|
|
Re: Jaynes and Hoagland findings related??
Richard Spear (rspear@primenet.com)
Tue, 17 Jan 1995 17:55:03 PST
In article <3fgvot$pqq@casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu> rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss) writes:
>From: rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss)
>Subject: Re: Jaynes and Hoagland findings related??
>Date: 17 Jan 1995 17:46:05 GMT
>In article <3f8oci$mku@access4.digex.net>, medved@access4.digex.net (Ted Holden)
>writes:
[deletions ...]
>The face: A mountain, half in shadow, which has two smaller shadows,
>suggesting an eye and a mouth, with the peak of the mountain situated where
>a nose could go. How can you say this is a monument with a humanoid face
>on it when you can only see half the surface? We are very good at filling
>in details in our minds and imagining complete images where none exists.
>I predict that when we eventually get an image of the other half, ruining
>the face image, Hoagland and others like him will suggest that it
>must have been damaged over the eons.
[more deleted]
Bob, I agree with your analysis ... I too looked at the pictures. I have to
disagree with your last sentence above, though - Hoagland and the others will
claim that NASA altered the image (and the reality) to "hide the truth"!
Regards, Richard
rspear@primenet.com
|