What a load of wishful thinking as usual from Mr Hoagland. Nothing against him personally, of course. I went to see him in London about 3 years ago, and frankly he doesn't half talk some nonsense about the so-called Face on Mars and the Pyramids on Mars and other stuff like that, IMHO. The simple fact is, the Face on Mars turned out to be a crumbly old mound of weatherbeaten rock, nothing more, nothing less. I frankly don't think this "city" will be any different.
I have yet to see anything on Mars that I think looks remotely artificial. Sorry!
The "face" was intriguing - the FT article went into some depth about geometry with other *ahem* artifacts in that region.
Back then it looked like if it wasn't aliens, the human mind and its ability to form patterns out of any image were responsible...
Now it looks to me like pixillation is the main evidence Hoagland draws on.
I often stop by Hoagland's website just to see
what he is up to. I can usually read between the lines
as to what he "wants" us to see versus what the photos
actually show -- but his latest diatribe about the
color of the Martian ground and sky actually has
some non-NASA photographic evidence to back it up.
Posted: 17-12-2002 07:20 Post subject: Funniest part..
Is the reply at the bottom.
Quote:
The problem that you are missing here KY is that you are facilitating 50 years of spin. We dont need another site proclaiming the flaws of conjecture. We dont need a site that questions the people who "question" NASA and the system at large. What we need is another site that adds to the minority of people questioning the system. Youre not on the peoples side with this junk, youre on "thier" side. Worst of luck to you.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
