Mars color

[Bobbotov]

@Bobbotov,

I will not go into long debate about pareidolia since English is not my first language. That said, lighten up a bit. Take my postings as entertainment. I have never stated that there exist any objects on Mars. I use words as "there seems to be" and "it looks like" etc. I have spent approx. 6000 hours studying the images from Mars. It is a fascinating planet because it is our closest neighbour and even NASA states that there is a possibility that Mars may have had life or even has life. There exists a lot of images that shows that Mars had rivers at some point in time. Maybe even oceans, who knows. And that is the main reason man sends remote controlled science equipments to Mars. We like to know. We like to see. We like to explore.

I have no issue with entertainment. Mars is fascinating as all celestial bodies are. No denying that.

Now, what is real and what is not. JPL/NASA claims that the images is real raw data. I must accept that but there is no way I can be sure. Is pixels (as bits) in a computer real? Now, if you find 600 anomalies in a batch of 6000 images, is the images real or is the anomalies real? What is the probability of finding such a high number of abnormalities? I do not know. And so do you. The only way to know is to go up there and find out. Since I can't go there and you can't go there, all we have is the images to see.

So there are anomalies. Artifacts are one thing but I am not sure how you make the leap to your position vis-a-vis real objects. And you do not have to go to Mars to "see things" in photos on that basis.

BTW. The next time you get a compelling urge to do a psycho analytic evaluation of me, please suppress that urge. :-) 
Regrads,
Groundloop.

So you can "speculate on Mars but I cannot speculate on your speculation? That is called "do as I say not do as I do?" What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Bobbotov]

So let me get this straight, we are clearly jokingly talking about anomalous "rock" shapes on Mars,
and you turn it into a variation of "seeing shapes in the clouds" of which we don't realise they are not "real"?
Well obviously if we were truly convinced they are "real" shoes etc we would act a lot more serious,
but what we are quite convinced of is the fact that certain "rocks" on the Mars pics look quite unnatural
and in some cases very much unlike natural rocks.

I could understand one or two joking observations, but pages of them? And seeing anything that is clearly not there does have a psychological/perception basis whether you admit to it or not. Maybe the joke is on you.

You may interpret that as you like, but do not dismiss that observation simply by saying we are seeing
Rorschach-like "whatever your subconscious sees in it" things; there really are anomalous "rock" shapes
on those pictures.

The rocks are not anomalous except in how you perceive them. They are just rocks, they have always been rocks and they always will be. It is not like you are looking at Mt. Rushmore.

Instead of climbing onto your psychoanalytical horse there, perhaps you could provide realistic alternatives
to natural rock formation that could produce such odd shapes?? How, in your lofty opinion, does a natural
rock on a planet with no water and continuous dust storms, become square for example?

By the reasons I described. That and lighting and shadows and poor clarity to the photos.

How does one rock look vaguely like an animal skull, which admittedly could be a wind-eroded rock
smoothed at the edges, while the rock next to it looks pristine and untouched by that same alleged erosion?
What was that "Martian bunny"? Obviously it was not a bunny. But it sure doesn't look like a rock either.
What are those weird little "Martian blueberries"?
What natural process produces square holes in rocks?
Answer me some of those questions, before spouting psychological pseudo-scientific analyses. Please.

If you hear a sound in the other room do you automatically assume it is because Bigfoot bumped into a table? You are looking at optical illusions and
trying to rationalize with irrational explanations. What is the point of that? Some shapes will be more suggestive than others because of your gestalt formation abilities. Even some Rorschachs just look like ink blots.

Of course. And subliminal influence is also not real. And ad companies don't use suggestive advertising. Sure.
And santa lives on the north pole.

If there is one thing advertising does not do it is subtlety. They need to make their point as quickly as possible. Ads are more like sledgehammers. Suggestive advertising is not the same thing as subliminal either. If I want a sexy babe to associate with a product I put a sexy babe in there and do not obfuscate it. And Santa does live at the North Pole. Everyone knows that.

Right. Obviously not everything we think we can recognise as an object necessarily is such an object.

Finally something that makes sense.

But those same people you mention imagining there was a man on the moon or canals on mars, they did at the same time see a moon, and mars.

And you see so called regular rocks on Mars too. You see rocks that look like shoes and they saw a Moon that looked like a man. No difference.

Do you dismiss that? No, you don't. And while those people did indeed claim to see things on Mars, don't forget they did not have pictures taken
up close.

Proximity has nothing to do with illusions. You can see illusions close and far. I bet I could find scanning electron microscope pictures that do the same thing.

As to the reality of things, you must be aware of the fact that Sigmund Freud himself was a bit of a nutcase who simply applied his own
projected fantasies and presented them as scietific fact? Poor little Hansel who was afraid of horses, after a few session with mister Freud,
was accused of having -envy of his father, which seeing a horses' dong reminded him of. The fact that little Hansel continually told
him that he was afraid of horses ever since seeing a scary nasty dead horse did not deter Freud from presenting the boys father with
his favourite fantasy diagnosis. Pseudoscience. Not objective at all. Which is a known fact to epistemologists but not to psychologists
themselves, who are often convicned their field is objective.

That just reinforces the argument that suggestiveness is prevalent in human beings.

So, what I guess I'm trying to say is: How can you be so certain that what you are proclaiming here is any more "real" than our joking
interpretations of anomalous rocks?

You come here to tell us we are seeing what we want to see and not what is really there.
Well, I get the feeling you're doing exactly the same. But at a different angle.

You seem to be awfully defensive if it really is a joke to you.

[Koen1]

Ah well, I guess I must be wrong eh, because we all know only you can be right. 

[Groundloop]

@Bobbotov,

>>So you can speculate on Mars but I cannot speculate on your speculation?
What you did write was not a speculation. It was more like a statement.

Why not comment on the science part of the images? Why is the crater ice blue?
What colour has the atmosphere on Mars? Can there be clouds on Mars. Is there
liquid water on Mars. Can there be plants or other life on Mars? There is many questions
that most probably can be answered by studying the images JPL/NASA/ESA has provided.

And to repeat, I do not claim there is cola bottles or whatever on Mars but I do find many
of the strange shapes fascinating. I do not know what forces that are involved to make all
those strange shapes.

Is it probable that we can find fossils on Mars? Considering that Mars once had rivers
and also (probably) oceans of water then there is a high probability that the climate
and atmosphere was different on Mars in the past. Maybe even the planet orbit was different.
So what has a higher probability, real fossils or wind/sand eroded rocks?

It is just my humble opinion that we can not dismiss any findings on Mars just because
they do not fit our current understanding of science.

Groundloop.

[Bobbotov]

@Bobbotov,

>>So you can speculate on Mars but I cannot speculate on your speculation?
What you did write was not a speculation. It was more like a statement.

Since when are speculation and statements mutually exclusive? Did you miss the part where I said "You SEEM to be exhibiting Pareidolia?" Very first sentence of my first post. That is called a speculative statement. In fact what I was doing is making an observation like you are making observations about the photos.

Why not comment on the science part of the images? Why is the crater ice blue?
What colour has the atmosphere on Mars? Can there be clouds on Mars. Is there
liquid water on Mars. Can there be plants or other life on Mars? There is many questions
that most probably can be answered by studying the images JPL/NASA/ESA has provided.

No they can't. That is why they take soil samples, air samples. Photography can be influenced by so many external factors not to mention our perceptions. Besides, you already said you are treating the photos as jokes. Now you want to get serious?

And to repeat, I do not claim there is cola bottles or whatever on Mars but I do find many
of the strange shapes fascinating. I do not know what forces that are involved to make all
those strange shapes.

The force is your mind.

So what has a higher probability, real fossils or wind/sand eroded rocks?

Neither. Perceptual error until more facts can be acquired to put the question to rest.

It is just my humble opinion that we can not dismiss any findings on Mars just because
they do not fit our current understanding of science.
Groundloop.

Who is dismissing anything? I think the issue is in correctly identifying things not making jokes out of the findings or coming up with all manner of phantasmagorical and highly improbable explanations. If there is a shoe on Mars or an entire shoe store I think NASA will find it. And both shoes and shoe stores fall very comfortably within the realm of science as we know it. Science is so good it could tell you if it was a loafer or a wingtip.