Mars, the "Greenish" Planet?

Robert Clark

unread,

Dec 11, 2002, 9:31:55 PM12/11/02

to

Below I discussed the fact that Mars frequently presents a greenish
tint to Earth bound observers. This had been attributed to an optical
illusion but the best Hubble image taken of Mars also showed areas
with a greenish hue:

Hubble Captures Best View of Mars Ever Obtained From Earth
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2001/24/

Now the THEMIS camera on Mars Odyssey also shows an area on Mars with
greenish patches:

PIA03738: Candor Chasma on Mars, in Color
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA03738

Bob Clark

______________________________________________________
From: Robert Clark (rgrego...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: First color images from 2001 Mars Odyssey?
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary, sci.space.history, sci.astro,
sci.astro.amateur
Date: 2002-04-06 08:35:28 PST

You wouldn't get the impression that Mars is a colorless world from
this Hubble image either:

Hubble Captures Best View of Mars Ever Obtained From Earth
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2001/24/

Impossible not to notice that the darker areas have greenish tinge to
them.
I found this web site that says this is common from telescope views
from Earth but attributes it to an optical illusion:

Mars
"When Mars is viewed through a telescope, it looks like a red and
orange disk. An observer can easily see white ice caps at the north
and south poles of Mars. These caps grow and shrink throughout the
Martian year, just as the polar caps of Earth do. The darker areas of
Mars's surface may look greenish to the observer, but this is an
optical illusion caused by the contrast in color between the dark
patches and brighter areas. Scientists believe that the dark areas are
regions of relatively unweathered bare rock, while the bright areas
are regions with deposits of weathered material, especially fine
dust."
http://www.cosmiverse.com/reflib/marspage1.htm

Whether this seasonal change is an optical illusion or not is
something color light imaging from THEMIS could also address.
I imagine examination of the spectra of this Hubble image also could
address the question of whether these dark areas really are reflecting
most strongly in the green part of the spectrum.

rgrego...@yahoo.com (Robert Clark) wrote in message news:<832ea96d.02040...@posting.google.com>...
> he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote in message news:<Gtwp...@spsystems.net>...
> > In article <10176897...@server.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de>,
> > Holger Isenberg <H.Ise...@ping.de> wrote:
> > >> http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/ Pretty color pictures are probably
> > >> not a high priority...
> > >
> > >Can you explain further? We send the first real color camera to Mars orbit
> > >and its pictures are low priority in relation to 20 m/pixel b&w pictures,
> > >which already had been taken back in 1972 by Mariner 9?
> >
> > They're (probably) low priority because they don't *tell* you anything
> > new. It was established early that Mars is not a colorful place -- that
> > is, its color doesn't *vary* much -- and that (conventional) color imaging
> > thus doesn't add much information compared to B&W images. So tripling the
> > data volume to bring back color isn't very attractive.
> >
> > Note that THEMIS is primarily an IR instrument. The visual part is mostly
> > just a supplement to the IR imaging.
>
> I agree with you that the IR images should have higher priority but I
> don't agree that color images wouldn't tell you very much. I copied
> below a post discussing some questions that color imaging could
> answer. Other questions that would be interesting to answer is what
> are the colors of the dark streaks seen forming in current times? In
> the MGS images they look just look black to varying shades of grey.
> What about the color of the "dalmation spots" that some have claimed
> to be indicative of life?
> A region I'm especially interested in is Solis Lacus. This has long
> been known to be a variable feature on Mars both seasonally and long
> term. This is interesting because there are several lines of evidence
> suggesting there could be near surface liquid water in Solis. Are the
> known albedo changes in Solis accompanied by color changes?
> This web page by the Association of Lunar & Planetary Observers lists
> several variable features on Mars that very likely would also be
> accompanied by color changes:
>
> 1998-1999 Aphelic Apparition of Mars: Part 3
> http://www.astroleague.org/marswatch/Newsletr/imv03i06.html
>
> Bob Clark
>
> **************************************************************
> From: Robert Clark (rgrego...@yahoo.com)
> Subject: On the colors of Mars and the mystery of the "Sinton bands".
> Newsgroups: sci.astro, alt.sci.planetary, sci.astro.seti, sci.bio.misc
> Date: 2002-02-02 15:19:44 PST
>
> The color imager on Mars Odyssey should have about the same resolution
> as the Viking orbiter, about 20 meters/pixel.
>
> A question about some features on Mars is whether some color
> differences are real or are only apparent in comparison to surrounding
> terrain.
>
> White Rock for example has been claimed to not really be white but
> only lighter than the surrounding area. Will the color imager be able
> to determine if it really is white?
>
> Another area where the interpretation of its color has been
> controversial is the Syrtis Major region. It has long been known to
> present an apparent bluish tint that appears to change seasonally.
> William Sinton made some spectrographic observations of the area in
> the 50's that appeared to show it's spectrum matched that of complex
> organic molecules. This and the seasonal changes led Sinton to
> originally propose the spectra were due to life. Will Mars Odyssey be
> able to determine if Syrtis Major really does become blue seasonally?
> Some of the bands Sinton observed have been explained as actualy due
> to HDO in Earth's atmosphere. However, the bands at 3.4 microns which
> are frequently seen in complex hydrocarbons have not been definitively
> explained. Will the THEMIS infrared imager on Mars Odyssey finally be
> able to resolve the mystery of the "Sinton bands"?
>
> The history of the Sinton bands is told in the second chapter of
> Barry DiGregorio's book, _Mars: the Living Planet_,
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1883319587/marsbugstheelect
>
> References on the Sinton bands:
>
> Home Page for IRTF Mars Image Gallery
> Sinton bands in February 1995 IRTF images
> http://marswatch.astro.cornell.edu/irtf.html
>
> 3-4m mm IMAGING SPECTROSCOPY OF MARS.
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/LPSC98/pdf/1658.pdf
>
> It's also discussed in the dissertation of David Klassen:
>
> Infrared Imaging Spectroscopy of Martian Volatiles
> by David R. Klassen
> http://elvis.rowan.edu/~klassen/papers/dissertation/chapter1.htm
>
> Bell et.al. have also proposed the aluminum mineral diaspore
> for the origin of the "Sinton bands":
>
> SPECTROSCOPIC EVIDENCE FOR DIASPORE (a-AlOOH) ON MARS.
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2000/pdf/1227.pdf
>
>
> Bob Clark
> ****************************************************
_______________________________________________________________

Jan Owen

unread,

Dec 11, 2002, 9:37:04 PM12/11/02

to

Fake ED glass without a Chromacor will do it every time...

{;-)

Heheheh...

"Robert Clark" <rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:832ea96d.0212...@posting.google.com...

O'Brother

unread,

Dec 11, 2002, 10:40:25 PM12/11/02

to

"Robert Clark" <rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:832ea96d.0212...@posting.google.com...

> Below I discussed the fact that Mars frequently presents a greenish
> tint to Earth bound observers. This had been attributed to an optical
> illusion but the best Hubble image taken of Mars also showed areas
> with a greenish hue:
>

But that's nothing Bob - tell them all about how NASA is airbrushing out the
STARTLING picture of Elvis in his pink cadillac driving across the martian
desert. Headed towards the MALEVOLENT ALIEN DOMES hidden just beneath the
frozen surface, not far from the Montauk and Stargate 1 landing sites
(honest, it's all true!) Also tell them about how Gatlinburg TN, Miami and
Anaheim, CA are really huge alien indoctrination centers where peoples
brains are removed and replaced with Quaker oatmeal, and where SINISTER
alien females secretly purchase and export high fashion clothes to the Zeta
Homeworld.

Its all revealed in the latest book "THE TAROT NEVER LIEZ" which includes
seventeen hundred detailed charts showing the relationship between the
tarot, the musical scales, the keys on the keyboard, the position of our
teeth, the length of human hair, the pattern of tire treads and the ages of
the senators and members of the house of representatives.

Included also is the REAL TRUTH about the HORRID plot to cover up the real
reasons why Binney & Smith only sell crayons in even numbers, why Thomas
Jefferson had a Zeta implant and how elves and faeries are abducting
middle-age, hypertensive bank executives and subjecting them to INHUMAN AND
UNSPEAKABLE alien probings.

Yes friends, it all ties together. The Philadelphia experiment, Roswell,
Montauk, Ong's hat, Watergate, Flight 747 and Planet X. One huge
alien/hybrid/demonic conspiracy to hold you prisoner in your homes, to rob
you of your guns and to deprive you of your vital human fluids.

Included with this AMAZING book offer we'll include also "WHITE LIES AND
SMALL UNTRUTHS I HAVE TOLD" written by the main Zetan "ZetaJake" from the
Zeta home world. In this FABULOUS book, ZetaJake recounts the many
memorable white lies that he is loved and rememberd for. He also recount's
his startling TRANSFORMATION from STS to STOS to STOMFS. The book also
includes breathtaking color photographs of #Zetatalk IRC 'controllers'
booting unsuspecting humanoid like questioners.

Yes, all this and more! If you order now we will include a solid plastic
"red persona" identification chart showing the many different sizes a red
persona might be IF you could see it, correlated with its "actual size" on
the Zetan homeworld. On the flip side is the "white persona" identifier. A
detachable plastic slide-ruler crosshair can also be used as a 'red filter'
for when you are out doing naked eye viewing of planet x's approach and
SWIRLING MOONS(tm). The circular guide is also useful in making red circles
showing *possible* locations for planet X to spam on sci.astro for lots of
laughs. On the edge of the guide are 'hot pixel' detectors so that as you
do your 'pixel analysis' you can detect the real hot pixels from the phoney
ones.

And finally, (as if this isn't enough...) we will throw in a detailed map
showing all places on the earth in which it will be safe to hide during the
pole shift aftertimes. Included with this are the names of participating
realtors in those areas who will be more than delighted to show you around.
(But remember, these 'safe places' are in remote and undeveloped areas such
as cow pastures, swamp lands and deserts - so you'll have to drive a hard
bargain to purchase them. (Since money won't be needed after Px, don't be
afraid to spend that 'extra little bit' to get these top quality hiding
places, since the poor fools you'll be buying them from don't know the REAL
QUALITY of the safe havens.))

If you act now, we will also include a FABULOUS "Dominoe Earthquake
Detector". This amazing tool will not only tell you when an earthquake is
going on around you, but also if it is a FEARED dominoe earthquake a high
quality LED indicator will flash and the words "YOURE TOAST" will be beeped
out in morse code. Don't miss out on this chance now!

Get "THE TAROT NEVER LIEZ", the ZetaJake compendium, the red and white
persona identifier with integrated red-filter AND the dominoe quake detector
for the low, low price of 799.95, or 75 easy monthly payments of 49.95.

Send your check or money order to:

END OF THE WORLD PRODUCTIONS
200305 ZT Drive southwest
Mount Shasta, CA 10001
Attention: "MALEVOLENT Prophecies Dept"

(Void where prohibited by law. ETWP is not responsible for the actual
content of anything read in its products and considers them "For
entertainment use only" but secretly believes that it's TRUE, ALL TRUE!!!!
If reading about PlanetX causes headache, discontinue its use. Repeated
viewing of invisible, non-existent planets or aliens can be indications of
serious personality disorders and should be referred to the nearest mental
health institution)

O'

((snipped less interesting rant below))
>
> >
> > Bob Clark
> > ****************************************************
> _______________________________________________________________

Fr Chas

unread,

Dec 12, 2002, 2:58:25 AM12/12/02

to

Great writing, have you considered writing for Conan O'Brien?

Or maybe Dave Letterman could start a segment on "Stupid Zeta Tricks" with you
as writer and director.

This is a little scary though, that you know so much about this stuff!

Howard Lester

unread,

Dec 12, 2002, 1:04:23 PM12/12/02

to

"Jan Owen" wrote

> Fake ED glass without a Chromacor will do it every time...
>
> {;-)
>
> Heheheh...

Lier! First good laugh I've had today! (life is tough, folks...)

David Knisely

unread,

Dec 12, 2002, 2:15:19 PM12/12/02

to

Robert Clark posted:

> Below I discussed the fact that Mars frequently presents a greenish
> tint to Earth bound observers. This had been attributed to an optical
> illusion but the best Hubble image taken of Mars also showed areas
> with a greenish hue:

Its still pretty much an optical illusion of "color contrast". If you
sample the image with a paint program, most of those darker areas are
more of a bluish-grey or brownish than purely green. This kind of
contrast effect has been known for a very long time. Not long ago, I
fooled a University professor by creating my own "Mars" using various
grey tones and the ocre and pinkish-salmon colors Mars shows. He too
though the areas I had painted in grey were slightly bluish-green (and
he is someone who observes Mars regularly).

> Now the THEMIS camera on Mars Odyssey also shows an area on Mars with
> greenish patches:
>
> PIA03738: Candor Chasma on Mars, in Color
> http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA03738

Any "greenish" patches in the jpeg image look like poor color frame
registration on the part of the person who did the color processing of
the images (a few tiny light green spots which parallel other detail).
The gif image doesn't show the same ones, although it does show hints of
lost data in some strips for at least one of the three colors. The tiff
image is the most true, as it does show the effects of a loss of data in
one or two "strips". The image is also a little too dark and contrasty
for my tastes. Mars has a much lighter color in the telescope. In any
case, there appears to be little unusual in the image.
--
David W. Knisely KA0...@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Conrad Hodson

unread,

Dec 12, 2002, 4:07:18 PM12/12/02

to

On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, O'Brother wrote:
Also tell them about how Gatlinburg TN, Miami and
> Anaheim, CA are really huge alien indoctrination centers where peoples
> brains are removed and replaced with Quaker oatmeal,

I meet people like that all the time, but I'd always wondered how they got
that way. Thanks!

and how elves and faeries are abducting
> middle-age, hypertensive bank executives and subjecting them to INHUMAN AND
> UNSPEAKABLE alien probings.
>

Actually, reliance on press releases has permitted recent redeployment of
all news reporting resources to writeups of private sexual activity--and
it's been found that all those "elves and fairies" were in fact well-paid
male and female sex workers in fancy costumes. "Space aliens/demigods
made me do it!" is easier for closet cases than "Yeah, so I'm kinky. Deal
with it."

Conrad Hodson

Steve Sutton

unread,

unread,

Dec 12, 2002, 10:44:46 PM12/12/02

to

December 12, 2002

Tom Rankin wrote:

> Was it *REALLY* believed as late as the 60's that Mars had plant life ?

I remember those days well. Right up until 1965, we didn't have a clue.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Robert Clark

unread,

Dec 13, 2002, 12:05:45 AM12/13/02

to

David Knisely <KA0...@navix.net> wrote in message news:<3DF8DFF0...@navix.net>...

The TIFF image on my computer still looks to have greenish patches
on my computer. You can easily verify these areas are actually green
by opening it up in a program that allows color histograms such as
Photoshop. However, the problems registering the different filter
images from THEMIS into a single image have been discussed on
sci.astro. It creates a kind of color "banding" effect. I've been
informed that the ASU scientists are confident of the colors in this
image however.
I'm fairly certain that the Hubble image of Mars has been checked by
spectrograms, i.e., areas that appear green in the image really do
reflect most strongly in the green part of the visible spectrum. I say
this because the scientists mentioned in the news release are involved
in taking visible, near-infrared and infrared images of Mars. You can
contact them if you have questions about this.
I should mention I've seen another explanation of the green areas
aside from the obvious biological one: that it's due to the olivine
that has already been detected on Mars:

A Dry "Green" Mars?
by Melanie Melton
"What happened to the Red Planet? Researchers with the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) now think that about one million square miles
of Mars might be GREEN."
http://www.planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/headlines/2000/drygreenmars.html

New Evidence Suggests Mars Has Been Cold and Dry
"Red Planet" Abundant with Green Minerals.
http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/mars.press.release.10.2000.html

The greenish areas in this image should be within the 100 meter
resolution scale of THEMIS to detect olivine if it is there.

Note also that green and blue areas on Mars were also observed in
Viking orbiter color imaging:

Title: Physical properties of Meridiani Sinus-type units in the
central equatorial region of Mars
Authors: Strickland, Edwin L., III
Journal: In Lunar and Planetary Inst., Workshop on the Martian Surface
and Atmosphere Through Time p 144-145 (SEE N92-28988 19-91)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?1992msat.work..144S [full
text]

Bob Clark

Henry Spencer

unread,

Dec 12, 2002, 11:46:37 PM12/12/02

to

In article <gbaK9.35925$HA2.11...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,

Tom Rankin <tranki...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>I still have a book that I read a lot as a kid, published in 1962,
>entitled "The Space Book". In it, there is a description of Mars, that
>states,
>"There are green areas that probably are signs of some form of plant life".
>Was it *REALLY* believed as late as the 60's that Mars had plant life ?

Nobody was sure, but the idea was quite respectable, if only because the
dark areas (colors were quite difficult to judge) showed clear seasonal
changes. Yes, it would have to be quite hardy forms, but lichens in
particular seemed credible.

unread,

Dec 13, 2002, 11:03:13 AM12/13/02

to

jerry warner wrote:

>I dont know where you are getting your information, but this
>was never thought in professional circles or with anyone I
>ever knew! Sounds to me like you have watched too much
>TV and read too many Reader's Digest anecdotes?
>
>

I well ember the various theories of Venus when I was a kid- there was
the jungle swamp Venus, the desert Venus, and the steamy world ocean
Venus- the only real data we had from Earth based observation was the
approximate temperature of it's cloud tops, and some spectroscopic data
on their possible composition.

Pat Flannery

unread,

Dec 13, 2002, 11:06:25 AM12/13/02

to

Pat Flannery wrote:

>
>
>
> I well ember the various theories of Venus when I was a kid-

REMEMBER....it must be all that thought of frightful Venusian heat.

Ramu

Henry Spencer

unread,

Dec 13, 2002, 10:39:54 AM12/13/02

to

In article <O3gK9.132$SI5.11...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,

Bruce Sterling Woodcock <sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Was it *REALLY* believed as late as the 60's that Mars had plant life ?
>
>Not only that, but up until about the same time (maybe a decade before), it

>was thought the Venusian clouds were water-vapor clouds...

I wouldn't go quite that far. Before Mariner 2, there were several
theories of Venus. The steamy-jungle theory was popular early in the
century, but it was no longer consensus opinion by 1960, although it was
still respectable. There was a theory that the surface was all water;
there was another that it was desert. Theories were tending toward high
surface temperatures because of indications of a lot of CO2 in the
atmosphere, and there was even a minority theory (originating with Wildt's
1940 paper) that Venus was a runaway-greenhouse inferno.

Jan Owen

unread,

Dec 13, 2002, 1:08:25 PM12/13/02

to

Now, me, I'll vote for David's continued presence over yours any time!

PLONK!

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> wrote in message
news:3DF988AF...@reverse-o-matic.com...

Thomas Lee Elifritz

unread,

Dec 13, 2002, 4:18:14 PM12/13/02

to

December 13, 2002

Jan Owen wrote:

> Now, me, I'll vote for David's continued presence over yours any time!

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Jan+Owen%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&start=10&sa=N

And you too suddenly vanish in a puff of crank - anti-crank annihilation.

Yet another problem solved.

Eric Crew

unread,

Dec 13, 2002, 12:59:09 PM12/13/02

to

In article <H71Jx...@spsystems.net>, Henry Spencer
<he...@spsystems.net> writes

>In article <gbaK9.35925$HA2.11...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
>Tom Rankin <tranki...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>>I still have a book that I read a lot as a kid, published in 1962,
>>entitled "The Space Book". In it, there is a description of Mars, that
>>states,
>>"There are green areas that probably are signs of some form of plant life".
>>Was it *REALLY* believed as late as the 60's that Mars had plant life ?
>
>Nobody was sure, but the idea was quite respectable, if only because the
>dark areas (colors were quite difficult to judge) showed clear seasonal
>changes. Yes, it would have to be quite hardy forms, but lichens in
>particular seemed credible.
>
>What really ruined the idea was Mariner 4 -- not so much the ancient,
>crater-pocked surface seen in the images, but the measurements which
>indicated that the atmosphere was far thinner than anyone had thought.

Perhaps it is possible that Mars has been visited by space travellers
who would need protection from solar activity so they would construct a
system of tunnels which are also used for distribution of water and
other materials. They could be sealed to contain an atmosphere much
denser than at the surface with airlocks as in our spacecraft. The
tunnels probably produce faint lines on surface frost as claimed by
Percival Lowell and others. The excavations could be made by machines
using solar or other power sources prior to live visits. We are making
slow but steady progress towards such activity. NASA may decide to send
unmanned craft to Mars to construct or excavate (or discover) shelters
before the visit of astronauts. Solar power generators on the surface
could feed current into the sheltered zones.
--
Eric Crew

John Beaderstadt

unread,

Dec 13, 2002, 6:42:56 PM12/13/02

to

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
Eric Crew <er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> on Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:59:09 +0000,
which said:

>Perhaps it is possible that Mars has been visited by space travellers...

Do you have *any* evidence for this, or is it just a wild and baseless
fantasy that you intend to defend to the death, mainly because no one
has yet proven it wrong?

---------
Beady's 9th Law of Social Harmonics: "Never dress better than the jury."

David Knisely

unread,

Dec 14, 2002, 3:35:31 AM12/14/02

to

Jerry Warner posted:

> I dont know where you are getting your information, but this
> was never thought in professional circles or with anyone I
> ever knew! Sounds to me like you have watched too much
> TV and read too many Reader's Digest anecdotes?

Not at all (Bruce Woodcock is remembering correctly). These ideas were
thought of in a somewhat speculative manner, both in terms of what was
though to be on Mars and Venus. I recall as a child one of my little
books on the planets (as well as in one encyclopedia we had) the which
promoted the possibility of lichen-like life forms on Mars, as well as
the three or four "theories" on what lay below the clouds of Venus. The
so-called "wave of darkening" on Mars was the chief item which supported
the possibility that at least primitive plant life existed on the planet
and was responding to an increase in available moisture. It wasn't
until the 1970's that the "wave of darkening" had been looked at more
closely and found to be questionalbe (mainly a contrast effect due to
changes in the amount of dust in the Martian atmosphere: see THE SURFACE
OF MARS by Michael Carr, p. 6-7). The idea of some kind of large-scale
primitive plant life on Mars held on until at least the mid to late
1960's, with it finally receiving perhaps its final hard blow with the
Viking probe results.
As for the Venus models, the pre-spaceflight Venus ideas were that it
was 1. a warm wet jungle (proposed by the Chemist S. A. Arrhenius in
1918), 2. hot, dry, and very windy, with the clouds being dust (in 1922
by American astronomers C. St. John and S.B. Nicholson), 3. a
planet-covering "soda" ocean no less, to account for the presence of
Carbon Dioxide discovered in 1932, and even a "petroleum" planet rich in
oily hydrocarbons (I am currently looking at the illustrations of these
rather surprising models in my old LIFE SCIENCE LIBRARY book THE PLANETS
(by C. Sagan and J.N. Leonard, c. 1966). No one knew exactly what the
clouds were made of, and early measurements of their temperatures
revealed that they were fairly cold. These cold figures were,
unfortunately, not the main cloud deck temperature or that of the
surface, but only that of the uppermost edge where things really can be
fairly cool. Thus, speculation ran rampant even with some accomplished
scientists as to what exactly lay beneath the clouds of Venus. I recall
one of my first books on the planets (circa 1959) showing an artist's
conception of the warm wet Venus, complete with a Dinosaur! Some of
these models even continued to have supporters into the late 1950's.
Once data from Mariner II arrived, it soon became clear that the planet
was indeed very hot with a high surface pressure and that the other
models simply could not be correct. The original St. John and Nicholson
model seemed to get the closest of all the various models, although they
didn't get the cloud composition right.

Bill Ferris

unread,

Dec 14, 2002, 11:56:56 AM12/14/02

to

David Knisely wrote:
>Jerry Warner posted:
>> I dont know where you are getting your information, but this
>> was never thought in professional circles or with anyone I
>> ever knew! Sounds to me like you have watched too much
>> TV and read too many Reader's Digest anecdotes?
>
>Not at all (Bruce Woodcock is remembering correctly). These ideas were
>thought of in a somewhat speculative manner, both in terms of what was
>though to be on Mars and Venus. I recall as a child one of my little
>books on the planets (as well as in one encyclopedia we had) the which
>promoted the possibility of lichen-like life forms on Mars, as well as

>the three or four "theories" on what lay below the clouds of Venus. [snip]

Among the books in my astronomy library is "A Golden Nature Guide: Stars," a
second edition publication from 1956. The authors were Herbert S. Zim, Ph.D.,
Sc.D. and Robert H. Baker, Ph.D., Sc.D, Professor of Astronomy Emeritus,
University of Illinios.

Here's a quote from a caption to an illustraiton on pages 102-103:
"One can only speculate about what lies beneath the dense warm clouds of Venus.
The greenish areas seen on Mars through telescopes suggest but do not prove the
existence of plant life on that planet."

Regards,

Bill Ferris
"Cosmic Voyage: The Online Resource for Amateur Astronomers"
URL: http://www.cosmic-voyage.net
=============
Email: Remove "ic" from .comic above to respond

Eric Crew

unread,

Dec 14, 2002, 6:01:11 AM12/14/02

to

In article <g2skvus1dfe4o9u6o...@4ax.com>, John
Beaderstadt <be...@mindspring.com> writes

Well of course I have no intention of "defending it to the death" !
I am not a crank and I merely look at the evidence. I suggest you do the
same and calm down or you might drown if you are in the bath and get too
excited. However it seems you were reading and running across, so
perhaps you were just using the stupid American euphemism for "loo" ?
Why are you so neurotic about the possibility of a more advanced
civilisation than our struggling present one? You must be reading
inadequately. Do you believe bees can fly?
--
Eric Crew

jerry warner

unread,

Dec 14, 2002, 1:10:46 PM12/14/02

to

as I said .... "in professional:" circles. When you were a kid you
were probably listening to mass media speculations - anecdotes.
Please give professionals some credit for being a little more
thoughtful.
-Jerry

jerry warner

unread,

Dec 14, 2002, 1:24:23 PM12/14/02

to

Really!?

Now for the really-big question: How does one kill lice?

-Jerry

jerry warner

unread,

Dec 14, 2002, 1:25:43 PM12/14/02

to

Most educated knew the difference betwene fact(s) and
"specualtion". Thanks Bill.
-Jerry

Paul Blay

unread,

Dec 14, 2002, 1:23:27 PM12/14/02

to

"jerry warner" wrote ...

>
> Really!?
>
> Now for the really-big question: How does one kill lice?
>
> -Jerry

I've never needed to learn.

Robert Casey

unread,

Dec 14, 2002, 2:57:56 PM12/14/02

to

David Knisely wrote:

>
>
> As for the Venus models, the pre-spaceflight Venus ideas were that it
> was 1. a warm wet jungle (proposed by the Chemist S. A. Arrhenius in
> 1918), 2. hot, dry, and very windy, with the clouds being dust (in 1922
> by American astronomers C. St. John and S.B. Nicholson), 3. a
> planet-covering "soda" ocean no less, to account for the presence of
> Carbon Dioxide discovered in 1932, and even a "petroleum" planet rich in
> oily hydrocarbons (I am currently looking at the illustrations of these
> rather surprising models in my old LIFE SCIENCE LIBRARY book THE PLANETS
> (by C. Sagan and J.N. Leonard, c. 1966). No one knew exactly what the
> clouds were made of, and early measurements of their temperatures
> revealed that they were fairly cold. These cold figures were,
> unfortunately, not the main cloud deck temperature or that of the
> surface, but only that of the uppermost edge where things really can be
> fairly cool. Thus, speculation ran rampant even with some accomplished
> scientists as to what exactly lay beneath the clouds of Venus. I recall
> one of my first books on the planets (circa 1959) showing an artist's
> conception of the warm wet Venus, complete with a Dinosaur!

I had that book too. "Planets" by Otto Binder. He also had the desert
planet theory in another picture. Back then most astronomers were
researching stars, figuring out the relationships between spectral type,
mass, energy output and such. Few people were doing anything with
planets then.

Isn't it interesting that Venus, a planet just a bit less massive than Earth

and closer to the Sun, has an atmosphere much heavier than Earth's.
That would imply that Earth is capable of holding a much denser
atmosphere than we presently have. IIRC, most of what we'd have
is CO2 converted to limestone by the oceans. That would imply that
the CO2 man is dumping into the atmosphere would also get mopped
up in time by the atmosphere. May take a while....

John Beaderstadt

unread,

Dec 14, 2002, 3:28:51 PM12/14/02

to

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by

Eric Crew <er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> on Sat, 14 Dec 2002 11:01:11 +0000,
which said:

>Well of course I have no intention of "defending it to the death" !
>I am not a crank and I merely look at the evidence.

What "evidence" induced you to inject little green men into the
conversation?

>Why are you so neurotic about the possibility of a more advanced
>civilisation than our struggling present one?

I merely asked what evidence you have. You seem to imply that some
exists. Don't just tell me you've got evidence, produce it.

-----------
Beady's 10th Law of Social Harmonics: "Whatever the statement, someone will disagree."

Eric Crew

unread,

Dec 14, 2002, 5:21:37 PM12/14/02

to

In article <H72E...@spsystems.net>, Henry Spencer
<he...@spsystems.net> writes

>In article <O3gK9.132$SI5.11...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
>Bruce Sterling Woodcock <sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Was it *REALLY* believed as late as the 60's that Mars had plant life ?
>>
>>Not only that, but up until about the same time (maybe a decade before), it
>>was thought the Venusian clouds were water-vapor clouds...
>
>I wouldn't go quite that far. Before Mariner 2, there were several
>theories of Venus. The steamy-jungle theory was popular early in the
>century, but it was no longer consensus opinion by 1960, although it was
>still respectable. There was a theory that the surface was all water;
>there was another that it was desert. Theories were tending toward high
>surface temperatures because of indications of a lot of CO2 in the
>atmosphere, and there was even a minority theory (originating with Wildt's
>1940 paper) that Venus was a runaway-greenhouse inferno.

There's also a hypothesis (not a theory!) that an incandescent
electrically charged body was ejected from Jupiter and spiralled in
towards the Sun, finally hitting Venus in a glancing collision that
changed its spin to slow opposite angular direction and heated the
surface to about 500K. The trouble with the greenhouse idea is that the
albedo of Venus is much higher than that of Earth. One interesting item
of evidence is that the ancient dwellers in high altitude places carved
the 'cup and ring' petroglyphs on exposed rock. These may represent what
the amazed observers saw, as the erratic cosmic body was slowly
discharging in the near vacuum of space. There is no other satisfactory
explanation. The effect is shown in experiments with electrical
discharges in vacuum tubes.
--
Eric Crew

Eric Crew

unread,

Dec 14, 2002, 5:24:40 PM12/14/02

to

In article <fu4nvuoveud4eoeb0...@4ax.com>, John
Beaderstadt <be...@mindspring.com> writes

You have to read more widely and you will see for yourself. It took a
long time to convince 'philosopher' that Earth moved in space.
--
Eric Crew

Henry Spencer

unread,

Dec 14, 2002, 8:25:46 PM12/14/02

to

In article <9No68AAx...@brox1.demon.co.uk>,
Eric Crew <er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>...The trouble with the greenhouse idea is that the
>albedo of Venus is much higher than that of Earth...

Greenhouse effect hinges on the *balance* between inflow and outflow of
energy. The high albedo means reduced inflow, yes, but Venus gets twice
as much sunlight to begin with, and the thick CO2 atmosphere means
severely reduced outflow. The numbers work; there is no "trouble".

David Knisely

unread,

Dec 15, 2002, 1:37:49 AM12/15/02

to

Hi there Robert. You posted:

> I had that book too. "Planets" by Otto Binder. He also had the desert
> planet theory in another picture.

Ahh, so that was its title. I went downstairs last night to look for
some old books, but never managed to find it. It was part of a series
of books ("The Golden Library of Knowledge"), but the only one I can
find is THE MOON by the same author. These were the little books which
first got me interested in looking up at the skies. What they depicted
may seem a little comical by today's standards, but the vistas they
described were inspiring to say the least even if they were pretty much
wrong. I guess we gave up the dinosaurs of Venus for the truth of its
titanic geology, and the lichens of Mars for the gigantic canyons,
outflow channels, and huge volcanoes found there. Its kind of nice to
remember a time when the only way I could 'observe' these worlds was
with the pages of these little books. Clear skies to you.

Peter Smith

unread,

Dec 15, 2002, 5:35:07 AM12/15/02

to

"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:3DF9F1E3...@daktel.com...

>
>
> Steve Sutton wrote:
>
> >Actually, Mars is the butterscotch planet. :-)

So its not Strawberry Fields Forever?

> Would that make it a dessert world?

LOL

- Peter

John Beaderstadt

unread,

Dec 15, 2002, 9:05:57 AM12/15/02

to

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by

Eric Crew <er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> on Sat, 14 Dec 2002 22:24:40 +0000,
which said:

>You have to read more widely and you will see for yourself. It took a
>long time to convince 'philosopher' that Earth moved in space.

I have asked you for evidence, you have answered with evasion and ad
hominem remarks. Do you have nothing else?

Chosp

unread,

Dec 15, 2002, 10:32:00 AM12/15/02

to

"Eric Crew" <er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5du7YFAo...@brox1.demon.co.uk...

In other words, you don't have any evidence to produce.
> --
> Eric Crew

Eric Crew

unread,

Dec 15, 2002, 6:14:33 AM12/15/02

to

In article <H74zy...@spsystems.net>, Henry Spencer
<he...@spsystems.net> writes

>In article <9No68AAx...@brox1.demon.co.uk>,
>Eric Crew <er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>...The trouble with the greenhouse idea is that the
>>albedo of Venus is much higher than that of Earth...
>
>Greenhouse effect hinges on the *balance* between inflow and outflow of
>energy. The high albedo means reduced inflow, yes, but Venus gets twice
>as much sunlight to begin with, and the thick CO2 atmosphere means
>severely reduced outflow. The numbers work; there is no "trouble".

If the 'glancing collision' idea is correct, the surface of Venus should
appear relatively recent compared with material with only slow changes.
Also the surface may show features like those of a ruched carpet. A
further indication is that the high surface temperature should be
gradually decreasing unless other factors cause it to be maintained or
increased. Considered comments on these points by scientists would be
interesting. The worldwide 'cup and ring' petrographs and the stories or
legends about ancient electrical disturbances on Earth of many kinds
also support the charged erratic cosmic body idea.
--
Eric Crew

Brooklyn Waters

unread,

Dec 15, 2002, 11:39:02 PM12/15/02

to

in article 3DFA0338...@daktel.com, Pat Flannery at fla...@daktel.com
wrote on 13/12/02 11:56 PM:

The good old venusian blast-ended scroot.

My son is a Harry Potter fan. He'd be delighted.

cheers

Brooklyn Waters

Mike Speegle

unread,

Dec 16, 2002, 12:14:56 AM12/16/02

to

"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message

news:3DFA0338...@daktel.com...

> Too great for NORMAL dinosaurs....but not for the carbide steel
teethed,
> acid drooling, lava spitting, silicon based Exosaurs with which the
> surface of that forbidding planet teems! Some of these terrifying
beasts
> can reach well over a foot in length.... and are capable of moving at
> rates as high as 1/4 MPH if the fiery Venusian wind is with them....
and
> their diet of red-hot Venusian peppers means that it usually is!
>

> Firkon

Ah! Those would be the three-eyed Islamic Exosaurs Guth is going on
about. ;-)
--
Mike
________________________________________________________
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often. Ski hard.
Spend *lots* of money. Then leave as quickly as you can.

Robert Casey

unread,

Dec 16, 2002, 12:31:41 AM12/16/02

to

Eric Crew wrote:

>
> >Greenhouse effect hinges on the *balance* between inflow and outflow of
> >energy. The high albedo means reduced inflow, yes, but Venus gets twice
> >as much sunlight to begin with, and the thick CO2 atmosphere means
> >severely reduced outflow. The numbers work; there is no "trouble".
>
> If the 'glancing collision' idea is correct, the surface of Venus should
> appear relatively recent compared with material with only slow changes.
> Also the surface may show features like those of a ruched carpet. A
> further indication is that the high surface temperature should be
> gradually decreasing unless other factors cause it to be maintained or
> increased. Considered comments on these points by scientists would be
> interesting. The worldwide 'cup and ring' petrographs and the stories or
> legends about ancient electrical disturbances on Earth of many kinds
> also support the charged erratic cosmic body idea.

I though that that "cup and ring" was a drawing comparing a supernova
to the brightness of the full Moon. Maybe that Crab nebula supernova
about 900 years ago. There would not be any legends of any event
more than a few million years ago because nobody of enough intelligence
existed back then to get the legend started. As it is, the oldest legends
go back only a few tens of thousands of years at most. And those are
likely to be severely garbled anyway. There's an old Aborigine legend
about something falling out of the sky in the middle of the night about
5 thousand years ago. But we can see the meteorite craters at that
spot and say "mid sized meteorite". The only thing the legend says
that we wouldn't otherwise know was that it happened at night. But
that doesn't mean much anyway. If the legend said something like
"star X belched and spit out something that fell to the ground. It
was in early spring." then we might surmise that the final trajectory
was in the direction of the star we think they were referring to.
And time of year would tell if it was coming in from beyond the
Earth's orbit or from closer in. But the fact that it was night would
severely constrain it from coming out from inside Earth's orbit.
You might get a crude orbit for the meteorite, but even then that
doesn't tell a whole lot anyway.

Also, Venus' surface isn't that old, but it's thought that Venus, maybe
not having plate tectonics like Earth, just melts its surface every billion
years or so. Heat builds up in its core and mantle....

Brad Guth

unread,

Dec 16, 2002, 2:03:39 PM12/16/02

to

Don't get me wrong, as I am interested in Mars, however, by promoting
upon this Mars thing you've attracted a pro-NASA Borg and nearly all
of his friends, although for some strange reason I'm not included in
their circle of fire because, I'm the ultimate village idiot that only
discovered life (ET) currently existing on Venus (be that somewhat
larger then of any lethal Mars microbe).

Good grief, face it folks or Borg pro-NASA fools, even if the sorts of
Lord David W. Knisely's saw a sign post "Mars Cannelside INN"
("vacancy"), this fool wouldn't see a damn thing because, life or any
possibility thereof (other then on Earth) doesn't exist (period!).

These following pages are but a few, with others on the way.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/guth-venus-1.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/radio-maybe.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/calling-venus.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-bridge.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/life-options.htm

I'll have to admit (basically he'll still hate this part because, I'm
concurring with Lord David), as so far all of those supper high
resolution and color enhanced/altered CCD images of Mars (like those
of Hubble as well) don't hold squat worth of pixels that could be
potentially of anything the least bit artificial (not that lethal Mars
microbes don't exist). 3D, full spectrum color and even if animated
along with surroundsound is still not worth one lousy 8-bit SAR
picture of lesser resolution but of far greater truth of what Venus
has to offer and, Uncle David knows that, just can't admit such not
that I've survived his polite flak.

If you're out and about looking for Mr. Negative, David's certainly
your guy, as your "all knowing" geology and imaging wizard that claims
having no ties whatsoever with NASA or NIMA nor of any other
associations in any way linked into hidden NSA/DoD agendas (about the
only one on Earth that isn't), just doing his own privet Borg like
thing to support whatever Lord NASA/NSA/DoD expect of him, or bust.

David is by no means the ultimate "Mr. Negative", as I know of many
that are such primo bastards that I don't care what you wish to
discuss, you're always dead wrong and they're always right. Instead of
offering skills and insightful information (in other words,
education), such Borg wizards are taking the one and only pro-NASA
stance, as every one of their statements is tailored as to defeating
against and/or circumventing upon whatever you're after (especially if
that involves ET). For some strange reason, whenever big airplanes are
crashing into tall buildings, these sanctimonious bastards are never
directly involved in where all the action is. That's unfortunate
because, this world needs a whole lot fewer Mr. Negatives, as I'll
take on a hundred well meaning Mr. Positives making whatever
unintentional mistakes over just one Mr. Negative intentionally
upholding the "status quo" of "hidden agendas", "non disclosures" and
subsequent "disinformation".

Morally speaking, one Mr. Negative (like warlord Bush) can easily
become responsible (already has) for allowing thousands to die, while
it's unlikely that a thousand Mr. Positives could muster enough venom
to intentionally hurt a fly. Positive individuals do defend themselves
as well as doing good onto others, however, a positive sort of
individual or group would not intentionally provoke others into
striking at us, would not sell and/or provide arms to both sides of a
civil confect, would not be into favoring the economically correct
partners (such as in the 6-Day war nor of the current Israeli
occupations) and, would certainly not impose international trade
sanctions against developing nations, nor hoard over the world
oil/energy supply, unless of course you intended to push other
people's buttons, just to see what happens next, exactly like what we
did to the USSR, are still doing to Cuba, Iraq and somewhat like what
we were about to accomplish with China, until bin Laden interrupted
our ultimate goal of seriously pissing off someone capable of a
for-real nuclear tit for tat.

Just think, if we had more David's, we obviously wouldn't need all the
rest of us positive thinking fools. Discussing anything as potentially
positive towards other (ET) life or upon conjecturing anything the
least bit humanitarian worthy has been another one of David's NO NO's
(I'm not certain but, I think he's Mormon, which sort of places
science, physics as well as is own faith into the toilet).

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com

Eric Crew

unread,

Dec 16, 2002, 8:35:21 AM12/16/02

to

In article <Qf1L9.69729$r4.59...@news1.west.cox.net>, Chosp
<ch...@cox.net> writes

Sorry, missed the s on philosopher - we would call them scientists
today. The evidence is the outcome of a lifetime of study and endeavour
to understand and discover what seems to have happened in the past. It
is clear that any short summary would be rejected by a person stupid
enough to assert that I would "defend to the death" my views, so I do
not intend to waste any more of my time. Little green men indeed!
--
Eric Crew

David Knisely

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 12:42:22 AM12/17/02

to

Someone who believes in intelligent life on Venus wrote:

> I'm the ultimate village idiot

Enough said.

John Beaderstadt

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 3:41:56 AM12/17/02

to

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by

Eric Crew <er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> on Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:35:21 +0000,
which said:

>The evidence is the outcome of a lifetime of study and endeavour
>to understand and discover what seems to have happened in the past. It
>is clear that any short summary would be rejected by a person stupid
>enough to assert that I would "defend to the death" my views,

Like you're doing now? You're defending your claim by refusing to
discuss it and/or to produce any evidence, and I'd be willing to bet
you're going to do this right to the very end (ie, to the death).

>so I do
>not intend to waste any more of my time. Little green men indeed!

QED.

And, again, with the ad hominem remark and evasion; generalization
without specificity. That really is the best you can do, isn't it?

Eric Crew

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 4:36:28 AM12/17/02

to

In article <38otvukdatu2ehj63...@4ax.com>, John
Beaderstadt <be...@mindspring.com> writes

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 12:02:59 PM12/17/02

to

December 17, 2002

John Beaderstadt wrote:

> >We already know the probability of civilizations in the
> >universe is non-zero.
> >
> >Proof is mathematical. Science is demonstrative.
>
> Then either prove or demonstrate the incidence of life in the
> universe.

Look around you. QED.

> BTW, before we go any farther, let me make something clear. I am not
> saying that there is no such thing as extraterrestrial life
> (personally, I'd be delighted to find out we had neighbors); I am only
> saying there is no evidence to support the proposition.

ALH84001. QED.

> Your
> "mathematical proof" is really only speculation;

I offered no such 'proof'. I merely pointed out to you that 'proof' is mathematical,
whereas science is 'demonstrative'. It's a comment.

> should you look at
> whomever it was who developed that formula (my books are in another
> room and I've got a broken foot, so please excuse me for not looking
> it up),

You seem quite able to type. Try http://www.google.com.

> you'll see that he put a lot of "if" into it -- something
> like, "If there are x number of planets capable of supporting life,
> and if 1% of those planets develop life..." That's a lot of
> speculation, and its veracity depends on every single "if" proving
> true. And, anyway, the percentages he assigns are pure speculation.

I assign a non-zero percentage to the probability of life in the universe.

> Getting back to the topic at hand, what I am requesting evidence for
> is Eric Crew's contention that the "green" areas on Mars may somehow
> be involved with Alien visitors (aka Little Green Men, or "LGM").

Your mere use of the term demonstrates your initial bias.

> By
> entering this discussion, are you claiming that there is evidence to
> support his proposition? I would like to hear it, especially if you
> can supply independantly-verifiable sources.

I couldn't care less about 'little green men'. What impresses me is the existence of life
in the universe, the sheer size, age and beauty of the universe, and the ability of science
to infer truth, and then subsequently demonstrate those truths, and for those truths to be
historically recorded, so that future truths may be inferred and discovered. Any claim that
there is no life or no civilizations in the universe, is untenable, and unsubstantiated by
known fundamental physical principles, and the totality of human knowledge. On the
contrary, their existence is nearly guaranteed by science. Any insistence to the contrary
is nearly pathological, unless, of course, you are a drooling idiot.

Driftaligned

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 2:03:57 PM12/17/02

to

> On the
>contrary, their existence is nearly guaranteed by science

You just nullified your "non-zero percentage"

msba...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 3:10:21 PM12/17/02

to

O'Brother (nob...@nowhere.com) wrote:

> But that's nothing Bob - tell them all about how NASA is airbrushing out
> the STARTLING picture of Elvis in his pink cadillac driving across the
> martian desert etc etc etc....

I'll have some of what he's on!

Mark

Eric Crew

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 4:12:54 PM12/17/02

to

In article <u6huvukj1ogdqus1c...@4ax.com>, John
Beaderstadt <be...@mindspring.com> writes

The "green" areas seem to be an optical illusion - nothing to do with
the evidence for an advanced civilisation. You should try to avoid such
jumps to wrong conclusions about statements by others.
--
Eric Crew

Eric Crew

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 4:18:25 PM12/17/02

to

In article <3DFF58C2...@reverse-o-matic.com>, Thomas Lee Elifritz
<fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> writes

Not a drooling idiot but just a bit stupid with a bad foot and a liking
to read in the bath. An extraterrestrial perhaps?
--
Eric Crew

John Beaderstadt

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 6:15:09 PM12/17/02

to

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
Thomas Lee Elifritz <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> on Tue, 17 Dec 2002

12:02:59 -0500, which said:

>> Then either prove or demonstrate the incidence of life in the
>> universe.
>
>Look around you. QED.

[sigh] You know very well I meant off-earth, extraterrestrial, etc.

>> I am only
>> saying there is no evidence to support the proposition.
>
>ALH84001. QED.

??????????

>I offered no such 'proof'. I merely pointed out to you that 'proof' is mathematical,
>whereas science is 'demonstrative'. It's a comment.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make, in the context of
this conversation.

>You seem quite able to type. Try http://www.google.com.

And what do I search on? Got any suggested key words?

I suspect the formula is somewhere in one of Carl Sagan's books, but
it doesn't seem necessary to look it up, since you appear to know
which one I'm talking about.

>I assign a non-zero percentage to the probability of life in the universe.

Yes, but we're discussing non-earth-based life. What value do you
assign for that, why, and can you be more specific than "non-zero"?

>> be involved with Alien visitors (aka Little Green Men, or "LGM").
>
>Your mere use of the term demonstrates your initial bias.

It's a perfectly acceptable term which everyone understands. At any
rate, bias does not inherently imply bigotry, it just means a person
is leaning one way or the other. Produce some evidence, any evidence,
and there's a "non-zero" chance I'll start leaning your way.

>I couldn't care less about 'little green men'. What impresses me is the existence of life

>in the universe...

Well, I've got a replica of the Pioneer 11 plaque hanging on my wall,
a model of the Voyagers on my shelf, and the CD of the Voyager record
on my bookshelf (to my knowledge, I'm the only owner of this release
who's ever actually listened to the recording all the way through --
more than once). I am also eagerly awaiting the Huygens landing on
Titan. This would tend to indicate that you and I are in some
agreement on the issue.

Where we appear to differ is that you seem to take it as a matter of
faith that there is other life "out there," while I am simultaneously
hopeful and skeptical (not doubtful, but skeptical).

> On the
>contrary, their existence is nearly guaranteed by science. Any insistence to the contrary
>is nearly pathological, unless, of course, you are a drooling idiot.

First, the only thing upon which I am insisting, is evidence, evidence
based upon data, before I come down firmly on your side of the issue.
You've not been very forthcoming with that,

Second, science guarantees nothing. The scientific method is a
self-correcting process of hypotheses based upon data, rigorously
tested.

And third, for the life of me I have heard you support your position
with nothing but emotionalism. You appear to believe the universe is
teeming with life, yet have offered no other reason for your belief
than the sheer size of the cosmos. I would really like to see you
fill in the logical gaps that exist between size and inevitability.

And fifth, I hope you'll pardon me for wondering how pursuasive you
think you are, offering emotion rather than data and abuse rather than
logic. As bias does not necessarily imply bigotry, so to vehemence
does not necessarily imply veracity.

Thomas Lee Elifritz

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 7:06:14 PM12/17/02

to

December 16, 2002

John Beaderstadt wrote:

> >Look around you. QED.
>
> [sigh] You know very well I meant off-earth, extraterrestrial, etc.

I read what you write.

> >> I am only
> >> saying there is no evidence to support the proposition.

When you say 'no evidence', mathematically, that means none, zero, zip, nada. Thus, your
assertion is ludicrous, because science, known fundamental physical principles and the
totality of human knowledge, provides an enormous amount of evidence, from which to draw your
inferences. How many times to I have to say it? Are you daft, or what?

> >ALH84001. QED.
>
> ??????????

It's a meteorite from mars, containing magnetites, 25% of which appear to be of biological
origin. It exists, and it's evidence. QED.

> >I offered no such 'proof'. I merely pointed out to you that 'proof' is mathematical,
> >whereas science is 'demonstrative'. It's a comment.
>
> I don't understand the point you are trying to make, in the context of
> this conversation.

It means that I can 'prove' that evidence exists.

> >You seem quite able to type. Try http://www.google.com.
>
> And what do I search on? Got any suggested key words?

Life, the Universe, and Everything. :-)

> I suspect the formula is somewhere in one of Carl Sagan's books, but
> it doesn't seem necessary to look it up, since you appear to know
> which one I'm talking about.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Drake+Equation%22

> >I assign a non-zero percentage to the probability of life in the universe.
>
> Yes, but we're discussing non-earth-based life. What value do you
> assign for that, why, and can you be more specific than "non-zero"?

I assign a 99.99999...9... probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe. If this were
not so, then the scientific method itself would utterly fail us. You can provide absolutely
ZERO evidence that there is no extraterrestrial life in the universe. Who are you going to
believe?

> >> be involved with Alien visitors (aka Little Green Men, or "LGM").
> >
> >Your mere use of the term demonstrates your initial bias.
>
> It's a perfectly acceptable term which everyone understands. At any
> rate, bias does not inherently imply bigotry, it just means a person
> is leaning one way or the other. Produce some evidence, any evidence,
> and there's a "non-zero" chance I'll start leaning your way.

You are obviously leaning towards the pathological, because you offer absolutely no evidence
that there is no extraterrestrial life in the universe, when in fact the probability of life
in the universe is unity, and the inference of extraterrestrial life in the universe in nearly
unity, base upon the totality of known fundamental physical principles, and the totality of
human knowledge. Thus, a huge amount of evidence exists, and it is nearly all affirmative.
Please feel free to point out any specific evidence in favor of your hypothesis, that there is
no evidence of extraterrestrial life in the universe, or that there is no extraterrestrial
life in the universe.

> >I couldn't care less about 'little green men'. What impresses me is the existence of life
> >in the universe...
>

> Where we appear to differ is that you seem to take it as a matter of
> faith that there is other life "out there," while I am simultaneously
> hopeful and skeptical (not doubtful, but skeptical).

Then you are wrong, and are ignoring fundamental physical principles and a huge body of
evidence.

> > On the
> >contrary, their existence is nearly guaranteed by science. Any insistence to the contrary
> >is nearly pathological, unless, of course, you are a drooling idiot.
>
> First, the only thing upon which I am insisting, is evidence, evidence
> based upon data, before I come down firmly on your side of the issue.
> You've not been very forthcoming with that,

No you simply choose to ignore it. Perhaps you are a drooling idiot.

> Second, science guarantees nothing. The scientific method is a
> self-correcting process of hypotheses based upon data, rigorously
> tested.

Drool on.

> And third, for the life of me I have heard you support your position
> with nothing but emotionalism. You appear to believe the universe is
> teeming with life, yet have offered no other reason for your belief
> than the sheer size of the cosmos.

No, I offer fundamental physical principles, and the totality of observational science.

> I would really like to see you
> fill in the logical gaps that exist between size and inevitability.

You need to learn some fundamental physics and chemistry.

> And fifth, I hope you'll pardon me for wondering how pursuasive you
> think you are, offering emotion rather than data and abuse rather than
> logic.

One does not argue with a drooling idiot. Learn some physics and chemistry, and read some
scientific papers. Start here : http://xxx.lanl.gov/

[drivel snipped]

Peter Smith

unread,

Dec 17, 2002, 7:20:15 PM12/17/02

to

John Beaderstadt <be...@mindspring.com> wrote...
<with snippage...>

> >I offered no such 'proof'. I merely pointed out to you
> >that 'proof' is mathematical, whereas science is
> >'demonstrative'. It's a comment.
>
> I don't understand the point you are trying to make, in the
> context of this conversation.
>

> I suspect the formula is somewhere in one of Carl Sagan's
> books, but it doesn't seem necessary to look it up, since
> you appear to know which one I'm talking about.

Its the Drake Equation:
http://www.fellowship.net/jerrynixon/documents/theDrakeEquation.htm

The equation is a way of speculating on the number of civilisations in
our galaxy which could be communicated with, dependant on various
sub-speculations.

Of course it proves nothing.

- Peter

Chosp

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 12:42:54 AM12/18/02

to

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> wrote in message
news:3DFFBBF5...@reverse-o-matic.com...

> I assign a 99.99999...9... probability of extraterrestrial life in the
universe. If this were

> not so, then the scientific method itself would utterly fail us.You can

provide absolutely
> ZERO evidence that there is no extraterrestrial life in the universe. Who
are you going to
> believe?

Even the dimmest bulb knows you can't prove a negative.
For example:
You can provide absolutely ZERO evidence that the Easter Bunny
does not exist.

Either you already knew this and are just playing games
or you are, in fact, even dimmer than the dimmest.
Either way, you are drowning in your own bombast.

Roger Cole

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 7:29:56 AM12/18/02

to

On 12 Dec 2002 18:34:44 -0800, brad...@yahoo.com (Brad Guth) wrote:

[kookiness and weird attack on David Knisely snipped]

Wave bye-bye to the kook.

"Byebye, Kook!" [waving]

*PLONK*

--
Remove "SPAMPRUF" to email me.
Note new email forwarder domain.

Roger Cole

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 7:29:56 AM12/18/02

to

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 05:42:22 GMT, David Knisely <KA0...@navix.net>
wrote:

>Someone who believes in intelligent life on Venus wrote:
>
>> I'm the ultimate village idiot
>
>Enough said.

Even kooks occasional post truth, even if they don't mean to.

OTOH, equating this loon to a village idiot isn't fair - to the
village idiot who is likely to be deficient through no fault of his
own. This nut can obviously run a computer and type in grammatically
if not logicall coherent sentences, so his deficiencies seem more
chosen than a matter of bad luck. Besides, on the rare occasion a
"village idiot" is such through choice and not fate, they tend to be
amusing. He fails in that comparison as well.

John Beaderstadt

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 7:38:31 AM12/18/02

to

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by

Eric Crew <er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> on Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:18:25 +0000,
which said:

>Thomas Lee Elifritz

><fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> wrote:
>>Any insistence to the
>>contrary
>>is nearly pathological, unless, of course, you are a drooling idiot.

>Not a drooling idiot but just a bit stupid with a bad foot and a liking

>to read in the bath. An extraterrestrial perhaps?

"A big stupid"? The last person to call me that must have been about
five years old..

Anyway, in both cases the authors don't seem to be very anxious to
demonstrate the logical steps from "space is really big and beautiful"
to "there's life everywhere," to "anyone who doesn't think so is
stupid."

Fellas, your arguments have now degenerated to nothing more than a
type of personal abuse that isn't normally displayed beyond about age
10 and, quite frankly, I don't think you're very good at it. For one
thing, you've shown your hand; people usually don't start getting
nasty and emotional unless they think it's the only way left for them
to salvage some self-respect, and that's what appears to be happening
here.

As I answered a friend in ssh, I can only wonder at someone thinking
that abusiveness is an effective debating technique. I mean, if you
and I were in the same room and you were three times my size, I would
probably be intimidated into acquiescing, but over the internet?
Feeling threatened by faceless children whom I'll almost certainly
never meet and who can affect my life not at all just wouldn't make
sense.

Eric Crew

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 11:05:14 AM12/18/02

to

In article <e0p00vght03bt90m1...@4ax.com>, John
Beaderstadt <be...@mindspring.com> writes

>I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
>Eric Crew <er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> on Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:18:25 +0000,
>which said:
>
>
>>Thomas Lee Elifritz
>><fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> wrote:
>>>Any insistence to the
>>>contrary
>>>is nearly pathological, unless, of course, you are a drooling idiot.
>
>>Not a drooling idiot but just a bit stupid with a bad foot and a liking
>>to read in the bath. An extraterrestrial perhaps?
>
>"A big stupid"? The last person to call me that must have been about
>five years old..

What a clever child! Are you surprised that older people agree with him?
(except I wrote "a bit stupid" not "a big stupid" - I don't know how big
you are.)
You should spend less time in the bath reading and get out a bit more.
This is good for your brain and will strengthen your body.
>
To raise the level of this discussion, I suggest that organic material
grown on Mars would be in shelters to protect it from damaging solar
radiation and with artificial heat, light and atmosphere. It is unlikely
to be visible from space. Some progress towards this idea has been made
on Earth. The next logical place is the Moon.
--
Eric Crew

Eric Crew

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 11:11:57 AM12/18/02

to

In article <3bPL9.14725$y17....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Peter
Smith <psm...@SpamBlock.bigpond.net.au> writes

The greatly increasing numbers of planets recently discovered around
stars makes it more probable that we will discover more evidence of
extraterrestrial intelligence. The Drake Equation should be brought up
to date.
--
Eric Crew

Paul Blay

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 11:29:04 AM12/18/02

to

"Eric Crew" wrote ...

> In article <3bPL9.14725$y17....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Peter
> Smith <psm...@SpamBlock.bigpond.net.au> writes
>

> >It's the Drake Equation:

> >http://www.fellowship.net/jerrynixon/documents/theDrakeEquation.htm
> >
> >The equation is a way of speculating on the number of civilisations in
> >our galaxy which could be communicated with, dependant on various
> >sub-speculations.
> >
> >Of course it proves nothing.
>

> The greatly increasing numbers of planets recently discovered around
> stars makes it more probable that we will discover more evidence of
> extraterrestrial intelligence. The Drake Equation should be brought up
> to date.

At most, the value of one of the variables can be more accurately
estimated than was previously the case.

The Drake Equation doesn't offer 'proof' either way. All we know for
_certain_ is the number of planets with life in this universe is greater than
or equal to 1.

Thomas Lee Elifritz

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 12:46:49 PM12/18/02

to

December 18, 2002

Eric Crew wrote:

> >Of course it proves nothing.
> >

> The greatly increasing numbers of planets recently discovered around
> stars makes it more probable that we will discover more evidence of
> extraterrestrial intelligence. The Drake Equation should be brought up to
> date.

Extrasolar planets are a case in point. While the skeptics sat around and
claimed 'absence' without 'proof', the interested scientists when out and
developed the technology necessary to gather the evidence to demonstrate
what they inferred with 99.9999...999...9 % probability (dependent upon the
number of stars in the observable universe) to be true. Discoverers are
remembered, skeptics are forgotten.

The probability of extraterrestrial life and extraterrestrial civilizations
within the observable universe is so nearly certain, that it is virtually
indistinguishable from truth. If anyone still has a problem with that, then
I can't help you, and so I won't continue to try. However, I will continue
to gather evidence.

Brian Tung

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 2:57:13 PM12/18/02

to

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> Extrasolar planets are a case in point. While the skeptics sat around and
> claimed 'absence' without 'proof', the interested scientists when out and
> developed the technology necessary to gather the evidence to demonstrate
> what they inferred with 99.9999...999...9 % probability (dependent upon the
> number of stars in the observable universe) to be true. Discoverers are
> remembered, skeptics are forgotten.

Discovery and skepticism both are needed for science, and the serious
student of science will remember both. Of course, if you get your science
from the Discovery Channel and the like, what you get is necessarily
unbalanced.

Also, the standard skeptic byword is "Absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence." Most have not claimed absence without proof.

> The probability of extraterrestrial life and extraterrestrial civilizations
> within the observable universe is so nearly certain, that it is virtually
> indistinguishable from truth. If anyone still has a problem with that, then
> I can't help you, and so I won't continue to try. However, I will continue
> to gather evidence.

Why would you continue to gather evidence, if you think it's so certain?

In these science newsgroups, it is somewhat disheartening to see such an
impatience with ambiguity. Is it so terrible that we simply don't know
yet? Why is the person who is reserving judgment the one who "still has
a problem," rather than the one who has already decided with near
certainty?

For the record, the idea of extraterrestrial life and intelligence is
compelling to me. But that compelling idea is, thus far, unaccompanied
by equally compelling evidence. I see no reason for haste in this very
important matter. As amateurs, we can participate in the search; there
is no call for pooh-poohing skepticism, or the skeptics.

Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

David Knisely

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 5:05:21 PM12/18/02

to

Hi there. You posted:

> The probability of extraterrestrial life and extraterrestrial civilizations
> within the observable universe is so nearly certain, that it is virtually
> indistinguishable from truth.

Well, possibility and probability are two different things. The
probability of extraterrestrial life is probably not zero, as there is
evidence for the presence of the right chemicals and processes needed
for life to develop in other parts of the Universe. However, it is
definitely not "certain" by any means. Similarly, extraterrestrial
civilizations are possible, but are not probable in the "nearly certain"
level, as we still have no firm evidence that intelligent life exists
anywhere else but on Earth. We have found no indications of intelligent
life in our solar system and have not detected any radio signals from
other star systems. At this point, we cannot assign a probability for
certain. There are other planets around other stars, which supports the
possiblity of life elsewhere, but beyond this, assigning a probability
to either item is speculative at best. Do I believe its possible that
extraterrestrial life exists? Yes, I do. Do I believe that it is
possible that an extraterrestrial civilization around another star
exists or has existed in the past? Yes, I do think that is possible.
Do I think that it is *probable* that such a civilization exists? No,
without any firm supporting evidence, I can't put it as probable.
Considering it took about 3 billion years from when life first developed
on Earth to the point where a civilization developed, that fact alone
puts something of a damper on my belief in extraterrestrial
civilizations, although it by no means extinguishes it. Clear skies to
you.

Thomas Lee Elifritz

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 6:07:24 PM12/18/02

to

December 18, 2002

Brian Tung wrote: [standard skeptical nonsense snipped]

"Why would you continue to gather evidence, if you think it's so certain?"

Because I like to learn new things. Duh. Science is demonstrative. The questions
of extraterrestrial life, and extraterrestrial civilizations, and visitation of
Earth by such civilizations, are some of the last great cosmic questions, where
the last vestige of uncertainty (however infinitesimally small it may be) can be
removed by a single repeatable and verifiable observation. All we have to do is
build a space based optical and infrared interferometer large enough. We know the
answer is yes, and we know a virtual infinity of worlds and lifeforms await our
discovery. Observing a visiting ET would be much more difficult. It's more like
condensed matter physics, where ambiguity and uncertainty are everyday phenomena.

> In these science newsgroups, it is somewhat disheartening to see such an
> impatience with ambiguity. Is it so terrible that we simply don't know
> yet?

We do know. Physics, chemistry and observational astronomy virtually guarantees
it.

> Why is the person who is reserving judgment the one who "still has
> a problem," rather than the one who has already decided with near
> certainty?

I didn't decide it, fundamental physical principles decided it for me.

> For the record, the idea of extraterrestrial life and intelligence is
> compelling to me. But that compelling idea is, thus far, unaccompanied
> by equally compelling evidence.

Learn some basic physics and chemistry, and then look at the astronomical
evidence. Like I said, if you can't figure it out for yourself, then nothing I
say or do will help you. You are forever doomed to be a forgotten skeptic.
Wouldn't you rather participate?

DustyMars

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 6:38:44 PM12/18/02

to

When we observe bright Mars against the dark nighttime sky, the planet's
color hues are often perceived as complementary to the dark background sky.
This effect is known as "simultaneous contrast" [Hartmann, William K.,
"What's New on Mars?", Sky & Telescope, pp. 471-475, May 1989]. The gray
shaded surface features against the red disk of Mars will appear slightly
green at times due to "simultaneous contrast," as well known effect observed
by Mars observers for 380 years.

DustyMars

"David Knisely" <KA0...@navix.net> wrote in message
news:3E00F0C3...@navix.net...

Erik Max Francis

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 7:26:50 PM12/18/02

to

Roger Cole wrote:

> Even kooks occasional post truth, even if they don't mean to.

That doesn't mean it's cost effective to read everything they say,
however.

--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ God does not play dice with the universe.
\__/ Albert Einstein
Alcyone Systems' Daily Planet / http://www.alcyone.com/planet.html
A new, virtual planet, every day.

Brian Tung

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 8:07:54 PM12/18/02

to

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> Discoverers are remembered, skeptics are forgotten.

Just in case anyone thinks this is somehow true, I'll point out that
discoverers and skeptics alike are remembered. Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov,
James Randi, Alfred Wallace: all noted skeptics, and all well-remembered.
It so happens that many skeptics, too, are discoverers. You discredit
discoverers by presuming they cannot be skeptical.

Are skeptics the ones who don't know their chemistry, their astronomy,
their physics? It was Percival Lowell who ignored these when he
"discovered" most of the canals on Mars. It was Alfred Wallace (who
*co-discovered* natural selection, with Darwin) who properly showed,
with his knowledge of those basic scientific fields, that such canals
were doomed to failure--they could not exist, for with Mars's low gravity,
and its low atmospheric pressure, the water would vaporize before it could
get any significant distance.

I happen to know quite a bit about chemistry, physics, and astronomy.
I also know a fair amount of probability and statistics, and have heard
plenty of reasonable-sounding but erroneous probability arguments. If
I don't know what your argument is, then I can't say it's erroneous.
But I can't say it is, either. I simply don't know. It is unfair of
me to do anything but assert my ignorance on that point.

I don't doubt your sincerity and your effort. But to insist that your
arguments hold water--when instead of providing your evidence, you imply
that your skeptical audience lacks knowledge of the basic sciences; when
you denigrate their questions routinely as "standard skeptical drivel";
when you dismiss questions with claims that it is all transparently
self-evident--this does not help to win over those who are undecided. The
evidence which you continue to gather, as you say, will do that, but only
if you show it to us. What is that evidence? Is it beneath you to tell
us what it is? I sincerely hope not.

I think it is quite possible you will rebut this entire reply, line by
line. Again, I hope you don't do that, but it is your choice. I will
even promise to read your entire rebuttal, and if you cannot bring
yourself to avoid dismissing my honest questions about your evidence,
then I likewise promise not to respond.

So, here is the question, as plainly as I can put it: What combination
of evidence and statistical arguments can one use to show that the
probability that extraterrestrial life exists is close to 1?

Thomas Lee Elifritz

unread,

Dec 18, 2002, 9:32:19 PM12/18/02

to

December 18, 2002

Brian Tung wrote: [more skeptical nonsense snipped]

> So, here is the question, as plainly as I can put it: What combination
> of evidence and statistical arguments can one use to show that the
> probability that extraterrestrial life exists is close to 1?

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/TopazMurray.shtml

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980607.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010204.html

http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/l4S5.htm

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/thesis/a1.pdf
http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/thesis/6.pdf
(the server appears to be down at the moment)
http://www.jameskay.ca http://www.jameskay.ca/pubs/

Overturn the commonly held belief that there is life in the universe?
You just don't get it, do you? Life must be awfully boring for you.

"I wouldn't want to be like you."
"I, Robot. - The Allen Parsons Project."
http://www.roadkill.com/APP/lyrics/I.Robot.html

My suggestion to you is : get a life.

Robert Clark

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 1:54:36 AM12/19/02

to

"DustyMars" <jdb_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<atr0ue$1c1f3$1...@ID-150279.news.dfncis.de>...

> When we observe bright Mars against the dark nighttime sky, the planet's
> color hues are often perceived as complementary to the dark background sky.
> This effect is known as "simultaneous contrast" [Hartmann, William K.,
> "What's New on Mars?", Sky & Telescope, pp. 471-475, May 1989]. The gray
> shaded surface features against the red disk of Mars will appear slightly
> green at times due to "simultaneous contrast," as well known effect observed
> by Mars observers for 380 years.
>
> DustyMars
>

Which wouldn't explain the green seen in Hubble and Mars orbiter images:

Hubble Captures Best View of Mars Ever Obtained From Earth
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2001/24/

PIA03738: Candor Chasma on Mars, in Color
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/tiff/PIA03738.tif

Title: Physical properties of Meridiani Sinus-type units in the
central equatorial region of Mars
Authors: Strickland, Edwin L., III
Journal: In Lunar and Planetary Inst., Workshop on the Martian Surface
and Atmosphere Through Time p 144-145 (SEE N92-28988 19-91)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?1992msat.work..144S [full
text]

Bob Clark

Elifritz Non Grarta

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 2:42:39 AM12/19/02

to

Thomas Lee Elifritz <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> wrote:

:My suggestion to you is : get a life.

Our suggestion to you is to shut the fuck up and quit crossposting to
groups that DO NOT WANT TO READ YOUR SMEGMA-LADEN CRAP!

Go away. Leave. Begone!

Thomas Lee Elifritz

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 4:26:44 AM12/19/02

to

December 19, 2002

> Thomas Lee Elifritz <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> wrote:
>
> :My suggestion to you is : get a life.

The gentleman suggests that Earth is the only life bearing planet in the
entire observable universe, which is a bit absurd on the face of it.

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/index.html

> Go away. Leave. Begone!

First you'll actually have to learn how to use a filter file. That should
take you a few days. I note in passing that all headers are prefaced with
sci, alt, space, astro, planetary ... Perhaps if you tell me precisely
which header you would prefer me to delete, I could accommodate you.
However, simply typing my name into your filter file should suffice, and
would be a lot quicker.

Problem solved.

andrea tasselli

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 5:34:37 AM12/19/02

to

Thomas Lee Elifritz <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> wrote in message news:<3E012FB2...@reverse-o-matic.com>...

> December 18, 2002
>
> Brian Tung wrote: [more skeptical nonsense snipped]
>
> > So, here is the question, as plainly as I can put it: What combination
> > of evidence and statistical arguments can one use to show that the
> > probability that extraterrestrial life exists is close to 1?
>
> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/TopazMurray.shtml
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980607.html
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010204.html
>
> http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/l4S5.htm
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
>
> http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/thesis/a1.pdf
> http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/thesis/6.pdf
> (the server appears to be down at the moment)
> http://www.jameskay.ca http://www.jameskay.ca/pubs/
>

None of the links above bring a microfraction of proof of existence of
life in the universe. There's no automatic law that says given the
constituents of life (as we know it) there must be life. In fact we
cannot create life out of its constituents. AFAWK, we could be on the
only alive planet in the known universe.
And to speak of probability we need to list all odds, something that
cannot be done in this very instance.

Andrea T.

My Astronomy Pages at:
http://www.geocities.com/andreatax/index.htm

Thomas Lee Elifritz

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 6:39:19 AM12/19/02

to

December 19, 2002

andrea tasselli wrote:

> None of the links above bring a microfraction of proof of existence of
> life in the universe.

Well, then you don't know shit about physics and chemistry. As the great Paul Lutus used to say "ignorance is
curable". You do have an extreme case of pathological skepticism, however, your prognosis is not good. I suggest
you get some therapy, speak to a quantum chemist as soon as possible.

How many time do I have to say it? Proof is mathematical. Science is demonstrative. Let me rephrase it. Proof is
axiomatic. Science is inferential. We detect the photons, we think they mean something.

> There's no automatic law that says given the
> constituents of life (as we know it) there must be life. In fact we
> cannot create life out of its constituents.

Therefore, life does not exist. Very astute.

> AFAWK, we could be on the
> only alive planet in the known universe.

You mean, AFAIK, as in you. Some of us happen to have a great deal of affirmative evidence. It's called the body of
scientific evidence. You must be extraordinarily dumb. Stick with the observational sciences, you have absolutely
no future in the hard sciences.

> And to speak of probability we need to list all odds, something that
> cannot be done in this very instance.

It's a yes or no question, either every other planet in the observable universe is lifeless (highly improbable) or
at least one other planet in the observable universe contains life (highly probable, i.e. - Mars). In other words,
does one other planet in the observable universe contain life, yes or no.

I just can't believe the number of drooling idiots that populate these science newsgroups. I mean, it's almost like
all of observable hyperspace is just crawling with them.

Paul F. Dietz

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 7:02:39 AM12/19/02

to

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

> Well, then you don't know shit about physics and chemistry.

Elifritz, you are spewing your usual illogical crap. Utterly
par for the course given your crankiness, but it does get
tiresome.

Maybe one exceptional day you will realize why so many on
the net despise you. Hint: it's not their fault.

Paul

Thomas Lee Elifritz

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 7:09:30 AM12/19/02

to

December 19, 2002

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

> Elifritz, you are spewing your usual illogical crap. Utterly
> par for the course given your crankiness, but it does get
> tiresome.

Well, Paul, there is a very simple solution to that problem. Type my
name into your filter file. It makes me wonder why you haven't done it
yet. Perhaps you think I have something to offer.

> Maybe one exceptional day you will realize why so many on
> the net despise you. Hint: it's not their fault.

Hint : it's not science.

John Beaderstadt

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 7:35:50 AM12/19/02

to

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
Thomas Lee Elifritz <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> on Tue, 17 Dec 2002

19:06:14 -0500, which said:

>...science, known fundamental physical principles and the
>totality of human knowledge, provides an enormous amount of evidence...
>inferences.

Such as? You really have not been very forthcoming with specifics.

>It's a meteorite from mars, containing magnetites, 25% of which appear to be of biological
>origin. It exists, and it's evidence. QED.

First, you, yourself, don't claim that there *are* biological
artifacts, only that they "appear to be". That leaves room for doubt,
and doubtful evidence is not very convincing.

Second, the meteorite's origin is likewise only speculative. If you
read the last part of "Brother Astronomer" (judging by the groups
you've cross-posted to, you're probably familiar with it), it's hard
to avoid feeling like, for a while, people were picking up Martian
meteorites in Antarctica the way people pick wildflowers in a meadow.
To quote Hercule Poirot, "There are too many clues in this room."

Third, terrestrial contamination has not been ruled out.

>It means that I can 'prove' that evidence exists.

Then you can do what no one else has been able to. Go ahead, give
your proofs; every exobiologist in the world is waiting, and you'll be
famous.

>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Drake+Equation%22

Yup, that's it. Let's see, using the version found at
http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html

...we find such phrases as, "If our system is typical..."; "Current
guesses range from 100% ... to 0%."; and "Who knows?"

That is, if you look at the reasoning behind the numbers, they are
sheer guesswork. Call up any of the other web pages and I'll bet that
you'll find similar qualifications. The formula does illustrate the
unreasonableness of definitely stating there is no life in the
universe, but it offers no evidence that there is, either.

>I assign a 99.99999...9... probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe.

I hope so, but you don't say what your reasons are for being so
optimistic.

>You can provide absolutely
>ZERO evidence that there is no extraterrestrial life in the universe.

I'm not trying to; it's not my job to. I'm not an advocate for either
side in the case, but I am on the jury. You appear to have assumed
the mantle of attorney, so it's your job to do the convincing. If you
force me to vote right now, I'm going to vote for neither life nor
no-life, but will invoke the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven."

And if I'm unconvinced by your arguments, just remember that it's a
poor teacher who blames his students for not learning.

>...when in fact the probability of life

>in the universe is unity, and the inference of extraterrestrial life in the universe in nearly
>unity, base upon the totality of known fundamental physical principles, and the totality of
>human knowledge.

To begin with, belief in extraterrestrial life is *not* universal. No
one outside the UFOlogists claims that extraterrestrial life *does*
exist; instead, they use terms such as "could," "might," "suggestive
of," etc. Even Carl Sagan, who did so much to launch several messages
to the stars, says no more than "if," and he says it many, many times.

Further, you keep speaking in the general sense; you have offered only
one specific, that meteor, which has questionable evidentiary value on
at least the three grounds I've mentioned.

>Thus, a huge amount of evidence exists, and it is nearly all affirmative.

Then please mention some of it. So far, you've only brought up that
single meteorite.

>Please feel free to point out any specific evidence in favor of your hypothesis, that there is
>no evidence of extraterrestrial life in the universe, or that there is no extraterrestrial
>life in the universe.

Question: Do you equate the phrase "there is no evidence of life"
with "there is no life"? You are wrong to do so.

>Then you are wrong, and are ignoring fundamental physical principles and a huge body of
>evidence.

*What* "fundamental principles"? *What* body of evidence? You keep
saying these principles and evidence exist, but you never say what
they are, you never produce them. You've mentioned a single
meteorite, and nothing else.

>Perhaps you are a drooling idiot.

<snip>
>Drool on.

Do yourself a favor, and stay away from any career that involves
swaying people to your point of view.

>One does not argue with a drooling idiot.

I really have to ask whether you are more interested in discussion, or
in proving your manhood? When you stay away from the insults, you
seem to be a fairly intelligent, if immature, individual. If you were
to show our exchange to your science teacher, I'm reasonably sure
s/he'd agree with me (if you showed it to your parents, they would
probably be appalled).

Paul F. Dietz

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 7:39:51 AM12/19/02

to

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

>>Maybe one exceptional day you will realize why so many on
>>the net despise you. Hint: it's not their fault.
>
> Hint : it's not science.

Hint: we'd all be happier if you took a shotgun and decorated
the wall with the contents of your head. That could be your
single contribution to the betterment of mankind.

Paul

John Beaderstadt

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 7:52:24 AM12/19/02

to

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by

Eric Crew <er...@brox1.demon.co.uk> on Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:12:54 +0000,
which said:

>The "green" areas seem to be an optical illusion - nothing to do with
>the evidence for an advanced civilisation. You should try to avoid such
>jumps to wrong conclusions about statements by others.

I apologize if I misunderstood. However, your suggestion did appear
to be rather unambiguous:

>From: Eric Crew (er...@brox1.demon.co.uk)
>Subject: Re: Mars, the "Greenish" Planet?
>
>Newsgroups: sci.astro, alt.sci.planetary, sci.space.history, sci.astro.amateur
>Date: 2002-12-13 14:46:14 PST
>
>Perhaps it is possible that Mars has been visited by space travellers
>who would need protection from solar activity so they would construct a
>system of tunnels which are also used for distribution of water and
>other materials. They could be sealed to contain an atmosphere much
>denser than at the surface with airlocks as in our spacecraft. The
>tunnels probably produce faint lines on surface frost as claimed by
>Percival Lowell and others. The excavations could be made by machines
>using solar or other power sources prior to live visits.

Which part of that did I misconstrue?

Dave Michelson

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 8:12:53 AM12/19/02

to

John Beaderstadt wrote:
>
> >The "green" areas seem to be an optical illusion - nothing to do with
> >the evidence for an advanced civilisation. You should try to avoid such
> >jumps to wrong conclusions about statements by others.
>

> >The
> >tunnels probably produce faint lines on surface frost as claimed by
> >Percival Lowell and others. The excavations could be made by machines
> >using solar or other power sources prior to live visits.
>
> Which part of that did I misconstrue?

Lines of frost != green areas.

--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca

John Beaderstadt

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 8:15:30 AM12/19/02

to

Please forgive the top-post; but I'm hoping to save some folks a wild
goose chase. Once again, TLE has been requested (by someone other
than myself, this time) to provide evidence for his contention that
there *is* extraterrestrial life in the universe. His reply, below,
consists of a list of web sites that discuss the size of the universe,
but which do not mention the incidence of life at all; they are
totally irrelevant to the discussion. He then follows up with
personal abuse.

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by

Thomas Lee Elifritz <fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> on Wed, 18 Dec 2002

Christopher M. Jones

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 8:34:24 AM12/19/02

to

Hey now, Elifritz might be an annoying, oft illucid
crank, but there's no call for that.

--
Please put your seatbacks and tray tables in their upright position.

Paul Blay

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 8:39:14 AM12/19/02

to

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote ...

> "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote:
> > Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> >
> > > Hint : it's not science.
> >
> > Hint: we'd all be happier if you took a shotgun and decorated
> > the wall with the contents of your head. That could be your
> > single contribution to the betterment of mankind.
>
> Hey now, Elifritz might be an annoying, oft illucid
> crank, but there's no call for that.

Yeah, comments like that are OM's job (although as he is, non-
coincidently, kill-filled I won't see if he replies to this).

John Beaderstadt

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 8:53:00 AM12/19/02

to

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by

Dave Michelson <da...@ece.ubc.ca> on Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:12:53 GMT,
which said:

Foul! You snipped a major portion of the post, which changed the
context, entirely. The missing portion reads:

>>Perhaps it is possible that Mars has been visited by space travellers
>>who would need protection from solar activity so they would construct a
>>system of tunnels which are also used for distribution of water and
>>other materials. They could be sealed to contain an atmosphere much
>>denser than at the surface with airlocks as in our spacecraft. The

>>tunnels probably...

IOW, Eric was plainly suggesting that those green areas were caused by
lines of frost which, in turn, *were caused by the actions of
intelligent beings*. He now appears to be denying that he made the
suggestion, and I want to clear up the discrepancy. You're selective
misquoting is not helping.

Mike Lincoln

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 9:17:38 AM12/19/02

to

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 04:26:44 -0500, Thomas Lee Elifritz
<fu...@reverse-o-matic.com> wrote:

>Perhaps if you tell me precisely which header you would prefer me to delete, I could accommodate you.

Removing sci.space.history would be nice. We've been getting far too
many OT posts from those other groups. Please remove ssh from your
follow-up list, and that should stop the majority of the flames you're
getting.

Thanks much!!

Thomas Lee Elifritz

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 11:04:23 AM12/19/02

to

December 19, 2002

Mike Lincoln wrote:

> Removing sci.space.history would be nice.
>

> Thanks much!!

Consider it done. I'm getting tired of trying to convince anyone there actually is intelligent life in the
universe, anyways, and I'm beginning to doubt it myself. :-)

Happy Holidays ...

Thomas Lee Elifritz

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 11:09:52 AM12/19/02

to

December 19, 2002

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

> Hint: we'd all be happier if you took a shotgun and decorated
> the wall with the contents of your head. That could be your
> single contribution to the betterment of mankind.

I see you feel it is better to encourage violence and death on the
usenet, rather than, say, calling someone a 'boob' and encouraging them
to add your name to a filter file? Your moral and ethical standards are
pretty low, aren't they, Paul? What are you going to do next, threaten
to 'disarm' me, threaten my life?

Thomas Lee Elifritz

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 11:15:22 AM12/19/02

to

December 19, 2002

John Beaderstadt wrote:

> TLE has been requested (by someone other
> than myself, this time) to provide evidence for his contention that
> there *is* extraterrestrial life in the universe.

Which I provided. You have to provide the inference. You failed.

Welcome to my filter file.

Thomas Lee Elifritz

unread,

Dec 19, 2002, 11:29:05 AM12/19/02

to

December 19, 2002

John Beaderstadt wrote:

> Such as? You really have not been very forthcoming with specifics.

You said no evidence exists, I supplied evidence.

> >It's a meteorite from mars, containing magnetites, 25% of which appear to be of biological
> >origin. It exists, and it's evidence. QED.
>
> First, you, yourself, don't claim that there *are* biological
> artifacts, only that they "appear to be". That leaves room for doubt,
> and doubtful evidence is not very convincing.

Are you not convinced it's evidence? You are stunningly dumb.

> Second, the meteorite's origin is likewise only speculative. If you
> read the last part of "Brother Astronomer" (judging by the groups
> you've cross-posted to, you're probably familiar with it), it's hard
> to avoid feeling like, for a while, people were picking up Martian
> meteorites in Antarctica the way people pick wildflowers in a meadow.
> To quote Hercule Poirot, "There are too many clues in this room."

That's real scientific.

> Third, terrestrial contamination has not been ruled out.

Wow, I cannot believe I was even wasting my time with you. I gave you the benefit of doubt, I
doubted my initial assessment that you were 'butt fucking dumb". I was wrong. You are.

> >It means that I can 'prove' that evidence exists.
>
> Then you can do what no one else has been able to. Go ahead, give
> your proofs; every exobiologist in the world is waiting, and you'll be
> famous.

You fail to make any scientific inferences based upon available evidence.

> That is, if you look at the reasoning behind the numbers, they are
> sheer guesswork. Call up any of the other web pages and I'll bet that
> you'll find similar qualifications. The formula does illustrate the
> unreasonableness of definitely stating there is no life in the
> universe, but it offers no evidence that there is, either.

You must make your own inferences. The Drake equation is a tool.

> >I assign a 99.99999...9... probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe.
>
> I hope so, but you don't say what your reasons are for being so
> optimistic.
>
> >You can provide absolutely
> >ZERO evidence that there is no extraterrestrial life in the universe.
>
> I'm not trying to; it's not my job to. I'm not an advocate for either
> side in the case, but I am on the jury.

No you are not, you aren't even in the jury pool. You are peerlessly dumb.

> You appear to have assumed
> the mantle of attorney, so it's your job to do the convincing. If you
> force me to vote right now, I'm going to vote for neither life nor
> no-life, but will invoke the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven."

Didn't I already say that truth was mathematical?

> And if I'm unconvinced by your arguments, just remember that it's a
> poor teacher who blames his students for not learning.

One does not teach the mentally retarded, once they reach their plateau, and you have apparently
reached yours, judging by the evidence of your posts.

> >...when in fact the probability of life
> >in the universe is unity, and the inference of extraterrestrial life in the universe in nearly
> >unity, base upon the totality of known fundamental physical principles, and the totality of
> >human knowledge.

> [endless nonsense snipped]

>
> Do yourself a favor, and stay away from any career that involves
> swaying people to your point of view.

Science doesn't work that way.

> I really have to ask whether you are more interested in discussion, or
> in proving your manhood? When you stay away from the insults, you
> seem to be a fairly intelligent, if immature, individual. If you were
> to show our exchange to your science teacher, I'm reasonably sure
> s/he'd agree with me (if you showed it to your parents, they would
> probably be appalled).

I'll run it by the PI's that I supervise.