The first human mars mission?

October 2, 2003

George William Herbert wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
[...]
Then you are setting your photo interpretation skills and
analysis above that of, oh, for example all the professional
planetary science photo interpreters who have been working
for their entire careers on this problem.

You mean the same Malin and Edgett who first claimed that there
was no water on the surface of Mars, [...]

Elifritz CV in planetary science:
-0-

Malin CV in planetary science:
see 20 pubs listed below

Elifritz confidence level 1 demonstrated credibility 0
Malin confidence level 0.5 demonstrated credibility 1.0

You lose. You may be right, but you are not right for
demonstrably well founded reasons, and that's just as
bad as being wrong.

Let me see if I got your reasoning straight. Malin built a great camera, took a lot of pictures, published a lot of peer reviewed papers, but was demonstrably wrong in his
interpretation of the images, therefore his credibility in photointerpretation should be higher than Elifritz (that's me), who built no camera, published no papers, but was
demonstrably correct in his photointerpretation of the results (i.e. - his pre Odyssey claim that water exists on the surface of Mars).

It gets even more interesting, you claim that Elifritz (that's me), who was demonstrably right in his prediction of the existence of Martian water (post MGS, MOLA, pre
Odyssey) was right for the wrong reasons (i.e. - he published no peer reviewed papers) therefore his prediction is wrong about its general underground extant and
distribution..

You don't understand the geology,
physics, or photointerpretation well enough to be that
sure, and worse yet you don't understand that you don't
know it.

But I apparently have an demonstrated ability to see frozen groundwater in the Mars surface morphology, and I am able to visualize plausible climatological scenarios for its
geological evolution and distribution.

At worst, that makes me a dilettante.

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

Side note: Thomas, typing in 200 character lines is annoying.
Please use standard screen widths.

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
[...]
Then you are setting your photo interpretation skills and
analysis above that of, oh, for example all the professional
planetary science photo interpreters who have been working
for their entire careers on this problem.

You mean the same Malin and Edgett who first claimed that there
was no water on the surface of Mars, [...]

Elifritz CV in planetary science:
-0-

Malin CV in planetary science:
see 20 pubs listed below

Elifritz confidence level 1 demonstrated credibility 0
Malin confidence level 0.5 demonstrated credibility 1.0

You lose. You may be right, but you are not right for
demonstrably well founded reasons, and that's just as
bad as being wrong.

Let me see if I got your reasoning straight. Malin built a
great camera, took a lot of pictures, published a lot of peer
reviewed papers, but was demonstrably wrong in his
interpretation of the images, therefore his credibility in
photointerpretation should be higher than Elifritz (that's me),
who built no camera, published no papers, but was
demonstrably correct in his photointerpretation of the results
(i.e. - his pre Odyssey claim that water exists on the surface of Mars).

It gets even more interesting, you claim that Elifritz (that's me),
who was demonstrably right in his prediction of the existence
of Martian water (post MGS, MOLA, pre
Odyssey) was right for the wrong reasons (i.e. - he published
no peer reviewed papers) therefore his prediction is wrong
about its general underground extant and
distribution..

Yes.

Let us refer to... oh, I don't know, the Face on Mars.

People see all sorts of things in the low bits in data.
Some of it is true, some of it is wishful thinking.

We know now that the Cydonia 'face' is a pile of rocks.
We know that because we got significantly better resolution
imagery of the region, and stuff some people thought they
saw in the low bits of the Viking data turned out to be
noise and misdirection and random stuff.

Malin is thinking ahead to things like subsurface radar
sensors tuned to look for water, 10 cm and better future
imagers for the Mars surface, etc. The opinions he's
put out on the Water question, and a number of others
(along with the rest of the Mars Science community) have
been tempered by experience, deep education, and an awareness
that in many cases better data is needed to make more sure
answers on a lot of questions.

What are the odds that the surface features you interpret
as water signs look significantly different at much higher
resolution, and/or that the subsurface radar work shows
something different?

They are significant. Because that has happened every
time we send new sensors to Mars, or any other planet.
Not with every single thing, for sure, but many topics
have changed interpretation with new sensor results,
and many unpredicted new things are seen as well.

Malin knows that, because he's been there and done that
and knows it really well.

You appear to believe that the current data set is golden
and the last word we'll ever find or need.

I think Malin's approach is a lot smarter and more accurate,
over time.

You don't understand the geology,
physics, or photointerpretation well enough to be that
sure, and worse yet you don't understand that you don't
know it.

But I apparently have an demonstrated ability to see frozen
groundwater in the Mars surface morphology, and I am able to
visualize plausible climatological scenarios for its
geological evolution and distribution.

At worst, that makes me a dilettante.

Lots of people think they see signs of frozen groundwater,
and climatalogical scenarios for the groundwater have been
pervasive in serious Mars science since Viking.

It is entirely possible, however, that the signs you are
so sure must be and only could be water, will turn out to
be something else on closer examination, and that it looking
like frozen water sign is due to side effects of the scale
of the imagery we're getting from the current missions,
not intrinsic accurate data.

This is a variation on the 'even a stopped clock is right twice
a day' theme. Are you right because you're right, or are you
right because the evolving accuracy of the data set just
coincidentally agrees with you right now, but may not tomorrow?

Not understanding that problem is why you're wrong,
and why Malin's got more credibility than you do.


-george william herbert

October 4, 2003

(George William Herbert) wrote in message :

Side note: Thomas, typing in 200 character lines is annoying.

I am so happy to annoy you.

Please use standard screen widths.

Why should I? I like mine the way it is.

Let us refer to... oh, I don't know, the Face on Mars.

That's fairly pathological. Let's not. I prefer science.

People see all sorts of things in the low bits in data.
Some of it is true, some of it is wishful thinking.

We know now that the Cydonia 'face' is a pile of rocks.

Oh really? Maybe it is a pile of ice with a layer of rocks and dust on
top. It looks to my like all the water has melted out of the ground
and left a pile of rocks, but maybe the process was flash frozen, and
it's just a layer of rocks on ice.

We know that because we got significantly better resolution
imagery of the region, and stuff some people thought they
saw in the low bits of the Viking data turned out to be
noise and misdirection and random stuff.

And stuff. You got your Mars face noise and stuff down pat. You can be
sure that it's a pile of rocks, but I can't be sure it's a pile of ice
covered with rocks. You are so fair in your analysis. Prepare for
greatness George!

Malin is thinking ahead to things like subsurface radar
sensors tuned to look for water, 10 cm and better future
imagers for the Mars surface, etc. The opinions he's
put out on the Water question, and a number of others
(along with the rest of the Mars Science community) have
been tempered by experience, deep education, and an awareness
that in many cases better data is needed to make more sure
answers on a lot of questions.

Of course more data is needed, but the general picture is clear, Mars
is loaded with water ice to a depth of several kilometers in many
places.

What are the odds that the surface features you interpret
as water signs look significantly different at much higher
resolution, and/or that the subsurface radar work shows
something different?

It's pretty hard to misinterpret those canyons and cliffs and outflow
channels. That northern ocean basin is pretty hard to miss too.

[snip la la la]

You appear to believe that the current data set is golden
and the last word we'll ever find or need.

No, but it was enough to convince me that water ice is abundant on
Mars, far more abundant than anyone has previously imagined. The
evidence seems to support that conclusion.

I think Malin's approach is a lot smarter and more accurate,
over time.

I think you are a rabid conservative status quo kind of snob.

Lots of people think they see signs of frozen groundwater,
and climatalogical scenarios for the groundwater have been
pervasive in serious Mars science since Viking.

It is entirely possible, however, that the signs you are
so sure must be and only could be water, will turn out to
be something else on closer examination, and that it looking
like frozen water sign is due to side effects of the scale
of the imagery we're getting from the current missions,
not intrinsic accurate data.

Oh Suuuuuure. Another Nick Hoffman. Dry avalanches, wind erosion.

This is a variation on the 'even a stopped clock is right twice
a day' theme. Are you right because you're right, or are you
right because the evolving accuracy of the data set just
coincidentally agrees with you right now, but may not tomorrow?

No, I'm right, because I'm left handed.

Not understanding that problem is why you're wrong,

There is no right or wrong, but there is lots of dust, rocks and water
ice.

and why Malin's got more credibility than you do.

Besides, who needs credibility around here? :-)

Truth is not dependent upon credibility.

It's people like you have have ruined Science, America and Earth.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net/mars.htm#position