February 22, 2015 at 11:05How dinosaurs appear in the news about Mars
It seemed to me that any more or less educated person roughly represents what Mars is: “there are no minerals, no life, populated by robots” ... However, with a frequency of two or three months, news feeds explode with messages like “Dinosaur skull found on Mars” or “An alien skull was found on Mars” or “An ancient Egyptian statue was found on Mars” ... And it’s okay, such yellowness stopped at Komsomolskaya Pravda or REN TV, often such news get to official media such as Russia 24 or Russian newspapers . "
So, the day before yesterday, another “dinosaur skull” appeared in “Komsomolskaya Pravda ...”, and I began to write in comments and a personal to carious fans of the Curiosity rover with a request to comment on the find. At first I didn’t want to be distracted, but when this dregs rose to Rossiyskaya Gazeta, it was time to explain.
To begin with, how such news appears.
NASA's desire for openness has led to the fact that images from Mars can be viewed by anyone, even not at all burdened with any knowledge of planetology, paleontology or geology. This led to the emergence of such a method of doing nothing as “virtual paleontology / archeology / ufology”. Sometimes we also do this, search , and even find. The only difference is that we search and find real objects, and "virtual ... ecologists" are imaginary. Having found numerous skulls, statues, boots, hamsters, lizards, etc. in the pictures of rovers ufologists make a video about it, with disturbing music and off-screen comments, and upload it to youtube. Some, especially stubborn, also let their voice through the modulator, so that the World behind the scenes would not find a brave whistleblower, and would not eliminate it in the most cruel way - complaining to mom.
On the video channels of such fighters of the virtual Martian front, journalists of yellow publications like the British Daily Mail or our Komsomolskaya Pravda subscribed. If they see that readers are bored without real news from Mars, journalists go to the websites or channels of ufologists and publish sensational news that begin approximately the same way: “Researchers of Mars have found ...”, but also end the same way “NASA scientists have not yet given official comments. " So the sensation is molded, which spreads over the Internet. As a result, an unprepared reader forms the idea that there was definitely life on Mars, but NASA is hiding it. A more intelligent person who is simply not interested in this topic will decide that scientists are engaged in some garbage, and instead of scientific work, they invent sensations one stupid than the other.
How to distinguish a blown sensation from a more or less serious study?
Almost all the high-profile “finds” on Mars, in which the Martians, aliens or ancient Egyptians appear, are made on the basis of one, less often two pictures. "Discoverers" stubbornly ignore the fact that the rover takes dozens of shots daily. Curiosity has 17 cameras and during its operation, it transferred almost 220 thousand frames. Therefore, any curious find must first be considered from different angles and in different lighting.
Then you need to look at the find in the context of the area. Does it look like anything nearby? Maybe it's just an intricate stone, among dozens of the same intricate stones in the area?
I will explain by the example of the “herbivorous dinosaur,” about which the media are now making noise.
Here is the original shot that started it all.
Let's not hide - it seems. There are nostrils and teeth. “Teeth”, just, became an additional factor “confirming” the find. If it is a stone, how could such "teeth" appear in a crack?
Let's look at the area a little wider.
You can immediately see that the “teeth” are by no means unique in this place, and the same light mineral is found in almost all cracks. Actually, it has long been known what kind of mineral it is - gypsum. It is full there.
In addition, you cannot see any fragments that should have remained from the dinosaur: the spine, ribs, bones of the paws ... horns and hooves? Nothing.
Now we look for pictures of the "skull" under other camera angles. In that place, the rover was spinning for almost six months, therefore frames should be. And they were found.
Found a dinosaur?
I know, I know, they didn’t find it.
Yesterday I asked the subscribers of the "Curiosity Mars rover" group the task of finding a "dinosaur skull" in these pictures. With difficulty, but still they managed. But I immediately told them that from different angles of shooting the “skull” does not at all look like a skull, so looking for a dinosaur is useless.
The arrows indicate the direction of the shooting, from which this stone resembles the "skull of a herbivorous dinosaur."
As a result: it is just a layered stone, with gypsum veins in cracks. The same as dozens of other stones in the area. And from just one angle, it looks like something familiar to our eyes.
There is another clear example of how a view from different points destroys sensations. I even like the second example.
This mysterious “head of the statue” turned the heads of many dreamers of Martian civilization:
Indeed, everything is very similar. It seems half a face is seen quite clearly: the eye, nose, cheekbone, even bags under the eyes. True, there is already something strange with the mouth, but it’s a Martian ... It’s a pity that the other half faces are in the sand, but even now, take apart the Martian for avatars.
But it is worth walking a few meters ahead, as something strange becomes with the “face”:
Before / After:
Before / After:
A wonderful illusion. I am saving them up. Somehow later I will publish the collection. In general, psychological research can be written about Martian mirages, and the intricacies of the human perception of reality.
Hence the moral: rich imagination and imagination are a bad adviser when studying images from Mars, the Moon, Venus, etc. It’s not enough just to look at pictures from Mars rovers, and look for familiar features in them to be considered an explorer. If you have already found something, or think that you have found it, consider this find from all sides, collect as much evidence as possible, and then worry real researchers. And when they see that they are dealing not with a dreamer or a freak, but with an intelligent person, then there will be the long-awaited "comments of specialists."
In the meantime, you can rely only on my comment, let scientists engage in science.
So, the day before yesterday, another “dinosaur skull” appeared in “Komsomolskaya Pravda ...”, and I began to write in comments and a personal to carious fans of the Curiosity rover with a request to comment on the find. At first I didn’t want to be distracted, but when this dregs rose to Rossiyskaya Gazeta, it was time to explain.
To begin with, how such news appears.
NASA's desire for openness has led to the fact that images from Mars can be viewed by anyone, even not at all burdened with any knowledge of planetology, paleontology or geology. This led to the emergence of such a method of doing nothing as “virtual paleontology / archeology / ufology”. Sometimes we also do this, search , and even find. The only difference is that we search and find real objects, and "virtual ... ecologists" are imaginary. Having found numerous skulls, statues, boots, hamsters, lizards, etc. in the pictures of rovers ufologists make a video about it, with disturbing music and off-screen comments, and upload it to youtube. Some, especially stubborn, also let their voice through the modulator, so that the World behind the scenes would not find a brave whistleblower, and would not eliminate it in the most cruel way - complaining to mom.
On the video channels of such fighters of the virtual Martian front, journalists of yellow publications like the British Daily Mail or our Komsomolskaya Pravda subscribed. If they see that readers are bored without real news from Mars, journalists go to the websites or channels of ufologists and publish sensational news that begin approximately the same way: “Researchers of Mars have found ...”, but also end the same way “NASA scientists have not yet given official comments. " So the sensation is molded, which spreads over the Internet. As a result, an unprepared reader forms the idea that there was definitely life on Mars, but NASA is hiding it. A more intelligent person who is simply not interested in this topic will decide that scientists are engaged in some garbage, and instead of scientific work, they invent sensations one stupid than the other.
How to distinguish a blown sensation from a more or less serious study?
Almost all the high-profile “finds” on Mars, in which the Martians, aliens or ancient Egyptians appear, are made on the basis of one, less often two pictures. "Discoverers" stubbornly ignore the fact that the rover takes dozens of shots daily. Curiosity has 17 cameras and during its operation, it transferred almost 220 thousand frames. Therefore, any curious find must first be considered from different angles and in different lighting.
Then you need to look at the find in the context of the area. Does it look like anything nearby? Maybe it's just an intricate stone, among dozens of the same intricate stones in the area?
I will explain by the example of the “herbivorous dinosaur,” about which the media are now making noise.
Here is the original shot that started it all.
Let's not hide - it seems. There are nostrils and teeth. “Teeth”, just, became an additional factor “confirming” the find. If it is a stone, how could such "teeth" appear in a crack?
Let's look at the area a little wider.
You can immediately see that the “teeth” are by no means unique in this place, and the same light mineral is found in almost all cracks. Actually, it has long been known what kind of mineral it is - gypsum. It is full there.
In addition, you cannot see any fragments that should have remained from the dinosaur: the spine, ribs, bones of the paws ... horns and hooves? Nothing.
Now we look for pictures of the "skull" under other camera angles. In that place, the rover was spinning for almost six months, therefore frames should be. And they were found.
Found a dinosaur?
I know, I know, they didn’t find it.
Yesterday I asked the subscribers of the "Curiosity Mars rover" group the task of finding a "dinosaur skull" in these pictures. With difficulty, but still they managed. But I immediately told them that from different angles of shooting the “skull” does not at all look like a skull, so looking for a dinosaur is useless.
The arrows indicate the direction of the shooting, from which this stone resembles the "skull of a herbivorous dinosaur."
As a result: it is just a layered stone, with gypsum veins in cracks. The same as dozens of other stones in the area. And from just one angle, it looks like something familiar to our eyes.
There is another clear example of how a view from different points destroys sensations. I even like the second example.
This mysterious “head of the statue” turned the heads of many dreamers of Martian civilization:
Indeed, everything is very similar. It seems half a face is seen quite clearly: the eye, nose, cheekbone, even bags under the eyes. True, there is already something strange with the mouth, but it’s a Martian ... It’s a pity that the other half faces are in the sand, but even now, take apart the Martian for avatars.
But it is worth walking a few meters ahead, as something strange becomes with the “face”:
Before / After:
Before / After:
A wonderful illusion. I am saving them up. Somehow later I will publish the collection. In general, psychological research can be written about Martian mirages, and the intricacies of the human perception of reality.
Hence the moral: rich imagination and imagination are a bad adviser when studying images from Mars, the Moon, Venus, etc. It’s not enough just to look at pictures from Mars rovers, and look for familiar features in them to be considered an explorer. If you have already found something, or think that you have found it, consider this find from all sides, collect as much evidence as possible, and then worry real researchers. And when they see that they are dealing not with a dreamer or a freak, but with an intelligent person, then there will be the long-awaited "comments of specialists."
In the meantime, you can rely only on my comment, let scientists engage in science.