> In regard to the comment about Hoagland being an alleged "nutcase" I > have to ask why?
The individual was simply calling a spade a spade. > Why is it that someone is a nutcase when he or she looks to > the extraordinary in hopes of expanding human knowledge? Because in Hoagland's case (unlike Galileo), the scientific method has taken a backseat to blind faith. MGS removed all doubt about the non-remarkable nature of the so-called f-a-c-e on m-a-r-s (dashes added to prevent a Google hit by kooks), as well as all the other claims of intelligence-constructed features at C-y-d-o-n-i-a. Hoagland's extraordinary claims are not remotely supported by the evidence at hand. That is why he is considered a "nutcase". Cheers, Rob ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
