Comments on: Hoagland still wrong about “Face” on Mars http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:31:31 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Alex http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-200297 Alex Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:03:16 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/#comment-200297 What I still don't understand is why nobody notices the two perfect 90° angles on the front, the perfect arcs of circle on the bottom and the top, the straight lines on the sides, the mounth-nose-chin are inside a perfect circle, the fact that the mesa seems to be framing the sculpure... ok natural formation, but indeed an very interesting one. The cases are two: 1. this is an incredibly amazing natural formation like anything else on earth and on mars (so far the only two planets being photographed so intensly by our technology). Any other example is just ridicolous compared to this one, confirming it's uniqueness and beauty; 2. this is artificial, and the fact that is doesn't perfectly look like a face is probably because it is thousands years old and it has also been bombarded by meteors (two impacts are pretty close by the way). The right side may just have clumbled because of telluric waves, or wind erosion. I'm not looking for free energy or for the ultimate toilet paper ripper (through it may be useful, the second I mean), I just want to point out that this picture doesn't say anything about the rock's nature, neither that it's natural, nor that it's artificial. It just confirms that it's an absolutely amazing piece of rock. Ironically, the more scientists collect data, the more this mesa looks cool :P What I still don’t understand is why nobody notices the two perfect 90° angles on the front, the perfect arcs of circle on the bottom and the top, the straight lines on the sides, the mounth-nose-chin are inside a perfect circle, the fact that the mesa seems to be framing the sculpure… ok natural formation, but indeed an very interesting one.

The cases are two:

1. this is an incredibly amazing natural formation like anything else on earth and on mars (so far the only two planets being photographed so intensly by our technology). Any other example is just ridicolous compared to this one, confirming it’s uniqueness and beauty;

2. this is artificial, and the fact that is doesn’t perfectly look like a face is probably because it is thousands years old and it has also been bombarded by meteors (two impacts are pretty close by the way). The right side may just have clumbled because of telluric waves, or wind erosion.

I’m not looking for free energy or for the ultimate toilet paper ripper (through it may be useful, the second I mean), I just want to point out that this picture doesn’t say anything about the rock’s nature, neither that it’s natural, nor that it’s artificial. It just confirms that it’s an absolutely amazing piece of rock.

Ironically, the more scientists collect data, the more this mesa looks cool :P

]]> By: steve smith http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-116044 steve smith Sun, 07 Sep 2008 16:23:04 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/#comment-116044 you know, if anyone here has ever researched hoaglands findings its not just the face he talks about. the bigger part is what he discovered from the whole cydonia region. the fact that there is a three sided tetrahedral pyramid sat on the surface (whether or not you just think its a hill or an actual pyramid) which its position amongst everything else (pyramids, the face, and various other structures) all have a geometric mathmatics linking them together, and like he quite rightly says 'you dont have a science unless you can show the math'. the position of the three sided pyramid sits at exactly 19.5 degrees north of the equator, now this may sound like nothing but when you put a tetrahedral pyramid within a sphere and then another one upside down both lines of the base of each pyramid sit at exactly 19.5 north and south of the equator. now how may you ask does this relate to anything? if you look at the sun to begin with, all its major solar flares occour at this 19.5 degrees (cant remember if its north or south) then we can take our attention to other planets, the hurricane on jupiter, the volcano in hawai, volcano olympus on mars and all the planets within our solar system have these kinds of anomalies and its not the anomilies thes the interesting thing its the fact that they all sit along this 19.5 degree. now im afraid to say to all you wanna be debunkers but NASA actually uses this tetrahedral geometry which was accepted from hoaglands research. amazing huh?! now it seems like from what he suggests that these anomalies produce more energy than whats going into the planet let alone whats supposed to be coming out. this is what he theorises is zero point energy or hyper dimensional, if you dont believe this is possible then i suggest you go look on you tube and just search for 'Free energy' you'll find plenty on there. also its interesting to find that, the ancients that built some of the most fascinating and complexed structures known to man seem to also have a connection with this geometry, for start you have the mayan moon temple, the great pyramids in Giza, Stone Henge, a temple in india (cant remember the name) and various other structures all are sat within this 19.5 area. now im not saying i know the answers to these questions such as why? and how? but neither does he claim to know all the answers as if he had them he wouldn't keep researching would he? nor i for that matter. so yes by all means show some skeptisism but the one thing i ask is that you show a little back bone and research what he really says and how he found the answers and theories through his research befor you try to slate and dismiss what he says about his research. and remember, its not just him saying this, this is what many have concluded many great minds and with the 30 or so years of research wouldn't you have thought by now someone would have actually been able to proove him wrong or for him to realise he's wrong by now. befor i go, doesn't it make you guys that are a bit more open minded laugh, when the people who dismiss these kinds of theories without actually researching anything say really stupid things like 'These so-called “scientists” are pretending it’s all “inconclusive” or “not there at all”, to hide the Truth: it’s ManBearPig. Something must be done to deal with ManBearPig before it’s too late. In the future they will all thank me for being Super-Awesome!' and 'Wait, it’s the Virgin Mary’s Face on Mars!!!!' and 'I await the discovery of the “finger of Mars” - a rock formation that looks like a middle-finger salute. I’m curious to see how the Hoaglands of the world will interpret it.' pretty stupid really and kind of sad and pathetic. any way. hope for some this info might give way for some of their own research, as dont just believe anything i say just look and what i said and look for yourself, if you look hard enough you'll soon see the bigger picture. as hoagland said 'google is my friend' have fun peeps you know, if anyone here has ever researched hoaglands findings its not just the face he talks about. the bigger part is what he discovered from the whole cydonia region. the fact that there is a three sided tetrahedral pyramid sat on the surface (whether or not you just think its a hill or an actual pyramid) which its position amongst everything else (pyramids, the face, and various other structures) all have a geometric mathmatics linking them together, and like he quite rightly says ‘you dont have a science unless you can show the math’. the position of the three sided pyramid sits at exactly 19.5 degrees north of the equator, now this may sound like nothing but when you put a tetrahedral pyramid within a sphere and then another one upside down both lines of the base of each pyramid sit at exactly 19.5 north and south of the equator. now how may you ask does this relate to anything? if you look at the sun to begin with, all its major solar flares occour at this 19.5 degrees (cant remember if its north or south) then we can take our attention to other planets, the hurricane on jupiter, the volcano in hawai, volcano olympus on mars and all the planets within our solar system have these kinds of anomalies and its not the anomilies thes the interesting thing its the fact that they all sit along this 19.5 degree. now im afraid to say to all you wanna be debunkers but NASA actually uses this tetrahedral geometry which was accepted from hoaglands research. amazing huh?! now it seems like from what he suggests that these anomalies produce more energy than whats going into the planet let alone whats supposed to be coming out. this is what he theorises is zero point energy or hyper dimensional, if you dont believe this is possible then i suggest you go look on you tube and just search for ‘Free energy’ you’ll find plenty on there. also its interesting to find that, the ancients that built some of the most fascinating and complexed structures known to man seem to also have a connection with this geometry, for start you have the mayan moon temple, the great pyramids in Giza, Stone Henge, a temple in india (cant remember the name) and various other structures all are sat within this 19.5 area. now im not saying i know the answers to these questions such as why? and how? but neither does he claim to know all the answers as if he had them he wouldn’t keep researching would he? nor i for that matter.
so yes by all means show some skeptisism but the one thing i ask is that you show a little back bone and research what he really says and how he found the answers and theories through his research befor you try to slate and dismiss what he says about his research. and remember, its not just him saying this, this is what many have concluded many great minds and with the 30 or so years of research wouldn’t you have thought by now someone would have actually been able to proove him wrong or for him to realise he’s wrong by now.
befor i go, doesn’t it make you guys that are a bit more open minded laugh, when the people who dismiss these kinds of theories without actually researching anything say really stupid things like ‘These so-called “scientists” are pretending it’s all “inconclusive” or “not there at all”, to hide the Truth: it’s ManBearPig. Something must be done to deal with ManBearPig before it’s too late. In the future they will all thank me for being Super-Awesome!’ and ‘Wait, it’s the Virgin Mary’s Face on Mars!!!!’ and ‘I await the discovery of the “finger of Mars” – a rock formation that looks like a middle-finger salute. I’m curious to see how the Hoaglands of the world will interpret it.’ pretty stupid really and kind of sad and pathetic. any way. hope for some this info might give way for some of their own research, as dont just believe anything i say just look and what i said and look for yourself, if you look hard enough you’ll soon see the bigger picture. as hoagland said ‘google is my friend’ have fun peeps

]]> By: bug chick http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-20934 bug chick Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:47:09 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/#comment-20934 you tell us every thing else but what is your opinion you tell us every thing else but what is your opinion

]]> By: bug chick http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-20933 bug chick Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:46:12 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/#comment-20933 How did it get there How did it get there

]]> By: erin http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-20932 erin Wed, 21 May 2008 14:06:09 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/#comment-20932 it think that it was true! it think that it was true!

]]> By: Egonorance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-20931 Egonorance Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:57:25 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/#comment-20931 And what about those shiny, ribbed, semi transparent tunnels found in other pics? oh yeah... "sand dunes" (riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight) And what about those shiny, ribbed, semi transparent tunnels found in other pics? oh yeah… “sand dunes” (riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight)

]]> By: Egonorance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/comment-page-2/#comment-20930 Egonorance Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:51:31 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/#comment-20930 OK, so everyones due for an eye exam, maybe I am hallucinating , but what I see when I look at the face, is the shape of the hill..It's news to me that natural hills form into a very symetrical oval shape, if it was natural, than why are the pyramid looking structures " the D&M pyramid " not also shaped into some "natural" rounded hill? If you look at all the mounds in this picture, and say that there all naturally occuring...I ask you plz...find me one naturally shaped mountain or hill on this planet that has complex geometry occuring in it...... OK, so everyones due for an eye exam, maybe I am hallucinating , but what I see when I look at the face, is the shape of the hill..It’s news to me that natural hills form into a very symetrical oval shape, if it was natural, than why are the pyramid looking structures ” the D&M pyramid ” not also shaped into some “natural” rounded hill? If you look at all the mounds in this picture, and say that there all naturally occuring…I ask you plz…find me one naturally shaped mountain or hill on this planet that has complex geometry occuring in it……

]]>