To be honest, RecordSage, in spite of all these "debunking" efforts of some scientist groups, I haven't been convinced yet about Cydonia features being hundred percent natural and not artificial. The anomaly is not just that "face-like" mountain and the "skull". There are many features that look really enigmatic at Cydonia plateu (and also at Kasei Valles, Aram Chaos etc.). Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval's book, "The Mars Mystery" had very convincing arguments and analysis about the morphology and "alignments" of Cydonia fe...

To be honest, RecordSage, in spite of all these "debunking" efforts of some scientist groups, I haven't been convinced yet about Cydonia features being hundred percent natural and not artificial. The anomaly is not just that "face-like" mountain and the "skull". There are many features that look really enigmatic at Cydonia plateu (and also at Kasei Valles, Aram Chaos etc.). Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval's book, "The Mars Mystery" had very convincing arguments and analysis about the morphology and "alignments" of Cydonia features and many of them have not yet been fully "debunked".

I believe, one thing is very certain: Mars, once was enjoying the oceans, rivers and possibly, various life forms which were not limited to bacterias and the vegetation. I personally think that at a very distant past, a great catastrophe (probably a collision) destroyed everything and turned the red planet into a hell. The huge impact craters tell so many things.

science is not only empirical but it should have a strong "speculative"
part as well, in order to avoid dogmatism and be open-minded.

That's true I think. There is a speculative or imaginative aspect. In the classic high school formulation one tests hypotheses. It doesn't theoretically matter where the hypotheses come from (speculation, dreams even), as long as the testing is rigorous.

Unfortunately testing generally requires resources and funding. That's generally a zero-sum game--funding one research project means not funding another. So there has to be a triage of potential research--what is most likely within the paradigm to produce significant results. Spending a...

science is not only empirical but it should have a strong "speculative"
part as well, in order to avoid dogmatism and be open-minded.

That's true I think. There is a speculative or imaginative aspect. In the classic high school formulation one tests hypotheses. It doesn't theoretically matter where the hypotheses come from (speculation, dreams even), as long as the testing is rigorous.

Unfortunately testing generally requires resources and funding. That's generally a zero-sum game--funding one research project means not funding another. So there has to be a triage of potential research--what is most likely within the paradigm to produce significant results. Spending alot of money to prove what scientists already know (or think they know) isn't a good way to guarantee further public funding.

You often hear "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The evidence for the face isn't extraordinary enough to justify a commitment of very scarce resources (although a canny use of the face can drum up public support for increased overall funding).