135 lines
5.6 KiB
Plaintext
135 lines
5.6 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
Date: 09-01-88 07:59
|
||
From: Jerry Lewis
|
||
To: Jim Speiser
|
||
Subj: Reply 1
|
||
|
||
Thanks for relaying the reply, Jim. Here are a few comments that I'd
|
||
appreciate your passing on to Dan Drasin, Ufologist.
|
||
.
|
||
I meant my comments as notes by a skeptic. My training is in stellar
|
||
astronomy; I am not a specialist in planetary geology. The principle I'm
|
||
using here is: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof." The only
|
||
"proof" available is a set of 4 photos that have already been examined and
|
||
investigated by working planetary geologists at JPL. They found no evidence
|
||
of non-natural formations in the photos.
|
||
.
|
||
Now, your allegations:
|
||
.
|
||
> a mature scientist would be unlikely to say "It's a case of making
|
||
> meaning out of background noise". He would, rather, say "It *may* be
|
||
> a case of making meaning out of background noise. Let us look into
|
||
> this further."
|
||
.
|
||
I should have said this plainer: Like so many other pseudoscientific
|
||
"investigations," it's a case of making meaning out of background noise.
|
||
Nothing in Carlotto's article justifies second-guessing the opinions of the
|
||
planetary geologists at JPL.
|
||
|
||
> The 2 lower-resolution photos of Cydonia taken at radically
|
||
> different sun-incidence angles are of more than sufficient resolution
|
||
> to provide confirmation of Carlotto's shape-from-shading algorithms.
|
||
.
|
||
No, on page 1927 Carlotto specifically says "only the first two scenes have
|
||
sufficient relsolution ... for our analysis." Actually, if 673B56 and 753A33
|
||
were of sufficent resolution the "face" problem could be resolved one way or
|
||
the other.
|
||
.
|
||
> What's the point of turning the face upside-down so it looks less
|
||
> like a face?
|
||
.
|
||
The point is that you are less likely to see a "face" that isn't there.
|
||
There's a whole literature on the psychology of perception. I suggest you
|
||
read some of it.
|
||
.
|
||
> (eyelid, "teeth", "turban folds" etc.) visible most strongly on the
|
||
> left side.
|
||
.
|
||
"Turban" folds?? Give me a break! (This is like the Shroud, with people
|
||
seeing all sorts of stuff in a few smudges.)
|
||
|
||
> Our best guess is that the "Face" weas never completely finished.
|
||
.
|
||
My best guess is that the "face" was never started.
|
||
.
|
||
> The 5-sided so-called "D&M Pyramid" (not part of the "City" complex) is a
|
||
> different story. It's shaped like a human figure with outstretched arms.
|
||
> It's "head" points directly at the large "Face". That sightline forms the
|
||
> hypotenuse of a right triangle, etc., etc., etc., etc.
|
||
.
|
||
Gee, I don't see any of this stuff. I suspect that I could take about any
|
||
of the Mars photos that show a lot of fuzzy terrain and you could find lots
|
||
of interesting objects.
|
||
.
|
||
> In what *sense* does Carlotto cite the Pozos and Hoagland books?
|
||
.
|
||
He cites the books both in the body of the paper and the endnotes (pp.
|
||
1926; 1928; 1933). He uses them as examples of previous interest in the
|
||
"face," as if the books were legitimate scientific publications.
|
||
|
||
|
||
> It is only the great scientists, not the hacks, who seem to have the
|
||
> courage to re-examine the very fabric of their own assumptions.
|
||
.
|
||
A classic pseudoscientific statement. With a belief like this you could
|
||
justify any lunacy you wanted to.
|
||
.
|
||
> To equate legitimate "expertise" with specialization in *geology* is
|
||
> lamentably circular, to say nothing of narrow.
|
||
.
|
||
Viking planetary geologists have examined hundreds of pictures of Mars and
|
||
other planets. Their analysis of the Viking photos has been published in
|
||
refereed journals and is backed up by geolgists world-wide. None of the
|
||
planetary geologists have any difficulty telling the difference between
|
||
artificial and natural formations.
|
||
.
|
||
> Now, I challenge you to name even one NASA anthropologist, or one person
|
||
> on the Viking team who's ever studied and understood the work of
|
||
> Paolo Soleri.
|
||
.
|
||
They don't study or understand the work of Velikovsky, either. It's just
|
||
not relevant.
|
||
|
||
|
||
> But *cynics* need not apply --they are mostly on ego-trips and
|
||
> tend to waste people's time. Almost without exception they generate
|
||
> much heat and very little light.
|
||
.
|
||
This is the pot calling the kettle black. Much heat has been generated by
|
||
UFO believers about the "face" on Mars, and none of it is based on solid
|
||
evidence. My advice: either put up or shut up.
|
||
.
|
||
> If you put no conditions on it, i.e., explore with an open mind, you will
|
||
> collect a great richness of data
|
||
.
|
||
Yep, and the more open the mind, the richer the data will be. Ask Shirley
|
||
MacLaine.
|
||
.
|
||
> Don't believe me; read Thomas Kuhn's *The Structure of Scientific
|
||
> Revolutions*.
|
||
.
|
||
Poor Tom Kuhn. Every recent pseudoscientist, including creationist Henry
|
||
Morris, has cited Kuhn as evidence that they are right and the scientific
|
||
establishment is wrong. As Phillip Kitcher wrote, "Thomas Kuhn's book has
|
||
probably been more widely read -- and more widely misinterpreted -- than any
|
||
other book in the recent philosophy of science." (Abusing Science, p. 168)
|
||
.
|
||
> Mr. Lewis' phrase, "the ridiculousness of what was being enhanced"
|
||
> brings to mind a favorite phrase of Dr. Hynek: "Ridicule is not part
|
||
> of scientific method."
|
||
.
|
||
"Ridiculousness" was used in the secondary meaning of "something
|
||
preposterous," *not* in the sense of "deserving ridicule." My point was that
|
||
the "Applied Optics" was evidently more interested in the techniques Carlotto
|
||
was using on the images than the images themselves.
|
||
.
|
||
Note: Sarcasm has no place in scientific papers, but I don't consider this
|
||
forum exactly on the level of "Nature." It's part of my style; ignore it if
|
||
that'll make you feel better.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
* Origin: Verbose Ink * WOC'n with Words * Big D * (Opus 1:124/125)
|
||
|
||
|