Re: the face in Cydonia

Lee Daniel Crocker (
Mon, 14 Jul 1997 23:20:16 -0700 (PDT)

> I don't really know enough about the whole Mars face thing to comment on
> Anton's questions (other than that it looks a lot like Elvis). But I
> would like to ask whether list members think it merits closer
> inspection, and if not, why?

No, it merits no study at all. On the Feynman-Hubbard scale I showed
earlier, Hoagland rates about a 0.3, even below Velikofsky. He doesn't
even pretend to have any scientific objectivity or make any attempt
at worthwhile scholarship. I'm almost embarrassed by the amount I
have read about him after convincing myself that he was a crackpot--I
should not have wasted any more brain cells on him at that point, but
there is something oddly fascinating about watching a fine bullshit
artist at work, and he does turn a nice phrase.

Now that I think about it, the scale would make an interesting essay.
I can imagine some standards for some points of the scale, but I'd
like to hear nominations for some others:

10.0 Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr: The standards.
9.0 Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking: No experiments, no 10.
8.0 ?
7.0 Carl Sagan: Some political influences, but does his homework
and maintains his integrity.
6.0 ?
5.0 Andrew Weil: One can be /too/ open-minded. A bit too
theatrical and rhetorical, too.
4.0 Hal Puthoff, Fleischman & Pons: Might be on to something,
but tend to announce results before verifying them.
3.0 ?
2.0 John Gray (Mars/Venus): Interesting ideas, thin on facts.
1.0 ?
0.0 L. Ron Hubbard, Creationists, Astrologers.

Lee Daniel Crocker <> <>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC