Mars the anomalies The moon too.

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Zen, sometimes people misunderstand my willingness to attack a position as some indicator of personal animosity. I would like to take this chance to assure you it is not. So, while I may go "hell for leather" in attacking a position or arguing a point, it has no relationship at all with how I may view the poster presenting that point.</font><br /><br />Even though not directed at me, I'm glad you posted this publicly. I think it's important for people to understand that just because an attack might be withering does not mean it is based in ad hominem.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Although the failure to respond to valid questions asked of the posters in this thread is getting quite old. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">Dragon04 - Even though not directed at me, I'm glad you posted this publicly. I think it's important for people to understand that just because an attack might be withering does not mean it is based in ad hominem. </font><br /><br />Ayup. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I've learned that sometimes I can come off harsh, especially when arguing against a point that I believe is ill founded. I can only think of less than a handful of times in the years I've been here that I have exchanged "dirty dozens" with another poster. Even then, it was nothing personal. I think that it's important to let your opponent know you mean no ill will and it should be done more often in this and other forums. That goes double for those who tend to write a little strongly at times. (me) heh heh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

What's up, Dragon04.<br /><br />Why is <b>everyone</b> responding to the post I made for Jon Clarke, <i><b>EXCEPT JON CLARKE</b></i>???<br /><br />Jon? On the road again? I will wait, no prob. <b>I will also wait for telfrow to "weigh in"</b> on what will mean a thread-hijack to pacify Jon's "curiosity".<br />..........................................<br /><br />That being said...<br /><br />dragon04: <font color="yellow"><i>"Your "case" is an extraordinary one. And one that requires extraordinary evidence."</i></font><br />That time-worn Sagan-adage is so full of crap it doesn't even make me smile anymore. Quoting Sagan is the skeptic mantra, but I notice you guys <b>never</b> quote his final assessments of the Cydonia question (in Demon Haunted World) :<br /><font color="yellow"><b>"I MIGHT BE WRONG."</b></font> How come you guys never quote THAT Sagan line in these conversations? At least Sagan died like a man, saying the one thing an honest man <i>HAS</i> to say. And saying it publicly.<br /><br />I'll say it. Hoagland has said it: I MIGHT JUST BE WRONG!!!<br /><br />So what?!? Following the data points comprises a moral neccessity. Being wrong is just as rewarding as being right. Why?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Interpretation is not evidence. No matter how compelling, it's nonetheless speculation that cannot be tested or be subjected to the rigors of science."</font><br /><br />That is so crazy, I do not know where to begin. <br /><br />EVERYTHING is testable. That's the point. Do we, the American taxpayers and our elected officials have the POLITICAL WILL to <b><i>demand</i></b> the tests? <br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Unfortunately, manned space flight is an extraordinarily expensive venture."</font><br /><br />No, it's a drop in the damn bucket.<br />http://costofwar.com/<br />Besides, Bush said we're going. So we're going. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

lost,<br /><br />Firstly, I cannot believe you guys didn't respond to what I said about the YouTube "moon-ship".<br />Can you imagine the evil Richard C. Hoagland telling his "henchmen" <i>in his own private message boards,</i> that he thinks those clips are HOAXED ??? lol<br /><br />Well, I guess THAT data point doesn't sit well with your image of him. Imagine that. A "conspiracy" to "hide" a potential "alien artifact" on <b>our Moon</b>, provided by a "whistleblower"..........<br /><br />.....<b><i>AND HOAGLAND THINKS IT's A FAKE!!!</i></b><br /><br />Oh well...<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Tactic #324 - When challenge is offered, overwhelm the adversary with BS until the original point is lost in the flood of meaningless babble. How about sticking to one thing at a time, take care of that, then move on to the next?"</font><br /><br />I will, if you will.<br /><br />The post was to Jon. Not you. It was very ON TOPIC, considering Jon seems to have forgotten his lessons from prievious thread discussions. If tel oks this, and Jon shows up to chat some more, changing his "demands" every time I answer a question, then you will all get the history lesson of a lifetime.<br /><br />And it begins with Stan Johnston. <br /><br />And his 1000+ <i><b>first generation</b></i> Apollo images. <br /><br />Which he was told by his superiors to "get rid of".<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"You managed to respond to Jon's post without covering any of his points"</font><br /><br />Jon asked me why I believed Hoagland, based on only a single, dodgey, <i>Russian</i> image. I answered that sufficiently. Plenty of NON-Russian data to come. If tel says it's ok. He remains the impartial arbitor here. Then Jon proceeded to offer his own opinions about the sources of Zond3 images, and <b>only <i>SPECULATED</i></b> about the 2 images not accounted for in his very dubious link.<br /><br />Patience of JOB? Or temperment of SOB? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">ZenOnMars - Firstly, I cannot believe you guys didn't respond to what I said about the YouTube "moon-ship".<br />Can you imagine the evil Richard C. Hoagland telling his "henchmen" in his own private message boards, that he thinks those clips are HOAXED ??? lol<br /><br />Well, I guess THAT data point doesn't sit well with your image of him. Imagine that. A "conspiracy" to "hide" a potential "alien artifact" on our Moon, provided by a "whistleblower"..........<br /><br />.....AND HOAGLAND THINS IT's A FAKE!!! </font><br /><br />Sorry for not commenting on that. I think it's great that RCH will speak up against an obvious fraud. But, dude, catching this one as fake is all too obvious. If you go to youtube and look up that user, you can see the "crystal city" (or whatever) film he posted. That's just icing on the cake. A one-arm, blind monkey with a speech impediment could have spotted that one a mile away just from the smell. Perhaps RCH didn't want to be involved in something so obvious? Perhaps he had no contact with the originator? I don't know the answers to those questions. But, I am glad that it's one more piece of "tinfoil" that won't be added to anyone's hat in the RCH crowd due to his calling it out as a fraud. So, kudos to him. Now, if he'd just start going through all the rest of the stuff. Any more news on the migratory habits of crystal worms on Mars? Are the Martian WWII era tanks mobilizing against our rovers? If so, someone call NASA. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <tongue in cheek><br /><br /><font color="yellow">The post was to Jon. Not you. It was very ON TOPIC, considering Jon seems to have forgotten his lessons from prievious thread discussions. If tel oks this, and Jon shows up to chat some more, changing his "demands" every time I answer a question, then you will all get the history lesson of a lifetime.<br /><br />And it begins with Stan Johnston.<br /><br />And his 1000+ first generation Apollo images</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Well, I'll screw things up even more, and respond to you (when you're responding to people who responded to you, instead of Jon... [wan smile] ).<br /><br /><i>dragon04: <font color="yellow">"Your "case" is an extraordinary one. And one that requires extraordinary evidence."</font><br />That time-worn Sagan-adage is so full of crap it doesn't even make me smile anymore. Quoting Sagan is the skeptic mantra, but I notice you guys never quote his final assessments of the Cydonia question (in Demon Haunted World) :<br /><font color="yellow">"I MIGHT BE WRONG."</font>How come you guys never quote THAT Sagan line in these conversations? At least Sagan died like a man, saying the one thing an honest man HAS to say. And saying it publicly.</i><br /><br />Zen, do you truly understand how science is supposed to work?<br /><br />Ponder here, please...<br /><br />yes, any scientist may be wrong. They can have tainted evidence, follow wrong lines of investigation, have personal opinions they hold far too closely to be objective.<br /><br />However, what you do not seem to understand is that Sagan's original line about extraordinary evidence still applies, despite taking into account that fact. An extraordinary event or anomaly still requires extraordinary evidence, even if there is the possibility that you may be wrong in your fundamental assumptions.<br /><br />The one does not invalidate the other. Sagan was being factual when he stated, "I could be wrong." Of course he could; he was a scientist's scientist. He understood how these things work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[pierround]

I was right about those header adds.<br />No problem getting in here now.

 

[telfrow]

Apparently, there's more to the problem than just the ads, but are plenty of threads in Suggestions and Announcements where you can discuss it. <br /><br />Let's stick to the topic, shall we?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>What you seem to be demanding is a full paper defending the very broad field of potential off-earth artifacts. Would that much info be a slight to this thread's author? Tel? Weigh in here. </i><br /><br />As a matter of fact I am asking simply for your comment on the Zond 3 images. Do you really think that there is a "tower" about 1300 km north and slightly east of the dark floored crater Grimaldi? If the "tower" were a real feature it is about 10 km across and at least 50 km high, scaling very roughly from the image.<br /><br />If yes, why is it only visible in this one reproduction of the Zond 3 image? Why not in any other images? Why not in the data from other missions? Why was it not discovered by Riccoli 400 years ago, when he mapped much smaller features? Why isn’t it visible to the thousands and tens of thousands of amateurs with telescopes large enough to see it?<br /><br />If no, then say so. We can then move on.<br /><br /><i>Jon, you said, "I show problems with the Zond images, and you bring up Apollo 10 and 13." Because you said I made deductions from ONLY a single Russian "dodgey" image. There is a plethora of neat Lunar annomalies to consider. Many of these are to be found in Hoagland's "Monuments" book, which I am presuming you never read.</i><br /><br />You deduced the presence of a tower from a single reproduction. I have shown several reasons why I think that reproduction is dodgy. You have not shown where my facts or reasoning are wrong with respect to that image. Instead you moved on to other “anomaliesâ€. That is changing the subject.<br /><br />BTW I have read Hoagland’s “Monuments†book. I don’t pass judgement on topics I know nothing about.<br /><br /><br /><i>So I guess you wanna see a WHOLE BUNCH of NASA images, huh? Ever hear of Stan Johnston? Ready to "do this process"? Ready to "engage the point in question"? </i><br /><br />I am not asking for a whole bunch of additional NASA images. I am asking you to give straight answers on <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[telfrow]

What he said. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[3488]

Hi Yevaud, Jon Clarke & telfrow.<br /><br />i think you are just all wasting your time trying to tell the "anomalie believers' the truth.<br /><br />You know & I know that there are no glass domes, huge towers, etc.<br /><br />This sort of thing & conspiracy nonsense makes me extremely angry & upset.<br /><br />But this is just flogging a dead horse. If these people with to believe in glass towers on<br />the Moon, fossils on Mars, etc, I suppose in a democracy it is not a crime, but I do feel<br />that it is slanderous to the amazing people in Russia, ESA & NASA who work on the incredible<br />missions with the insinuations that they are, lying, concealing etc. <br />It makes me very cross indeed.<br /><br />I thought I would say my bit in support of the moderators & other posters who are <br />keeping up the good fight, to not only continue the amazing exploration of our <br />fascinating solar system,<br />but also in the good fight against Hoagalism, conspiracies, & other such nonsense, <br />etc.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">That time-worn Sagan-adage is so full of crap it doesn't even make me smile anymore.</font><br /><br />How is it full of crap? How does it betray empirical science? Or are you suggesting that empiricism is full of crap? And if not, why shouldn't it apply in the case of ET?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">That is so crazy, I do not know where to begin.</font><br /><br />No, it's not when we're talking about arbitrary interpretation of curious photographs of a planet 37 million miles away from us.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">EVERYTHING is testable. That's the point.</font><br /><br />Indeed it is. Which is a point that you and Mr. Hoagland apparently don't understand to its entire depth.<br /><br />In the case of the FOM, for example, you and Mr. Hoagland are <b>adamant</b> that it is a construct as opposed to a natural feature <b>without</b> the ability to properly and rigorously "test" it in situ.<br /><br />I'm sure that the hypocrisy of your statement is unintentional. Nonetheless.......<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Do we, the American taxpayers and our elected officials have the POLITICAL WILL to demand the tests?</font><br /><br />By that, if you mean should I, as a taxpayer, <b>demand</b> that my Government spend <b>hundreds of billions of dollars</b> to send men and women to Mars to simply find out if RCH is right or not, with all due respect, that's about the most frivilous thing I've ever heard of.<br /><br />I won't fall into the false-logic trap of comparing the Iraq War to Hoagland's Folly.<br /><br />A mission to Mars has to be justified for <b>practical</b> reasons. Not to prove some dude's theory right or wrong.<br /><br />My suggestion:<br /><br />Get rich. MAD rich. Hook up with other mad rich guys, get Hoagland to sell everything he owns (if his convictions are so strong), and privately finance a mission to the FOM.<br /><br />In the meantime, I'll prefer my tax dollars to go towards these relatively inexp <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

Hi Jon. You wrote:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"As a matter of fact I am asking simply for your comment on the Zond 3 images. Do you really think that there is a "tower" about 1300 km north and slightly east of the dark floored crater Grimaldi? If the "tower" were a real feature it is about 10 km across and at least 50 km high, scaling very roughly from the image."</font><br /><br />I believe that there may<i> indeed</i> be such a tower as depicted on the Zond 3 image, that nobody has been able to "see" from Earth, <b> if.......</b><br /><br />1) The "tower" is observable <b>only</b> at certain rare angles, where sunlight hits it '<i>JUST SO</i>' -<br /><br /><b>and if.......</b><br /><br />2) The Hoagland model of "sandblasted glass" is correct. The idea holds that these structures would have been subject to hundreds-of-thousands, if not <b>billions</b> of years of micro-particle abrasion, reducing their former bulk to a ghost-like wispy shadow of their former selves -- occasionally and at just the right angle, scattering sunlight. Much like the lunar horizonal glows you attribute to dust plumes settling back to surface. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

Hello boys, and you too, Andrew 3488.<br /><br />What all readers of this thread need to realise, is that Richard Hoagland may carry the banner for the off-earth artifacts crowd, but yet a crowd it remains, and includes an honorable "crew" of some of NASA's finest, and academe's brightest, most lettered, published, and respected.<br /><br />I know you do not want to hear this.<br /><br />But over the rest of the summer, I am going to introduce you to some new names. For today (Sunday the day of rest) I will leave you squirmming, wondering just how inside NASA some of these "insiders" are, or how high up in the "hallowed-halls" some of these men have risen.<br /><br />Either way, get your skeptic thing going. You know, the thing ya'll do whenever we gets-to-chattin'. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Like addressing everything I say about Sagan, and NOT addressing his <i>"I might be wrong"</i> quote. Make sure you all keep saying how I, Zen, "will not admit" that I am wrong, <i>(remembering that I have already admitted here publicly and <b>BOLDLY</b>that I might just be wrong)</i>, when NONE of you can or will make that same statement. <br /><br />3488: <font color="yellow">"I suppose in a democracy it is not a crime"</font><br /><br /><b>Lol....ya figure???</b><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"conspiracies"</font>? As in those nuts who said <i>'we entered Iraq under false pretense looking for WMDs that weren't there, pretended to create democracy when simply securing one of the world's biggest oil supplies to ensure that that oil would never get pumped in order to drive US gas over the $3.00/gallon mark"</i>? Yeah. Those types are loonies.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Hoagalism"</font>? His name is <b>HOAGLAND</b> and if he represents an <i>ism</i> at all, it is the very empiricism and logical positivism he is accused of trampling on.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"It makes me very cross indeed."</font><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">His name is HOAGLAND and if he represents an ism at all, it is the very empiricism and logical positivism he is accused of trampling on.</font><br /><br />Unfortunately, a ponderous majority doesn't see it that way and identifies empiricism and Hoagland as they would sugar and salt.<br /><br />Were Hoagland the empiricist that you apparently believe he is, he would be content in stating his case and allowing history to resolve it.<br /><br />However, he IS the Captain of something. That would be the SS Coverup DuJour. Repeatedly, he arbitrarily defies the spirit of the empirical process to craft explanations that make his hypotheses correct.<br /><br />The man is a charlatan at the most kind description. A seller of snake oil. At the other extreme, he is a person with enough knowledge who perverts and twists science in the attempt to elevate himself to levels of importance his ideas could never support in a rational manner.<br /><br />If this is the type of man in which you invest your intellect and belief, so be it.<br /><br />In my personal opinion, true Science is not served by such men, but rather exploited and disseminated to the unaware public as the Truth in the fashion of "professional wrestling" being "real".<br /><br />That, sir, is utterly contemptible, and it's unfortunate that it is not a crime punishable by death. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">ZenOnMars - I believe that there may indeed be such a tower as depicted on the Zond 3 image, that nobody has been able to "see" from Earth, if.......<br /><br />1) The "tower" is observable only at certain rare angles, where sunlight hits it 'JUST SO' -<br /><br />and if.......<br /><br />2) The Hoagland model of "sandblasted glass" is correct. The idea holds that these structures would have been subject to hundreds-of-thousands, if not billions of years of micro-particle abrasion, reducing their former bulk to a ghost-like wispy shadow of their former selves -- occasionally and at just the right angle, scattering sunlight. Much like the lunar horizonal glows you attribute to dust plumes settling back to surface.</font><br /><br />...<br /><br />Wait a sec.<br /><br />So, now it's an <b>INVISIBLE</b> tower?<br /><br />BWAHAHAHAHAHA!<br /><br />That's got to be the lamest excuse I've ever heard. That includes everything through Iapetus, the Face on Mars and glass sand worms crawling out of Enterpri$eMi$$ion.<br /><br />You have <b>GOT</b> to be freaking kidding me. Get a grip, seriously. Let me guess, it's only visible when <b>YOU</b> want to see it.<br /><br />Thanks for the chuckle. I guess there is one born every minute and if RCH is spewing that crap, he's herding them in. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">ZenOnMars - But over the rest of the summer, I am going to introduce you to some new names. For today (Sunday the day of rest) I will leave you squirmming, wondering just how inside NASA some of these "insiders" are, or how high up in the "hallowed-halls" some of these men have risen. </font><br /><br />Are you sure you don't write copy for RCH? "Tune in next week for the big, super-secret announcement!"<br /><br />/yawn<br /><br />If you have something to say, go ahead and say it. I guarantee you nobody who is participating in this thread is standing by with baited breath waiting for RCH to announce he has some connections with the legitimate world.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">His name is HOAGLAND and if he represents an ism at all, it is the very empiricism and logical positivism he is accused of trampling on. </font><br /><br />Wrong on both counts. He represents what empirical evidence is not and what logic is not. He mutilates factual data in order to provide support for his preconceived notions. He makes illogical leaps with absolutely no foundation and then tells his drooling fans what secrets he has uncovered that week. If he represents anything at all, it's a clear cut copy of a snake oil salesman. That's my personal opinion of the man.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">But here is the good news: you DON'T have to read this Phenomena thread. And if you choose to stay, You Will Get Used To It!!!</font><br /><br />It's sort of like going through the airport and seeing chanting hari krishnas. At least, before Homeland Security started clearing them out. <br /><br /><br />BUT - since none of that has anything, yet, to do with the subject at hand, let's just leave it and move on. Feel free to respond, just don't focus on what RCH is "about to do" next week.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

At last, a usable response. <br /><br /><i>I believe that there may indeed be such a tower as depicted on the Zond 3 image, that nobody has been able to "see" from Earth, if....... <br /><br />1) The "tower" is observable only at certain rare angles, where sunlight hits it 'JUST SO' –</i><br /><br />I would consider that if the feature were visible in good quality copies of the data. But the “tower†is only visible in the poor quality reproduction used by Hoagland. It is not present in digital copies of the same image ( most likely Zond 3 Frame 28) http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_Zond03_28.jpg or, from a Russian source http://selena.sai.msu.ru/Home/Spacecrafts/Zond-3/3-4.jpg . <br /><br />Nor can it be seen in other Zond 3 frames of the same area: Frame 24 http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_Zond03_24.jpg or, if you prefer a Russian source http://selena.sai.msu.ru/Home/Spacecrafts/Zond-3/3-5.jpg and Frame 26 http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_Zond03_26.jpg<br /><br /><i>and if....... <br /><br />2) The Hoagland model of "sandblasted glass" is correct. The idea holds that these structures would have been subject to hundreds-of-thousands, if not billions of years of micro-particle abrasion, reducing their former bulk to a ghost-like wispy shadow of their former selves -- occasionally and at just the right angle, scattering sunlight. Much like the lunar horizonal glows you attribute to dust plumes settling back to surface.</i><br /><br />The problem is, since the feature is not present in any version of the image except in a reproduction of a dodgy reproduction this is hardly good evidenc <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[garfieldthecat]

"It would be easier to set of a surface explosion with the same energy. I am not sure if the Earth would ring under such circumstances. Not only is the Earth a much larger body, it has a different internal structure. But I guess it is possible. But whether we have the instrumental sensitivity to detect it I am not sure. remember the earth is a noisy environment. The Moon is much quieter and the seismometers were correspondingly more sensitive. remember they could detect the astronauts footsteps. terrestrial seismometers used for monitoring don't do that."<br /><br />Just got cross this article about how detecting clandestine nuclear tests by studying worldwide sismic data. Seems the Earth is also "ringing like a bell" to nuclear tests, and here we're pretty sure nothing is hollow <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. Hope this will give you the info you were looking for<br /> http://www.llnl.gov/str/Walter.html<br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

You wrote in reply to Andrew<br /><br /><i>What all readers of this thread need to realise, is that Richard Hoagland may carry the banner for the off-earth artifacts crowd, but yet a crowd it remains, and includes an honorable "crew" of some of NASA's finest, and academe's brightest, most lettered, published, and respected.</i><br /><br />Like who? Names and evidence they support Hoagland please. Otehrwise it is unsubstantiated allegation/<br /><br /><i>I know you do not want to hear this. <br /><br />But over the rest of the summer, I am going to introduce you to some new names. For today (Sunday the day of rest) I will leave you squirmming, wondering just how inside NASA some of these "insiders" are, or how high up in the "hallowed-halls" some of these men have risen.</i><br /><br />Over the rest of summer? You have 40 days to name names and present their evidence. However high up they are, their claims will havce top meet the same standards of anyone else. They will have to be based on good evidence, logically reasoned, and with alternative explanations explored.<br /><br /><i>Like addressing everything I say about Sagan, and NOT addressing his "I might be wrong" quote. Make sure you all keep saying how I, Zen, "will not admit" that I am wrong, (remembering that I have already admitted here publicly and BOLDLYthat I might just be wrong), when NONE of you can or will make that same statement.</i><br /><br />There is nothing remarkable about Sagan admitting that he might be wrong. I would expect no less. Wjhat is remarkable is the extreme confidence that Hoagland is right despite nonexistent evidence (apart from crappy reproductions and misinterpreted features).<br /><br /><i>"conspiracies" ? As in those nuts who said 'we entered Iraq under false pretense looking for WMDs that weren't there, pretended to create democracy when simply securing one of the world's biggest oil supplies to ensure that that oil would never get pumped in order to drive US gas over the $3.00/gallon</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[pierround]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> In my personal opinion, true Science is not served by such men, but rather exploited and disseminated to the unaware public as the Truth in the fashion of "professional wrestling" being "real". <br /><br />That, sir, is utterly contemptible, and it's unfortunate that it is not a crime punishable by death. <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br /><br />That's why a skeptic can never be a president.<br />Again I'll remind you of Watergate, JFK, weapons of mass destruction Roswell.<br />To believe everything as sheep is also fatal.<br /><br />Wrestling is real it may not be a sport, but it also TAKES<br />TRAINNING AND MANY DIE OF MANY CONSPERISYS AND OF THE PHYSICAL ACTIVITYS, that are involved with that game, sport, and from the acting out of the conspiracy’s. Only wins and losses are faked, sound familar?<br /><br />HOAGLAND helps them also with the interest that the public is looking for and reaffirms what Nasa is doing, and looking for, reasons to spend the money, which would be no problem if we weren’t involved with war.<br /><br />Don't forget to have your chip implanted today. <br /> And the number is?</p></blockquote></p></blockquote>

 

[MeteorWayne]

And apparently RCH has found one here (the one born every minute) <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Sometimes, words just fail me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

And everything else you mentioned is completely off topic for this thread.<br /><br />And if you think any of is supports scientific examination of the subject of this thread..... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>