From: Aaron LeClair <force.nul> Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:37:08 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 07:26:04 -0500 Subject: Re: CI: A Martian 'Centipede'? - LeClair >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot.nul> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:13:19 -0800 (PST) >Subject: CI: A Martian 'Centipede'? >Cydonian Imperative >5-6-04 >A Martian 'Centipede'? >by Mac Tonnies >http://mactonnies.com/imperative47.html >I'm not a geologist or a biologist. Neither, to my >knowledge, is Richard Hoagland. But both of us >unconditionally agree: the segmented object in the >photo above looks decicedly fossil-like. The problem >is justifying JPL's subsequent grinding away of the >anomaly. If Mars once (or still does) host organisms, >preserving their possible remains for future study >strikes me as both sensible and reponsinble, even if >the current generation of rovers is unable to properly >analyze them. >How confident are we that similar "finds" (assuming >the "centipede" is a fossilized lifeform) will >fortuitously turn up when we eventually -- hopefully >-- make it to Mars in person? Could we have just >casually destroyed evidence of something truly >remarkable? Don't worry. If there are fossils, there will be loads more there to deal with if and when we get to Mars. Personally, I think we are looking at a rock I seen a dragon in a cloud before, it was still a cloud. But if people want to scrutinize pics of mars, looking for signs of life, fine with me. Just as long as they don't make this field look any more stupid than it does, which might be hard, come to think of it.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp