Okay, it looks like a face however, I also see one on the moon, nothing to
that theory. The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in meteorite is
interesting, may point to something were not aware of yet. Perhaps order and
orgin timelines of planets?
As far as the comments directed at close mindedness in opposition of our high tech discussions, that's just it: preparing and educating oneself of future technologies is not that same as assumptions regarding the face like thing on mars.
>>"...laughing my ass off" is the rest of the acronym. We're not
>>ignoring the evidence, there just isn't any. None. Zero.
>You're wrong. The evidence is not even limited to the Face, and I consider
>the Face as evidence since it has some most unusual features that have yet
>be accounted for geologically. Plus, its extremely high degree of symmetry
>and orientation (a perfect match for at least four other really weird
>landforms in the same region--one of which looks like another face!) argue
>for a _possible_ non-natural origin. No one's claimed that there is the
>"ARTIFICIAL" engraved on the Cydonian sands, along with the Martian
>equivelent of the Pioneer plaque. But there are some real oddities there,
>nonetheless--and how will we be able to live with ourselves intellectually
>we ignore all of this because it's too "far out"?
>>The only thing going on here is that there's a rock on Mars that kinda
>>looks like a face. So what? I have a potato that kinda looks
>>like Jay Leno.
>This is old stuff. What makes the Mars face unique from any known
>terrestrial landform is that it looks like a face from any viewpoint,
>from orbit or from the surface of Mars. This implies, but does not prove,
>design. All of the terrestrial analogs (Jesus in a tortilla, etc.) don't
>this criteria, and aren't really in the same league, as far as mysteries
>>The originator of this nonsense is Richard Hoagland,
>>who richly deserves the "crackpot" title because he spent years
>>hawking this as a great discovery and spreading the "experts are
>>supressing the evidence" meme and other lunacy.
>Hoagland is indeed a "crackpot"--at least by my definition. He didn't used
>to be, but that's another matter. But should science suffer because one of
>the original players went off the deep end?
>>Of course Sagan called for more research--he'd say anything to beg for
>>money. But even he didn't take it seriously.
>Probably not. Though since his endorsement appeared in "The Demon-Haunted
>World," I'm not sure money was a motivating factor. He was simply
>in Mars (an understatement, to be sure) and realized that to deny a
>_testable_ hypothesis because it didn't fit neatly into the current
>was irresponsible. Keep in mind that Sagan wasn't always so hostile to the
>idea of alien civilizations in Earth's proximity as he was in his later
>>We'd all be thrilled with some real evidence of life on Mars, as
>>I'm sure many of us were with the discovery of polycyclic aromatic
>>hydrocarbons in that meteorite last year. /That's/ worth study.
>You bet it is.
>>A funny shaped rock is just a funny shaped rock.
>We don't know that yet.
Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Get the nanotech newsletter at:
http://www.homestead.com/nanonews/describe.html Join the nano email thread at:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/nanotech Nanotechnology Industries
"Nanotechnology: solutions for the future."