So there is a reason why Sitchin used the 70's pics...so, what is that reason???Originally Posted by A.DIM
It's only unusual because of outlandish interpretations. Can you honestly view the HIRES images and state that they look unusual? It's obviously an ordinary hill!!But I'll have to agree with Sitchin when he says that "now distorted or not ... the unusual rock is still there."
I want to know WHY you would say that.
A small concession, but the question still remains...just how is the "face hill" unusual...it's obviously just a hill.I must concede that the most recent photos do indeed make it appear as a natural formation, unusual, but natural.
HUH???? Before You brought Heiser into the conversation, this discussion was about Sitchin's "face page". Why would you do that?...I've not compared Sitchin & Heiser here, Archer.
Nonsequitur...the 70's images are simply NOT AS CLEAR as the 2001 images. Do you deny that?...an image is enough for you to matter of factly make such an assertion and yet other images are dismissed through "processing effects" and "tricks of light and shadow" arguments. #-o
I hope you're not "going anywhere" before you answer the question I posted above...I'll close by saying...
What is the reasoning behind Sitchin using only the 70's images?