Theres this scientist named Dr. Tom Van Flandern who asserts that based on Mars photos?

Question

there was past intelligent life on Mars.
I briefly read the guys bio. He is not a wacko by any stretch.
How/why can this guy put forward pretty convinving case for life on Mars while NASA doesnt sign on to any of it??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u-20g7Bwdw

yes i agree with you, and this guy probably ruined his reputation by doing this. ---But wHy would he do that?

Answer 1

the photos he looks at were taken in the 70's, he ignores newer photos of the same regions. he ignores what other scientists says about those regions.

he's not worth listening to. he has abandoned his discipline he's no longer worthy of being called a scientist.

and nasa has looked at those things... a long time ago, they also looked at the newer evidence, they have found nothing abnormal on the surface of mars.

you should get your info from a good scientific source, not youtube.

Answer 2

It is amazing how much time these sorts of people can waste. Not just of their own but of others and this is amplified thousands of times by that great time waster the internet. Anyone and their half wit brother can put whatever they want on the internet. The really bad ones are guys like these that can dress their funny little beliefs up in scientific jargon and bizarre convoluted reasoning. Unless you want a laugh ignore these people. He can put forward a "convincing case for life on mars" because he is trained to do those sorts of things. But you as a reader should be sceptical of any sort of claim that appears like nonsense because it most likely is. People can use scientific and mathematical reasoning but that does not necessarily lend any truth to what they say. This guy should be explaining why NASA can find no evidence of any sort of life on mars, how it could have died out so completely and left no trace but yet have once been so flourishing as to produce people who could carve faces on hilltops (I guess they did that so we on earth would wonder about it). If you want to read some other stuff that will amaze and shock you, read the stuff about how einstein was wrong about relativity and that just about all the things you know about physics are wrong. These guys can be fun to read although generally not so dramatic as faces on mars or pole reversal in the year 2012 or anything that Nostradamus predicted or ....... I leave it to you to complete.

As far as being a wacko. You can have a PhD and be a wacko. You can go to yale and be a wacko (although I would personally say that even wanting to go to yale would make you wacko). Below is a quote from one of the tom flanders associated wacko sites:

"University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why special relativity will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the non-moving clock. But the relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows that if there are two clocks, A and B, and one of them is moved, clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A. Which is absurd. "

You see what these brilliant minds don't seem to realize is that in order for things to move relative to one another one or both of them have to go through periods of acceleration and it is this acceleration - that you can sense and feel - that makes their argument absurd. One of the clocks has undergone acceleration and it is this period of acceleration that tells you which clock - relative to one another - will be slower. People have actually done this with atomic clocks and YES the clock that was moved will be behind the clock it was moved away from. Now while it is travelling at some constant speed, there is no way to tell which one is moving relative to the other and yes what one observes of the other the other will observe of him. Time dilation, length contraction sure. But stop the clock that was accelerated and it will show an earlier time than the clock it was accelerated away from. You may have heard of the twin paradox where a twin brother (or sister if you prefer) travels on a spacehsip and then comes back to earth he will be younger than the twin who stayed behind. But it is not a paradox because what they generally do not mention is that the one on the spaceship must accelerate and then go out some where, stop and turn around, accelerate to come back and then stop at the earth. It is these periods of acceleration that resolve the paradox since the twin on earth did not undergo any acceleration.

So from that quote above you can see how these twits can toss out what seem to be perfectly valid arguments and dress it up with big words and scientific sounding stuff but in the end it is still just a bunch of stuff and nonsense.

Answer 3

he talks about the 'face' in cydonia, that's a red flag right there. some of his photos are interesting but hardly conclusive, there is no good reason to conclude life from them let alone intelligent life. he's an independent researcher, he can afford to be wrong, and probably is wrong on most things by the look of it. nasa on the other hand have to justify their research to the us congress, they can't follow up every single wild speculation. although it's worth noting that they have recently surveyed the 'face' in cydonia and found that it's apparently just a normal hill like a thousand others on mars.

did you find his website here?

http://metaresearch.org/

he solicits donations. he probably depends on ufo nuts and the like who don't know any better. perhaps the army don't pay well enough?

Answer 4

I can think of several reasons why a large number of scientists shun the findings of a single scientist:

1. It's pure speculation. Interpretation of vague shadows is not even close to being proof of anything.
2. Scientists are necessarily skeptical of all extraordinary claims. Its in their job description. In the words of Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
3. The man is abusing the scientific method to popularize himself. Peer review is the way to evaluate arguments, not YouTube videos.
4. It is well-known that humans are pre-disposed towards seeing patterns, even when no pattern exists. Scientists know this, and must consciously fight this tendency.