Cydonia Mars Geometry

[GRR8]

Below are several diagrams and images rendered with meaningful repetitive geometry. Erol Torun a Defense Dept Mapping Cartographer did these.

[Outshined]

More on the subject:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/city.html

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Outshined@Jan 4 2006, 03:38 PM

More on the subject:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/city.html

←

And yet more:

http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hoagie.html

http://www.ufo.se/ufofiles/english/issue_2/ukhoag-2.html

I'm thinking that GR88T has been taken in by Richard C. Hoagland: a guy that knows a little more science than the average person, and has a lot of showmanship and charisma. Put those together, sprinkle in some new age spirituality--nothing to specific mind you--and you have http://www.enterprisemission.com

[BenRaines]

I found the enterprisemission.com site entertaining to say the least.

Nothing to rock my faith or to make me think that aliens, ET helped God populate Earth.

Has anyone seen the movie Capricorn One. My dad thought that to be true. Doesn't think we have been to the moon.

[Palerider]

I believe it was the Discovery channel that did something in regards to our landing on the moon....they presented some evidence that would make you think....if I can remember one bit had to do with the shadow the flag makes on the moon...it was interesting.....and they had alot more stuff...just can't remember all of it....LOL

[Snow]

A couple thousand years ago these guible, and uninformed types thought that Hermes was an actual divine being with winged feet and a snazzy helmet - that Poseidon, one of the sons of Cronus was a literal god of the sea and shaker of the earth.

Nowadays such types turn to psuedoscience as their favored superstition. The ignorant geophysicists have their flat or hollow earths, anthropologists have their bigfoots, zoologists have thir extant dinosaurs and the looney-tunes astronomists have their man in the moon and the face or mars.

... not to mention thier space colonies on Saturn's moon.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 4 2006, 10:24 PM

A couple thousand years ago these guible, and uninformed types thought that Hermes was an actual divine being with winged feet and a snazzy helmet - that Poseidon, one of the sons of Cronus was a literal god of the sea and shaker of the earth.

Nowadays such types turn to psuedoscience as their favored superstition. The ignorant geophysicists have their flat or hollow earths, anthropologists have their bigfoots, zoologists have thir extant dinosaurs and the looney-tunes astronomists have their man in the moon and the face or mars.

... not to mention thier space colonies on Saturn's moon.

←

Conveniently omitting your own beliefs from the list I see...

[GRR8]

Originally posted by Jason+Jan 5 2006, 01:30 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Jan 4 2006, 10:24 PM

A couple thousand years ago these guible, and uninformed types thought that Hermes was an actual divine being with winged feet and a snazzy helmet - that Poseidon, one of the sons of Cronus was a literal god of the sea and shaker of the earth.

Nowadays such types turn to psuedoscience as their favored superstition. The ignorant geophysicists have their flat or hollow earths, anthropologists have their bigfoots, zoologists have thir extant dinosaurs and the looney-tunes astronomists have their man in the moon and the face or mars.

... not to mention thier space colonies on Saturn's moon.

←

Conveniently omitting your own beliefs from the list I see...

←

[GRR8]

well the thing is that Mr Hoagland isnt some fly by night commentator. He was the Apollo Space Science correspondent to Walter Kronkite and he also has consulted with Nasa. He won the Angstrom Medal for Science. What has Phil Plait done, other than refuse to debate Richard on the air in front of a national audience. Mr Plait wouldnt hold water to Mr Hoagland in this field. Nevertheless everyone is entilted to support or attempt to feebily debunk such a topic. Theres plenty of well written , well documented information from Not only Mr Hoagland, but Stanley McDaniel, etc.etc. If one takes the time to go back through the archives of his website, there is PLENTY to LEARN. for example: http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1.html

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jason@Jan 5 2006, 10:30 AM

Conveniently omitting your own beliefs from the list I see...

←

No - just that I think religious faith belongs in a different classification.

Sure, there are aspects to some religious faith that are little different than myth and superstition but faith goes beyond that and extends to a principle way of life that brings depth and purpose to the adherent and teachs ethical behavior and so on.

Religion is something that has occupied some of the greatest minds in history, whereas hollow earth, perpetual motion machines, faces on mars and transport colonies on the moon of Saturn belong in the playgrounds of the goofball fringe.

[GRR8]

http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper2.html http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper3.html http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper4.html I wouldnt call James Clerk Maxwell a 'GOOFBALL' as you dont even understand YET, the amazing redundent hyperdimensional geometry found not only at CYDONIA, but on our own Earth as well. Read the stuff and quit being such a BIGOT. Make an EDUCATED assumption rather than a GENERALIZATION. You just may learn something new. Prison chaplain and Outshine, using Phil Plait who is to scared to look bad in front of a national audience to debate Richard on these topics, is weak at best.

[Snow]

Originally posted by GRR8@Jan 5 2006, 07:48 PM

you dont even understand YET, the amazing redundent hyperdimensional geometry found not only at CYDONIA, but on our own Earth as well.

←

Hey partner. I'm right there with you. It's not just the redundant hypedimensional geometry... it's also the ionized dilithium chambers and the Ewoks, not to mention the Wookies.

You know I don't think it's any big deal that you find this kind of stuff interesting. Who knows, maybe someday something like this will turn out to be real. But to act like it is sooo true - like someone has uncovered some absolute truth is lunacy. It's pseudoscience and under the purview of fringe nuts.

You ought to read Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World... seriously, it has a couple chapters specifically for you.

[GRR8]

too bad you are ignorant about Carl Sagan. You continue to dumbify yourself with your lack of knowledge. In fact, Carl and Richard knew each other very well and Carl did not rule out the possibilty of Cydonias ancient structures as being Engineered. Do your homework. in the meantime Ill let the smart folks read the links while you attempt to inanely debunk anything i present. they can make up their own minds irregardless of your ignorance regarding the information i present. Have fun showing your ignorance. Gday. I think your just a bit teed off that Im here. Im not goin away. Enjoy burying your head in the sand. The lack of oxygen is quite apparent. :)

[Snow]

Originally posted by GRR8@Jan 5 2006, 08:37 PM

too bad you are ignorant about Carl Sagan. You continue to dumbify yourself with your lack of knowledge. In fact, Carl and Richard knew each other very well and Carl did not rule out the possibilty of Cydonias ancient structures as being Engineered. Do your homework. in the meantime Ill let the smart folks read the links while you attempt to inanely debunk anything i present. they can make up their own minds irregardless of your ignorance regarding the information i present. Have fun showing your ignorance. Gday. I think your just a bit teed off that Im here. Im not goin away. Enjoy burying your head in the sand. The lack of oxygen is quite apparent. :)

←

Too bad I am ignorant about Carl Sagan?

Well Gomer, here's precisely what Carl Sagan said in his book Demon-Haunted World: When we know only a little about the Face, it raises goosebumps. When we know a little more, the mystery quickly shallows." (page 54-55). He then goes on to explain just how much the mystery evaporates talking about the irrationality of it all, the defects in the original image whereby what looked like a human nostril was actually lost data in the radio signal, the shadows that when viewed from other angles make the face decidedly unface-like... "the Martian sphinx looks natural - not artificial, not a dead ringer for a human face. It was probably sculpted by slow geological process over millions of years... Even if these claims are extremely improbably - as I think they are..." etc.

Sagan's critique comes in a chapter called The Man in the Moon and the Face on Mars and the chapter is intended to show how illogical scientific illiterates and fringe so-called experts get sucked into the morass of pseudoscience, led by their own gullibility and silly wishes for something to be true.

But hey I read the book and you believe in the Man from Mars and interplanetary space colonies built by little green men.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by GRR8@Jan 5 2006, 09:48 PM

Prison chaplain and Outshine, using Phil Plait who is to scared to look bad in front of a national audience to debate Richard on these topics, is weak at best.

←

And yet Plait points out some huge holes in Hoaglands assertions, and shows how very weak they are. Hoagland's material just does not stand up under serious scrutiny, though the UFO crowd apparently eats it up. I recommend you actually read what Plait explained about Hoagland's mistakes. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/city.html

I think it is quite a stretch to call a scientist not taking the time to "debate" an uncredentialed conspiracy theorist (who isn't even a scientist) "scared". That's kindergarten tactics. If Hoagland was taken seriously by science he might warrant the time, but he is not.

I have yet to find one credible scientist who considers Hoagland more than a charlatan. He may have once been reputable (at least as a writer), but he is now one of the more prominent names in pseudoscience, and is not at all taken seriously in the science world. You may note that Doctor Plait has a much better reputation in the astronomy field; I doubt you want to compare their credentials.

Plait and other scientists question Hoagland's credentials and say he is prone to inflating his accomplishments.

Hoagland did not graduate from college. "I didn't actually get a degree," he said last week. He says he was "possibly the youngest museum curator in the country" in the mid-1960s at age 19. He is a science writer with a keen interest in space.

Hoagland lists among his awards having received the Angstrom Medal for Excellence in Science. But there's a catch.

Uppsala University in Sweden, with approval from Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, gives out the Angstrom Prize, which includes a medal and a cash award, given in the honor of 18th Century Swedish scientist Anders-Jonas Angstrom. Hoagland's medal, however, came from the separate Angstrom Foundation Aktiebolag (AFAB). This is a privately-owned company with no connection to Uppsala University or the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

"There were no scientists involved in that decision," says Ralph Greenberg, a professor of mathematics at the University of Washington. Others who have researched Hoagland's medal say it carries little if any merit and was not awarded by scientists or a scientific organization.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4534435

[Outshined]

Originally posted by GRR8@Jan 5 2006, 09:42 PM

well the thing is that Mr Hoagland isnt some fly by night commentator. He was the Apollo Space Science correspondent to Walter Kronkite and he also has consulted with Nasa. He won the Angstrom Medal for Science.

This is laughable. Hoagland and Plait aren't even in the same class. Hoagland is not a scientist, and doesn't even have a college degree; he is a writer, nothing more. The Angstrom Medal is basically meaningless, as shown above; he just uses it in attempt to inflate his nonexistent credentials. As to his status as a NASA "consultant": http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html

What has Phil Plait done, other than refuse to debate Richard on the air in front of a national audience. Mr Plait wouldnt  hold water to Mr Hoagland in this field.

Since you asked, Dr Plait is an actual scientist, who is working on NASA's GLAST( Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope) project, and has spent years as a research astronomer (as compared to being a "science writer" ).

Phil has come to Sonoma county from suburban Maryland, where he worked at Goddard Space Flight Center. Phil participated in the calibration and use of the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS), an instrument on board the Hubble Space Telescope. He has done research ranging from STIS observations of the first ever brown dwarf discovered (a brown dwarf is an object that is too small to be a star but too big to be a planet) to other Hubble observations of Supernova 1987A, a star that blew up in 1987. Phil has also worked on asteroids, quasars, galaxies, normal stars, dying stars, and stars being born.

Phil received his Ph.D. in astronomy at the University of Virginia. While there, he helped teach introductory astronomy classes and for three years he ran a nighttime lab where students used binoculars and telescopes to observe the sky. 

http://epo.sonoma.edu/group/plait.html

What has he done indeed. Far more than Hoagland, I'd say. Compared to a conspiracy theorist with no actual credentials and a bad reputation in science, Dr. Plait stands well above Hoagland. It's not hard to see why the good doctor would not waste time "debating" such quackery that real science does not take seriously. Unlike Hoagland, Plait actually has a standing in this field... The fact that you knew so little about his background before attacking him as unqualified is telling.

Nevertheless everyone is entilted to support or attempt to feebily debunk such a topic.

Actually, Hoagland's material has been rather thoroughy debunked, showing the feebleness of his own NASA conspiracies. He is a joke among actual scientists.

As you said, you are certainly welcome to support or believe his material. I'll stick with science. If you want to see "much to learn", visit a real science site, such as http://www.nasa.gov B)

[Snow]

This is an excellent example of dogma - that which is believed seperate from any evidence or proof. One way to distinguish dogma - is that no evidence presented against it (the belief) impacts the beliver's belief. Often the very evidence against the dogma becomes, in the mind of the believer, evidence for the dogmatic belief.

For example... in this case a serious scientist ignores the lunatic quack with no credentials by rightly not debating him. That real experts dismiss the wild fancy of the unqualified fringe is a sort of evidence against the dogma. However, to the rube, it is merely evidence for the dogma, namely, "See they won't debate him... they are afraid of him... it's a conspiracy to hide the truth."

Yeah and Elvis conspired to kill Kennedy.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Outshined@Jan 6 2006, 05:33 AM

This is laughable. Hoagland and Plait aren't even in the same class. Hoagland is not a scientist, and doesn't even have a college degree; he is a writer, nothing more. The Angstrom Medal is basically meaningless, as shown above; he just uses it in attempt to inflate his nonexistent credentials. As to his status as a NASA "consultant": http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html

←

So it seems that Hoagland and honesty aren't the closest of friends.

Surprize!

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Outshined@Jan 6 2006, 06:33 AM

Hoagland is not a scientist, and doesn't even have a college degree; he is a writer, nothing more. ... as compared to being a "science writer" . 

Hey, I wouldn't roll my eyes at science writers. L. Ron Hubbard managed to start a brand new religion (Scientology), enlist a cadre of Hollywood elites, inspire some really bad movies (what was that Battleship Earth thing with John Travolta?), and be a catalyst for some really sober, intelligent discussions about psychiatra (ref. Tom Cruise). I'd say Hoagland may have some potential--just not in actual science.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Jan 7 2006, 01:24 AM

Hey, I wouldn't roll my eyes at science writers.  L. Ron Hubbard managed to start a brand new religion (Scientology), enlist a cadre of Hollywood elites, inspire some really bad movies (what was that Battleship Earth thing with John Travolta?), and be a catalyst for some really sober, intelligent discussions about psychiatra (ref. Tom Cruise).  I'd say Hoagland may have some potential--just not in actual science.

←

Oh I agree, I'm just talking about in comparison to an actual scientist.

[GRR8]

you guys are typical of the breed of people who believe phil plaits bull ****, He wont face Hoagland in an on air debate in front of a national audience concerning the geometry of Cydonia, because he knows he cannot win the debate. End of Case. I win. Ozzy Osbourne is way more intelligent than you Schlitzie , or Prison preacher, or Outshined. And he didnt go to College either. Anyway, you guys really suk at trying to debunk the Geometrical redundancies of Cydonia, which this thread is all about, lest you seem to have forgotten. heres another cool idea that RCH proposed concerning Europa: DOES MOON OF JUPITER HARBOR LIFE?

Date: Thursday, December 27, 1979

Associated Press

Discoveries made by the Voyager 2 spacecraft indicate life could exist in a subsurface ocean on Europa, an ice-encased moon of the planet Jupiter, a space agency consultant reports.

Richard C. Hoagland says he is convinced that the Voyager data, gathered during fly-bys of Jupiter and its four moons last July, establishes Europa as the most likely place in the solar system to search for some form of life.

"Only three other objects in the solar system ever have been seriously suggested as abodes of life - Mars, Jupiter and Saturn's moon Titan," he said. "Spacecraft investigations of all three of these bodies in recent years have cast doubt on life existing on any of them.

"Europa seems to have what these other worlds do not - an ocean of water, the prime prerequisite for life as we know it," he said.

"The Voyager 2 findings leave little doubt that Europa is covered with a crust of ice perhaps five miles thick that envelops a global ocean possibly 60 miles deep," he wrote.

Hoagland suggests that at one time conditions were suitable for this ocean to be free of ice.

"Jupiter was once a miniature sun according to our current concepts of solar system formation," he said. "It only lasted a short time - a few million years at most -but this was long enough, Hoagland estimates, "for molecules that are suspected life-process precursors to be created as they have been in thousands of earthly laboratory simulations. As Jupiter's early star-like period ended, the ocean's surface soon froze, locking the primordial soup' into an underground sea.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by GRR8@Jan 7 2006, 02:25 PM

you guys are typical of the breed of people who believe phil plaits bull ****, He wont face Hoagland in an on air debate in front of a national audience concerning the geometry of Cydonia, because he knows he cannot win the debate. End of Case. I win. Ozzy Osbourne is way more intelligent than you Snow, or Prison preacher, or Outshined.  And he didnt go to College either. hehe.

←

I used to teach English conversation in South Korea. One time a student suggested that I take the TOEFL--just for fun. "No Way," I said. Even if I get a perfect score, students will say, "Well, yeah...he's a native speaker." BUT, if I get anything less, they'll wonder if their teacher is truly qualified.

My guess is that a real scientist would not want to debate a sci-fi writer who's lost the ability to distinguish questionable fiction with reality because:

A. It would give the writer a false appearance of credibility. Note how Hoagland already uses his invite to entertain some NASA employees at the equivalent of what we call a "lunch and learn," to suggest he's a highly revered consultant.

B. Hoagland is probably a good public speaker, who knows how to work a crowd. True scientists often are not proficient at translating what they do into laymen's terms, much less doing so with persuasion and humor.

Bottom-line: Gr88t, quit looking to phenomena from creation to revere, and look instead to the on Creator, the one true and living God.

[Snow]

Originally posted by GRR8@Jan 7 2006, 01:25 PM

you guys are typical of the breed of people who believe phil plaits bull ****, He wont face Hoagland in an on air debate in front of a national audience concerning the geometry of Cydonia, because he knows he cannot win the debate. End of Case. I win.

Now what did I say?

I'll tell you what I said:

This is an excellent example of dogma - that which is believed seperate from any evidence or proof. One way to distinguish dogma - is that no evidence presented against it (the belief) impacts the beliver's belief. Often the very evidence against the dogma becomes, in the mind of the believer, evidence for the dogmatic belief.

For example... in this case a serious scientist ignores the lunatic quack with no credentials by rightly not debating him. That real experts dismiss the wild fancy of the unqualified fringe is a sort of evidence against the dogma. However, to the rube, it is merely evidence for the dogma, namely, "See they won't debate him... they are afraid of him... it's a conspiracy to hide the truth."

[GRR8]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Jan 7 2006, 04:35 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-GRR8@Jan 7 2006, 02:25 PM

you guys are typical of the breed of people who believe phil plaits bull ****, He wont face Hoagland in an on air debate in front of a national audience concerning the geometry of Cydonia, because he knows he cannot win the debate. End of Case. I win. Ozzy Osbourne is way more intelligent than you Snow, or Prison preacher, or Outshined.  And he didnt go to College either. hehe.

←

I used to teach English conversation in South Korea. One time a student suggested that I take the TOEFL--just for fun. "No Way," I said. Even if I get a perfect score, students will say, "Well, yeah...he's a native speaker." BUT, if I get anything less, they'll wonder if their teacher is truly qualified.

My guess is that a real scientist would not want to debate a sci-fi writer who's lost the ability to distinguish questionable fiction with reality because:

A. It would give the writer a false appearance of credibility. Note how Hoagland already uses his invite to entertain some NASA employees at the equivalent of what we call a "lunch and learn," to suggest he's a highly revered consultant.

B. Hoagland is probably a good public speaker, who knows how to work a crowd. True scientists often are not proficient at translating what they do into laymen's terms, much less doing so with persuasion and humor.

Bottom-line: Gr88t, quit looking to phenomena from creation to revere, and look instead to the on Creator, the one true and living God.

←

Your Guess aye? You speak for Plait himself? I dont think so. Also, I have more evidence for an Intelligent Designer or Designers than you do of "the One True Living God" who would that be Chappy? whats his name and where'd you talk to him to know he exists? You guys are hypocrites. You debunk scientific data and images yet propose that you have proof that CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONE TRUE RELIGION. What a laugh. http://www.enterprisemission.com

[Outshined]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Jan 7 2006, 03:35 PM

I used to teach English conversation in South Korea.  One time a student suggested that I take the TOEFL--just for fun.  "No Way," I said.  Even if I get a perfect score, students will say, "Well, yeah...he's a native speaker."  BUT, if I get anything less, they'll wonder if their teacher is truly qualified.

My guess is that a real scientist would not want to debate a sci-fi writer who's lost the ability to distinguish questionable fiction with reality because:

A.  It would give the writer a false appearance of credibility.  Note how Hoagland already uses his invite to entertain some NASA employees at the equivalent of what we call a "lunch and learn," to suggest he's a highly revered consultant.

B.  Hoagland is probably a good public speaker, who knows how to work a crowd.  True scientists often are not proficient at translating what they do into laymen's terms, much less doing so with persuasion and humor.

Bottom-line:  Gr88t, quit looking to phenomena from creation to revere, and look instead to the on Creator, the one true and living God.

←

AMEN!!