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

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.

Exactly. They have made a claim and are attempting to offer evidence. This
is exactly opposite of what you said folks had to do with Hoagland.


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?

Non-sequitor.

You still haven't disproved my invisible pink unicorn, therefore it must
exist.



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.

Let me amend my statement. They claimed it showed a face and that it was
proof of an intelligence and claimed there were structures as a result, etc.

Now we know that it clearly is NOT a face, that the few they saw was a trick
of shadows and light. Much as the several "faces" on Earth are (such as the
now collapsed "Old Man of the Mountain" looked like a face from one
direction.)

There's clearly nothing artificial about it.


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.


After 3 billion years of erosion they wouldn't exist.


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