How did you get interested in the Face on Mars controversy?
I've always had an innate interest in the prospect of extraterrestrial life. When I realized that there was an actual scientific inquiry regarding the Face and associated formations, I realized that this was a potential chance to lift SETI from the theoretical arena; it's within our ability to visit Mars in person. This was incredibly exciting, and it inspired an interest in Mars itself -- its geological history, climate, et cetera.
What is your background?
I have a BA in Creative Writing. So of course there are those who will happily disregard my book because I'm not "qualified." I suppose my question is "Who *is* qualified to address potential extraterrestrial artifacts?" Certainly not JPL, whose Mars exploration timetable is entirely geology-driven.
We direly need to rethink how we practice SETI; in that spirit, "After the Martian Apocalypse" can be read as an editorial or manifesto.
For readers unfamiliar with the story of the Face and Mars and associated structures, what is the background to it, how was the face first identified, when, and who by?
The first two objects to attract attention were the Face and the "D&M Pyramid," both unearthed by digital imaging specialists Vincent DiPietro and Gregory Molenaar. Their research was published in "Unusual Martian Surface Features"; shortly after, Richard Hoagland pointed out a collection of features near the Face which he termed the "City."
NASA itself discovered the Face and even showed it at a press conference after it had been photographed by the Viking mission in the 1970s. Of course, it was written off as a curiosity. Scientific analysis would have to await independent researchers.
When and how did the controversy really start?
When NASA dismissed the Face as a "trick of light," they cited a second, discomfirming photo allegedly taken at a different sun-angle. This photo never existed.
DiPietro and Molenaar had to dig through NASA archives to find a second image of the Face -- and, far from disputing the face-like appearance, it strengthened the argument that the Face remained face-like from multiple viewing angles.
What were/are the primary theories of the leading independent researchers?
The prevailing alternative to NASA's geological explanation -- that the Face and other formations are natural landforms -- is that we're seeing extremely ancient artificial structures built by an unknown civilization.
What does NASA say about the controversy?
NASA chooses to ignore that there is a controversy, or at least a controversy in the scientific sense. Since making the Face public in the 1970s, NASA has made vague allusions to humans' ability to "see faces" (e.g. the "Man in the Moon") and has made lofty dismissals, but it has yet to launch any sort of methodical study of the objects under investigation. Collectively, NASA frowns on the whole endeavor. Mainstream SETI theorists are equally hostile.
Basically, the Face -- if artificial -- doesn't fall into academically palatable models of how extraterrestrial intelligence will reveal itself, if it is in fact "out there." Searching for radio signals is well and good, but scanning the surface of a neighboring planet for signs of prior occupation is met with a very carefully cultivated institutionalized scorn. And of course it doesn't help that some of the proponents of the Face have indulged in more than a little baseless "investigation."
What are your views/conclusions?
I think some of the objects in the Cydonia region of Mars are probably artificial. And I think the only way this controversy will end is to send a manned mission. The features under investigation are extremely old and warrant on-site archaeological analysis. We've learned -- painfully -- that images from orbiting satellites won't answer the fundamental questions raised by the Artificiality Hypothesis.
Do you believe all the perceived anomalous structures are indeed that or do you feel some are of natural origin while some are of unnatural origin?
I suspect that we're seeing a fusion of natural geology and megascale engineering. For example, the Face is likely a modified natural mesa, not entirely unlike some rock sculptures on Earth but on a vastly larger and more technically challenging scale.
What are your views on the idea that some more recent images appear to show signs of vegetation?
The Mars Global Surveyor has taken images of anomalous branching objects that look for all the world like organic phenomena. Arthur C. Clarke, for one, is sold on the prospect of large forms of life on Mars, and has been highly critical of JPL's silence.
Can you expand on this - theories as to what sort of vegetation (if indeed that is what it is), the areas it has been seen in, implications.
Clarke's most impressive candidates are what he has termed "banyan trees" near the planet's south pole. And he collaborated with Mars researcher Greg Orme in a study of similar features NASA has termed "black spiders" -- root-like formations that suggest tenacious macroscopic life.
Is there a relationship between the face and the pyramids and similar in Egypt? What does the research community think of this perceived connection?
There's a superficial similarity between some of the alleged pyramids in the vicinity of the Face and the better-known ones here on Earth. This has become the stuff of endless arcane theorizing, and I agree with esoteric researchers that some sort of link between intelligence on Mars and Earth deserves to be taken seriously.
But the formations on Mars are much, much larger than terrestrial architecture. This suggests a significantly different purpose, assuming they're intelligently designed. Richard Hoagland, to my knowledge, was the first to propose that the features in Cydonia might be "arcologies" -- architectural ecologies -- built to house a civilization that might have retreated underground for environmental reasons.
If these things are artificial, who built them? Martians? Someone visiting Mars? Ancient earth civilizations now forgotten/lost to history?
It's just possible that the complex in Cydonia (and potential edifices elsewhere on Mars) were constructed by indigenous Martians. Mars was once extremely Earth-like. We know it had liquid water. It's perfectly conceivable that a civilization arose on Mars and managed to build structures within our ability to investigate.
Or the anomalies might be evidence of interstellar visitation -- perhaps the remains of a colony of some sort. But why a humanoid face? That's the disquieting aspect of the whole inquiry; it suggests that the human race has something to do with Mars, that our history is woefully incomplete, that our understanding of biology and evolution might be in store for a violent upheaval.
In retrospect, I regret not spending more time in the book addressing the possibility that the Face was built by a vanished terrestrial civilization that had achieved spaceflight. That was a tough notion to swallow, even as speculation, as it raises as many questions as it answers.
Is there any way to determine when they were built (if they were built)?
We need to bring archaeological tools to bear on this enigma. When that is done, we can begin reconstructing Martian history. Until we visit in person, all we can do is take better pictures and continue to speculate.
What are your theories as to how Mars - if it once was home to intelligent life - was transformed into a dead world?
Astronomer Tom Van Flandern has proposed that Mars was once the moon of a tenth planet that literally exploded in the distant past. If so, then the explosion would have had severe effects on Mars, probably rendering it uninhabitable. That's once rather apocalyptic scenario. Another is that Mars' atmosphere was destroyed by the impact that produced the immense Hellas Basin.
Both ideas are fairly heretical by current standards; mainstream planetary science is much more comfortable with Mars dying a slow, prolonged death. Pyrotechnic collisions simply aren't intellectually fashionable -- despite evidence that such things are much more commonplace than we'd prefer.
What is the truth behind the questions about the amount of water that might be present on Mars?
Simply: Mars has water. It's been found underground, frozen. If we melted all of it we'd have an ankle-deep ocean enveloping the entire planet. I predict we will find more of it.
Is it possible that anything of substance still lives there beyond some vegetation?
Vegetation implies herbivores . . .
What prompted you to write the book?
Anger. I was frankly fed up with bringing the subject of the Face on Mars up in online discussion and finding myself transformed into a straw man for self-professed experts. It was ludicrous. The book is a thought experiment, a mosaic of questions. We don't have all of the answers, but the answers are within our reach.
Is the research community open-minded or biased as to what the face may be? For example, are the believers open to the idea that they could be wrong and vice versa with NASA etc?
Frustratingly, this has become very much an "us vs. them" issue, and I blame both sides. The debunkers have ignored solid research that would undermine their assessment, and believers are typically quite pompous that NASA et al are simply wrong or, worse, actively covering up.
What do you hope the book will achieve?
I hope "After the Martian Apocalypse" will loosen the conceptual restraints that have blinkered radio-based SETI by showing that the Face on Mars is more than collective delusion or wishful thinking. This is a perfectly valid scientific inquiry and demands to be treated as such.
What surprised you most of all when doing the research?
Our attitudes toward the form extraterrestrial intelligence will take are painfully narrow. This is exciting intellectual territory, and too many of us have allowed ourselves to be told what to expect by an academically palatable elite. I find this massively frustrating.
Do you feel there is a conspiracy within Govt/Nasa re the Face and the associated structures to either hide data, confuse the truth, or actively destroy pictures etc? If yes even remotely, why?
When NASA/JPL released the first Mars Global Surveyor image of the Face in 1998, they chose to subject the image to a high-pass filter that made the Face look hopelessly vague. This was almost certainly done as a deliberate attempt to nullify public interest in a feature that the space agency is determined to ignore.
So yes, there is a cover-up of sorts. But it's in plain view for anyone who cares to look into the matter objectively. I could speculate endlessly on the forms a more nefarious cover-up might take -- and I come pretty close in the book -- but the fact remains that the Surveyor continues to return high-resolution images.
Speculation -- and even some healthy paranoia -- are useful tools. But we need to stay within the bounds of verifiable fact lest we become the very conspiracy-mongering caricatures painted by the mainstream media.
30 comments:
While I am not familiar enough with the details of the arguments on either side, I can appreciate your thoughtful approach to the discussion. Thank you.
WMB--
A lot -- possibly all -- mainstream planetary scientists sincerely think the Face et al have been "debunked." No, they haven't done any independent research, but they're not being disingenuous because they assume the issue has been dealt with competently. Of course, it hasn't. (You still come across references to Viking's "trick of light," which was disproven in the 1980s.)
Add in the "ridicule factor" and you've got a perfectly stifling research climate, no matter what Carl Sagan might have said. Most of us have been "taught," through careful campaigning, that the Artificiality Hypothesis is nonsense perpetuated by "believers." At this point I think we need a fortuitous discovery favoring artificiality to make people look again.
The irony is that, as Johnson Space Flight Center's Lan Fleming points out in "The Case for the Face," NASA *needs* Cydonia to catalyze a flagging space program.
Thanks, Marti.
Is it raining in Grain Valley? ;-)
"No, they haven't done any independent research, ..."
Not true :-)
Name one peer-reviewed study conducted by NASA or any other "mainstream" organization. How did NASA arrive at its apparent conclusion that the Face, etc. are natural formations?
"Science by proclamation" doesn't count.
"'Science by proclamation' doesn't count."
With respect, that's all that yourself and others seem to be doing.
I define "science by proclamation" as the unnerving tendency to jump to a conclusion and expecting everyone to unconditionally swallow it based on authority.
Having arrived at no final conclusions, and not having any "authority" to speak of in the first place, it would be quite a trick for me to conduct science by proclamation.
Nice list of references. I notice the first one is from the Journal of Scientific Exploration -- a nice publication, but not one I would consider "mainstream."
I would add Mark Carlotto's early paper on the Face in "Applied Optics" to the list; it's a good example of a mainstream journal allowing a nonconformist to have his say.
I think that even if we DO send a manned mission to Mars, it will be to areas of geological interest only. And those who are sent will in all likelihood NOT be proficient in recognizing artifacts if/when they see them. They will be there to study rocks, nothing more (and within a strictly limited area, at that). I'm quite sure that it will be a very, very long time before any archaeologists or biologists set foot on the red planet (our loss). Of course, in the meantime there will probably be space-age pioneers, not unlike Columbus and Cortez, who are sent to Mars on politico-economic errands (such as the mining of precious metals and natural resources). They may return with stories of ancient ruins and exotic life forms -- but these will only be taken as fantastic hearsay for quite some time.
I basically agree with the paper Gordon cites re. the alleged mathematical properties of the D&M Pyramid. In my opinion, Torun's analysis is primarily flawed because he assumes a "reconstructed" shape based on (relatively) low-resolution Viking data.
While I think it's quite likely the D&M is artificial, this doesn't mean that advocates of artificiality necessarily buy Torun's work. This is a critical point that certain pop-skeptics might choose to ignore in favor of tarring all "anomalists" with the same brush.
Weevee: bfegsz (Well, I know what "BFE" means...)
"you realise just doesn't _fit_. Nothing we know about the Universe gels with this story.
That doesn't mean one can say with any absolute cetainty that it is wrong. But it _does_ mean one can say that it is highly unlikely."
There's a lot we still don't know about the universe, Gordon. In fact, the more science discovers, the more gaps it reveals in what we thought we knew. One problem I see with today's professional scientists is their perhaps subconscious habit of wanting to make everything "fit". It's as if they're overly anxious to figure it all out -- to see and to know the big picture -- so that they end up fooling themselves into thinking that such knowledge has already been attained. Granted, if asked they will assert (at least in principle) that our knowledge of the universe is woefully incomplete. IN PRACTICE they tend to presume that we know a lot more than we do. It is this sort of thing that Bill Chalker (for instance) is referring to in his book _Hair of the Alien_, when he expresses some aggravation with professional scientists. "Nothing we know about the universe gels with this story" -- but does it follow from this that the story is unlikely? I find it unwise to make assumptions of probability relative to how much we think we know about the universe (which is not much).
"There's something bizarre about that Cydonia area -- you know, it seems crazy but my gut tells me that the anomalies there are artificial...Let's go find out!"
"I know it doesn't make much sense -- but it almost seems as if there's an objectively real dimension to this 'alien abduction' business...Let's investigate!"
That, sir, is what I take to the be essence of scientific spirit. When, on the other hand, we attempt to cram reality into a make-shift conceptual box, we not only end up dismissing and/or throwing out factors and evidences that don't quite "fit" -- we also end up snuffing out the spirit of science.
Of course, when money is brought into the picture one begins to feel the need for more caution where the adventurous spirit of science is concerned. One now wants to "play it safe". Why risk wasting all that time and money on a project (such as investigation of the so-called "artifacts" on Mars) if we don't have enough evidence to take such expensive steps?? Besides, the idea of a humanoid Face on Mars just doesn't "fit" what we know about the universe...Let's put our money where we are guaranteed returns -- and that means the study of Martian geology.
This is the game that NASA is playing -- and not ONLY NASA...
;)
And, in any case, what is important is that the Artificiality Hypothesis is FALSIFIABLE IN PRINCIPLE, which is really the criterion.
Right. To avoid never accepting "no," we could -- and probably should -- limit the inquiry to a specific list of targets.
We can ask, scientifically, "Are there artificial structures in Cydonia?" and mount a proper investigation. It goes without saying that some will never accept a negative verdict; these are the same cranks who claimed that NASA "nuked" the Face to explain the "catbox" photo's unfacelike appearance.
I'm not particularly concerned with the cranks and neither, to my knowledge, are the working scientists interested in addressing this mystery.
"we _can_ (and regularly do) make assumptions based on a probabilistic outcome, derived from the structure of knowledge we possess. Prediction is the essence of science. If there is a major change to that knowledge structure, then we re-evaluate the probabilities.
Following a scientific approach to the general question of alien artifacts at Cydonia does _not_ lead to the conclusion "it's impossible". It _does_ lead to the conclusion that:
"The chances of human-like artifacts millions of years old being present at Cydonia are vanishingly small."
And this is the problem that I see: namely, that statements of probability cannot *legitimately* be made relative to how much we know thus far. Evaluation of probabilities are legitimate only insofar as the base criterion is absolute and inalterable. It has no meaning to say that such and such is "probable" only up until there is a major change in the knowledge structure.
Biology and anthropology have endeavored to *reconstruct* the history of our species -- but I would say that our knowledge is spotty and woefully incomplete *especially* in this area. A lot of it is guesswork, done on the basis of stringing together available evidences, but what *actually* transpired in the past -- taken together as a whole -- was PROBABLy much broader in scope and complexity (this is almost a certainty, since it is impossible to take the innumerable factors into consideration for which we are as yet to find evidence -- and there are always more historical factors to discover). There could very well be explosive discoveries in biology and anthropology in the years ahead which may completely subvert our present assumptions of human origins. Hence one should not try to evaluate the *possibility* of a humanoid Face on Mars as "vanishingly small" based on perceived "probability". As Mac has suggested in the past, our species may in fact be part of something much older and larger. Beginning with such a hunch, we pursue other lines of investigation (e.g., the alleged artifacts on Mars, UFO and abduction phenomena, etc.) in the hopes of gradually finding more pieces to this puzzle and fitting them together, bit by bit. We are working toward constructing a more complete picture: what will it look like when the puzzle is complete?
No rock is left unturned in this venture (nor should there be). If someone has a hunch in connection with the UFO/alien abduction phenomenon, by all means this route should be pursued. If another has a hunch in connection with the anomalies on Mars, a line of inquiry leading (hopefully) to actual investigation should be conducted.
Knowledge of ourselves, our world, the reality in which we live -- past, present and future -- grows by pursuing hunches in various directions. "Following our noses" in this manner is just as critical for the expansion of human knowledge as close attention paid to empirical data.
I'm sorry, I've digressed. Let me get back on course: Regardless of what the philosophy of science is, there is always the factor of human nature to consider. Again I say, IN THEORY all scientists will assert that we must make do without conceptual boxes; IN PRACTICE they (like human beings in general) will incline toward cramming everything into neat little schemas and concepts. The "universe" as they understand it is a concept, a representation, an image. It is nothing more than yet another projection of the ego (which in turn arises out of a selective process that makes sense out of a chaotic barage and overload of perceptual data). But in truth, there is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy! Reality is always much bigger than we bargain for; it will not stay "fitted" within the strictures of our concepts. There is a lot of psychological insight to Act I of Shakespeare's Hamlet: Horatio the intellect does not believe in ghosts -- that is part and parcel to his schema of reality -- until that conceptual framework is shattered by an actual encounter with a phantom. We should take a lesson from that scene: we should all become ICONOCLASTS. The desire to increase knowledge of ourselves and of our world is another manifestation of the will to power. Knowledge gives us a sense of the increase of power. Free spirits cannot abide confinement in concepts; they feel a perpetual need to break out, to shatter the representation, to smash through that mirror in which the ego is reflected. What do we want? We want to KNOW -- and it is a desire that surpasses idle curiosity. It is a fire in our bones. We MUST KNOW. To hell with pragmatic considerations about playing it safe with the money! The spirit breathes most freely in an element of RISK. Fuck all those technobureacratic flea-beatles that lack a genuine capacity for vision! IS there a ruined city on Mars?? According to the *concept* we have of the universe, the odds are "vanishingly small". But fuck the concept; we go by what is felt in the gut. Give us this freedom first; then and only then will we submit to a rigorous empiricism.
Gordon, I agree with the spirit of what you are trying to say, but not the content. It appears to me that the real evidence that we have for the origins of man is vanishingly small and the story now being told by mainstream science on this subject it like a great big balloon puffed up from thin air that is ready to burst at any time. We have been reading for years that man had to have originated in Africa because a few bones have been found there. I recently read where the Chinese have some pretty good data disputing this story.
I honestly believe that nothing at all can be said with certainty about human origins and an origin on the planet Mars or somewhere else like Alfa Centauri is just as likely as any other story that I have heard. The thing that seems clear is that true homo sapiens appeared very quickly and spread very rapidly- in a geologic instant in fact. It seems very possible our demise might be just as rapid. Even if we understood human origins, I cannot see where this precludes intelligent life on Mars at some point in its history. There may or may not be any relationship and one says nothing about the other. It is quite possible that if civilization existed on Mars it might be billions of years old, not millions and any connection between this civilizaion and ours would be extremely unlikely.
The only pertinent question here really has nothing to do with any "evidentiary path" in our current scientific understanding. The only pertinent question is: are there anomalous structures that need further investigation? I am not certain about the answer to this question, but there are structures in the Cydonia region that seem very difficlut to explain by natural processes and I have yet to see any really serious attempt to explain them. If they are not natural, this would be a discovery of major importance and certainly worth investigating, even if they were later shown to be natural formations. It would seem that a serious investigation of these structures could be considered "serious" geology in any case. NASA's seems to be willfully ignoring the possibilities here and clearly has willfully tried and seems to have succeeded in a PR campaign aimed at obscuring the facts.
WMB: In fact, it just occurred to me that perhaps this is (at least "unconsciously") why mainstream planetary and space science seem especially hostile to the idea that the Face is artificial. Because, if it IS artificial, since it is also clearly "humanoid" (indeed, very human seeming) it WOULD seem to imply such a connection.
You bet. From the interview:
"But why a humanoid face? That's the disquieting aspect of the whole inquiry; it suggests that the human race has something to do with Mars, that our history is woefully incomplete, that our understanding of biology and evolution might be in store for a violent upheaval."
I still think that we as human beings are inclined to organize our knowledge into some sort of coherent system -- and there is that in us which reacts and revolts when this organization is challenged or upset by newly introduced possibilities which would create the upheaval to which Mac refers. Scientists are not exempt from this.
And for the record, I'm not a proponent of the theory that humankind is millions of years old, or that the Face on Mars was constructed millions of years ago by our human ancestors. My point was that as the scope of our knowledge grows, as new factors are discovered and/or introduced (some of them being quite subversive and explosive discoveries), our understanding of how the facts fit together must be reconfigured -- sometimes in very radical ways. Old concepts about what reality is *supposed* to be like have to be smashed and replaced...
"It seems a popular misconception that great strides in science are only accomplished by "gut instincts" and hunches. Nothing could be further from the truth."
Really? Didn't Copernicus discover his helio-centric system after a *hunch* that perhaps the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa? And how do you suppose Einstein came up with his theory of general relativity? Likewise, Darwin began with a *hunch* that biological evolution involves some sort of natural selectivity, then pursued that line of investigation. In fact, science itself would not exist today if it weren't for the forgone hunches of philosophers. I think it's only today that scientists have dispensed with paying attention to hunches (again, a direct consequence of our society's rapidly materializing technocracy).
"I know that you're implying that the scientific community of today lacks that type of spark, and you know that I disagree with that."
Scientists will always have that spark; it's just a question of degree. IMO the scientific spirit is increasingly constricted by too much attention paid to exactness, precision, and regimented protocols.
"However, a freedom to pursue scientific knowledge does not mean one blithely tears down those eddifices of knowledge already available to you without some serious justification."
Nobody said anything about blithly tearing down established edifices of knowledge. My contention is that truths can appear contradictory from our limited perspective of things. A particular line of inquiry and investigation is not necessarily misguided or "wacked" simply because it does not "fit" with what we take to be the big picture.
"There is no evidentiary path that leads one to a human species millions of years old. Not genetics, not anthropology, not socialogy, not planetary geophysics nor neuroscience."
No? Have you ever read _Forbidden Archeology_ by Michael A. Cremo?
"Science is not, nor has it ever, been done that way...what you're advocating is wrong science. In the end it will not provide you with a level of knowledge on which you can rely."
I seriously think that the definition of what constitutes right science has changed over time. I am not saying that the human race is millions of years old, or that we came from Mars. In fact, the truth (if it is ever discovered) might not be so simple. Human origins could be considerably more complex than we imagine.
Conversely, much of what scientists today refer to as "knowledge" is in actuality a social construct -- i.e., it is a fictive absolute. Nobody knows for certain that human beings have only been around for 100,000 years; science simply draws this conclusion based on available evidences (I'm sure there is some filtering involved) and calls this "knowledge". But so-called "knowledge" that is subject to being revised or even jettisoned with the discovery of new facts is not really knowledge at all. Or do you disagree?
>>"But so-called "knowledge" that is subject to being revised or even jettisoned with the discovery of new facts is not really knowledge at all. Or do you disagree?"
I would say that what you describe is the only knowledge we have. There is no other knowledge available to us. Of course, this knowledge that we have is not truth (which I would define as the way things actually are), but only our perception of the the truth. I think it is very important to be aware that any knowledge we have is not truth, that it is always subject to change, that we in fact cannot know the truth.
"I would say that what you describe is the only knowledge we have. There is no other knowledge available to us."
Here we go on the epistemology -- lol. I think that there are at least some things we can know. For instance, I know that I enjoy reading Mac's blog. I also know that 2 + 2 = 4, and that all triangles have three sides while all squares have four sides. So too, I know that nature works in terms of patterns of cause and effect (viz., if I drop something, it will most likely fall). I know that the sun is composed of gas rather than water, and that the earth revolves around IT rather than vice versa. I know that our genetic code is contained in our DNA -- and that tampering with that code can cause predictable physical effects.
"Fact" and "Truth" are not the same thing -- although our language tends to obscure the difference somewhat. "Fact" is an objective description of physical realities; "truth" is a subjective evaluation of "fact".
Science is pursuit of facts -- but since it is impossible for human beings to be purely and absolutely objective, every scientist is on a personal and private pursuit of truth. Which is one reason why I think they gravitate toward trying to make everything "fit" into a neat and picture perfect schema of what is supposed to constitute reality. ;)
LOL - Mac admonished me for using JSE as a scientific source, and you quote Cremo??!!
To clarify: I didn't "admonish" your citing JSE; I just pointed out that it's not a mainstream publication, which was what I was asking for. Nothing against JSE, BTW.
Cremo is an interesting case indeed. I think his Vedic beliefs have colored his scholarship, but I think he's raised questions orthodox archaeology would prefer to ignore.
"Philosophers _do_ like to think that, don't they? ;-)"
The scientific method arose from a particular philosophical world view which can ultimately be traced back to Aristotle. This is a fact of history.
"Hawkings, Thorne, Dawkins, Michaelson, Maxwell, Newton, Liebnez etc etc etc"
Aside from Newton and Liebnez, all of these gentlemen are contemporary scientists. I argued above that today's scientists have dispensed with paying heed to hunches due to the influence of technocracy. To cite these men would, therefore, be begging the question. I will have to take another look at Newton and Liebniz before I say anything further about them.
"As for your epistemological stance, most of those "things" you state you know can be proven wrong, if you change the base axioms. So how do you _really_ know? In the end, all your facts become subjective, and blur with your definition of truth."
Spoken like a true nihilist! Please note that things can be proven wrong only if there is also something factual about them. It is impossible to make any evaluation about whether something is right or wrong without a fundamental collection of facts to base those judgments upon. From what point, for instance, would one begin to argue that the sun is composed of water rather than of gas? Some facts must be conceded in order to make any meaningful statements about those things which are NOT facts. So it follows that there is always an aspect to our items of inquiry which MUST be factual in some sense. And I do insist that certain things CAN be known through science; for instance, we know today (thanks to science) that the moon is not made out of cheese.
"LOL - Mac admonished me for using JSE as a scientific source, and you quote Cremo??!!
Cremo is a writer and creationist. Like most creationists, his argument depends on the objective and omnipotent truth of a human-written set of documents a few thousand years old, that have no testability."
He also cites numerous evidences to support his case. To blithly dismiss all of that simply because he is a "creationist" would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Have you bothered to read his book?
"I am arguing that some statements have more value than others. How does that make me a nihilist??"
If in the end all our facts become subjective, as you said above, I don't see how we can give more value to some statements than others.
IMO "facts" are *descriptions* of what is objectively real. Descriptions can be incomplete or they can fall short to a greater/lesser degree of the item under observation. Nonetheless there is an objectivity that comes into play when we are considering "facts".
"Truth" is a subjective evaluation of "fact". To make the statement that something is "true" is to add an emotional dimension of weight, appraisal -- however slight -- to what was previously just an objective description. Once something is labelled as "true", it acquires a value; it is no longer a mere "fact". This is not always obvious to us because the English language tends to use the two terms in such a way that it obscures the distinction between them.
Again, knowledge may be elusive in many ways but there are nonetheless certain FACTS that we can apprehend. Medical science, for instance, works because there is a factual dimension to the practice which can be KNOWN. Changing base axioms may alter certain areas of so-called "knowledge" in the medical field, but the CORE of the practice is solidly and immutably grounded in factual reality. Can it ever be proven wrong that the heart pumps blood and circulates oxygen to the brain? No.
As I see it, a problem arises among most scientists when they (subconsciously) take apprehendable facts and attempt to organize them into a neatly contained system. There is a tendency in human nature (especially among men) to want things "picture perfect". We develop an idea of how the world is supposed to be, and any suggestions that do not "fit" into this package are filtered out or debunked, rebuffed, what have you.
The drive to consolidate our knowledge is not a bad thing; it is another manifestation of the will to power. We need to remember, though, that our ideas are abstract constructs; reality will not necessarily correspond to them, as there are always newly discovered facts which intrude upon our neatly contained systems.
Cremo may be a "creationist", but it does not necessarily follow from this that all of the evidences which he cites are bunk. I am not saying that the conclusions he draws from these evidences are absolutely correct (viz., that the human race is supposedly millions of years old). I am saying that some of these cited evidences by themselves may serve to check the somewhat picture-perfect conclusions drawn by mainstream scientists and historians. As I've said before, human origins maybe considerably more complex than the simple assertion that we have been around for millions of years, or that we merely evolved from hominids only 100,000 years ago. Cremo's evidences could exponentially broaden our horizons to allow whole new questions and uncertainties about our past. Once again our scope of "knowledge" will be shrunken, we will feel miniscule and lost in an enormous world which we scarcely understand. But to me, this would constitute just another beginning with its own promises for the future.
"you ignore this illogicality."
I am not ignoring his illogicality, which I see just as well as you do. I am merely witholding my judgment on the legitimacy of his "evidences". I see nothing wrong with using them to counter and cross-examine the combined consensus of what most scientists and historians believe today. In fact, critically thinking through what they have to tell us maybe *imperative* to intellectual integrity.
At bottom, I think that one should read Cremo to see if he has anything substantial to contribute before his book is relegated to the trash bin.
I haven't read "Forbidden Archaeology," but I really enjoyed "Human Devolution." Decidedly metaphysical, but extremely interesting and provoking.
You can read my review here:
http://www.mactonnies.com/ufobooks.html
Gordon,
What Cremo does is analyze the already existing evidences cited by most scientists and offers arguments *against* the orthodox methods of dating them. Even Tom Morrow admits, "reviewers should have analyzed FA´s claims more seriously and professionally."
Thus Cremo opens the door to the possibility that humankind *could* in fact be much older than it is commonly supposed (or at least, from MY point of view, that the origins/history of our species could be much more complex than we imagine).
Physical evidence for his arguments are minimal -- but not entirely nonexistent. For instance, Cremo cites the enigmatic "mystery spheres" of South Africa. These are controversial; most mainstream scientists regard them as having an entirely natural origin -- but this is an observation which is not yet conclusive (at least not as far as I am aware).
There is also some evidence which Cremo does NOT cite -- such as the inexplicable 270 million year old inscription found in Ghuizou, China (http://w8.keepsilence.org/dm/uggc/ratyvfu.rcbpugvzrf.pbz/arjf/5-5-31/29172.html).
A relic left by time travellers?? The mystery deepens...
Paleoanthropology, too, has its seemingly insoluble puzzles -- such as that which is presented in the case of the "conehead" skulls (http://www.enigmas.org/aef/lib/archeo/askulls.shtml).
A statement made on the website above speaks volumes about the typical mentality of today's scientists: "There are some other sources that place all types of human genus in both Americas at much earlier dates based on numerous anomalous finds, but the academe sticks to its preconceived notions, no matter what. It's safer."
One final note: Check out Bill Chalker's book _Hair of the Alien_. It will leave you with a hundred-thousand question marks about the nature of our past. But again, IMO it is the courage (or rather the *audacity*) to posit such questions which lead to revolutionary (and often altogether subversive) discoveries.
"Yes, I'm _very_ familiar with the South African "spheres" - I work in the exploration industry. I've seen them - have you? They are naturally occuring."
So are you making an authoritative statement that these mystery spheres have been conclusively identified as purely natural phenomena? May I quote you on that?
And why don't these things turn up in my backyard here in Virginia, rather than just in South Africa?
"But think, Ken - 600 000 000 years ago, the Earth was a different place. Low oxygen atmosphere. High radiation saturation. If humans existed then, they would not _be_ humans - their physiology and anatomy would be vastly different. The modern-day gene sequences would be different. Our genetic relationship with _every_ current species on this planet would not be as it is today."
Point well taken. Maybe you should ask Cremo what he thinks about that. ;)
"Cone-heads? It's called "head-shaping", as practiced by the ancient Maya and some Bantu tribes of Africa. The skulls can be deformed beyond recognition by the practice of wrapping the heads of babies with wet cloth."
Hmmm...Did you read the website I suggested?
"I _have_ checked out Bill Chalker's case."
Yes, but have you READ HIS BOOK?? The DNA profile is not only unusual -- it is *chimeric*. In other words, what the DNA profile suggests cannot occur naturally. The shaft of the hair comes from a rare strain of Taiwanese -- but at the same time it is inexplicably *blonde*. Moreover, the root of the hair consists of a *completely different* DNA profile -- namely, Basque/Gaelic.
But I am not chiefly referring to Chalker's example of "alien" hair. His book is exhaustively researched. Again, you should read it if you have not already (Khoury's alleged experience does not take place in a hotel, by the way, which indicates to me that you HAVEN'T read the book).
"I'll ask him if you like."
Yes, I would like.
The inscription is comprised of unmistakable chinese characters, arranged in a grammatically correct and coherent sentence, which makes a definite statement about a real political situation. A hoax?? Maybe. Natural??? Yeah right -- and monkeys might fly out of my ass.
I see. Would you care to provide me with references to back up your arguments? I mean, forensic science is not your field of specialty, right? You must be drawing all of this knowledge from professionals in this area.
I would also like for you to email your thoughts to Mr.Chalker and share his response with me.
Gordon,
I stand corrected. My apologies.
I actually agree with you that there is nothing alien about the DNA profile in the Khoury case. The results *are* odd, however. Is it possible to come up with a DNA profile that is a very rare mongoloid strain when the hair being analyzed is blond?
I suppose my point was that you are implying Bill Chalker taking us for a ride. He insists that the DNA results were obtained by a team of *scientists*. If this were true, they should have known better than to jump to conclusions based on one aged strand of hair, shouldn't they? This is why I want to know what Chalker has to say about what you just told me.
"We can't acertain whether a "team of scientists" or a team of technicians performed the analysis. He won't divulge that information."
In _Hair of the Alien_ Chalker clearly states that it was a team of scientists. He claims that they prefer to remain anonymous in order to safeguard their reputations among colleagues.
"I mean, how did Khoury extract the hair? Presumably with his fingers. Which were probably less than sterile. How did he keep the hair sample sterile for 6 years?"
Chalker says that the hair sample was carefully washed when it was analyzed by the PCR method. The appendix to the book contains exhaustive information on exactly how the DNA profile was extracted.
Again, I think you should read the book. There's little point in criticizing Chalker if you haven't read what he has to say first hand. And, clearly, the book was not written by a UFO-crazed wacko. Chalker maintains a fairly objective approach to the question of alien abductions throughout _Hair of the Alien_ (although he makes it clear that he inclines toward believing that it is a physical phenomenon involving ET), and the subject has been thoroughly researched. The book is intelligent and well written.
Moreover, Chalker may SAY that the hair sample seems to come from an "alien", but his overall view is that the abduction phenomenon may be considerably more complex than something that merely involves ET. Page after page, he discusses various accounts given by abductees; the picture which begins to emerge is thoroughly puzzling and bizarre. Assuming that these abductions are actually going on, are they really being perpetrated by ET? Some abduction accounts oddly border on the paranormal; not a few others seem to indicate that our abductors are *human*.
My own theory (if Khoury is not crazy or full of it) is that these "aliens" are not simply from another planet. It's almost as if they originate in that shadowy realm between the physical and the paranormal. Really, in some ways they behave like ghosts -- although alleged hair samples and scars left on abductees' bodies indicate that they are, at least on some level, palpable entities.
I'm personally inclined to think that there IS some amount of physical reality behind the "alien" abduction phenomenon. What exactly is going on, I don't know.
Post a Comment