Mars Man or Mars Rock?
by bipodInternet forums are buzzing with speculation about a new picture from NASA's Spirit rover that people are calling "Mars Man" or "The Mars Creature" …
Let's start with the most distant view:
Zoom in a bit …
And then a little more …
So how are we to handle this buzz as epistemically responsible creatures? Well, Mike Gene gives us an answer in The Design Matrix.
We need higher epistemic resolution – in this case visual resolution – to infer anything but "rock shaped by atmosphere of Mars". The current image does not provide enough resolution to make a responsible design inference. It's that simple.
Now a question for Mike: When do we know that we have enough epistemic resolution? How deep must we go, how many levels of resolution must we traverse, before we are justified?
January 25th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Hi bipod,
I think a bit of higher epistemic resolution may come from the context of the photo itself. Where, in relation, to Nasa's Mars Explorer Spirit, is the "man?" This should be able to tell us how tall he is. For example, if an astronaut took this picture, would the lowest picture show a man off in the distance, or a man near the feet of the astronaut. Of course, Mars Men could be tiny.
As for your questions, I'll get to them tonight.
Comment by MikeGene — January 25, 2008 @ 9:05 am
January 25th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Shouldn't the 'design matrix' work at any resolution or does it work at some resolutions and not at others? If it does not work at all resolutions, is it always true that the results of the matrix become MORE reliable the higher the resolution?
Without the matrix working at all resolutions OR the matrix becoming more reliable at increasing resolutions, how can we use the results?
Comment by hrun — January 25, 2008 @ 9:58 am
January 25th, 2008 at 11:13 am
That looks like a feature on one of the trails I like to hike in Arizona… hmmm…
Anyway, this is fantastic because it demonstrates that many naturalists will infer "design" when it is consistent with their world view.
Comment by David — January 25, 2008 @ 11:13 am
January 25th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I honestly have not seen many (or any actually) reports of 'naturalists inferring design' in this case. Have you?
Comment by hrun — January 25, 2008 @ 11:40 am
January 25th, 2008 at 11:54 am
The matrix would note the anomalous shape of the object in comparison to surrounding rocks and evidence of weathering. It would note the anomalous color of the object in comparison to the surrounding rocks (and analyze the shadows) to see if perhaps it's a 'cap rock' of different composition and weathering proclivities.
And because it's highly suggestive in shape, it might be put into the rover's approach schedule (it sits on the rim of a crater) so we could get a closer look at it. With the camera on, in case it gets up and runs away. If not, with a closer look (more resolution) we could at least see if it's a memorial statue from the Great X-War or the dead in the crater when the Pleutherabub asteroid destroyed the peaceful city of Rhewum.
If it doesn't move, it's not a man. It might be a statue – an artifact. We'd need to get closer (how convenient the rover's right there) to reach a conclusion. At this resolution, it's a suggestive anomaly that begs further examination.
Comment by Joy — January 25, 2008 @ 11:54 am
January 25th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
hrun:
If at highest resolution the detailed sculptured features of a human like creature are revealed do we commence a search for possible erosion factors that could have led to this? Or do we impute intelligence knowing that humans were not a causal factor? But if we do that we are conceding that the detection of non-human intelligence is plausible. Cloud that lens.:smile:
Comment by Bradford — January 25, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
For fun, can you find the "man" in the top photo? I think I have.
Comment by Steve Petermann — January 25, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Bradford, I was asking a more fundamental question about this process. Clearly, as indicated by the comments, inferring design by use of the 'matrix' is dependent on resolution. In this case, design may be suggested at the current resolution, but higher resolution may yield the result of non-design.
On the contrary, closer inspection may confirm the result of design. Thus, it appears, that the result of the matrix is resolution-dependent.
Now, the question is: How do we know that at the current resolution the matrix is reliable or not?
Comment by hrun — January 25, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
hrun:
That's a good question. My own view is that your question is intertwined with another which is: What is the criteria by which intelligent design is imputed? The clearest resolution provided in these photos is insufficent to meet a standard documenting detailed imagary that could not be explained by erosion or other blind forces of nature.
Comment by Bradford — January 25, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Bradford, I don't think you are getting to the gist of the point that I am making. Take the following example: Nazca Lines
I would surmise that ONLY at the proper resolution would these artifacts register as design on the design matrix. In fact, a number of these structures were only discovered after we DECREASED the resolution (imaging from the air).
So how can we know a priori (without testing ALL possible resolution) whether we are in the appropriate resolution to detect or discount design?
Comment by hrun — January 25, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I don't think the infinity of resolution arguments holds. Could you distinguish between an engraved image and an erosion effect with the naked eye? If not then all sensory perceptions become suspect with respect to inferences drawn and paralysis ensues.
Comment by Bradford — January 25, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I don't know if I can. But certainly if I were to look at a fraction of one of the Nazca Lines I would not necessarily detect design. However, seen at a lower resolution, clearly they are designed.
I am not trying to strike a round-house blow at design detection or the design matrix here. I am asking a genuine question: How do we know that we are operating at the right resolution to detect design? How can we avoid false positives or false negatives due to being at the wrong resolution? Is a single positive result at any resolution sufficient to conclude design?
Comment by hrun — January 25, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Most IDists take a very conservative approach to inferring design. Not only would the evidence indicate design but it would include indicators that a non-design conclusion is implausible. Conclusions are tentative with respect to making an allowance for a revised conclusion with more data. But that should apply across the board. A non-design conclusion should be tentative as well. In the end we go with the most reasonable explanation based on available technology and results derived from it.
Comment by Bradford — January 25, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Well, that sounds all very reasonable. But is any of this included in approaches to design detection practiced here or maybe over at UD? I don't recall any of the methods discussing resolution.
For example, Dembski likes to calculate his probabilities according to randomly associating amino acids. But why would you want to work at that specific resolution? Why not at the level of protein substructures or atomic level? How do you know at which resolution to look for discontinuity if you use the design matrix? At an atomic level, I doubt a book would receive a +5 score for discontinuity.
Does this not add further to the subjectivity of inferring design?
Comment by hrun — January 25, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
With the thousands of sitings of UFO's and Et's in our lifetime and before, it might start to sink in that these things are real, the question we should be asking ourselves is why the government is hiding the obvious. Just look for example at the Erath, Texas explaination. Another thing to realize is that this is controlled by Nasa, and nothing will get through that they don't want. Possibly the United States if getting us ready to come clean with what they know.
Comment by Billy Bucklefart — January 25, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Steve Petermann,
I was looking all over for that and never could find it! Thanks!
Comment by 0112358 — January 25, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
ABC News: UFO Investigators Flock to Stephenville, Texas
USA Today: Dozens report seeing UFOs over Texas town
American Chronicle: Texas UFO sightings are part of larger, deeper questions
I'm betting that there are now "dozens" of regular people in Stephenville, Texas who know what they saw, but wish they'd kept their mouths shut. Whether there is life on other planets – maybe even past civilizations in our own solar system – is not a subject regular people are allowed to take seriously. If government and/or military officials knew for a fact that aliens visit Earth (maybe even obtain technologies from them), they'd never tell us about it.
Instead, we expect – because we've been conditioned to accept – that anyone who suspects alien life or witnesses a visitation is crazy, hallucinating, or making it up. It is NEVER true, no one ever sees what they know they saw. The conditioning agents include scientists whose job it is to explore space and other planets for signs of life. We are not supposed to ever ask ourselves why someone would spend a lifetime seeking what s/he knows for a fact cannot exist. They just do, and are paid better than regular people who aren't paid well to ignore their own empirical experience.
If your curiosity, intuition and tingly sense of the anomalous doesn't go off when you see an object on Mars that looks suspiciously humanoid, then why point it out? Just to make fun of people who think it's something worth investigating further?
I don't get it. This anomaly looks to be far enough from the lander/rover to be of considerable size. Even low-res close-ups reveal detail that isn't easily dismissed. It was released – 3 years after NASA had it in their possession – just in time for Bush's latest push for funding for manned exploration of Mars. Yet hrun doesn't believe we can suspect design as reason enough to take a closer look.
Suspicion of design can't be allowed to let us suspect design. Our subjective perceptions can never justify a closer (or longer) look to see if it is design. Because there are no designed UFOs, no aliens, no reason to suspect such things. This makes exactly zero sense to me. No one at NASA thought this photo was interesting enough to include in its mission collections. That's why they sat on it for 3 years until the President needed it to fool regular people into funding manned missions to the planet where interesting anomalies simply don't exist.
Typical.
By the way, below is a photo taken from Google Earth (satellite) of the SEALs headquarters on the Coronado base in San Diego – which has been a no-fly zone if you aren't Navy or Marines – for all of its existence.
The Navy – and the architect who designed it – swear they had no idea it's a Swastika. Now… if I know how to read a basic building plot plan I imagine Navy officials and even architects who produce them could easily see that the buildings form a Swastika – long before it's built.
Perhaps they are all as stupid as they pretend to regular people that they are. In which case it's not at all surprising that they can't detect intelligent design (or life) on THIS planet no matter how hard they try.
Comment by Joy — January 25, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
How do you figure, Joy? I've met both government officials and military officials. I don't think there is any among the folks I met you would keep quiet about aliens if they knew about it. But I guess, maybe, the military/government has a pre-screen that detects exactly who would keep quiet and who wouldn't and only allow the trustworthy ones into the 'inner circle'.
Again, Joy, how do you figure? I did not say one way or another if we should take a closer look. I merely stated that I have not met any naturalist who inferred design based on the available data.
Comment by hrun — January 25, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
No more than the subjectivity involved in inferring the emergence of a cell from randomly associated amino acids generated by lightning storms or based on quantum effects or whatever the basis for assessment. As long as a specific related hypothesis is measurable we can make statements about data pertaining to the emergence factor discussed; be it atomic or biochemical. Of course this would assume emergence as a valid theoretical lens. What is consistently lacking is a causal trail that goes beyond the "building block" level.
Comment by Bradford — January 25, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I guess since from your postings you think that what you describe is very subjective, you would then agree that inferring design is also 'very subjective'?
I can't follow you here. Sorry.
Comment by hrun — January 25, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
hrun:
Well, if it's not Venus, it's simple hallucination. Or fraud. You do know about the NASA commissioned Brookings Report, don't you? That was the one that said (starting on page 215, under the heading Implications of a Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life)…
By means of further examination of the implications…
Of course, the report didn't suggest or outline any policies on the matter. Its conclusion was plausibly deniable…
The actual policies of government, government scientists and the US military aren't made by academic think tanks who simply produce think-reports. What the policy regarding anomalies in our explorations thus far or any contact with ETs has been is no secret, particularly not to regular people who know what they saw (and it wasn't Venus). The USAF got out of the investigate and shut-'em-up business awhile back. I don't know if the MIBs are still around… §;o)
As for your experience with government and military officials, I know and have known quite a few such people. There's a lot of things they won't tell you, even over a friendly beer and game of darts. If you ask directly, you'll get a diversion (usually starting with "I'm glad you asked that question…"). If you don't ask, you have exactly zero justification to believe you have any idea about what they do or do not know.
That's not hard to grasp, hrun. Though there are some hilarious diversions in the comments to the Washington Post's OFF/beat blog, in NASA Mars Man Photo Fuels ET Debate.
Comment by Joy — January 25, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Joy, nothing in what you quoted showed me that a) there is a policy in place to actively withhold information about extraterrestial life if it was discovered, or b) that ALL the folks who would be part of that discovery would be willingly silent about it.
Funnily enough, this idea that info about alien contact is withheld by the US government implies that there is a concerted effort by ALL governments of the world to do the same– or would aliens only come into contact with US government and military officials. And of course, it implies that the aliens also comply with the wishes of the US government. I would guess that as a civilization that managed to travel across the universe to come into contact with humans, it should be possible for the aliens to make their presence known without a shadow of a doubt. You know… maybe hover over Times Square, Trafalger Square or the Red Square during daylight hours. That shouldn't be too hard, don't you think?
But no, it turns out that whenever there is any sort of 'alien contact' it occurs in remote areas and only for short periods of time– aliens apparently travel through space for billions of miles just to put on a light show for a few people of this planet and then either disappear or get disappeared.
Comment by hrun — January 25, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
What you are ascribing subjectivity to is in reality the major assumption upon which we base what follows. How do you attribute causality when none is evident? The vagueness of origin pathways is used to protect them from a design alternative.
Comment by Bradford — January 25, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
hrun:
I didn't say there was such a policy. Brookings was filed in 1960. Project Blue Book [USAF] was in force from 1947 to 1969, and has been declassified. It was primarily concerned with keeping the U-2 and OXCART flight programs secret (these accounted for more than half the UFO findings investigated by AF and CIA between the late 50's and late 60's. What it was hiding from the late 40's to the late 50's is not something they care to tell us. I think they were worried about what the Soviets were getting from their share of the Nazi rocket scientists.
You mean like, sitting directly over a town in Texas long enough to make sure a lot of people saw it? Or showing up for Carnival over downtown Rio? I don't know, hrun. I've never met an alien, never saw a UFO. I don't know why they don't show up on your front lawn or mine.
Blue Book investigated and dismissed 12,618 officially reported sightings in its 22-year existence (that ended 39 years ago). A few dozen thousand people since WW-II who report seeing UFOs don't count. If ET were real, everyone on earth would have personally met him by now. YOU have never met ET. I haven't either. Everybody who says they have is crazy or lying. See how easy that is?
Tell me, hrun. If you were to meet ET, would it throw your life and worldview into turmoil?
Comment by Joy — January 25, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Hi hrun,
Great questions. I'll try to write up a post that addresses these later tonight. Right now, I have to hand over the computer.
Comment by MikeGene — January 25, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
How so? I laid out examples where judging design accurately depends on the resolution or granularity. Since in none of the appraoches I have seen it is laid out how to chose resolution, I can only conclude that it is subjective.
Concerns that you have about origin of life are unrelated to that conclusion.
Comment by hrun — January 25, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Well, it should work at all resolutions, but it will give different results. For example, at certain resolutions Mount Rushmore looks quite like the result of some process of design, but if you were to stick your face right up next to the rock, it probably would not look designed at all. Doing so would certainly change the matrix scores.
Comment by Mung — January 25, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
They are related but the problem is not what we are seeing but the interpretive lens through which you filter the information. But by all means demonstrate how resolution, with respect to amino acids, alters our view of OOL possibilities.
Comment by Bradford — January 25, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Joy then:
Joy now:
Glad you changed your mind.
No, I mean showing up above a major metropolis of this world for a sufficiently long period of time that it can be filmed and studied. And then maybe to actually communicate with us. Again, I ask you, can you imagine a space-faring civilization that would be unable to adequately make their presence known to us?
It reminds me a little of this superbly stupid movie "Signs.". These alien travel across the universe to conquer earth for their purpose. The only weapons they bring along are these dumb poisonous spores. And they fail to realize that 70% of the planet they want to conquer is covered by a substance that is fatal to them. And they also fail to discover that this substance falls from the sky on a regular basis.
Honestly, it boggles my mind to believe that aliens who can span the bridges between planets or solar systems would be so incapable to make their presence known.
12,618 sightings also don't impress much. Especially since so many of these sightings are so different from each other. Did all the same aliens arrive here with a fleet of thousands of different space ships that all look and behave differently? Or were there thousands of different alien species that came along and ALL of these contacts were efficiently covered up by the governments of the world? Not a single one of those attempted contacts ended up with an alien finding, lets say, the NYT or FOX News before being locked away by the government? And not a single one of the people in these thousands of coverups had a late-in-life epiphany and exposed the government and their nefarious ways?
It just stretches my credulity to the breaking point.
I don't think so. It certainly would make my life more interesting. I would like to learn where they came from and how similar they are to us. In particular, I'd be interested if their biology was similar to ours and if they developed faster than light travel (showing that Einstein guy up).
What would throw my life into turmoil would be if I were to meet ET tomorrow and ET told me they tried to make contact with humankind for a good 50 years, but they were effectively thwarted by the US government for half a century.
I would immediately lose my belief that advancement in science leads to generally smart and capable beings.
Comment by hrun — January 25, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Look, Bradford, I don't want to filter anything to any lens. I did not talk about OOL at all. It is irrelevant to the problem.
I saw how other people try to infer design. I realized that there is an apparent problem in the methods: namely, that whether you judge something to be designed or not seems to depend (among other things) on the resolution you use to study said things. I gave examples, too, where resolution appears to be critical (man on mars, Mike's book, Nazca Lines, …)
You apparently agreed that this is a problem that makes inferring design subjective. That's all there is to it.
Comment by hrun — January 25, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I'll let you hash out your resolution examples with Mike.
I did not agree that detecting design is subjective. I responded to your claim that it was by indicating it was no more subjective than life's origins. But subjectivity is not the difficulty with either OOL or design. The challenge comes with tracing a causal trail to observed outcomes.
Comment by Bradford — January 25, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
So you have an objective solution for the problem about resolution?
And why is the challenge in tracing causality? I thought one of the major issues in ID was to identify or infer design– independent of who or what did the designing? So I thought it was actually specifically removed from the causality chain.
Comment by hrun — January 25, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Wait some for Mike.
Where did you get the idea that design is removed from causality? It's apparent in these messages we are exchanging. Resolution is a problem only if you cannot see the letters. How clearly you see them is irrelevant to the characteristic of them that conveys their design namely, their sequencing within a specified encoding convention.
Comment by Bradford — January 25, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I don't understand. We have been discussing this for a few hours. Do you not even have an opinion anymore? It seemed to me that you at first agreed that this process is subjective, right? What changed?
What do you mean? The whole idea of ID is that one can detect design WITHOUT understand when it was designed, how it was designed and who did the designing! Did I get that wrong?
Comment by hrun — January 25, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Design IS resolution dependent. If I look at a typewriter with my naked eyes, I can see the design elements. If I look at a typewriter with an electron microscope, I will miss them. If I look at a typewriter on Mars with a radio telescope, I may also miss the design elements.
The perception of musical melody is also resolution sensitive. If I slow the melody down too much, I will not detect it. It I speed it up too much I will also not detect it.
There is an optimal resolution for detecting a design, which is dependent upon the granularity design itself. Too fine or too coarse and you'll miss it.
Comment by endoplasmicMessenger — January 25, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 6:35 am
The man/woman figure on mars appears to be "paranormal"– A clever announcement of the coming ET Corn Gods language, now being introduced to the world.
The Corn Circles and Et sightings are also announcements of the hidden language — hidden meanings in every word the English language.
911 was caused by, for lack of better words, "paranormal" sources. There was not enough energy in the airplanes to down the buildings and pulverize the concrete and office equipment, the implosions happened at free fall speeds — only "extraterrestrial technology" could have done it.
The 911 disaster and the hidden language are "stings" against "religion" and lots more — see: http://www.etcorngods.com/religion.html
http://www.etcorngods.com/911.html
The news is bad if you don't like "Religion" as we know it to disappear.
The good news is the existence of the hidden language proves ID.
Comment by etcorngods — January 26, 2008 @ 6:35 am
January 26th, 2008 at 9:33 am
I posted information and it was wiped out? Why?
Comment by etcorngods — January 26, 2008 @ 9:33 am
January 26th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
hrun:
I didn't change my mind. My opinion is they wouldn't tell us. If ET showed up in the manner you specify as the only way you'd believe they exist, nobody in the government has to say anything at all. The point is entirely moot.
Anyone who suspects design in the phenomena (like, say, ET) probably reached that state of suspicion on less evidence than you demand. It's not like there is NO evidence that something's going on. Still, I am not surprised you must see them yourself and the whole world has to back you up before you'd grant the possibility that something's going on.
LOL!!! If the phenomenon is genuine, they've made their presence known. I enjoy sci-fi but I don't judge my world by sci-fi's terms. Among my faves are anything Godzilla, The Blob and Little Shop of Horrors. Why in the world would I look in real life for giant lizards, giant ecto-jello or man-eating plants before I'd suspect that thousands of people are really seeing something when they report UFOs?
I agree. Until 1960 or so the projects existed to deal with UFO sightings from Air Force pilots, ATCs and radar operators mostly. They'd been coming in regularly since the "Foo Fighters" of WW-II. As I said, the major concerns were Top Secret government projects and whether or not the bogies were coming from our earthly enemies. Don't forget that it was then (as now) Life in Wartime. We went straight from WW-II to the good ol' Cold War. Lots of things were secret.
When they started taking reports from town sheriffs and local police and citizens (up to a dozen a day, sometimes mass sightings with hundreds of witnesses), the applied "explanations" were well-honed. The moon, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, setting sun or rising moon, a particularly bright and long-lived meteor. That ended up getting so much flack from the witnesses and press that they just disbanded the whole thing. 39 years ago.
You have no credulity. You're a born skeptic, believe nothing you don't see and often don't trust that. It's okay to be that. You just shouldn't demand everyone be like that. I choose to reserve judgment on the subject at this time (I've never seen one, but others swear they have). There's nothing wrong with that position. It means that unlike you, I don't demand ET show up for autopsy before I'd suspect he/she/it might exist. If I were to meet him/her/it myself, I'd probably move all the way over into the 'believer' camp.
I don't presume to know what the intent, purpose or chosen tactics ET must use in contacting humanity. I'm not sure they exist, though something's obviously going on. If you have pre-set criteria ET must perform before you'd believe he exists, I'm not surprised you have pre-set criteria about what he must and must not communicate if he ever does jump through your belief hoops.
Aw, that's a shame. Maybe there's a reason after all that ET doesn't jump through scientist's hoops…
Comment by Joy — January 26, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
So while there is no policy in place for government officials to withhold information about aliens from the public, you still believe that the government as a whole (and each individual) would do so anyway?
Looking at the stuff that individuals in the CIA leaked, even though there is a strong policy against leaking and quite severe punishment when discovered, this does just not seem very likely to me.
I don't follow.
On the contrary, Joy. I have lots of credulity. I believe that tribes in the remote jungles of Indonesia exist. I believe that the Island of Tonga exists. I believe that the sun is billions of miles away from us and quite huge. I believe that all the stars I see are actually quite often suns like ours. I believe an awful lot of things that I can't see or verify myself. That does not mean that I believe everything that I can't see or verify myself.
And nobody demanded an autopsy. Remember, well supposedly already HAVE an autopsy and it was not very convincing.
And I don't presume to know the intent of aliens either. But I do know that IF the aliens are attempting to come into contact with humans for the past 50 years (or even longer) then they are doing a really really pathetically poor job. Don't you think? And IF the aliens are not attempting to come into contact with humans for the past 50 years (or even longer) than they are doing an even worse job at it.
They fall out of the sky over area 51. They blink in the sky for a little while and then get chased away by air force pilots. They abduct a few people here and there, mainly in rural USA, only to send them back more or less unharmed and unenlightened a little later.
Maybe the aliens are just pranksters.
You know, like that immortal dude from the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy who decides to make it his life's mission to insult every single living being in the universe.
Comment by hrun — January 26, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
The object in the photo is obviously the statue of the Little Mermaid in Copenhagen harbor. I surmise that a NASA engineer accidentally uploaded his vacation pictures.
Comment by mb — January 26, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I have been working with the aliens for 22 years. "They" have been running the world all along, "they" didn't have to come here.
The ET/UFO's are making their first "intellectual" appearance through the knowledge of humans that "they" have been controlling the evolution of the English Language — and everything else. The "messages" from the translations will be very painful to take.
Read my previous posting. Perhaps this "TELIC …" church only listens to themselves — not outsiders. Listening only to insider's is less dangerous. Those outsiders might change your mind.
The ET/UFO's are a tricky bunch — we may find out that the little man/woman was put there by some NASA/JPL engineer as a prank — not unlike engineers to play a stupid prank.
Comment by etcorngods — January 26, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
etcorngods:
? It looks like a surface feature on the rim of a crater to me. Magnified it takes on a suspiciously humanoid shape and displays color/texture like anomalies compared to what's around it. It doesn't look "paranormal," it looks odd, worthy of a closer look.
Of course, the photo is three years old. We don't know if NASA sent the rover closer to check it out, or if the object moved while the rover was motoring over to check it out. Heck, we don't know that it's not photoshopped. Given that it was released to support Bush's demand for money for a manned mission, who knows? It obviously wasn't important enough to release before.
Besides, no languages I might recognize are spoken in NASA Photo-ese. They're usually spoken in words. I have, however, met Sam Slasher the Corn Monster. He wasn't nearly as bad as the kids made him out to be. Looked a lot like a short-ish, stoutly built Jewish guy with a wicked sense of humor.
This is not a forum for 9-11 conspiracy theories, or alien abduction stories, or "The Queen's a Lizard!" junk, or even Raelian / Scientology / Transhumanist / Rapture-ite fantasies. There are places like that on the internet, it's just that this isn't one of them. Please find a forum more suited to your beliefs and concerns.
Yes, stupid pranks abound on the internet. You appear to have missed entirely the gist of this thread, and the use of the NASA photos as a way of discussing the usefulness and practicality of the Design Matrix for determining whether something is likely designed or not. In order for it to be pertinent, no "belief-in" aliens or even the reality of the photographs is necessary.
I previously linked the WaPo blog open to the public for comment on these pictures. There are many others, people are having a lovely time with them. I think you stumbled into the wrong one here.
Comment by Joy — January 26, 2008 @ 7:45 pm