UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:02:08 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:27:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Martian 'Face' Is No Accident > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 1/15/98 9:09 AM: > Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 22:11:15 -0600 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Martian 'Face' Is No Accident > >Additional problems come from the isotope distribution in the > >solar system, which indicates a common origin for the planets. > So what. We may find that these isotopes are common to all Sun > Systems and their planets at some point. No, that's not how it works. The distribution of isotopes is the issue, and is related to the temperatures of the early solar system. I refer you to either Arrhenius and Alfven's seminal text for NASA or to Dermott's The Origin of the Solar System from Wiley. > AS far as the time frame is concerned, we really are only > guessing at the "age" of our solar system. I can't really argue > this but, I can admit that I am not smart enought to prove or > disprove what Sitchin writes. <g> No, we're not guessing. That's not how science works. A large number of independent chains of evidence have been used to develop the solar system chronology, and the time it takes for an orbit to regularize after capture is well understood - partly because of the intense examination it received in the origin of the moon debates. Even a nearly parallel orbit capture barely fits into the age of the solar system, much less a tranverse capture. > >> Well, that is the story which Sitchin says the Sumerian Cuneiform > >> tablets tell...He is one of only a handful of scholars who can > >> still read the Sumerian and Babylonian languages today. > >Yes, but many of those scholars dispute his interpretation of the > >writings. > Ah, but that is not unusual. Just look at the way they dispute > the contentions we have that UFOs are real. <G> Actually, those scholars have nothing to do with the UFO debate. They simply take issue with his interpretations. That his interpretations are at variance with theirs does not give him more credibility. > I'm sorry, but I don't give these so called provessional scholars > that much credibility. They are only working with bits and > pieces of say a million year history. That can be very > misleading. What they surmise in one part of the globe may not > apply in another, to an advanced race, separating itself from > those primitive races located elsewhere on the planet. Scholars of ancient languages are quite specialized, but they know their business. As do the planetologists who have worked on origin questions. I can't see any reason to give more credence to a purported legend from a long gone people with a very primitive technology over the work of professional scientists with modern tools. We won't get far rejecting the parts of modern science we don't like. That's the kind of thing that justifiably gets professional scientists laughing at us. > WE may find at some point in our future history, that we did not > truly have a good grasp on the mechanics of creation. We may > well find that we simply parrot the same jargon of the anti- > Scientific community in the 5th through the 19th century, where > the earch was the center of the universe. > Sure we have satellites to gather data, but we still suffer from > the "only kid on the block" syndrone...and although we preport to > be searching for life "out there," we really don't expect to find > it...by we, I am referring to our Scientific Scholastic > Institutions and their clones. <g> Yes, well that may be comforting to those of us who want belief rather than knowledge, but knowledge comes from extending the work of science, not rejecting it. I agree that there will be a future science, and that it will know things which we don't, and some parts of what we think has been established will have been rejected. I don't expect that to happen to fundamental concepts - even relativity and Newtonian mechanics coexist. But the way improvement in science gets done is in the context of science. When the geocentric theory was rejected, it wasn't on the basis of belief or on the basis of some tattered legend. It was done because the predictions of the new better fit reality than the predictions of the old. The material under discussion doesn't account for the presence and structure of the solar system even as well as existing theory - in fact, it is contradicted by most of what we know. And, for that matter, the legend it supposedly derives from is based on an ancient culture, who science was clearly less advanced than ours. So maybe this is where "they" find that they really didn't understand the universe. I can understand why some of us are angry against "establishment" science for ignoring what we consider to be an important problem. But the answer is to be more scientific, not less. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com