How to Mainstream the Artificiality Question

Ephemeral, you make good points and yes, when you look at it that way, 1% should provide enough people to work with, depending upon the success in obtaining what could really be used to constitute "proof" one way or the other, as in your (1) below. I was speaking about the type of data we already have, so I stand corrected if we're talking about subsurface radar, and spectrographic data.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ephemeral</i>
<br />1) Raw data of of subsurface radar and surface spectrographic observations is obtained - if the data is not released, a big public fuss is made (along the same lines as the Mc Daniel Report).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'll be interested in looking at this, myself, so please keep us informed if and when it is made available, or if they are resisting making it available. I'm sure there will be alot of T'd off people, if it's kept secret somehow.

rd

Hello:


As this topic is devoted to the issue of mainstreaming the artificiality question and because subsurface radar or surface spectrometric observations of Mars are off subject, I am starting a new topic dealing specifically with these.

As the only forum associated with Mars is entitled ‘Artificial Structures on Mars, this is where I will post the new topic, even though there have been few observations and none – as far as I know – indicating any artificiality

I will keep posting here about my communications - or lack thereof - with the different agencies and institutions involved, and about my experience interacting with them.

Please keep sharing your comments and ideas about mainstreaming the artificiality question .



Ephemeral

The essence of ever changing reality is the permanence of its transitory nature.