Eliezer wrote:
>My evaluation of the "Mars Face" hypothesis is that the probability is
>"negligible/unsupported", that is, around the same probability as the
>asteroid belt containing an object one foot across composed entirely of
>chocolate cake. I say this despite having no familiarity whatsoever
>with the technical issues, based solely on my a-priori belief that any
>evidence of an alien visit, if we could detect it at all, would be
>completely unmistakable.
Why "unmistakable"? Has it ever occured to you that relics of some extraterrestrial visit weren't meant to be "messages to mankind?" You've backed into the same anthrocentric cul-de-sac as the extraterrestrial-UFO gurus who ask "Why haven't they landed on the White House law?" and think they've said something profound.
Imagine this: a civilzation uses Mars as a temporary shelter of sorts a long, long time ago, when Mars still had abundant liquid water. They go about their agenda, whatever it is) using complexes of self-contained ecologies and either leave or die off. Their buildings are rained on, buried and reburied in sand, oxidized, wind-eroded...until, by mistake, they're found.
--Mac Tonnies