[meteorite-list] Nutcase Relativity

From: rochette <rochette_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:02:26 2004
Message-ID: <v04003a06b8ae78e2d1e5_at_[193.49.98.39]>

>In earlier ages, people who claimed to have seen stones fall from the
>sky, were they too considered to be a little touched?
>
>French peasent: "I have seen stones falling from the heavens!!"
>French professor: "Uneducated dolt. Nutcase!!"
>
>
>Charlie
>
>
about arrogant French professors: in 1803 the French academy was, besides
strong individuals around Europe like Chladni and Howard, a leading group
for the historical acceptance of the reality of meteorites.... So a bad
example (but I admit there are good examples).

Now about the totally non-scientific discourse of Hoagland Webpage
(http://www.enterprisemission.com/samp5.htm) here are clear examples:

" By contrast, the arches are regularly spaced, nearly identical in length
and breadth, and wrap around the surrounding features (a highly reflective
glass tube!). They have completely different albedo
properties than the surrounding terrain (indicating they are made from
different material), and are restricted to the specific area of the glass
tunnel. Note also that they are sharp edged and tubular,
suggesting that they are individual structural features rather than
drifting mounds of piled up sand."

In JGR planet issue E10 from 2001, there are tens of pictures showing that
Mars is covered by "regularly spaced nearly identical in length and breadth
dunes" (that 's a consequence of wind and sand pile dynamics) with sharp
edge and different albedo from the basement just because the basement is
solid rock or not the same material. Go along the beach after a windstorm
and you will be able to shoot similar pictures of drifting small dunes on a
wet flat sand surface or on pavement.

"To try and explain away such unique and obviously non-geologic objects as
the products of mere wind erosion is laughable. What these object appear to
be are the supports for some sort of
underground tunnel or transportation system. "

No comments! If you do not accept the possibility of alternative
explanations from the beginning there is no science.

"To their marginal credit, scientists at MSSS have at least acknowledged
the (geologically) inexplicable nature of these features. According to
MSSS's Ken Edgett:"


classical argument of "nutcases": look science do not explain everything,
that means I am right in choosing the answer of faith (in ET) rather than
science. Science relies on the acceptance that there is always something
unknown and that "Truth" is not given to us but built by us. Secondly the
scientists were not talking about the specific features in these pictures!

Now this guy should care about worms on asteroids too: look at the last
picture (120 m) of the descent of NEAR (http://near.jhuapl.edu/): there is
obviously the tail of a big snake frightened by the probe and trying to
escape. Probably NASA officials classified the bottom part of the picture
where the head of the monster was visible, but they know now that it has
swallowed the precious probe (so they fear that environmentalists will sue
them for threatening the survival of this animal by feeding it with
hazardous items)....

Pierre
Received on Fri 08 Mar 2002 09:46:30 AM PST