On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:02:46 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


"Christopher" wrote in message
...

Umm, that's now how it works Christopher. The one making the claim has
the
burden of proof.

Not so, hoagy is putting forward a hypothesis, not a claim, the other
side has to forward a reasoned counter argument, not dismiss
everything out of hand with no counter logical argument or counter
hypothesis.

A hypothesis IS a claim. He has to support it.

So, NASA has to support the claim that on Eurpa has an ocean under the
ice, even though its just conjecture at this moment as NASA dosn't
know for sure.

You really need to learn how the scientific method works.

An argument/hypothesis/claim has two sides, or are you saying it only
has one?

Even the invisible pink unicorn in my garage agrees with me. BTW, using
your definition, it's up to you to prove I don't have the unicorn I claim to
have.



And in any case, his claims about the "face" have been shown to be
completely bogus. Further photos of the same area show nothing that
looks
like a face.

Well your face would look pretty unface like if it had been exposed to
3 billion years of dust blown erosion.


Umm, that's completely missing the point. Hoagland and others claimed that
the Viking photographs clearly showed a face.

And indeed it did, very face like.

Now, 30 years later it's clearly NOT a face.

Or are you saying the face survived 3 billion years of dust erosion only to
completely change in the last 30?

No, but if you exposed the pryamids in Egypt to 3 bilion years of
martian dust erosion they wouldn't look artificial, even though we
know that are and the Egyptian pyrimids line up mathematically with
the 3 stars of orions belt.

Besides, if you want something that looks "manmade" take a look at Kermit or
the Smiley Face on Mars.

Seen them.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill