Mystery cloud spotted on Mars by amateur astronomer

Peter Kovachev says:
March 28, 2012 at 6:34 pm
“About the “it’s green” bit, you do realize you’re looking at an image taken with a relatively small telescope probably with consumer grade optics, taken with a commercial digital camera and viewing it on your uncalibrated LCD monitor?”
============
So, visions seen on my monitor may not be what they seem ?
I already knew that.

Peter, yes, small comet theory is highly controversial. If Franks is seeing small comets in his images, he is seeing a lot of them. I want to quote George Parks, in reference to Louis A. Frank’s data; “Parks says. “….He is seeing things that are scientifically not permitted.” I think to would be scientifically permitted to see a few comets. The implication of the density of the comet flux is what makes it, “scientifically not permitted.” It is too disruptive to every branch of science if it is true. What I don’t see is in your links is evidence that the satellite imagery from both VSI cameras on Polar and the cameras on the Dynamics Explorer spacecraft are both faulty.. I see an allegation that the complexity of the cameras is “somehow” causing it. Perhaps Parks is right, Franks (or somebody) has to prove his images are small comets. But I think Frank’s has proven images of atmospheric holes. If the images are caused by comets the proof will surely come to light someday. In the meantime, until we have an explanation for the images, we ought to keep an eye out for evidence. I don’t have a better explanation for how water vapor would get 80 miles up into the upper stratosphere to form nacreous clouds. Small comets are a pretty good explanation. So when I see an image of a cloud in Mar’s upper atmosphere I think I see another piece of “circumstantial evidence” that there may be a flux of comets within the solar system. No one has seen or proven the Oort Cloud exists, but comets have to come from somewhere. Do you have a better explanation? Why is the Oort Cloud “scientifically permitted”? It isn’t disruptive, so it must be okay?
Obviously all of us are guessing at martian image (not all the guesses have been serious:-) I think a small comet is a pretty good guess. Where did the water on Mars come from? What’s your guess?

Peter Kovachev wrote:
“…most people are not impeded with an embedded pickled cucumber in the most inconvenient spot.”
My comment was well intentioned and meant to be constructive. I’m sorry you didn’t see it that way. BTW, I spelled your name correctly, can you please make the same effort?

Could be another cm to inches debacle.. or maybe a piece of our space junk smacking into the ground, are we missing any orbiters? Seriously though, we cant keep track of all the junk whizzing by our planet, let alone what will or wont hit Mars. The sun recently snacked on remnants of a larger comet that broke up ages ago, perhaps Mars got a rogue piece.

I strongly suspect it’s the birth of the Anti-Flying Spaghetti Monster of the Pastafarian myths. If so, we only have a few months to “get right” with the pasta. Mayan coincidences?

vukcevic says:
March 29, 2012 at 12:42 am
While watching your video, I had an overwhelming craving for a Pepsi.

Peter
for the latest google
Dr Jennifer Blank American Chemical Society NASA comets

Conjecture…
Surface Mars covered in dust with a high iron content (don’t know why?).
Mars has a weak magnetosphere.
Several big CME’s have hit Mars over the last couple of weeks.
So we could be seeing a mother of an electromagnetically driven dust-devil, caused by a big increase in the planets magnetic and electric field.

Ref ExWarmist and WOTW
“Hollywood could redo the movie (again…) with that classic scene of the panicked locals updated to shooting a windmill (preferably with a .50 cal machinegun)…”
I was thinking about the security of winturbines recently and I could see a different kind of movie being made where a rebelion against things “green” started with a selective tumbling of some towers, perhaps by residents who’s environment was ruined and whose views were trampled on. The following security operation to secure the wind farms would cause an increase in cost of operation which would then cause them to be abandoned. The whole thing would be wrapped up in a love story between a skeptic male and manic warmist female. The difficulty, as with many sci-fi films, would be the ending. Ending one tyrany can simply pave the way for a worse tyrany, so it raises the question about what would be the most positive achievable objective of taking these things down, or using less drastic measures to oppose the eco-fanatics for the sake of future generations.

<b<vukcevic says:
March 29, 2012 at 3:11 am
Peter…for the latest google…Dr Jennifer Blank American Chemical Society NASA comets
Thanks, Vuk. I hope you didn’t mind the cevapcici tomfoolery. For the record, I fell in love with buggers when I stayed in Belgrade for two days, back when there was a Yugoslavia and before I kept kosher. It’s all I ever ate for two days, with plenty of salad, green onions, a shipka or two, the inimitable white bread and home fries. They’re the first item I make at the start of the bbq season; I don’t use pork hamburger for the obvious reasons and I’m usually stuck with kosher beef, which isn’t the best choice as it kind of dry and dense, but lamb is amazing, except that kosher lamb burger is paired with the current price of gold. A little bit of non-bitter beer to keep them juicy and puffed-up, plenty of ground cumin and wood charcoal bbq only.
Anyhow, I wondered how the panspermia fares. A UP article summarizes the announcements and I’ll want to look at it in more depth, as I rather like the notion. I’m sure the “panspermists” have shot their..never mind, there are ladies on this forum… over this one, but I’m still not ready to throw a party over the “supporting evidence.” To wit:
“Our research shows that the building blocks of life could, indeed, have remained intact despite the tremendous shock wave and other violent conditions in a comet impact….”
“Comets really would have been the ideal packages for delivering ingredients for the chemical evolution thought to have resulted in life.”
“We like the comet delivery scenario because it includes all of the ingredients for life — amino acids, water and energy”
So, basically, nothing new apart from the admittedly important claim that there may be nothing to impede the panspermia hypothesis. Finding a firm connection between comet and earth organics would be the next challenge, followed by evidence that all, or even some life originates from cometary material which would, of course, mortally wound the abiotic mechanism upon which current evolutionary theories depend on. I admit bias for the hypothesis, as it allows me more wiggle-room theologically by passing the buck for life’s creation, unlike the abiotic one which forces me to admit to the religiously problematic possibility that life can originate by chance from inorganic material. The fact that the “mainstream” proponents of panspermia feel that way too, though, makes me question whether their objectivity is any better than mine.

You’re asking me what Dr Frank sees, William? How should I know? I can only guess that he sees what he wants to see. It won’t be the first time a scientist won’t let go of a pet theory and will imagine evidence. Soon you’ll see that happening with many of the Warmists too, at least those who are true believers and who have invested their lives and reputations in the idea. We’ll all grow old together with those folks and watch them insist until someone takes them away. Sad, but not unusual in the sciences.
The question you should be asking is why aren’t hundreds of other researchers seeing the same thing Frank sees. If what he sees is real, soon there will be at least a smidgen of evidence outside of the Rohrschach stains he seems to be excited about. Straigh-forward, basic observation-based evidence can’t be suppressed easily. A discovery of this proportion would get any astronomer’s attention, if not in his supposedly suppressive researcher community, then among competitors and especially in other countries with satelites and observatories. It won’t matter what anyone thinks is or is not permitted. You don’t actually believe that there is an international cabal to suppress the deadly secret of gazillions of mini-comets peppering our world, do you?
Apropos to you omnibus quip, did you get any of what I wrote? Agree, disagree, with what, why? Because asking me to explain what I think Frank sees, means that either you didn’t, or that you’re confusing me with his ophthalmologist.

William,
You said, “Please don’t tell me what you think causes the atmospheric holes observed by Dr. Louis A. Franks. Thanks.” LOL, William, if you’re going to put it this way, I’ll just have to tell you, won’t I. Btw, in spite of the bickering, catty tone I may employ, I’m truly enjoying my spar with you. Otherwise I would have shot-off a paragraph or two and ignored this thread, as I’ve done a few times with hopeless cases. This kind of stuff keeps me on my toes, forcing me to look in places I would have never thought of looking, to learn many, many things…to go where my mind has never gone before…..
Anyway, here we go, here are my thoughts.
First, nice try, your trying to sneak-in a conclusion with your question by coyly assuming that I’ve accepted the reality of the “space holes” which now I have to explain. But it won’t work; me is very clever! In reply, I put to you then that Dr Frank did not observe any actual “atmospheric holes.” That even if such were to exist, which I doubt, his data and assessment do not support it. I think that he is getting excited over common, well-known and universally replicable glitches and features of the observational equipment. That he made and continues to be making major and embarrassing–the open-up-the-earth-and-burry-me kind of errors. I speculate that his stubborn doubling-down indicates either an inability to accept damaging evidence to his hobby horse or worse, an unconscious or intended manipulation and misinterpretation of data. That’s the first part. The second part is my shock at the glaring, textbook-type fallacies in your arguments which someone of your calibre should not commit.
In a NASA-sponsored study of Dr Frank’s claims, four researchers–F.S. Mozer, J.P. McFadden, I. Sircar, and J. Vernetti of the Space Sciences Laboratory of the University of California in Berkeley—analysed the data and specialized software kindly provided by Frank and his assistant, J.B. Sigwarth. It hurt my brain to read their paper in its entirety, but my take on it is that they solidly establish that Dr Frank’s evidence is not only junk created by common and universally observable instrument noise, but that the observations touted he touts as evidence don’t even come close to supporting his own hypothesis, as the critics too-charitably called it. They put all this in much nicer ways, of course, and you can…and really should… read their paper, titled “Small-Comet ‘Atmospheric Holes’ are Instrument Noise” at http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/polar/publications/l5.html. It’s really worth reading, even if just their brief Abstract, which for a non-scientist like me, does the job well enough. I won’t bore you with repeating what you can read in the Abstract and the paper itself, but will only say that you should make note of what the Mozer, et alia paper does not say; namely that they have disproved the possibility of small comets, or that they have demolished the hypothesis of space-born water or biologicals. All they say is that Dr Frank’s work cannot support his own hypothesis with the false evidence he provides and the problematic methods he assessed it with. This is one of the features that marks their work as responsible science. Oh, and I want to add that this case resembles a similar claim by parapsychologists and overly excited, but technically ignorant souls, that similar streaks, flashes and holes in the early digital images show traces of spiritual beings, miniature alien spaceships or other paranormal entities. We now know from simple experimentation that these were glitches inherent to digital imaging, but as these things work, die-hard believers still hang onto their “evidence,” mumbling about a conspiracy to suppress their shattering discoveries. Different case, yes, one which may or may not reflect on Dr Frank, but some uncanny similarities, no?
And now onto you and your arguments, my friend. You say that your friend and Dr Frank “eliminated camera problems as the cause.” I have no doubt that they did, to their personal satisfaction, obviously; what I’m curious about though, is what they published or publicized and what responding confirmations or challenges it generated. Perhaps with your connection to Dr Frank’s team member, you can supply such and drill holes in my arguments.
You say, “Comets are a sensible hypothesis. But I’m willing to listen to other hypothesis.” Of course it is a sensible hypothesis; if it weren’t other scientists would not receive grants and spent time in examining it. However, sensible does not translate to true. As for your willingness to listen to other hypothesis, an honest introspection on your part would be welcome. In previous and following statements you don’t show a willingness to listen to the most obvious and the strongest of explanations, namely that Dr Frank is seeing instrument noise. In fact you energetically dismiss that explanation, being willing to only entertain ones which a priori accept the physical reality of these appellations. That leaves you and us with few options…such as tiny alien space craft and flying pixies.
Think about the veracity, logic and implications of your claim that, ” It is not ‘scientifically permitted’ to see so many small comets. That is why hundreds of scientists do not rush to confirm Frank’s observations.” Dare I ask the obvious? As in where is your evidence for these two assertions? Does this make sense in the world we live in? What special interests are being threatened and what pressure are they exerting to stem those presumably chomping at the bit, ready to “rush to confirm Frank’s (claimed) observations”? Extraordinary proof requires extraordinary evidence, but in this case I’m just asking for anything reasonable and specific example that makes at least a little bit of sense. As for the implications, are you saying that any critique of any new or controversial claim is evidence of interference and suppression and that all we need now is the claimant’s word to accept it, whilst wagging our fingers at the unspecified tyrants and cowed researchers?
When you say, though, ” Remember, no one has refuted Louis Franks observations,” you are revealing a serious deficiency in your understanding of science. Dr Frank’s assertions are un-falsifiable. This is a crucial fault which identifies all junk science. Look up “falsifiablity in science” and strive to understand it adequately because it is a fundamental principle in scientific theory. If you cannot accept it or understand it you cannot, frankly put, ever understand science. Yes, it’s that serious.
On we go. ”There is too much history of group-think in science for me to accept your faulty syllogism, ‘argumentum ad populum.’” Please. I provided a credible refutation of Frank’s observations. It is based on a thorough examination of Frank’s data, his assessment tools and methodology. It does not, anywhere, rely on popular opinion or hint at any group-think…nor is there any evidence of any group-think on this topic. If agreement by scientists on the validity or lack thereof of any observation is a damning evidence of group-think, then all scientific observations and agreements are in the dustbin and we may as well go back to researching reality with crystal balls and animal entrails. Again, you need to establish that such are real in this specific case, rather than to blast with your blunderbuss to include any and all scientific skepticism or demand for sound evidence.
In another astounding reversal of “normal” logic you say, ” Let me remind you; For decades astronomers all over the world passed around canal maps of Mars. They all worked together on updating them. Everyone could see them. Until Mariner 4 took close-ups – then nobody could see the canals anymore. All the textbooks showing the children pictures of the red planet with canals had to be updated.” I had a good chuckle at this one because I was going to use it as an example of a silly error almost identical to Dr Frank’s. Look at the historical specifics of that farce and you’ll see the similarities to this one. In the Martian canals goof-up, at least two astronomers, Giovanni Schiaparelli and Charles E. Burton, “observed” what they thought were canals on Mars, but which were in fact optical illusions caused by the comparatively primitive optics of their equipment. It took better equipment to disprove the existence of these canals. Your example undermines your argument because had researchers compared the drawings of the two astronomers, whose “canals” were different, they might havre concluded that perhaps they are wrong and experimented with a variety of different lenses to at least suggest that the cause may be perceptual. Because they reasoned the way you and Frank’s supporters did, only massive evidence in the form of better optics and multiple observations finally killed the canal theory.
It is you, William, who is implicitly suggesting suppression of evidence and submission to group-think by dismissing mundane but powerful studies and arguments which invalidate Frank’s claims. You have, so far, hurled almost every weapon, every classic fallacy in the arsenal of pseudoscience. I am open to being falsified on this with real evidence. As I said, I actually like the water from space idea and I’m emotionally favourable to the panspemia hypothesis. Our friend, Vukcevic, here presented a far better article on the plausibility of these notions, although they involve larger comets. Plausibility is important and I’ll concede that even Frank’s claim is plausible…but, plausibility is not evidence. What I’m sure of though, is that if evidence emergences that they are such things as small comets and that they bombard us with the quantities and manner suggested by Frank, the laurels will belong to other researchers who would provide real, thoroughly documented, repeatable and falsifiable evidence. Frank may be mentioned as having lucked into a valid hypothesis by chasing digital spots, but will not be vindicated with the evidence he has provided so far, simply because his is not evidence as we understand it by the rules of science. It will be sad and seemingly unfair, but it’s the way science works; the only way science can work.

Aha! I knew I wasn’t wasting my time. An honest man. I will look things over too, because being in rhetorical combat-mode doesn’t always yield the best results. The game I’ll play is to shoot down at least one of my contentions, as self-test of sorts. I’m new to the gamesmanship of science, and this issue proved to be the perfect board to apply the rules. To wax philosophical, we hit walls when our beliefs are in the rink, when personalities and egos are involved. I think there is a cultural struggle going on in the West (when has there not been one?), where our philosophy has been crumbling from within and without. Our very definitions of reality seem to be skewing and we need to recalibrate. It’s what got us in trouble with this Warming scam, I’m sure. We began accepting for various no-good reasons false propositions, tolerating them out of politeness or fear and incrementally, bit by bit, we’re in a situation where we’re rooting those who rob us. All because we can’t, as an entire civilization, identify and agree any longer on what is and what’s not! Argh.
Thanks for a fun debate and ’til later then, William, I’m sure we can hijack a little corner on a quiet post, where Anthony and the mods (cool name for a rock band,” Anthony and the Mods”) will tolerate a continuation of our musings. Have a good weekend!