, CANNOT be used as evidence for a civilization on Mars. Why not? Because there is no evidence for a civilization on Mars. (I know-the phrase "circular reasoning" came screaming to my mind, too, but do your best to repress common sense here…it helps when trying to understand the skeptical argument.)

 

It is highly unlikely that there ever existed a civilization which could have arisen on or visited Mars in the history of the universe. Supporting evidence for this contention includes the fact that the current scientific community has not seen or been contacted by other civilizations during the past several hundred years. (Ignore the fact that this time period represents a mere one ten-millionth of the total time elapsed since the generally accepted time of the universe's birth. Also ignore any references to contact with space-faring visitors in ancient texts, since they were all primitive people with no scientific ability and very active imaginations. Ditto for anyone reporting a sighting or contact with a UFO.)

 

 

When framed in this (admittedly somewhat sarcastic) context, it becomes quite clear that it is not the "face enthusiasts" who are the ones playing fast and loose with scientific protocol. If not for the fact that the "Jesus in a tortilla chip" explanation for the "face" has full backing by those who run the space agency, control all the spacecraft, enjoy all the funding, edit all the mainstream journals, and choose content for major media, these skeptical arguments might be exposed for what they are: subjective, defensive, knee-jerk reactions to ideas that "just cannot be."

 

Well, the best available evidence says that it can be, and probably is.

 

 

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sayonara

Sayonara

Posted
Posted

Densely packed lies ahoy!

 

The "Exploded Planets!!!!!1" theory is much more interesting:

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp

 

 

(BTW, I happened to look up the meaning of "Skeptic", and it is "One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions". Presumably then someone just suggested all that to the author and he/she agreed immediately.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cap'n Refsmmat

Cap'n Refsmmat

Posted
Posted

I do see a face... more of a dent on one side and shadows that look like an eye and a mouth on the other.

I saw in "A Journal of Irreproducable Results" (I think thats the name) a MRI or something of someones blood vessels... a dye in it to make them visible formed a shadow of a rabbit! So the "face" is kind of likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iglak

iglak

Posted
Posted

i see two protrusions above normal eye area (assuming the top space is the forehead), but no pupils. i see a protrusion where a large nose would be relative to the mouth, but i see no nostrals. and i see a definite mouth, that seems very easy to recognize as a mouth.

 

the two eyes are the protrusions at the top

 

the nose is very wide, and actually, now that i look closer, i see two wide nostrals where a very wide, big nose would have them. wait, no, one of them is made by the... riverlike ridge.

 

the mouth is very visible though. it is outlined on the left by a bright reflection, and shown on the right by a slightly draker indent (although the right could possibly be "runoff" from the "river")

 

<edit> i just saw the picture on the source page, it is a very different face than i see. the picture on the source page looks almost computer edited, especially the eyes and nose. on the source page, the nose is much smaller, and the mouth is where i thought the nostrals were. also the source page shows the nostrals as being very visible, and the pupils as well.

it looks kind of like a sphinx head on the source page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sayonara

Sayonara

Posted
Posted

The later pictures from the Mars Global Surveyor (was it that one?) show a very different image. This might have something to do with the time dependent shadows falling over the rock formation.

 

If you're going to make a statue that is to attract the attention of people in space, you don't build it so that it's only visible for a few minutes a day while the correct shadows are in place ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.