Hj#: 192738 S7/Mars Mission Issues
20-Aug-89 11:25:58
Sb: #Warwick Comments
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: ALL
As noted in the press release covering our "message" paper (see RELEAS.PRS, Lib 7), Torun and I have sent copies of the paper to a number of scientists in a variety of disciplines, seeking feedback and guidance in this difficult investigation. One of those we asked for input was Dr. James Warwick, Principle Investigator for the Voyager Planetary Radio Astronomy Experiment aboard both spacecraft -not the least, because of his heavy, direct involvement with determination of Neptune's magnetic field, an essential element in our discussion. Dr. Warwick's announcement via JPL within the last few hours, re his initial detection of radio emission from Neptune -- signifying that it HAS a magnetic field (see #192678) -- is very timely. For, within the same 24-hour period, we have received a lengthy response, via U.S. Mail, from Dr. Warwick on our paper. Because of lack of space, and the technical nature of many of his comments, I'll quote only his overall conclusions -- with the hope that after his schedule settles down (see text, in next Message), he can join us here for a more extended discussion [-continued-].
There is 1 Reply.
Press <CR> for next or type CHOICES !> Hj#: 192740 S7/Mars Mission Issues
20-Aug-89 11:28:27
Sb: #192738-Warwick Comments
Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242
To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 (X)
RADIOPHYSICS, INCORPORATED 5475 Western Avenue Boulder, CO 80301
12 August 1989
Dear Richard,
As I promised you yesterday, here are my notes RE your and Torun's discussion of 'The "Message of Cydonia"'. I have attempted to tell you exactly how I feel about it, both good and bad.
I find that the implications of Cydonia for solar system phenomena and unified field theory are consistant with your belief that the structures in Cydonia are intelligently-designed artifacts. That is, if one supposes that a superintelligence is behind the face on Mars, I find it not unreasonable to draw the further conclusion you have done . . .
It was especially useful for me to have the illustrations of your paper compactly in one place (Figures 1 through 5).
Since you stress the importance of tetrahedral geometry, it is important that I look at your references, especially Porteous. I have unfortunately not looked that up, nor have I found Sirag, in Nature, 1979. These efforts in scholarly research will have to wait until I return from Tokyo next month. My time seems to have completely evaporated in the face of the heat being generated by the Neptune encounter less than two weeks from now.
Let me give you my comments essentially page by page as I read the TS, and then conclude with my final understanding of the gestalt of the paper . . . [then follows detailed comments and discussion of a variety of technical issues raised].
My concern still remains with your interpretation of the face as an artifact. The point is that better views, or at least different views, of it are essential to straighten out the rest of the world, or at least allow them to say "I told you so," if that is indeed what the further results indicate. You agree with that, I agree with that, and now, apparently, NASA agrees with that . . . your message has finally gotten across.
Sincerely yours,
Jim