home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!iol!maury
- From: maury@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz)
- Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo,sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy.area51,alt.ufo.reports
- Subject: Re: Faces on Mars
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 17:38:30 +0000
- Organization: Atria Software
- Lines: 26
- Message-ID: <maury-1906961738300001@news.iol.ie>
- References: <4pmltr$2ht@pacifica.access.ch> <4pstf2$237@flare.convex.com> <4puflb$cs1@news.emi.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.125.100.1
- X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b7
- Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.conspiracy:120486 alt.alien.research:26181 alt.paranet.ufo:53785 sci.skeptic:72664 alt.alien.visitors:88402 alt.conspiracy.area51:11300 alt.ufo.reports:9489
-
- In article <4puflb$cs1@news.emi.com>, drew2@relex.com (Andy Kitt) wrote:
-
- > The point is, Hoagland claims to have evidence supporting his ideas.
- > To discredit him you need to invalidate his evidence. If he claims to
- > have photos of a specific area of the moon, then having other photos
- > of the same area that do NOT show the artifacts he claims exist would
- > weaken his claims considerably. Without these other photos, you must
- > find some other way to show his photos were faked. Has this been done?
- >
- > If Hoagland had only his claims and hearsay evidence then it's easy to
- > just call it fantasy without having "images of sufficient quality to
- > discredit this idea". That, however, is not the case...
-
- This isn't really true at all. As I mentioned in my last post, there is
- a surprising image of Kermit the Frog on Mars. Now, are we to assume that
- aliens did this, or that it's a natural response of the amazing ability of
- the brain to find patterns and images anywhere?
-
- So this guy has an image of something that looks like something else.
- Big deal. Does this mean it's an artifact of an alien, or our image
- processing centers in our brain? The later of course.
-
- So you don't have to "prove" anything, you just have to come up with a
- better explanation. There it is.
-
- Maury
-