JK,

I used to spend a lot of time in conversation with anomalists. I've always approached the subject as a skeptic, but I've taken the time to try and independently analyze their claims. That Web site was like a trip down memory line, the way it summarizes classic anomalism. Everything on that site I've seen somewhere before.

All the images that anomalists play with are available for independent analysis, from NASA and other Web sites (in fact, a Federal law stipulates that anything NASA develops is in the public domain, and requires NASA to make it all available to the public). I've obtained original images hundreds of times, and 99% of the cases I found that the anomalist's version had been "enhanced" to such a ridiculous extreme that the images became full of technical artifacts...and those are the "artifacts" that anomalists point to and claim that aliens did it. 'Fraid not--the anomalist who processed the image did it.

99% of the time it's trivial to show that there's simply nothing there.

The remaining 1% or so represents claims that could neither be disproved nor proved. There has never been a case in which I could confirm the claim. (I've enjoyed the false alarms, though; let's face it, anomalism can be an entertaining game. I understand the allure.)

Regarding Tom's statement, sure, any amateur knows what he mentioned. Certainly Liz Edwards knows. A professional also knows how to deal with the nature of pixels, knows the limits of accurate resolution, etc.

Evidently not, in the case of Liz Edwards. Her mishandling of the images demonstrates that she is in no way a professional, nor even an informed amateur. I found that to be true of all the anomalists I met when I was actively investigating this stuff. They twist the dials on their graphics software almost at random, and judge the quality of their own work by the number of "artifacts" they can bring out of an image--as noted, technical artifacts, not artifacts of an alien persuasion. The "technique" is something like being fitted for glasses: "Better?" (twist the dial) "Worse?" (twist it again) "Better?" (ad infinitum twisting the dials)...and at the end of this iterative process all that's happened is that the anomalist has altered the image to satisfy his/her expectations, but hasn't found anything real.

There's no there there, JK. I've looked.

The HabitableZone in general is pretty hostile to this stuff, and your post bringing it up has drawn a surprisingly gentle response. It's not that the minds are closed, but rather that we've been bombarded with so much anomalism over the years that few people have the patience for it anymore. You can only debunk something so many times before it becomes a serious pain in the ass.

If you're not yet a True Believer in that stuff, and you're really seeking an answer, stick around. Zoners take their science seriously, and there are good minds here to pick, minds with solid connections to reality. Want to know the real scoop about Mars? Hey, we have an actual professional planetologist "on staff". Wanna talk propulsion systems and reentry vehicles? We got guys who do it for a living. The Zone's about reality.