Basically, I think it is difficult to find a knowledgable person who believes that there are anomalies and who believes that there really is intelligent life on Mars/Moon/etc. Maybe we have found one in you, OBrien? Your constructive criticism is a useful thing to keep us on target.
Thank you for your confidence in me, qmantoo. It is encouraging in these trying times.
Yes, I agree with you. The problem seems to be defensive in nature. So many people are "disbelievers" that we feel that we have to shower them with quantities of things we have found which are perceived as anomalous. It is unfortunate that the quality of the find goes down the more desperate we get.
Basically, I think it is difficult to find a knowledgable person who believes that there are anomalies and who believes that there really is intelligent life on Mars/Moon/etc. Maybe we have found one in you, OBrien? Your constructive criticism is a useful thing to keep us on target. Now we just have to raise the quality bar and move the posts to an archive thread that do not meet the standard.
Much of this desperate posting is frustration too. Frustration that we cannot see things getting better from a disclosure of truth point-of-view.
From the other side, I can appreciate how dangerous it is for scientists to come out and question the accepted view and so they have to be content to chip away at the edges of the rock rather than splitting it in two. Even when the big guns, such as Professor Stephen Hawkingcomes out and say something slightly more controversial, the scientific community is too afraid to follow in case their name be associated with his. It is their livlihood and the safety of their families which is at stake both salary and personal safety may be affected if they disclose what they know or have learnt through their work.
It is particularly annoying when a top government scientist continues to tow the official line when asked a direct question which requires an 'official' answer. However, I should have realised that some are being paid to answer questions from the public, only to perpetuate the disinformation and lies.
===============
Perhaps we should have a thread (or the one for the Members Best Evidence) that requires us to properly document and investigate each anomaly that we post and has a set of basic requirements (as a sticky?) before we can post our evidence there? It would be a good filter of sorts.
I have a relative who lives on 20 acres of crumbling land in New Mexico. He is an experienced scholar of the region, and is intimately familiar with the interesting and unique relics on his property. The property contains fragments of petrified wood (lots of it), remanats of Native American habitation in the form of lithic cores and chips (rarer), and thumbnail sized fragments of petrified bone (only very occasionally).
When tromping around the property with him and his 6-year-old son, whenever we start talking about finding petrified bone fragments, his son will instantly begin picking up every slightly different rock and say "I think I found a dinosaur bone!" We'll patiently explain to him that, no, it's a piece of sandstone and then explain exactly the characteristics we're looking for in a piece of petrified bone. Five seconds later "I think I found a dinosaur bone!" No, we'll patiently explain. A petrified bone has a certain color, it has a certain texture, and a certain sheen to it. "I found a dinosaur bone!" he'll proudly exclaim ten seconds later.
His lack of experience with what plain old rocks look like and his lack of sophistication in discriminating based on simple observation, combined with his absolute zeal in DESPERATELY WANTING to find a petrified bone (and therefore gain acceptance and importance among the hiking group) make him convinced that every rock he picks up is something special.
His lack of knowledge and unsophisticated zeal mean a constant deluge of false starts. The rest of the adults in the hiking party may pick up several hundred candidates that look promising, but then examine them carefully for all the known telltale clues before either discarding them or saying "Hey, I think I've got something here."
Images in which the user zealously proclaims "Hey, this is an anomaly" when a little bit of care and knowledge about the subject matter would reveal nothing's amiss are very much like the sandstone rocks that little boy picks up hoping for a dinosaur bone. How many times have users proclaimed or wondered about whether it's a crater or a cone, a glass tube or a concave ditch, a puffy lump or a scalloped depression and not bothered to go to the trouble of figuring out the sun direction? Images in which the user turns it 180 degrees and suddenly decrees he's found something amazing that no one else has spotted because clearly now it's a building rather than a crater? The first thing you should determine in an image is what the sun direction is. Sometimes it's obvious from other features in the image, other times not. Which is why the supplemental info that accompanies the image is essential to interpreting the image.
Educate yourself about the instruments and their capabilities and some basic science before instantly proclaiming yourself an expert on the image taken by them.
When claims are made that every single image has evidence of alien life and every single image has been tampered to cover up evidence of alien life, I am reminded of that little boy's desperate desire to find a dinosaur bone in every rock. The user should cultivate a sophisticated filter and point out the TRULY amazing finds ... which are rare. Otherwise no one will pay attention to them in the deluge of "Look, I found another anomaly! Look, I found another anomaly! Look, I found another anomaly."
