What is the truth about human perception and scientific protocols?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around claims of potential life on Mars, sparked by images that some participants believe resemble biological forms. The original poster references a website with various images purported to show fossils or artifacts on Mars, asserting that life on the planet is no longer in question. However, many participants express skepticism, emphasizing the need for rigorous scientific criteria to differentiate between rocks and fossils or biological entities. They highlight the importance of peer-reviewed research and objective measurement protocols to substantiate any claims of life. The conversation also touches on the subjective nature of image interpretation, with some participants likening the claims to seeing shapes in clouds, while others demand concrete evidence and scientific validation. Overall, the thread reflects a tension between speculative interpretations of Martian images and the scientific rigor required to support claims of extraterrestrial life.
extrasense
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Life on Mars is not in question anymore

Check the fair report at
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense

ES
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
extrasense said:
Check the fair report at
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense
Yes, there are a lot of interesting looking rocks on Mars. As of yet, no life though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some fragments of life are probably on Mars ... what is put there with the Rovers and other previous robots from earth.
 
extrasense said:
Life on Mars is not in question anymore

Check the fair report at
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense

ES
Welcome to Physics Forums, extrasense!

AFAIK, geologists use a number of tests before deciding whether a particular rock is a fossil or not - to what extent has the author of the website you link to:
a) written down the criteria he (she?) uses to distinguish between plain rocks and fossils?
b) compared these criteria with those commonly used by geologists?

If the author of the site is claiming the objects depicted are living (and not fossils), then we could ask the same set of questions, but using biological criteria - has the author written these up anywhere?

Finally, do you know if a paper is in pre-print, ready for peer review distribution?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice Find...

Nice find extrasense...

However, whilst I agree with your basic premise, you're on the WRONG Forum for putting forth this hypothesis...

Nothing but CLOSED MINDS will you encounter, if it is not "peer-reviewed" (perhaps the FUNNIEST two words in the English language)...
(I just realized that I sound like Yoda...)
 
Last edited:
Here are some new images from Mars!
The plot thickens :smile:

Stingray fossil from Mars:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/RatTailHighlights.gif

Lamb statue from Mars:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/2p090-2P134351571EFF2500P2536L4M1-lamb.jpg

Martian outpost:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/FirstMartian.gif

Animal skull from Mars:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/SkullHighlights.gif

More at site
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I suspect this thread is spam - - an ad for extrasense's own website/forum. On that, I should probably delete this altogether. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and move this over to the skepticism forum for further discussion. However, I agree with Russ...what you have there is a collection of photos of rocks. On what basis can you characterize them as fossils/artifacts/life?
 
Nommos - lighten up. In this example alone, we have 3 PF staff members who disagree with the OP but are still giving it a second chance.
 
Those seem well fake... it seems to small to look at, thumbnail size and its like flashing and change the parts of pics. To me its no differnece from looking at the clouds in the sky and saying "oh mommy I see a sheep" and therefore basing that there are sheep in the clouds.
 
  • #10
Tom McCurdy said:
To me its no differnece from looking at the clouds in the sky.

What you do not understand here, that those are photographed images.
You can do all sorts of measuremens on them.

Lighten up :smile:


ES
 
  • #11
Martian cabbage lol?

Ok, Please don't take me as one of those people who assume that there is life on Mars I am not a geological expert or an expert on many things most things even !?. But this photo looks like almost biological to me. As I said before I am not claiming anyhting I also posted a indirect link to this image so well so this post in a way does qualify as a sort of spam especially if I post a link to ure nutty government https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31097 whatever anybody here know about stuff like this ?

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsstro.htm
 
  • #12
Does "almost biological" count?

I see nothing but rocks. Phooey!
 
  • #13
JohnDubYa said:
Does "almost biological" count?

I see nothing but rocks. Phooey!

You don't see anything unusual about the circular cabbage like formation of this particular rock formation ? Certaintly NOT ure average rock as I said i am not an expert.
 
  • #14
extrasense said:
What you do not understand here, that those are photographed images.
You can do all sorts of measuremens on them.

Lighten up :smile:


ES
OK, let's see the "measuremens" that you've done on them.

At a minimum I'd be looking for:
a) a clearly stated, objective protocol for selecting which rocks from among the tens (hundreds) of thousands in the various Spirit and Opportunity photos to study
b) a clear, unambiguous description of the classes of measurements that you will be making on the selected rocks, and how you will make those measurements
c) the results of the measurements
d) clear description of why particular 'biological' objects were chosen for comparison (and not others)
e) a published database of measurements of stingrays, lambs, outposts (etc)
f) detailed comparison of the two sets of measurements
g) the results of running the same exercise on a set of a similar number of Earthly rocks, say a lava field, or a talus slope (which are fully described, so, for example, any PF member could go there are make the same measurements).

Oh, and a statistical analysis of the significance of any noteworthy findings would be nice too. :smile:

Seems like a lot of hard work, doesn't it? Well, that's what the nitty-gritty of actually *doing* science is all about :surprise:
 
  • #15
  • #16
well according to www.flat-earth.org[/url] , there were Anglo-Saxon civilisations on Mars, and according to THIS link, maybe THEY planted the evidence! [url]http://www.flat-earth.org/projects/mars.html[/URL] :biggrin: :smile:

whoever dug that site up (zooby i think)... pure genius! :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
Nereid said:
OK, let's see the "measuremens" ...
............
............

Don't get too formal. Image recognition is a routine human activity. Even mad scientist can recognize a flower, or leaf, without using supercomputer :smile:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/SkullHighlights.gif

ES
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Sure doesn't look biological to me...looks like a blurry microscopic picture. Are you loony or something?
 
  • #19
extrasense said:
Don't get too formal. Image recognition is a routine human activity. Even mad scientist can recognize a flower, or leaf, without using supercomputer :smile:

Image recognition does not constitute proof of anything. If a picture looks like something then it looks like something. So what? This only means that it might be worth following Nereids protocol to determine if this is really something interesting or not. If someone is going to declare the discovery of life on Mars then they had better be formal or they will be laughed out of the room.
 
  • #20
Ivan Seeking said:
Image recognition does not constitute proof of anything... If someone is going to declare the discovery of life on Mars then they had better be formal or they will be laughed out of the room.

The so called "science" have get really sick :redface:

Here is a berry. Can we get a consensus as to what it is?
Because any protocol that gives a result that contradicts human perception is a bogus one.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense/BerryHighlights.gif

ES
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
uh, nothing?

Tell me this, how can you prove anything without analysis?

What proof can you offer except, "well, that's what it looks like to me?"? If someone else says, "well, not to me", such as now, how are we to judge who's right?
 
  • #22
I told you extrasense, the "moles" are here...
 
  • #23
extrasense said:
Because any protocol that gives a result that contradicts human perception is a bogus one.

This is ridiculous. Anyone who knows anything about science and human perception also knows that this statement is completely bogus.
 

Similar threads

So what are dreams made of? How do they differ from our waking reality?
Replies
15
Views
4K
Mars Mission - an act of Lunacy or Science?
Replies
13
Views
3K
How science literate is the general public?
Replies
34
Views
4K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
Replies
12
Views
3K
What is the Meaning of Our Existence?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Fact checking - Scientific method
Replies
14
Views
3K
Is There a Scientific Obligation to Benefit Humanity?
Replies
31
Views
5K
Can Humans Metabolize Alien Life Forms on a Colonized Ocean World?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
Replies
4
Views
3K
The Validity of Truth and Survival: Are We Just Fooling Ourselves?
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top