Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 140
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 140
Wednesday, January 31st 1990
Today's Topics:
Cold Fusion/antigravity
Re: face
What was it?
Re: Mars Face
Re: Mars Face
Skeptomania is cool
The Nullabor
OZTRAIN
Re: Skeptics
Cold Fusion again
Face clarification
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
Subject: Cold Fusion/antigravity
Date: 29 Jan 90 22:02:19 GMT
I saw a reference DESIGN NEWS JAN 8, 1990 to another
possible Japanese confirmation of Pons and Fleischmann's
claim of having observed "cold fusion." Researchers
at Nagoya University reported neutron levels 20,000 times
background using deuterium gas. Scientists at Okaka University
used heavy water and platinum electrodes and claimed 2.5 million
times background neutron count. The experiments were
published in English in the November 1989 issue of the
Japanese Journal of Applied Physics. I haven't been able to
verify the reference yet, but the experiments look more promising
than those reported last year.
Also according to SCIENCE, vol. 247: pp. 156-7,
12 January 1990, Hideo Hayasaka and Sakae Takeuchi of
Tohoku University claim that gyroscope rotors spinning
clockwise become lighter than those spinning counterclockwise,
which are unchanged. The effect is indepependent of rotor material.
The experiment was published in 18 December 1989 Physical Review
Letters. The alleged phenomena resemble some of the "Fifth Force"
theories. Physicists have not found any obvious explanation for
this effect so far nor any problem with the experiments.
I think that these are two examples of anomalistic and
non-traditional physics being published in reputable, reviewed
journals and being taken seriously by the physics community which
seems not to be as hidebound or close-minded as often thought.
Only time and more work will tell if this work or its
predecessors hold up. ---John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: face
Date: 29 Jan 90 22:03:46 GMT
-+From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com
-+Subject: face
-+Date: 25 Jan 90 20:30:55 GMT
-+
-+ What many people don't realize is that the "face" is only visible with
-+ some heavy image processing, and that to the unaided eye (were there one
-+ on Mars) it would look like a rockpile.
Here I have to take serious exception to your statement. I have
unretouched photos taken directly from the tape provided by NASA. The
first photo ever seen of the Face was at JPL when the feed from Mars was
first beamed back. The photo displayed then is the same that I
have--there were only two. The one I am referring to is the one taken
in the evening sunlight. The second was taken when the Sun was higher
in the Martian sky. The photo seen by the assembled scientists and
journalists at JPL those many years ago and the one that I have are not
processed to compensate for the normal static that accompanies such long
distance transmissions. Therefore, there are drop-outs and other
similar hits. But the Face is quite plainly there. It is not a pile of
rocks as you state, nor does it even resemble a rockpile.
The second photo, which JPL said did not show a face, shows the Face in
much better light. The bisymmetry of the object shows up in this photo.
Again, I have this photo and it is a copy from the tape before the
standard error correction processing by computer. The image is not of a
rockpile. It is the image of a face that looks both human and simian.
It does not require any "heavy image processing" to see the Face. If
anyone has any doubts about this, I invite you to write to the Mars
Project and obtain copies of the raw photos as they come off the tape.
Study them with your naked eye and tell me if they look like a rockpile.
The heavy computer processing came later. However, to impugn this
processing would cause you to also impugn the work done on many of the
photos coming back from the fly-bys of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and
Neptune. Many of those photos were submitted to computer programs that
enhanced the contrast using "false color" imaging. Does that mean the
what we see is false??
This charge is not supportable. Further, if it were, you can believe
that Sagan, et al, would have been more than happy to point it out
already. Also, I'm not naive enough to fall for some computer wizardry.
I work with computers all day long. I read about them in my spare time.
I take courses in various computer programs, languages, and application,
including animation, as my work load permits. I have friends who are
involved in computer digital imaging programs. Plus, Uncle paid for me
to learn how to look at photos to obtain intelligence information.
If you don't believe that the Face looks like a face, that is fine with
me. But base it upon something other than a spurious charge like this.
-+
-+ If you take an high altitude photo of the Rockies (even out of the
-+ window of a commercial plane) and digitize it, and play with it, you can
-+ find all sorts of things. It's like looking a clouds and seeing what
-+ they look like. I can show you a part of the Rockies which, if you
-+ expand contrast so that anything darker than N is black, and lighter
-+ than M is white, and spread 128 grey scales unevenly across the N..M
-+ scale which both look like dark grey to the eye... under those
-+ conditions you can clearly see a giant hand with the middle finger
-+ upright.
So??
-+
-+ I have also seen demos of doing image processing on data from the
-+ voltage variations on a wall socket, and getting a good picture of a
-+ Dalmation. You can over process raw noise and think you see things.
Again, so???
-+
-+ I *am not* claiming that this disproves the Mars face as an artifact.
-+ Just that we have the processing power to make a silk purse of a sow's
-+ ear, and we shouldn't start thinking "coverup" when scientists saw
-+ "unproven and unlikely." When people go to Mars and find tool marks (or
-+ grafitti) I'll believe. Until then I will suggest more investigation.
And what do you suggest we use to continue the investigation?
Apparently you think that the photos are of rockpiles; therefore, there
is nothing to investigate.
Further, from your statements above, we'd better scrap all of the photos
from the various planets because we've used a vast number of computer
programs to enhance the photos, including some that enhance the
contrast. That being the case, I presume that you'd say that none of
the data obtained so far on Uranus and Neptune is valid. So, guess
we'll have to wait until we can put someone on each of the planets in
our Solar system before we can describe them and provide accurate
information on them. Right!? Give me a break.
Friend, I may not be a practicing scientist, but I have worked in the
applied science fields for over 15 years now. In that period of time, I
have learned a few things. I'm often skeptical. I'm still not
completely sold on the Face as being of artificial origin, though much
of the evidence obtained from the photos leans in this direction. But
my concerns have absolutely nothing to do with the photos, but rather
the geological activity of the region and the long term effects of
erosion, even in the pitiful atmosphere of Mars. Mars hasn't had a rich
enough atmosphere, like Earth's, in several million years. So the
erosion effects would no doubt be slightly different over the long haul.
Erosion by wind and dust--not water. Yet, I have seen little to support
the hypothesis that the object are clearly formed by wind streaming or
other erosion factors. That leaves geologic activity. But from what I
read, Mars has not been geologically active for quite a long time. Was
there anything in its past that could account for the
objects--particularly the Face.
I am awaiting more information on the fractal analysis that Carlotto is
doing.
Gene
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f20.n3607.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jerry.Woody
Subject: What was it?
Date: 29 Jan 90 23:41:00 GMT
Saturday night as reports of a green fire ball came in from the Eastern
Seaboard of the U.S. an object, thought to be a meteorite, crashed into
a womans' backyard in Fayetteville, Al in Talladega County. The woman
said it lit up the entire area as it fell. From T.V. the hole the
object made appeared to be app. 2 inches deep and 2-3 inches in radius.
The ground around it was charred and white ash was seen in the
'crater'. Anyone else have any more detailed info on this event or of
the Green fireball over the Eastern U.S.?
Jerry.
--
Jerry Woody - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jerry.Woody@f20.n3607.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: Mars Face
Date: 30 Jan 90 17:40:14 GMT
-+From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
-+Subject: Re: Mars Face
-+Date: 28 Jan 90 04:04:00 GMT
-+
-+ Gene-
-+ Why would the discovery that the face on mars is an artifact require us
-+ to rethink our science?? It may make *some* religous folks rethink
-+ there religions, but I doubt it would even have much effect on that
-+ aspect of life. Religious folk are so used to dealing with fuzzy
-+ thinking that it will be extremely easy for them to adapt, after all,
-+ the bible did say something about god having other worlds to care for;
-+ the religious folks will dig that part out and suddenly find that they
-+ "knew" we weren't alone all along.
Jim:
I wouldn't characterize religious thinking as any more fuzzy than some
of the scientific thinking that goes on. Granted you and others may not
accept the premise of a God, but consider what no less a personage as
Sir Fred Hoyle, founder of the Cambridge Institute of Theoretical
Astronomy and the man responsible for our current understanding of the
origin of all heavy elements in the universe, proposed in 1983. He
proposed that within the laws of physics there is not only mathematical
evidence that the universe was designed by some cosmic itelligence, but
that intelligence is unfathomably old, billions of years older than the
age of the known universe. Or, how about Nobel Prize-winning
neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles who in 1984 announced the discovery of
what he believes to be biochemical evidence supporting the existence of
the human soul.
The passage that you seem to be quoting from is a statement attributed
to Jesus. What he said was that he had other sheep, not other worlds.
Just a slight difference, n'est-ce pas? ;-)
As for having to rethink our science, of course we will. Our science
currently does not allow for life having existed on Mars regardless of
its origin. Thus, if the anomalies prove to be of artificial origin, we
have a problem. Simple, re-write the textbooks. Well, not quite that
simple actually. Especially since the evidence tentatively points to an
age of 1/2 a million years ago. It might actually be far older or
younger, but the establishment scientists who have opposed the study of
the Martian anomalies are standing in the way of obtaining better data.
And what if there proves to be a connection between what is on Mars and
some of our artifacts here on Earth? Yes, this is pure speculation at
this point, but speculation certainly worth doing considering the
circumstantial evidence that exists. You now not only have to re-write
the science books but also the history books. In the process of doing
this, religions must begin to re-evaluate their doctrine. For the
liberal elements, this might not too difficult of a task. But for the
conservative, fundamentalists it will not be nearly so easy. You could
well be looking a major disruptions in those areas of the country and
world where religious fundamentalists have greater prevalence among the
populations and society. Just think back to the Scopes trial, and then
look at Creationism and anti-abortion efforts today.
Frankly, Jim, I think that if those objects on Mars are found to be of
artificial origin we are going to have our hands full. I believe that
there will be major problems up and down the line and on all fronts.
How we deal with this will determine our course for quite some time.
Personally, I'd be overjoyed if they turn out to be of artificial
origin. But I do know others, people who seem normal, sane, and
progressive thinking, who would not handle such news well at all. They
live nest door; they work right next to me; they shop with me in the
stores; etc. They are fellow humans, friends and family.
But just so I don't leave a negative image, I also think that all of
this can be dealt with in a positive and compassionate manner. We are
after all humans.
Gene
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f2.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG!John.Daly
Subject: Re: Mars Face
Date: 27 Jan 90 15:42:00 GMT
The Face on Mars.
I saw the photos and read the book `The Face on Mars'.
The author admitted that non-standard imaging techniques were used in
the computer enhancement. This leads me to suspect that either the
photos are forged, or that the imaging techniques were changed
frequently until the feature looked as human as possible. A case of
auto-suggestion in other words. Since NASA's standard techniques gave
us such sharp pictures of tHe Martian surface, I cannot see why this
standard technique was deviated from in this instance, if not to make
the face more `face-like' and the pyramids more `pyramid-like'.
Later in the book, the author drifted into pure pseudo-science with
references to absurdities like `harmonics of the speed of light' etc.
I think we've been had on this one.
Regards John Daly Tasmania
--
John Daly - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Daly@p0.f2.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f2.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG!John.Daly
Subject: Skeptomania is cool
Date: 29 Jan 90 19:12:00 GMT
ii > Many of the skeptics are just trying to protect us all from
ii > the
ii > evils THEY see... sort of like a team of rabid consumer
ii > advocates...sort of
ii > like the Spanish Inquisition.
ii >
ii > A basic tenet with skeptics and others is that skepticism
ii > is healthy.
ii > I have to take issue with this type of logic. This, I
ii > believe
ii > stems from the (paranoid) belief that everyone is out to
ii > get you. Theories
ii > become guilty until proven innocent. And you assume that
ii > everyone is lying
ii > to you. You make up a list of ideas that are GOOD and a
ii > list of ideas that
ii > are BAD. So, if you march lock-step with the skeptic party
ii > line, then
ii > everything will be okay for you. If you speak out with
ii > ideas from the BAD
ii > list, you will be raked over the coals, but good.
ii > It might actually be more accurate to characterize
ii > skepticism as a disease.
ii > And it certainly is more aligned with elitism and
ii > totalitarianism than it
ii > is with the ideas of freedom and democracy.
I am one of your skeptics, as I have frequently posted messages
refuting the current Greenhouse and Ozone scares. In doing so, I am
not removing your right to free speech, but simply asserting my own.
I feel your approach is the totalitarian one where any fringe theory
should be given full airing, but any skeptical responses should be
suppressed. Free speech cuts both ways, freedom for you to
pronounce any theory you like, and freedom fOr me to express
skepticism about it. That's democracy - at least that's how we
practice democracy here.
Regards John Daly Tasmania
--
John Daly - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Daly@f2.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f7.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Vladimir.Godic.
Subject: The Nullabor
Date: 29 Jan 90 05:19:00 GMT
Hi Bob,
I was talking to Keith today about the OZTRAIN. Unfortunately no-one
reported this sighting to us. However, we'll contact Australian
National (Railways) and get more information, providing they are
willing to cooperate.
Yes, you're dead right about the other sighting (published in
our Research Digest) that happened at the same time at
Nullarbor.
We would like to know what is the source of information
re- the OZTRAIN article - newspaper, cable or whatever ?
Regards,
Vlad
--
Vladimir Godic - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic.@f7.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f0.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Bob.Fletcher
Subject: OZTRAIN
Date: 31 Jan 90 07:54:00 GMT
David,
I have had a request from Vladimir Godic of UFORA to find out
from you the source of your file. Its new to UFORA and has been
passed on to Keith Basterfield for investigation.
This is an excellent example of how ParaNet can serve to pass on
information that would not otherwise become available.
Bob....
--
Bob Fletcher - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bob.Fletcher@f0.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: Skeptics
Date: 31 Jan 90 00:05:19 GMT
-+From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
-+Subject: Skeptics/Science/WR
-+Date: 28 Jan 90 18:18:29 GMT
John:
Nice piece, I enjoyed it. For the most part I don't take exception with
you statements. But I do think that skepticism regardless of the
evidence or the potential of an idea or hypothesis is in vogue. Also, I
tend to believe that many scientists tend to stay away from confronting
the greater implications of their research findings. It is just safer
that way.
But this is no different among the general population and I probably
shouldn't hold such high ideals and standards for scientists. They are
after all merely human.
I'd like to hear how you respond to the leatest findings in the quantum
theory area. Take for example the experiment done by Alain Aspect, Jean
Dalibard, and Gerard Roger at the Institute of Theoretical and Applied
Optics in Paris in 1982. This team brilliantly confirmed quantum
theory. While this came as no surprise to most scientists, this
experiment has been almost totally ignored by the press (media) and the
general public. This isn't because the implications are unimportant but
because the implications are so profound they seem like science fiction
than science fact.
In short, the experiment proved that one of the following is true:
a. Either objective reality does not exist and it is meaningless for us
to speak of things or objects as having any reality above and beyond the
mind of the observer;
b. or, faster-than-light communication with the future and the past is
possible.
On these two points the conclusions of the Aspect team's experiment are
unequivocal. These are not , repeat not, hypothetical assertions. At
least one of the above two options must now be accepted as fact.
I find that there are two schools of thought within the scientific
community. One is that we have just about figured all there is to
figure out about the basics--particularly in physics. There are a
number of reasons for this, which to save some space I won't elaborate
here. If you want me to, I will.
The second school of thought holds that while our current achievements
are indeed most impressive, we are nowhere near understanding all of the
forces that have shaped us and brought us into being--especially this
universe. COBE findings only reinforce this viewpoint. There is a
tremendous "zone of mystery" where the universe after the Big Bang was
smooth. Then how did the universe we know form? Our current
understanding isn't complete--not by a long shot. We are faced with
adding more than a few decimals as Lord Kelvin supposed for the 19th
century into the 20th.
What concerns me, John, is that our penchant for skepticism might
prevent us from finding answers. That doesn't mean that I don't value
skepticism, I do as some of my posts will attest to. But skepticism for
the sake of skepticism is garbage and achieves nothing. How about we
try something a bit different? Look for the reasons that something
might work rather than reasons why it won't work.
As for new discoveries, I am pleased that companies allow their people
to do research on their own time using company facilities. But I'd
venture that private, independent researchers will still make some of
the important discoveries. Further, I'd hazard to say that some of the
more important discoveries will come from independents--recall the light
bulb, phonographs, telephones, and a host of other similar inventions
and discoveries. There is a symbiosis going on that often gets missed.
The establishment scientist makes discoveries the the independent takes
and uses as a springboard to other discoveries. Those in turn feed back
into the establishment...and so it goes.
Now we have two topics of research that for the most part the
establishment tends to steer clear of--UFOs and the Martian objects.
Though on the Martian objects there seems to be more involvement from
the establishment recently. But on UFOs, most scientists in the
establishment are quick to dismiss it. I realize that UFOs are not
something that you can look at under a microscope, put into a test tube,
fit into a cyclotron (boy, what an image that just conjured up)--in
short applying the scientific method to the study of UFOs is not the
easiest thing in the world. And I agree that there are some loose
cannons floating around out there intermixing with ufologists. But the
fact remains that we are faced with a phenomena that has been going on
since I can remember--and I remember the reports of Arnold's sightings
(can I really be that old 8-} ).
I personally would like to see more involvement from the establishment.
And I'd like to see them get involved without treating those of us
already researching as if we were Junoir Birdmen. In talking with some
of those already involved in the research and study of UFOs, I've been
taken by their penchant for verification and collection of data. I've
found some that might be harder to sway than a Sagan--though they've
been far less snobbish. I can't accept some of the hypotheses presented
to explain what is going on--maybe because I'm less flexible in my old
age when it comes to some things.
The thing is that I value the thinking and opinions of scientists. They
have usually received a rigorous training in the use of their brains for
something other than head-filler.
-+
-+ Enough of the soapbox----John
Same here. But again, I did enjoy your post. Thanks.
Gene
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
Subject: Cold Fusion again
Date: 31 Jan 90 02:20:58 GMT
I got to a libray today and had a moment to glance at the Cold Fusion
papers I mentioned earlier. My apologies for the typo-OKAKA was
supposed to be OSAKA. Contrary to the secondary source I quoted, the
investigators used Palladium electrodes, not Platinum as reported.
Also, the results do not look as impressive as imagined-10 to -+1000
neutons/hour using deuterium gas and high voltage, and similar numbers
of charged particles with D2O and a silicon detector. Events come
in bursts which makes one wonder about power supply noise in the
electronics and cosmic rays. The power levels are very low
compared to P&F's. The first paper also reported finding protons
tritium or helium 3, helium 4, and probably Li in the gas.
Nobuhiko Wada and Kunihide Nishizawa. 1989. Nuclear Fusion
in Solid. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 28(11): 2017-2020.
Ryoichi Taniguchi, Takao Yamamoto, and Setsuke Irie. 1989.
Detection of Charged Particles Emitted by Electrolytically Induced
Cold Nuclear Fusion. J. J. A. P 28(11): 2021-2023.
--John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Face clarification
Date: 30 Jan 90 06:52:00 GMT
> -+ Are you saying that the image we see in the original Viking
> frames is
> -+ not just computer-enhanced, but computer-modified somehow? That
> if I
> -+ myself were in orbit around Mars at that altitude, that I would
> not see
> -+ the "face" except as a rockpile? Somehow, I don't think you've
> got that
> -+ quite right.
>
> No, I didn't say that it was modified in the sense you mean, and
> yes,
> having looked at the unenhanced data I would say that if you were
> at
> that altitude using only a human eye that you would see a pile of
> rocks.
> Computer enhanced is a term which covers a multitude of actions,
> and can
> be used to reveal additional information or to make certain
> portions of
> visual noise more visible than other (equal noisy) portions, such
> that
> they look like something.
I will have to check this out. First I've heard that the Viking images
may not square with visual reality.
Jim
Addendum: I see that Gene Gross has addressed this issue, I will await
your response to him. But I think he's gotcha on one point: No way Sagan
et al would have missed such a gaping opportunity.
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********
'infopara' at the following address:
UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
ADMIN Address infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
{ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
