Mars: Ancient Art Discovered

Actually my "yes" vote was purely tongue in cheek. I was hoping you would go away.

I thought you were going to explain what I said was gobbledy-gook but you said was good methodology, such as this (just one example of the inanity):

Quote:

"K(~H|A) is estimated as probability of having a white, egg shape rock, of size larger than base_size/10, on top of the black base rock"

has to do with determining the probability of life on Mars or in New Jersey

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

What.. has to do with determining the probability of life on Mars or in New Jersey

Did you hear name Bayes?
Somethin related to the hypothesis probability reevaluation, maybe?

eS

0 Replies

You dont use statistical inference to discern what you can see right in front of your eyes. PUH LEEZE.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

You dont use statistical inference to discern what you can see right in front of your eyes.

You think that you see something, but others think that it is something different.
So, we need an objective way of deciding what IT most likely IS Smile

eS

0 Replies

extrasense wrote:

farmerman wrote:
the sculpture has been eroded and now sits there with humanlike features. Why human?

Any creature with large brain will have a round head, like we have.

Any developed creature will have two eyes, necessary to see the depth of space.

Any developed creature will have one mouth, and teeth.

So you always will have, round head, two eyes and a mouth.
Vuala!!! You always will have humanlike alians!!!

eS

why the heck should it have brain, eyes, mouth, teeth...?

voila....you have nothing at all.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

why the heck should it have brain, eyes, mouth, teeth...?

To eat and search for sex partners, baby Razz

eS

0 Replies

I can see the factors and math for myself from your first link. One of the ways that pseudo-science ideas or just plain ridiculous claims are backed up is by an attempt to use math or science that is above the heads of those you are trying to sway. I understand statistic and probability just fine thank you. I told you what I think of the information provided by your link and am giving you an opportunity to detail why the assumptions and the probabilities assigned to them are valid. I don't see it - looks like B.S. to me.

Is your response to me the best you can do? You have all the time you need and a virtually limitless amount of space to convince me and apparently at least 80% of the others on this thread.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

why the assumptions and the probabilities assigned to them are valid

I do not see any problem with those.
If you would specifically point to a probability or an assumption you disagree with, I might be able to explain why I believe it to be valid.

eS

0 Replies

when anyone takes the time to look carefully, one can see the layers that define the "roundness" so that feature is obviously not sculpted. The erosion of the lenses of the concretion give the facial fetures.

Statistical inference is used to arrabge or gain pattern from a set of data, youre attempting to convince us that it is used to validate an artifact that youve already convinced yourself is created by an artist.
Yesh, right.

Always be aware of the reckless use of statistics, it proves nothing other than your basic assumptions were flawed.

Anyway, you must admit that you have a rather small sample, ONE. Laughing

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Anyway, you must admit that you have a rather small sample, ONE

One?
Apparently, you did not take time to read the whole article:
http://marslife.us/press/WHAT_ABOUT_LIFE_ON_MARS.pdf

You could find links to at least two more 3D sculptures, mentioned there:

http://marslife.us/proof/c/art/2006-01-03-2N189580915EFFALBUP0695R0M1-sphinx.jpg

http://marslife.us/Discovering-Martian-Stone-Age-with-FIGS_files/image016.jpg

eS

0 Replies

they do look like neat curiosities, but , as before, lenticulites , such as wee see in salt deposits and in "storm roller deposits" produce weird lifelike forms.

You analyze whats at hand, you dont go running off with a pressuposition and then try to "infer" its source.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

they do look like neat curiosities, but , as before, lenticulites , such as wee see in salt deposits and in "storm roller deposits" produce weird lifelike forms

Well,

I would like to see anything like that photographed on Earth.

There is no salt deposits on Mars in the Gusev crater area...

I think the chances of the observed forms generated randomly, are dismal.

By your logic, the presidents in mountain are also a product of wind errosion Laughing

eS

0 Replies

when you have no idea what youre talking about, try not to sound like a smart ass.

The MArtian terrain is loaded with salts (Anhydrites, sulphosalts and sulphate deposits) the terrain spec showed that early in the Rover Missions , remember? The first indications that there had been water at one time was confirmed by the deposits of siderite and alkali sulphates and sulphosalts.
(Im a geochemist SO Im not impressed withconcretions as you are)

Look up concretions and youll see plenty septerian nodules that look like "Kermit the Frog" or "Snoopy" . The Creationists are always finding sulfide minerals in the shapes of human hands . Very Happy

"The seeds of fanaticism are sewn when someone gets all excited about just one concept without even checking what all the others have to offer"-Brother Dave Gardner

0 Replies

Quote:

I do not see any problem with those.
If you would specifically point to a probability or an assumption you disagree with, I might be able to explain why I believe it to be valid.

You mean like this that I have posted three times now.

Quote:

"K(~H|A) is estimated as probability of having a white, egg shape rock, of size larger than base_size/10, on top of the black base rock"

has to do with determining the probability of life on Mars or in New Jersey.

After you've entertained us with that explanation you can tell us how they can provide a probability (any probability) out of 10 EXP 73! I'd sure like to know how you determine a probability of anything that exists in reality, like finding life, to 73 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!

Just to give an idea of the absurdity of this number, let alone the validity of the methodology, there are believed to be only 10 EXP 80 baryons (mass particles) in the entire universe!!!

You wouldn't be related to Real Life by any chance?

0 Replies

3 holes in a triangle is relatively a natural form.

3 points randomly being equidistant is not art.

that doesnt look anything like a face

anyways they look like plaster molds ffs.

0 Replies

Mars: Ancient Art Discovered

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know