So Are UFO Researchers Trying Too Hard to Find Life on Mars?

[Gene Steinberg]

According to an NBC story, maybe.

What do you think?

Who knew? Curiosity photos show Mars teeming with UFOs

 

[Randall]

The content is all stuff from the Alien Disclosure Group UK, which appears to be little more than a Facebook page and some youtube posts. I'm not sure that you could call them ( if there is a them ) UFO researchers, but I've sent them an email asking for more information about the group. So we'll see what they say ( If anything ).

I'd also say that the article's author ( Natalie Wolchover ) wasn't searching for serious ufology articles, but rather trying to find an item of interest that would generate hits for Life's Little Mysteries, one of Tech Media Network's 17 websites ( among them space.com ), all of which are commercial operations with a heavy focus on advertising.

 

[starise]

The supposed aereal objects are interesting. Could be dead pixels and probably is. My question would be that if they are dead pixels why don't we see the same things on other pictures? There should be at least a hint of the same problem elsewhere.

 

[exo_doc]

I don't think it was dead pixels.
Could those be cosmic ray strikes against a few pixels? Mars has an extremely weak magnetic field that wouldn't keep them out. Maybe?

 

[starise]

Could be I suppose.I only mentioned dead pixels because I read somewhere that a rep from NASA was saying that this was the problem. It just doesn't make sense that if this were dead pixels you would see the same effect on other pics.

One can only guess as to why they would be there IF they are objects hovering. Intelligent beings would probably already know and would not see the need to babysit curiosity. It could be Mars life kind of like Geese on earth...yeah right. No I haven't been drinking. OTOH under the right conditions it could be debris farther out than it might appear.

 

[Randall]

I received an email from the ADG-UK people. Apparently there are 5 administrative members that they consider to be "highly experienced researchers and experiencer's in their own right" and the lead guy ( Stephen ) responded to a few questions saying:

"When I set the ADG group up I made it clear to everyone that it would be 100% non profit, and totally separate from the UFO community, an independent maverick organisation if you like, who's goal was to stir the pot, and get folks interested, and talking about UFOs etc in a fun, and entertaining way."​

"I made it quite clear in the video that it could be UFOs or dust particles, and that folks should decide for themselves. Myself and the ADG never decide anything for anyone, we merely present the media, and allow people to draw their own conclusions, and that's how it should be. The ADG Youtube channel for example, is the most popular of its kind, drawing an audience of just under a million a month, its been active for just over a year, and has reached over 33 million people. No other UFO/Paranormal group or organisation, mainstream or not, comes even close, and you wonder why I am a target? Hope this is helpful.​

​

There is also a contactee facet to the group, but they have been reluctant to share any details about that saying only that it has given them a "profound understanding of the reality of the phenomenon." At some point I'll post up a brief article on the USI website. Hopefully they will have provided more information by then, but I'm getting the impression that they don't really want to be personally associated with what they are doing and don't like to share any information other than what they post up in their videos and on their website.

 

[trainedobserver]

One thing to remember about these photographs is that they are digital from the word go, subjected to processing and compression. Artifacts and strangeness can and does sometimes appear as a result.

 

[Randall]

One thing to remember about these photographs is that they are digital from the word go, subjected to processing and compression. Artifacts and strangeness can and does sometimes appear as a result.

Good point. It's another example of why evidence from technology can't simply be taken for granted.

 

[trainedobserver]

Good point. It's another example of why evidence from technology can't simply be taken for granted.

Nothing can be taken for granted. Every information system, including the human brain/mind system, has multiple points from which noise, error, and corruption can be introduced.

 

[pixelsmith]

i believe there are several camera on board the rover. that might explain why the dead pixels are not on all images.

 

[Randall]

Nothing can be taken for granted. Every information system, including the human brain/mind system, has multiple points from which noise, error, and corruption can be introduced.

True. But let's suppose you were on Mars and looked at those spots yourself through some high powered binoculars and saw two distinct objects hanging in the sky? Would that be sufficient confirmation that the video is real? I suspect it would. Or let's reverse it and suppose you couldn't see any objects through your binoculars. Would you trust your eyes more than the video? I still suspect you would. Why? Because the concept of visual confirmation that something is real is highly valued as corroborative evidence.

 

[pixelsmith]

i was driving down a road once and saw visual confirmation of a lot of water on the road so i slowed down a bit and when i got up to where i thought it was... it had vanished. not a shred of evidence that water had been there. wtf?

 

[Randall]

i was driving down a road once and saw visual confirmation of a lot of water on the road so i slowed down a bit and when i got up to where i thought it was... it had vanished. not a shred of evidence that water had been there. wtf?

You only thought you saw what looked like water, the visual confirmation was getting to the spot and not seeing any water.

 

[pixelsmith]

if i had not driven any further it would have been confirmed in my mind because i saw it plain as day.

 

[trainedobserver]

True. But let's suppose you were on Mars and looked at those spots yourself through some high powered binoculars and saw two distinct objects hanging in the sky? Would that be sufficient confirmation that the video is real? I suspect it would. Or let's reverse it and suppose you couldn't see any objects through your binoculars. Would you trust your eyes more than the video? I still suspect you would. Why? Because the concept of visual confirmation that something is real is highly valued as corroborative evidence.

The video is real. We don't know for sure what the objects are, but we do know what would account for it that doesn't have to assume the existence of something like flying machines or life on Mars.

When you have disparity in data you look for the reason why, you don't arbitrary assume one is correct and not the other. I mean you can, but you open yourself up to error and you will not really know anything.

 

[Randall]

The video is real. We don't know for sure what the objects are, but we do know what would account for it that doesn't have to assume the existence of something like flying machines or life on Mars. When you have disparity in data you look for the reason why, you don't arbitrary assume one is correct and not the other. I mean you can, but you open yourself up to error and you will not really know anything.

Nice dodge there train.

 

[trainedobserver]

Nice dodge there train.

You wound me. I answered directly. If my instruments told me one thing, and my eyes another, I would seek to understand why. Only after I had a reason, would I discount ones information for the other. Therefore the statement, "When you have disparity in data you look for the reason why, you don't arbitrary assume one is correct and not the other. I mean you can, but you open yourself up to error and you will not really know anything." is not a dodge, but a true representation of how I would strive to think about it.

 

[Randall]

You wound me. I answered directly. If my instruments told me one thing, and my eyes another, I would seek to understand why. Only after I had a reason, would I discount ones information for the other. Therefore the statement, "When you have disparity in data you look for the reason why, you don't arbitrary assume one is correct and not the other. I mean you can, but you open yourself up to error and you will not really know anything." is not a dodge, but a true representation of how I would strive to think about it.

Not quite so directly actually. Let's try something that a simple yes or no would work just fine for. If a video screen shows objects in the air, and you can also see those objects directly with your own eyes, would your own visual confirmation not be sufficient enough for you to accept that the objects are really there?

 

[trainedobserver]

Not quite so directly actually. Let's try something that a simple yes or no would work just fine for. If a video screen shows objects in the air, and you can also see those objects directly with your own eyes, would your own visual confirmation not be sufficient enough for you to accept that the objects are really there?

I would have to say yes, I see something, but I would not immediately arrive at the conclusion that what I perceived was actually there, particularly if it was highly unusual. I have seen things that are not there, we all have at one point or another and under a wide variety of circumstances.

 

[Randall]

I would have to say yes, I see something, but I would not immediately arrive at the conclusion that what I perceived was actually there, particularly if it was highly unusual. I have seen things that are not there, we all have at one point or another and under a wide variety of circumstances.

So if your own visual confirmation is insufficient, how many more corroborative observers ( in addition to the video ) would you need before you would accept that the objects are really there?