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