Photos show Mars 'insects', claims scientist

[UM-Bot]

A professor emeritus at Ohio University claims that photos taken on Mars show actual live alien 'insects'.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/332199/photos-show-insects-on-mars-claims-scientist

[Dark_Grey]

I've seen a hundred pics of "life on Mars" more believable than what this Professor has found.

Quote

While some people seem to really believe that a squirrel is crawling around on the Red Planet (or was in September, anyway), the Mars rodent is actually an example of a psychological phenomenon called pareidolia.

"Believe only the pics we tell you to believe, pleb."

That amorphous blob of rocks in the OP article is a real fossil but clear pictures of skulls, statues and small lifeforms on Mars are all mind tricks. OK then. At least now I can piggy-back these pictures on the Professor's research: if there are bugs on Mars, there can be a lot of other things on Mars.

[Oniomancer]

1 hour ago, UM-Bot said:

A professor emeritus at Ohio University claims that photos taken on Mars show actual live alien 'insects'.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/332199/photos-show-insects-on-mars-claims-scientist

[Robotic Jew]

Well at least we finally know who was piloting the Nimitz UFO...

[Maureen_jacobs]

I see a peanut

[mdbuilder]

That bug's been standing there for 3.5 million years.

[+Hammerclaw]

And people wonder why I dismiss so many things, even though "scientists" say so. There are scientists and there are Scientists.

[kobolds]

 

 

before looking for bugs, shouldn't first look for tree or plants first ?

I guess some people don't want to admit that we have spent billions for nothing. 

 

[+DanL]

A blurry picture of a rock is in no way evidence of life on Mars. Modern so-called science has become a ***** that will say and do anything for money. What was once a search for knowledge has become simply a search for more money.

[Seti42]

Wow, this is reaching (understatement).
I could draw lines on just about any photo of rocks, dirt, etc. and trace out a bug.

[Carnoferox]

He should be a professor of pareidolia, not entomology. Just goes to show that cranks can still work their way into academia.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Carnoferox

[highdesert50]

There are a number of research design methods, often discipline specific, that a researcher may use to attempt to support the presented hypothesis. Then, the researcher will describe the results and provide conclusions as well as limitations to the study in a manner that permits the experiment to be replicated. It allows for innovation and debate to occur within established research guidelines. Notice that the researcher states '... represents a solid justification for further study.' This is the way good science works. The intent is to stand on each others shoulders rather than in each others faces.

Edited November 20, 2019 by highdesert50

[Carnoferox]

44 minutes ago, highdesert50 said:

There are a number of research design methods, often discipline specific, that a researcher may use to attempt to support the presented hypothesis. Then, the researcher will describe the results and provide conclusions as well as limitations to the study in a manner that permits the experiment to be replicated. It allows for innovation and debate to occur within established research guidelines. Notice that the researcher states '... represents a solid justification for further study.' This is the way good science works. The intent is to stand on each others shoulders rather than in each others faces.

What isn’t good science is making the most extraordinary conclusion (earth-like insects on Mars) based on the flimsiest evidence possible (blurry photos of the Martian surface that are already frequently misinterpreted). Scientific staples like Occam’s razor and the null hypothesis are soundly ignored here.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Carnoferox

[ThereWeAreThen]

15 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

I've seen a hundred pics of "life on Mars" more believable than what this Professor has found.

"Believe only the pics we tell you to believe, pleb."

That amorphous blob of rocks in the OP article is a real fossil but clear pictures of skulls, statues and small lifeforms on Mars are all mind tricks. OK then. At least now I can piggy-back these pictures on the Professor's research: if there are bugs on Mars, there can be a lot of other things on Mars.

That actually looks like a rodent! Paraedolia for the win.

[highdesert50]

31 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

What isn’t good science is making the most extraordinary conclusion (earth-like insects on Mars) based on the flimsiest evidence possible (blurry photos of the Martian surface that are already frequently misinterpreted). Scientific staples like Occam’s razor and the null hypothesis are soundly ignored here.

Exactly what research should do -- challenge and involve others. For example, the researcher commenting on the Mars oxygen mystery offers: 'For me, this is an open call to all the smart people out there who are interested in this: See what you can come up with.' source: https://www.space.com/mars-oxygen-mystery-curiosity-rover.html

[Carnoferox]

4 hours ago, highdesert50 said:

Exactly what research should do -- challenge and involve others. For example, the researcher commenting on the Mars oxygen mystery offers: 'For me, this is an open call to all the smart people out there who are interested in this: See what you can come up with.' source: https://www.space.com/mars-oxygen-mystery-curiosity-rover.html

Contradicting key aspects of the scientific method is not “challenging others”. It makes you a laughing stock among your peers.

[Calibeliever]

13 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

And people wonder why I dismiss so many things, even though "scientists" say so. There are scientists and there are Scientists.

mm hmmm. But I blame eager young journalists more often than not for pushing forward a crazy idea and then trying to add weight by adding "scientists" to their headline. I mean in reality, anyone with a bachelor in science can call themselves a scientist can't they?... and there are a boatload of those. I guess there are those too who see science as some sort of religious cult and look to discredit the entire scientific method by labeling all "scientists" as misguided crackpots, and stuff like this is fuel for the fire. I think it's why so many researchers are usually very careful to identify themselves with whatever -ology they're associated with.

Was that rambling? That sounded like rambling. I'm having a weird day, sorry.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Calibeliever

[highdesert50]

8 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

Contradicting key aspects of the scientific method is not “challenging others”. It makes you a laughing stock among your peers.

Where do you see a contradiction of scientific method? His poster session and resources are very consistent with methods that are typical of that venue -- to pose questions relative to new ideas. In his conclusions, he describes the limitations of study and presents questions for further research. He concludes by making an argument for the future role of entomology within the context of astrobiology. The poster session seems consistent with the role of an emeritus professor coming from an R2 research university -- to challenge others.

Edited November 21, 2019 by highdesert50

[Carnoferox]

2 hours ago, highdesert50 said:

Where do you see a contradiction of scientific method? His poster session and resources are very consistent with methods that are typical of that venue -- to pose questions relative to new ideas. In his conclusions, he describes the limitations of study and presents questions for further research. He concludes by making an argument for the future role of entomology within the context of astrobiology. The poster session seems consistent with the role of an emeritus professor coming from an R2 research university -- to challenge others.

As a stated before, the scientific principles of Occam's razor (the explanation with the least assumptions is most likely to be correct) and the null hypothesis (there is no significant variation from what is already known to occur) are clearly being ignored. Just because it's dressed up in formal trappings like a presentation at a conference doesn't mean it's good science.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Carnoferox

[Carnoferox]

Another important question is - how are other researchers supposed to be able to replicate his results? By tracing indistinct blobs in blurry photographs?

[Piney]

32 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Another important question is - how are other researchers supposed to be able to replicate his results? By tracing indistinct blobs in blurry photographs?

Clovis point.......with a distinct cherty lookingness. 

[ocpaul20]

OK professors, take a look at this then. Maybe there ARE insects or that type of thing on Mars? My 'evidence' for discussion as follows.

What I also see in this image are a bunch of fungus spores having been ejected from the spherical fruiting bodies in the picture. It does not mean you have to see the same thing as I see though.

The file number of this scaled photo is 1M132267223EFF05AMP2937M2M1

Opportunity, Sol 46, Site 05 Microscopic Imager

Edited November 21, 2019 by ocpaul20
notice the spores

[Carnoferox]

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

Clovis point.......with a distinct cherty lookingness. 

Clovis people on Mars? Now that's a headline!

[Piney]

35 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Clovis people on Mars? Now that's a headline!

Naw, this was from the Moon mate. Right before Solutrean Phase. 

[Piney]

41 minutes ago, ocpaul20 said:

What I also see in this image are a bunch of fungus spores having been ejected from the spherical fruiting bodies in the picture. It does not mean you have to see the same thing as I see though.

 

I see some form of impactite.