, March 06, 2002 7:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [meteorite-list] Strange Martian Surface Feature
In regard to the comment about Hoagland being an alleged nutcase I have
to
ask why? Why is it that someone is a nutcase when he or she looks to the
extraordinary in hopes of expanding human
Dear Mr. X,
The Meteorite List did not denominate Mr. Hoagland as a nutcase. I, the
original poster of the inquiry was the one that did that. Although, in fairness,
it seems to have offended no one but a true believer. As to why, I think the
List has given good reasons.
It is true that
Hi, List,
Ok, it's a little off topic, but... A friend of mine belongs
to a group one of whom found the following site displaying an
image of a Martian surface feature:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/samp5.htm
This site is one maintained by a notorious whacko and
fringe-theorist,
Hi, List,
Ok, it's a little off topic, but... A friend of mine belongs
to a group one of whom found the following site displaying an
image of a Martian surface feature:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/samp5.htm
This site is one maintained by a notorious whacko and
fringe-theorist,
I put the Narrow Angle Camera image into Photoshop 5.5, rotated it to get a
fresh perspective (basically upside down compared to the extreme closeup on
the original web page), and enlarged the image considerably. Looks to me
like the bright reflection in the closeup is the central uplift in an
In regard to the comment about Hoagland being an alleged nutcase I have to
ask why? Why is it that someone is a nutcase when he or she looks to the
extraordinary in hopes of expanding human knowledge? Was Gallileo a
nutcase? Yes, he was in his day a nut case, a heretic and in his own
Was Gallileo a
"nutcase"?
No, I don't think so.
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
In a message dated 07/03/02 05:27:08 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hoagland's extraordinary claims are not remotely supported by the
evidence at hand. That is why he is considered a "nutcase".
Having said that, as I understand it Mr Hoagland was one of the first people to openly
Hi Stu,
Hoagland's extraordinary claims are not remotely supported by the
evidence at hand. That is why he is considered a nutcase.
Having said that, as I understand it Mr Hoagland was one of the
first people to openly suggest that there may be primitive
lifeforms beneath the ice on
10 matches
Mail list logo
