Dave is very gifted and, in my judgment, a valuable resource as a thinker (albeit my reasons for attributing value to his work are probably different than most who are familiar with his work). I think the new Cydonia photo might be more serious for David Flynn since he had attached a few theological ideas to the “face” (but it doesn’t need to be). My hope is that Richard will do what a scientist would in the wake of the new photo: say he was wrong, junk all the ideas rendered null by the error, and then concentrate on the working hypotheses that remain. Parsons might have occult kindred spirits at NASA. High office does not translate into or away from *any* set of ideas. That said, I do believe he has marshaled enough evidence (and we’ll throw in the life story of Jack Parsons here for good measure) to demonstrate that it’s reasonable to think that at least a few people in NASA have intellectually married the agency’s mission to occult religious beliefs. I also don’t buy into most of what Richard says about moon artifacts and all the elements of his NASA conspiracies. But the “face” and all he has erected upon it (“earth-Mars” connections, Martian-human heritage, that sort of thing) needs to fade into the past. I’m a physics bonehead, but I know enough science to know that if a model has successfully predicted certain things (and his has), then there is something to *that* at least. But his real contribution is likely the hyper-dimensional physics model, which doesn’t need the “face” to be real at all. Now we have new, better data, and that should be allowed to take center stage, even though it eliminates the “face.”Īs I noted already, I didn’t buy what Richard was saying about the “face,” nor his (to me) incomprehensible mathematical proofs for it. Think what you will about Richard (he is of course very controversial), but the older data was anomalous and got serious peer-reviewed attention (Carlotto, McDaniel). I know, many of you think he’s already there, having gone on that trip some time ago, but I think that response is not only unkind, but unfair. He will cross into the realm of the comical if he does that, so I hope he doesn’t. With respect to Richard, it will be painful if Richard goes the denial route - the notion that the new image isn’t real, or is doctored, or (worse) still shows a face. I have some thoughts about how I hope the death of the “face” prompts them in terms of their research. I went to their respective websites today and saw nothing posted about the new photo. I speak of Richard Hoagland and David Flynn. I personally know two of the researchers heavily engaged in “face” research. The reason was the weakness of the data, and the relentless spinning of that data by “face” researchers.
The reason wasn’t because I don’t consider the idea of intelligent life on Mars or elsewhere in our solar system (or beyond) impossible. I never bought into there being a face at Cydonia, as readers who follow my work know. It’s like they missed the right location! (But no one has demonstrated that, so we’ll assume they got it). There is absolutely nothing in the famous Cydonia region resembling a face or even anything “structural.” Even the other “structures” in the region with the “face” don’t show up in the new photo. The new extreme close-up image of the “face” on Mars should finally put this to rest. Do you see what I see? (I see what appears to be an incongruity in the photo data - but I’ll wait to see if Richard or Dave comment). At any rate, here is the page for the photo on the HiRise website via the University of Arizona. I wonder if the same notion that occurred to me just now will occur to Richard or Dave. I just want to note that another possibility has come to mind (and I’m not a “face” believer as my original post below makes clear). I have a suspicion but I’ll withhold it for now. The more I look at this image the more I think something’s wrong here.
0 kommentar(er)
