|
Posted by Eric Crew on September 15, 2005, 1:06 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>-> at Padua, is the principal professor of philosophy whom I have
>-> repeatedly and urgently requested to look at the moon and planets
>-> through my glass, which he pertinaciously refuses to do. Why are you not
>-> here? What shouts of laughter we should have at this glorious folly! And
>-> to hear the professor of philosophy at Pia labouring before the grand
>-> duke with logical arguments, as if with magical incantations, to charm
>-> the new planets out of the sky.'
>-> At that time the moons were sometimes described as new planets and it
>-> was generally thought that Jupiter and other planets were located on
>-> rotating crystal spherical shells so they could not have orbiting
>-> satellites.
>-> This indicates the attitude of many scientists today who did not accept
>-> the possibility that the "face" and other features on Mars may have been
>-> artefacts as soon as they were visible on Viking images, without waiting
>-> for further evidence because it rejected their firm belief that there
>-> could be no signs of former intelligent activity on other planets then
>-> Earth. So far, the further evidence is not conclusive.
>
>You're shooting yourself in the foot. The people who *did* look through
>Galileo's telescope, and saw the moons of Jupiter, are like the people
>nowadays who *do* look at the high-quality images from recent
>spacecraft, and see that there is *no* "face", or evidence for other
>artifacts, on Mars. The people who refused to look through the
>telescope are like those who refuse to examine these good images, and
>restrict themselves to fuzzy Viking ones.
>
> dow
You completely fail to understand that there is other evidence of
artifacts, apart from the "face".
--
Eric Crew
| 
XML Sitemap