Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 11-12-2008

By Grail-seekeron

It aint over ’til it’s over

Thanks Rick & Peej

Quote of the Day:

I no longer want to be rich because I am rich.

Uri Geller

Grail-seeker
Related

26 Comments

  1. Clicked on a link that tried to download malware to my computer!
    Hi TDG guys,

    I clicked on the “Top 10 weirdest experiments” link today, and the website tried to download malware to my computer. My KIS 2009 detected and stopped the download of:
    12/11/2008 12:04:10 PMhttp://www.freewebs.com/ruschneider/zugibe9.jpg
    PMhttp://www.freewebs.com/ruschneider/k1964_kampfstier_2.JPGPMhttp://www.freewebs.com/ruschneider/k2003_Roboter%20trifft%20Hund2.JPG

    Some of your other visitors may not be so lucky. You should look into this/deny access ASAP.

    Thanks,
    Tim

    P.S.: At the bottom of your website you have: “If you have a problem with any material, please contact us immediately.” I looked all over your homepage for a “Contact Us” link to report this, but couldn’t find it. I ended up setting up a User account to get this message to you. -Way to much work for something that benefits you and your readers! I suggest strongly that you set up an email account so that others can easily “please contact us (you)”

    1. Thanks Tim, I’ve removed the
      Thanks Tim,

      I’ve removed the link as a precautionary measure, although AVG says the page contains no active threats.

      ——

      I don’t believe in belief!

      Perceval

      1. False alarm?
        I think KIS 2009 may have simply picked up the fact that three images on that web page are hosted on a different server. I don’t think jpegs can do any harm!

        ——

        I don’t believe in belief!

        Perceval

        1. Well…
          [quote]I don’t think jpegs can do any harm![/quote]

          That’s not what my sister tells my nephew! 😛

          —–
          It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
          It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

          Red Pill Junkie

      2. no malware at Top 10 weirdest experiments
        hi guys

        I am the owner of http://www.madsciencebook.com/10weirdestexperiments.htm. Sorry for the problems the site caused. There is no malware though the problem is the picture links that are on a different domain. But I changed that and it should be ok now. If not please let me know and I will talk to my host.

        Perceval: it would be great if you could post the link again.

        All the best

        Reto

    2. Got no problems here
      I run Avast, A-Squared and McAfee simultanuously with network shields enabled, plus a hardware Sonicwall router/firewall with AV. Nothing popped up from any of them when I clicked the link. Must have been a false positive by KIS.

      Cheers

        1. Been doing this
          for 8 years on 6 different W2K and XP computers, different combinations (Avast, AVG, McAfee, a-squared, Kapersky etc) never had a problem, except with the nefarious Norton crap.

          Cheers

          1. What works for you…
            I agree with you about (hey) Norton – I was a Norton user until 2006… too much overhead – slow et al.

            What works for you is fine. My concern was and is that computer novices reading this and thinking two must be better than one locking up their computer by doing something that is otherwise not recommended. :0

            I don’t know of any professional IT person recommending more than one firewall / anti-virus to be installed at the same time. 🙂

            I use AVG (paid version) and Comodo Pro (free) on my XP sp3 and Vista Ultimate boxes.

            Cheers

  2. Is ‘worm’ clue to Mars life?
    I seriously cannot believe they couldn’t take another lousy picture of this anomaly.

    What, the rovers can’t turn their wheels backward?? 🙁

    —–
    It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
    It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

    Red Pill Junkie

    1. Please don’t say Anomaly 🙂
      Here is the NASA Rover website with the original raw pic of the abraded rock with the “worm” or “rotini pasta” taken in 2004. Here are the press release images of the same series with details of how the RAT (Rock Abrasion Tool) works.

      This “worm” is almost microscopic and could be anything and was dismissed as possible RAT brush marks. Fossilisation is an exceptionally rare occurrence. Quite often objects seen as fossils by a armchair palaeontologists are actually pseudofossils which are inorganic objects, markings, or impressions mistaken for fossils.

      Being an engineer who worked on the Rover Rock Abrasion Tool does not make someone qualified to be a palaeontologist in as much as a palaeontologist is not qualified to design a Rock Abrasion Tool. Therefore in alluding that an engineer is qualified to make expert judgements of whether or not something might be a fossil minimises the role of a palaeontologist.

      Quite often enough as shown here in this “breaking news story” people will believe that an educated professional person is expert in any field or scientific discipline and respects their judgement or opinion. Therefore when such a educated professional person gives an opinion outside their field of expertise people are happy to accept it if it happens to coincide with their own view. Even if people who are professionals, expert and qualified in that field contradict or dismiss the popular belief people will not accept it and dismiss it as a conspiracy.

      In addition, just because someone is a professional educated person also means they would never lie, never stretch the truth as long as it coincides with the popular beliefs such as aliens, anomalies on Mars, the moon et al.

      Back to the Martian worm or pasta, Occam’s Razor comes to my mind due to the fact the data collected so far about Mars still questions the existence of even microbes much less an entire ecology required to allow worms to evolve in the first place.

      “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.

      I say as an educated professional person who is therefore qualified to make an expert judgement of this “anomaly” it is definitely a piece of pasta and the so called “blueberries” below and to the left are alien “meatballs” common in alien pasta dishes.

      The pasta and meatballs were strewn about on the Martian surface millions of years ago by aliens, who are well known for their love of pasta, when their cargo ship of pasta and meatballs exploded over that very spot. The crater the NASA Rover Opportunity is exploring is the result of that explosion.

      The pasta being more fragile than the meatballs were all more or less vaporised, save for a few pieces, while the meatballs flew everywhere. This cargo ship was on its way to an alien colony on Earth whose mission was to create humans.

      🙂

      Cheers

          1. Anomalies and priorities
            I agree that an expert in one particular field cannot judge properly something outside said expertise.

            But my point was simply this: If you see a weird enough thing during the space missions, shouldn’t there be enough flexibility to alter the mission plan?

            You say encountering a fossil is extremely rare, and you’re right. however, it is no beyond the realm of possibility. In fact, the best fossils have ALWAYS been found by chance —*cough* Neanderthal *cough*—So what happens in another Martian robotic mission when they find another extraordinary thing, something that can fit in the description of the a-word (the one you hate and rhymes with ‘normally’): You change the mission objectives, or you stubbornly stick to the program?

            A human explorer would have had enough curiosity to have a closer look, even if it got him in trouble with Houston.

            If you go about exploring these worlds thinking you couldn’t possibly find something that overthrows everything you know about that planet, then what’s the point in going??

            “Whoa Bob! Look at that thing. That almost looks like a scarab! Let’s go check it out”

            “No way, Carl. Stick to the plan: Study the rocks and determine if there was enough liquid water in the distant past, THEN determine if there’s enough water still deposited in the lower layer of the rocks, and after we do that—in about 25 years— AND if we haven’t retired yet, THEN we can go and check out that scarab, who obviously couldn’t be a scarab anyway”

            “But… but…”

            “Stick to the plan, Carl!”.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          2. The problem is…
            Did you follow this mission? Did you feel the excitement that there might be sedimentary rocks and those rabbit droppings? (you know that was the first thing they thought of and finally had to use something else like “blueberries”)

            The Rover sat there for ages looking at everything around that crater. That image in question was one of the first rocks drilled in what appears to be sedimentary rock and they were studied and studied again.

            If it was something worth seeing with the macro lens like “Bob, that looks like a fossil” they would have looked at it.

            You are implying that these guys are “sticking to a plan”. Well if they were both Rovers would have been switched off after three months – which was the original plan.

            So perhaps you are implying these guys are either so stoopid (with two “o”s) or it’s a conspiracy – file that next to moon.

            Its just like the face on Mars. Gee, that was a nice long run when it was all blurry with lots of image processing extracting even more “anomalies” but then when the hi-res shots came in and it was a “what the hay? Its just rocks” moment did that stop anyone?

            “Hell no, play that conspiracy card there Bob”

            “Righto Carl, slapping it down now”

            If there is anyone who is sticking to a plan and not being flexible its the anomaly-conspiracy crowd. No matter what evidence is presented to the contrary there is always an excuse…EVERY…SINGLE…TIME!

            🙂

            Cheers

          3. No conspiracy
            Read my lips, tihz_ho: I don’t use the conspiracy card for every single thing I can’t explain.

            I don’t think they are stupid—although there have been some pretty stupid mistakes in the history of Martian missions, such as the case when they mixed up the metric system with English, and as a result a probe was missed because it failed to fire its rockets long enough— I do think however that they are not flexible enough.

            [quote]You are implying that these guys are “sticking to a plan”. Well if they were both Rovers would have been switched off after three months – which was the original plan.[/quote]

            Switching off the rovers was never part of the plan, man. The plan was to use them for as long as they were operational, and the estimate time was three months. Luckily for us they were mistaken; and that is my point: these people are not stupid or part of the evil agenda, but they can make mistakes and they might have made a serious mistake by not checking out this pasta-like thing further.

            [quote]If it was something worth seeing with the macro lens like “Bob, that looks like a fossil” they would have looked at it. [/quote]

            Would they? Or perhaps the reason it wasn’t checked further was simply because the rovers weren’t equipped with the necessary instruments to determine the nature of this ‘feature’? Not even the Phoenix lander is equipped with instruments that can detect biological organisms, because the objective of its mission was clear: prove the existence of liquid water in the geological past of Mars. That’s it.

            The way these robots are used and their actual capabilities, it calls for a very tight mission control: deciding which objective is worth the effort —and money— to explore, calculate the best and safest route, writing the code and then transmitting it to the rovers so they follow it. These machines are not autonomous enough; hopefully the R&D spent on getting rid of all the crazy drunk drivers in our streets will help design robots capable of taking their own decisions while the NASA techs are sleeping. And I also hope nanotechnology will enable us to miniaturize spectrographs and detectors even further, so the rovers can have the scientific version of an Army Swiss knife, not just the blade and nail file they currently have.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          4. I was meaning in general
            I know you didn’t throw down the conspiracy card on this matter – but you do admit to having it up your sleeve… 😉

            Speaking of stupid mistakes – Hubble, they ground the mirror wrong because of a small spacer the size of a washer and they didn’t test it on the ground. Oops

            If the budget for the Rovers was not extended then off they go as part of the plan. The budgets have been extended like so many other missions namely Voyager. So flexibility seems to be the case.

            [quote]Or perhaps the reason it wasn’t checked further was simply because the rovers weren’t equipped with the necessary instruments to determine the nature of this ‘feature’?[/quote]

            If a geological feature could be a bonifide fossil the Rover is equipped to investigate further.

            [quote]Knowing the elemental composition of rocks and soil is the key to understanding their formation. The Miniature Thermal Emission Spectrometer (Mini-TES) has brought to the martian surface essentially the same technology that its sister instruments orbiting Mars aboard Odyssey and Mars Global Surveyor use.

            The Microscopic Imager (MI), like the RAT and the spectrometers, is located on the “fist” of the rover arm. It is a combination of a microscope and a CCD camera that provides information on the small-scale features of martian rocks and soils.[/quote]

            Mission control did not see anything special in the series of images they took. Remember there wasn’t just one image in question there was a series of them taken on SOL 30.

            On SOL 31 – the next day – three more images were taken and now the “pasta fossil” is no longer there. Did you also notice that the lighting angle has changed? In the image you can make out something that might have been the “pasta fossil” if it moved back to where it was and if the light is changed.

            Moved?

            MOVED?

            Yes, Looks like it moved!

            Take a note of the dust scattered near the “pasta fossil” on the smooth rock – do you see the dust has moved?

            Seems the “pasta fossil” is just like what they said it may be – from the Rock Abrasion Tool.

            I am sure that CNN will have another “Ground Breaking News Report” (with video) about the images taken on SOL 31 showing that the “worm” was a just bit of debris from the RAT after all. Of course they will give it the same amount of publicity as they did for the “pasta fossil” worm, right? 😉

            Point: Many people (in general) are quick to jump to a conclusion based on what they see on TV or on the net that happens to agree with what they think while asking questions why something more was not done…

            …but not looking for their own objective answers.

            Because if they did they would find:

            “Oh…they did go back and have another look the next day. It was nothing but a bit of debris”.

            Good thing they aren’t driving as they would be slamming the Rover in reverse. 🙂

            Cheers

          5. Sols
            You say that by Sol 31 the pasta-thing wasn’t already there.

            But the image you linked is of Sol 33.

            31…33, whatever. What happened to it? Maybe it was taken by the wind, maybe it desintegrated—some fossils are extremely fragile once exposed to the atmosphere, assuming for an instant that it was a fossil.

            Point: Taking a decission to make further observations of an interesting feature with one day of delay is frustrating to say the least. Nature is not going to wait for us to show its secrets. A little impulsiveness could work best sometimes; but I know that day won’t come until space exploration becomes something of a family hobby.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          6. We all want to believe
            Sorry about the SOL 31/33

            You, me and NASA would be so happy to find evidence of life, past or present on Mars. I can appreciate the frustration people feel when NASA doesn’t seem to respond to what seems to them to be obvious items of interest.

            E.G.: The “pasta fossil anomaly”. Have there been any palaeontologists on record commenting that this should be a point of interest?

            No…

            Geologists then (aside of the ones already on the mission), have any spoken out that this “pasta fossil” looking thing is a point of interest?

            No…

            So who then has commented?

            Seems only people who are not qualified to comment commented E.G.: Mass media looking for a story, Engineers, fringe and or pseudo-science websites, and other non-expert people.

            Mission objectives: When scientists follow scientific methods non scientists that don’t understand the scientific process with observations seen through their un-trained eyes get frustrated.

            [quote]Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

            Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if they do not.

            Each element of a scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes.Scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity. It is also an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods.

            The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:

            * Characterisations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)

            * Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)

            * Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)

            * Experiments (tests of all of the above)

            A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:

            1. Define the question
            2. Gather information and resources (observe)
            3. Form hypothesis
            4. Perform experiment and collect data
            5. Analyse data
            6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
            7. Publish results
            8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)[/quote]

            Occam’s Razor – the simplest solution is best all things being equal.

            Think about the frustration that NASA feels when armchair quarterbacks criticise them for not doing something that they already checked out and know there is nothing more to investigate.

            [quote] Taking a decission to make further observations of an interesting feature with one day of delay is frustrating to say the least. Nature is not going to wait for us to show its secrets. A little impulsiveness could work best sometimes; but I know that day won’t come until space exploration becomes something of a family hobby.[/quote]

            Those romantic days of science and discovery where someone puts “A” together with “B” and gets a Eureka moment are pretty well vanished. Yes, there were many things discovered by people tooling around in their garage as a “family hobby” in those heady days 50, 100 years ago.

            These “family hobby” discoveries were and could be reasoned out by un-trained people based on general observations. However as time passed more and more scientific training and methods are needed. Things we take as granted today were marvels that no one could ever dream about 100 years ago.

            So for “family hobby” scientific research today the bar has truly been raised far beyond were it was when Edison was doing his schitck.

            🙂

            Cheers

          7. I beg your pardon
            [quote]Those romantic days of science and discovery where someone puts “A” together with “B” and gets a Eureka moment are pretty well vanished. Yes, there were many things discovered by people tooling around in their garage as a “family hobby” in those heady days 50, 100 years ago.[/quote]

            Um… are you familiar with a little discovery called ‘The Kennewick Man’, tihz_ho?

            Made less than 20 years ago, that one. And by chance, too!
            And it could end up to be one of the most important proofs that the American continent was colonized by several waves of migrations, not just the traditional Clovis/Bering theory that is already agonizing in Academia.

            I’m sorry, but I do not agree with you with your statement that all major discoveries left to be made can only be accomplished by professionals with big machines and big $$ (too much like ‘The End of Science’ argument made a while back). Often, those professionals are too busy and quick to dismisss things that on a second look turn out to be very important and paradigm-shifting—yes, that is argumentative, but you have commented on ‘arm-chair explorers’ giving NASA a hard time, when NASA has even called upon those same space enthusiasts to help them analyse the data sent by the missions.

            [quote]E.G.: The “pasta fossil anomaly”. Have there been any palaeontologists on record commenting that this should be a point of interest?[/quote]

            I don’t know how many paleontologists have been shown this photo prior to the TV programs where most folks learned about it. And maybe their response was “This photo is insufficient to make any conclusion.” Furthermore, why would a paleontologist’s expertise in Terran biology be of any use when dealing with the —probable or improbable— biology of another world?

            You quote Occam’s razor. Fine, let’s use it: ‘If the pasta-thing was nothing but debree made by the rover’s drill, why did it appear only one, and not several more? All things being equal, the appearance of a single pata-thing ‘feature’ begged for further study. That’s all I’m saying.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          8. But of course…
            [quote]Um… are you familiar with a little discovery called ‘The Kennewick Man’, tihz_ho?

            Made less than 20 years ago, that one. And by chance, too!
            And it could end up to be one of the most important proofs that the American continent was colonized by several waves of migrations, not just the traditional Clovis/Bering theory that is already agonizing in Academia.[/quote]

            I sure am…

            Did the two race spectators who found the skeleton surmise…

            “I say Will, this discovery along with other ancient skeletons, will further the scientific debate over the exact origin and history of early Native American people.

            Astounding Dave”

            Well more likely this happened:

            “Dude, is that a bone?

            Kewl! That’s a dead dude bone! Awesome!”

            And so who was it that examined the remains “in situ”?

            Why that would be anthropologist James Chatters.

            Sure the remains were found by a couple of guys attending an annual hydroplane race and it was by chance however they were examined by an expert in the field. That is the point.

            What you are saying is the other way around. On Mars the Rover, with all the attending experts in the field, makes a chance discovery but it’s the “non-experts” who conclude what it is or might be – then get miffed when the experts don’t have another go at it.

            I was not saying that chance discovery is not possible today – it is for natural things such as bones, fossils and such. However it is the experts who determine the signifcance of the find.

            If there was a fossil found by the Rover are you suggesting that mission control is likely to miss it because its not in the misson plan?

            Come on – give these guys a little credit. I mean if there is a bone sticking out of a Martian rock NASA will not look at it?

            Occam’s Razor

            [quote] The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

            The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (“law of parsimony” or “law of succinctness”): “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem”, roughly translated as “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”.

            An alternative version “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” translates “plurality should not be posited without necessity”.

            This is often paraphrased as “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.

            Occam’s razor is not concerned with the simplicity or complexity of a good explanation as such, it only demands that the explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation).[/quote]

            Theory ONE:

            For the “pasta fossil” to be an actual fossil remains of something once living one must assume that not only was there life on Mars but conditions were sufficient enough to foster a eco system which would support the development of an advanced form of life…a worm.

            Theory TWO:

            For the “pasta fossil” to be just a bit of debris all that is required is a whirling mechanical device to grind the stone.

            Seems number two has less assumptions needed for it to be plausible.

            Why is there only one “pasta fossil”?

            Its like anything that can look like something that it is not like clouds – maybe one time you will see one that looks like a silhouette of Elvis…and then for the rest of your life you never see another cloudy Elvis.

            Back to what I said about those days of yore when a practical person could bang A to B to discover a great scientific principle are gone. The bar is too high now…you need to be more or less a professional in the field.

            Its late…off to bed – stoke the coals RPJ so we can continue tomorrow. 😉

            RPJ I do like these debates…how about you? 🙂

            Cheers

          9. Oh, indeed I do
            I always like to debate with intelligent people, tihz_ho :O)

            I still think the spot where the pasta-thing was located should be marked ‘for future reference’ in NASA’s catalogue of cool Martian places 😉

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

  3. Oldest Marijuana Stash Found…
    Only goes on to support the idea that religious beliefs were born from some “happy” people having a little chemical refreshment.

    Talking to god and god talking back…

    Seeing Angels…

    Or the devil…(bad trip)…

    Seeing anything that is not really there, or seen by others…

    Religious stories that would only seem to make sense if one were well and truly “ripped”…

    and add your own…

    🙂

    Cheers

    1. Taking the bait
      Religious beliefs are born from transcendental experiences.

      Some transcendental experiences are spontaneous, some deliberately induced by a variety of methods.

      What, then, is a ‘transcendental experience’?

      It is an experience of seeing behind the veil of ordinary reality, placing that ordinary reality into a wider context of experience.

      Religious beliefs can’t help but fail to express transcendental experience. Experience is always interpreted in terms of the ‘known’, which includes cultural tradition, as well as personal bias etc.

      What is the ‘validity’ of a transcendental experience? This begs the question – What is the validity of any experience?

      What do you think?

      ——

      I don’t believe in belief!

      Perceval

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal