31-August-2005, 02:59 PM
|
 |
Order of Kilopi
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 4,247
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Let's not get distracted from 'the main game'.
From 'that other thread' (p14, 9 Aug):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A.DIM
So I emailed Fleming regarding our "discussion" here and he pointed out that what I've stated is as much as he would himself. There was no intent on "proving" artificiality in his articles or in this thread, only to point out NASA's behavior on this issue.
And so, to bring this full circle, I still concur with him that this issue is as yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly on this issue, which, as stated in the OP, has only fueled the artificiality hypothesis and conspiracy theories.
|
However, here's an extract from A.DIM's OP, repeated here in this thread (my bold): " "For the time being, the conclusion must be that the basic question of whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered. Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered.""
From our discussion, here and in 'that thread', the conclusion must be that the 'artificiality hypothesis' remains unanswerable. It's got nothing to do with what NASA did (release all the scientific data, per their normal release schedules) or didn't do, and everything to do with a vague, untestable idea, essentially devoid of any meaningful content. |
So let's get back on topic here and try to establish what would constitutes artificiality, eh?
You consider the question "unanswerable?"
__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill
|