From: Thom Quinn (swo@execpc.com)
Date: Fri Mar 27 1998 - 12:30:19 MST
All I will say is this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof. His data is all based on some substandard original photos! We
need better data before anyone can claim anything.
Using Occam's razor, the null hypothesis (it is natural) is the winner.
However, Cydonia might be proven real too. The new data will be very
helpful.
Thom Quinn
=- deluxe -= wrote:
>
> This will probably make me sound like more a quack than I already am, but
> how many people here have heard Richard Hogland's presentation about this
> set of structures?
>
> Not being a scientist, I felt his ideas compelling. Does anyone know who
> or what I'm talking about??
>
> (-:
>
> Jeff
>
> ps-
> If you scroll to the bottom of his site:
> http://www.enterprisemission.com/stores.html you can order his video
> and/or buy his book which have more details. The video is what I
> experienced, but those who read the book said that it was difficult to
> turn away from his calculations.
>
> mark@unicorn.com wrote:
>
> > lunarchy@ncfweb.net wrote:
> > > Well, what do you think of NASA's announcement that they will
> > >have an orbit which allows for Cydonia to be imaged?
> >
> > I think they'll either fail to get images of the 'face' and then the
> > face-fanatics will claim that it's a cover-up, or they'll get images
> > which show it's natural and the face-fanatics will claim they're fakes
> > or that careful analysis of single pixels shows that they're still
> > artificial.
> >
> > > What do you
> > > think the chances are of it being an artificial structure and why?
> >
> > At least 10:1 against; there are many face-like rocks on Earth and I'd
> > have been very surprised if there wasn't a single one on Mars.
> >
> > So I think the 'Mars Face' is just a fantasy... the Io Rubber Chicken
> > (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/ganymede/082796.html), however...
> >
> > Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:48 MST