jueves, 20 de marzo de 2008

Estructuras artificiales en el planeta Marte

Aquí tenemos una conferencia dada por Tom Van Flandern el 8 de mayo de 2001 sobre estructuras artificiales encontradas en Marte por la Mars Global Surveyor. Como está en inglés y, para ayudar a los que les cuesta seguir el inglés oral con facilidad, presento la transcripción literal y casi completa (falta el último minuto solamente) para ayudar a seguir el evento.

De entre las fotos que se presentan, cabe destacar la cara encontrada en la región de Cidonia y otra cara que es nueva.

Aquellos que estén interesados sobre este tema están invitados a ver una fotografía que muestra una figura humanoide en Marte.
______ En esta página hay una fotografía de Marte en cuya zona inferior izquierda se puede apreciar algo parecido a un cráneo ¿capricho de la naturaleza o fósil marciano? Sólo una imagen de mayor calidad podrá resolver la incógnita.

Aquí está el vídeo y la transcripción a continuación. Allí donde han surgido dudas en la transcripción, se ha resaltado usando el color verde.

Online Videos by Veoh.com

Artificial structures on Mars
Tom Van Flandern, Ph. D., former Chief Astronomer US Naval Observatory
Meta Research, Washinton, DC

Hotel New Yorker, Crystal Room -- May 8, 2001

Good afternoon.

As we speak the Mars Global Surveryor Spacecraft, the MGS, is in orbit around Mars and it took all of the images that we will be showing this afternoon. The links to those images are available on websites, official websites, of NASA, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Malin Space Science Systems ---a contractor that does the imaging on the space craft. And any of you can go to the original sites and confirm any of these images.
______ No special processing were done to these images. We simply are showing the extract of interest here in each case unless I remark otherwise and in all cases I'll be showing the original image.
______ So, for the first of these, now I should stress that all of the images we're going to look at, are in the general category of... If we saw them on Earth we would conclude that they were the activity either the humans or large scale biology on Earth. Now, there are arguments why these are not normal products of nature and certainly nothing like them exists on any of the other moons or planets of the Solar System that we have imaged up to date.
______ The object on the left has a T-shape, which is obviously pretty rare and perfect triangles are rarely seen on nature and are not the result of normal processes.
______ The Craters on the right... I'm calling them craters in the general sense because that's the appearence they have but actually craters on the Moon and planet surfaces are not formed by excavation when something hits it. They're formed by an energetic explosion when something hits it at extremely high speeds as anything striking this body must be. The gravity field guarantees a minimum speed high enough to vaporize completely the impacting object. So the crater is formed by explosion and therefore to find a flat bottm high wall crater that can't happen for an explosion. Likewise, to have a crater ... the shape of the elongated object there cannot happen from impact either. You can get slightly elliptical crater but not something with that extreme shape.
______ The next picture is in a different category of glassy tubes. The glassy tubes are seen in dozens of places, since we sampled only 1/1000 of the surface of Mars so far high resolution, they must be all over the place. They are networked. We have stablished that it's not an optical illusion. They're real tube-shaped. They are not easily explained as dooms or lobed tubes. They seem to be translucent. In fact, in this case, that bright spot seems to be a specular reflection of the Sun, implying that the surface must be glassy or metallic ---natural surfaces do not ordinarily give you specullar reflections.
______ This is an object, one of several on this area, which if we saw them on Earth, we would say "its a tree from avobe" but Mars is supposed to be a lifeless planet. Yet we see the radio structure arround the central trunk, we can see several levels of branching, we can see shadows casted on the ground, these are clearly not on the ground geologicaly, they are above casting shadows downward. This is one of the images that led off the dark to say it is 95% certain that Mars has large life on it. This is what I mean by that. This is one of many examples of what we would ordinarily interpret as vegetation on the planet.
______ Here's the cathegory of infrastructure and I'll show this one out of several because triangles shapes require a special explanation and here there are so many of them so similar and even of those are shadows you still have an unusal number of monoliths large of the same size and shape.
______ In this high resolution photo taken in the 1998, the face was again imaged as we see up in this corner. When that image was released to the media on April 5th of 1998, this is the image that the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, JPL, released. This, anyone would agree, is a very natural looking object, it does look like a pile of rocks and make the face look like an accident. The trouble is that it doesn't look anything like the previous image and there is an even bigger problem for the scientists: it does not look like the data that came down from the spacecraft either ---and that is a more serious problem; the data that this image was based on. Well, on the JPL website that is sitted in Nebraska [Página web del JPL], you can go there and you can see this image and the actual image that it was based on, side by side and the recipe for how JPL got from one to the other. The put the actual image through a high-pass filter, then through a low-pass filter, then they averaged the two to get this image. They claim the justification was to remove stripeing from the original image, there was an artifact of the CCD chip. That is not a scientifically legitimate way to remove stripeing because it removes all the detail on an image. From example, from a dolby photoshop we see this description of what a high-pass filter does to a image: "Retains edge details where sharp color transitions occur and suppresses the rest of the image. The filter removes low-frequency detail in an image. Useful for extracting line art and large black-and-white areas from scanned images." When we go back to the actual image, the actual image was taken under a rather an oblique angle under extremely unfavorable lighting conditions. But because we have the outter images from a different angle, we can triangulate and computers processing programs are very good now at giving... reproducing lighting from any angle, so we can use those computer techniques with the actual data... This is done by a computer not by an artist. There is no introduction of new data in this image by any artist. It is just rearrangin the features you see by computer instructions to restore a high angle of lighting, put the shadows in the right place and to restore an overhead view from this oblique view to one side. And here is what happens when we do that. There's the lighting restored and now we rotate to a view from avove and this is what the object actually looks like as best we can tell at this point. So both the other scientific arguments and the new view of the face certainly have our attention with regards to perspective artificiallity of the subject. But there's more: in this image, to the amusement of everyone, including the scientist involved to edit these predictions, we can see two nostrals at the end of the nose, we can see an iris inside the eye socket, we can see an eyebrow feature over the eye socket, we can see that the mouth does consist of a pair of lips... All of those predictions they were made in advance to distinguish artificial from natural, were fulfilled in favour of an artificial or built object in this image. Moreover, they are fulfilled in a most interesting way because there is no backgrounds of similar features from wich we can pick and choose the ones that fed our preconception of a face. So, when all I've said is done, this a priori principle that I mentioned [1] allows us to calculate the odds of the face itself been found by chance only applied to the next instance, not to the one already found, that can be a face in clouds effect however improbable it is. But the predictions that were made in advance are refering to the next instance and in that case we have the prediction of this secondary facial features: their size, their shape, their location, their orientation... there is a probability to each of them. The fact that each of these things were fulfilled individually ranging with probabilities ranging from 1/10 to 1/10.000 and that all of the features showed up and that they all have the right shape, size, location and orientation gives us a very large combined odds against chance. And the fact that there is no background of similar features means that the calcullations are statistically significant to a scientist. The combined odds of these features arising as a product of nature or the chance origin hypothesis are a 1000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to one. The artificiallilty of Cydonia is therefore stablished beyond a reasonable doubt. The Cydonia face.
______ This is now the second face image, not the Cydonia one. This is on another location on Mars near the famous dark martian surface major. It is located about a quarter away around the planet from Cydonia. The coloration is always an artist addition to the original image. Shown here don't look that detract from the original image shown on the left. We don't know too much directly until we explore and get some ground truth here about the origin or the demise of the hypothetical civilization here, but we do know that ---and this is standard science that is accepted by all the planetarian geologysts--- that Mars at some point suffered a horrendous cataclysm. Now, as to know what the nature of the cataclysm was, that's where opinions divide. I think there's evidence that Mars at one time a moon of a larger planet that exploded in the not that distant past: millions of years instead of thousands of millions of years.

[1] The a priori principle:
  • a priori: The odds of something armong by chance are significant if calculated before any evidence of its existence is known.
  • a posteriori: The calculated odds of something already found arising by chance apply only to the next instance.

No hay comentarios: