From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Face on Mars An Other Time
Date: 12 Oct 1992 20:33:48 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct11.000504.24729@rtfm.mlb.fl.us>, joshua@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (Joshua Geller) writes:
=>>the alignments themselves? well, if these structures are natural, then they 
=>>are of no significance. but if these structures are artificial,  then they
=>>are probably very significant. 
=
=>Care to enlighten us at to the nature of this "probable significance"?
=
=assuming that these structures are artificial and thta they are aligned 
=astronomically, then this could imply a lot about the cultural and scientific
=context of the architects of these structures.

I see.  If the alleged alignment happened without sentient interference (i.e.,
the formations are natural), then there's no significance to it.  On the other
hand, if it can be shown that the same thing occurred *WITH* sentient
interference, we immediately discard the possibility that it's a coincidence
and imbue the alleged alignment with all sorts of significance.  Right.  Sure.
Tell me, what's the deep significance of the direction from Los Angeles to New
York City?  I'm sure that if you give me a computerized ephemeris and enough
CPU time, I can find *SOME* astronomical alignment involving that direction, so
by your argument, that means we should be able to infer a lot about the
cultural and scientific context of our society based on this "alignment." 
That's nonsense.

=it would also allow as to
=speculation as to when mars was last inhabited (assuming that the alignments
=coincide with the last time mars had a brathable atmosphere and free water).

I see.  Let's analyze this reasoning:
    1)	ASSUME that the alignment is significant (as I've pointed out before,
	the "alignment" you refer to is something that would've occured
	SOMETIME for any direction close to the one we're talking about, so
	there's nothing special about this particular alignment in and of
	itself);
    2)  Go trolling through the history of Mars for a time when there would've
	been a major astronomical object involved in the alignment, and find
	a date when such a thing would've happened.
    3)  Use the fact that you were successful in 2 (and remember, you would've
	been successful for any pair of positions even close to what we
	actually observe) to conclude that:
	    A)	The alignment was significant; and
	    B)	The formation dates from the time we found in 2
In other words, you've simply assumed your conclusion (or you prefer, you've
concluded your assumption).  Doesn't the circularity of your reasoning give you
even a little discomfort?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Xref: sparky alt.alien.visitors:7229 alt.paranormal:2357