Poll: Are You Convinced? - Page 3

Rocks,

"good posters move on"? So, why are you still around? Clearly, you have low self esteem - and you are correct on that.

ES

ES is just grumpy that it's 10:1 against him in the poll

Doug

Hey Extra Sense!
That video is still up there. Care to explain again how rocks don't have hooks?

D,

I could not care less about faked videos or pictures that you point to. If you've had a real one, you would post it. So I assume you do not have any.

ES

Uh I did post it. For the record, can you explain the difference between how _I_ can tell something is fake, versus real.

Cause you know, the series of video segments showing how that guy got to the dry valley, walked the dry valley, and then flew in the helicopter back from the dry valley, sure looked real to me.

Not to mention the dozens of pictures I linked to, the tourist advertisements, and the written accounts...

D,

The large amount of crap still remains crap. It is earthly objects that you are talking about. You must be able to produce better images of one of them, than we have of Martian objects.

ES

How can you get better than a video? You can see most of the rocks from multiple angles...

Even photos from a single angle show that the rocks clearly have holes in them, not to mention arches and half-arches (hooks).

What more could you possibly learn from more photos?

And there is a big difference between, not enough information, and fake. And you keep playing the "fake" card. I

I have my suspicions on why you would do this, but since I'm dealing with the facts on this, I'll keep my thoughts on your motivations to myself.

D, if you did not get what I am saying yet, you are bringing up too many photos, most of them unrelevant.

You must produce a stereo pair of an object,
which you claim is a rock with a hook.

I do not care if you take it from movie or elsewhere. Just do it. But you continue rambling, and pretend that you do not understand what is needed. Which means that you can not do what is needed.

es

Bullshit. Stop shifting your criteria. First you tell me they are fake. Now you want me to make 3-D pictures. And before you said that rocks that are hooked can't exist.

Hook: Definition: curved or sharply bent

You don't need a 3-D picture to tell that this rock is "curved or sharply bent":
.jpg

D, see you can not produce what can be even considered as evidence. The picture in reply 49 is no good.
You need a stereo pair, and it must be not a fake taken against the Sun.

That would be relevant, if the hook you are showing is in any way similar to the bilogical hooks in question, like rose or beatle might have.

Otherwise, I consider your claims an exercise in vanity.

ES

see you can not produce what can be even considered as evidence. The picture in reply 49 is no good.
You need a stereo pair, and it must be not a fake taken against the Sun.

Whose standard of evidence is this? You can't just make up new hoops to jump through every time you see fit. No one can mind-read arbitrary definitions - especially yours (for obvious reasons).

And you still do not explain WHY:

1) Why a 3-D picture is even necessary? A hook is, by definition, a structure that involves a curl in only 2 dimensions, and thus is easily visible if photographed from the proper angle. I have provided MULTIPLE photos of hooks in previous posts. A 3-D image would only add depth of field. Why is a 3-D image needed to see something that is, by definition, viewable in only 2 Dimensional?

2) Why is this photo a "FAKE"? You throw the word around, but I'm starting to suspect its a code word for something else you refuse to define.

3) Who cares if the sun is above, behind, under, inside, or anywhere else? The sun is not obscuring anything in this photo.

4) The onus isn't on me to provide anything. You made an unresearched, and unsupported claim that hook or hook-like structures can't be found on rocks in this thread, and in your paper. Where is the data behind YOUR assertion that rocks "can't have hooks".

All of my previous photos have easily demonstrated that arches, hooks, and other free standing structures can be created by erosion.

If my claims are "vanity", at least they are based off facts, not unresearched assumptions or delusions.

D, the serious conversation as in the paper that started this dicussion, can be only done if there is commonly understood proper context.
That something can be called "hook" in general context, does not mean it is necessary a hook in the biological context.
The hooks of plants and animals, are the hooks that are being talked about in the paper, and it is stated over there.
The things that you are suggesting as examples, are by no means hooks that even remotely belong to such context, as I can tell.

ES

ES,
Do you play twister a lot? Cause you sure are great at squirming! Lets see, you;ve:
-made up definitions of evidence (without telling anyone what they are)
-call things fake (without defining what that is)
-call things hooks (but refuse to define what a hook is)

That you bring up "the paper" has to be the laughable part. Maybe next time you write "a paper" you should have a glossary in the end, so we can translate the standard words you use into the made up definitions that you invented for them...

I also note, that you have ignored my 4 easily answered questions above. Nice narrow questions that should be simple to answer...

"NO 92%"

Gotta hurt eh ES?

Dough,

the idea must to take roots and grow, and I see it does. Lets say, if the question were:
has this added at least 20% to your estimation of chances of life on Mars?
the results might be quite different.

e s

"the idea must to take roots and grow,"

No, the idea requires evidence - but as this thread has shown, evidence is something you're perfectly prepared to ignore if it contradicts your pet theory, and bypass a requirement for if it is lacking for it

Doug

Dough,

In fact, it is the time for nay sayers to eat their hats, and you don't even know it!

e s

Saying 'nay' to what exactly? You've brought nothing to the table except "it looks like"

doug

Dough,

so you think I've "brought nothing to the table except it looks like" ?

Well, except that I (1) have discovered, interpreted and brought to the public attention a number of importent images, (2) pointed out that shapes are indicative and do not occur randomly, (3) was correctly on the side of Mars Life and Civilization from the very beginning, (4) wrote a number of papers about data obtained by the MERs, (5) all but proven existence of Life on Mars ...

e s