The Lie is Different at Every Level
(Posted 11/27/10)
(Clickable images lead to full resolution versions)
***
This paper is dedicated to all the Facebook friends I've picked up along the way through Hoagland.
***
Unfortunately, Hoagland is not kidding.
The lie IS different at EVERY level.
Or is it, unfortunate?
I would imagine for many of his endearing fans, it is.
But from where I'm standing, it is not.
His lies have have proven to be an invaluable lesson... an affirmation of everything my father taught me.
Ultimately, in order to get to the bottom of Cydonia, I was forced to do the work and think for myself.
I had to throw out all of my preconceived ideas, the majority of which were instilled by Hoagland himself and follow the data.
This paper is going to focus on my ongoing theory that Cydonia does not lie in ruin.
***
As unlikely as it may seem, even to me, the possibility exists.
From the very beginning, one of the primary mandates of the space program was to search for life.
The mandate never specified the search was limited to microbial or intelligent life.
Nor did the mandate specify the search was limited to extinct or extant life.
Of course it didn't.
To do so would be unscientific.
As followers of the on going Mars controversy well know, the search on all fronts remains steeped in lies.
Knowing this is the case, I believe it is imperative to leave all the options on the table.
As one of my Facebook "friends" recently said, "The trick is discernment".
So where do I begin trying to make a case for a Cydonia that is not in ruin?
Let's start from the beginning.
***
Everyone, and I mean everyone, who is in the artificiality of Cydonia (AOC) camp believes it is very old.
In fact, I used to argue that case vehemently myself.
And why should I not have?
At first, second, and third glance, simple observation leads one to make that quick and easy assumption.
Naturally, Hoagland has been at the front of the line making that case.
And that's not all.
Speculation abounds as to why the westerns half of The Face appears the way it does.
They range from missile attack to meteor bombardment, to simple heavy wind erosion.
Frankly, I used to think many of them seemed plausible.
Until I discovered these.
As soon as I realized that through the geometry of the cross...
... I had a valid argument for this...
... I also realized I had a valid argument against Hoagland's assumption of collapse features.
My argument was valid because his collapse features make up unmistakable symbols of Osiris the Butterfly...
... and the Testicles of Set.
I knew I had to at least consider the possibility that The Face is, at the very least, far younger than Hoagland and even Carlotto have theorized.
After all, assumptions like this...
... had to be viewed in a new light because all of the so-called 'debris' instantly became an integral part of this reflective art.
In the next image, notice the massive lion outlined by the 'debris field' itself.
The Bull becomes the lion's nose, the feathers on the mask of Horus are the eyes, while the mask itself is a forehead ornament.
The City then makes up a very ornate crown.
Are we simply to ignore these haunting reflections emerging from the sands of Cydonia?
Images like these became nearly impossible to ignore when ESA released their Cydonia image and people started to see things from an new perspective on their own.
(Image source, Hidden Mission participator, EA)
The redundant and compelling art, which doesn't leave very much to the imagination, isn't the only evidence that supports my theory.
One of the first things argued by the AOC crowd was that the Cliff is constructed on top of this crater's ejecta blanket while the Tetrahedral Rim Pyramid sits exactly where it's name indicates.
All that the AOC researchers dared to argue is that Cydonia was built after this ancient crater was formed.
They never took it that extra step suggesting all of Cydonia might be far younger than anyone anticipated.
Hoagland further argues that the Cliff was placed as an artificial horizon such that the crater's rim would not interfere with the view of his solstice scenario.
Now that makes sense.
Taken from a different perspective, this particular piece of evidence now argues in favor of my Cydonia not in ruin hypothesis.
***
Buried somewhere on his Facebook page, Hoagland still insists The Face is ancient and sections of it are collapsed.
When I referenced his observations regarding this section of The Face and claimed they are not collapsed, Hoagland simply replied, "Sections of The Face ARE collapsed".
I then pointed to this page remembering what was written by his colleague, Mike Bara.
Hoagland fell silent.
At the end of that page, Bara points out a major discrepancy between the ESA data and all previous NASA data.
There is something on the ESA image (right) that is simply missing from all of NASA images (left).
Bara writes:
"The Face
from Mars Express (color, scaled up, right), and from MRO (scaled down left).
Note that the blurry areas in the supposedly higher resolution
MRO image are less detailed than the comparable areas of the Mars Express image.
(Laney Space Imaging\Bara\ESA\NASA\JPL).
In the MRO image – as with all of the NASA\JPL\MSSS images of the Face, we see these odd, cloud-like blurry areas around the South-Western portions of the Face. In the color Mars Express images (which are the only images of the Face from cameras not controlled by NASA) these areas appear much like the rest of the Face, showing fine structure and hinting at the possibility of structural details which might be seen at higher resolutions. In fact, the 3D image of this part of the Face from Nuekum’s own website shows these areas specifically, and the “cloudy bits” are nowhere to be seen…"
Bara continues:
"In fact, what you do see are structural rebar, tubes, girders and the like, reaching up from the Cydonia plain to attach themselves to the base platform of the Face. The area around the chin is less distinct, but you can plainly see it is not the drab, featureless blur as it is always depicted in the NASA data.
Now, I would not begin to compare the resolution of the MRO camera to that of HRSC on the Mars Express. But isn’t it interesting that the only dataset which is not under the control of Michael Malin and his NASA\JPL buddies is so discrepant from the NASA dataset in this area? And considering that the Western half of the Face is bound to be more eroded (due to the predominantly Western winds of the region), wouldn’t this side logically be the area where the underpinnings of the Face’s internal artificial structure, if it had them, would be most obviously exposed?
You bet it would."
I still think the wind argument is reasonable.
But really? I see "structural rebar, tubes, girders and the like"?!
That's not what I see at all.
I see a straight line and a white dot next to it.
What I see is another potential meaningful site.
Not at all unlike the myriad of sites and markers I've documented throughout my website.
This potential site turns out to be meaningful because of all the lines it could connect with it just so happens to coincide with one of these critical lines.
This is the line upon which Isis intervenes between Horus and Set.
And I'm betting that on high resolution data, that isn't blurred, this section will reflect something amazing having to do with Isis.
Taken a step further, if one rotates that orange line -4.7 degrees and places it directly over The Face's circle one discovers that the white dot is 'kissed' again.
But even more convincing is the long range check point that follows.
That line makes perfect contact with the northwest corner of the D&M.
Is this a slam dunk?
Almost.
I would need to see the unaltered high resolution images.
This is, however, a powerful prediction backed up by the geometry and observations of a Cydonia not in ruin given above.
All I am saying is... I wouldn't bet against it.
After all, if Hoagland was willing to mislead us all about Mars' True North, why wouldn't he mislead us all about the condition of Cydonia as well?
He must have made similar observations to mine assuming he knew about the reflections.
There is strong evidence to suggest that he did.
An ingenious insight and observation is given by Dr. Farrell in Giza Death Star Deployed.
On pages 144 and 145, Farrell writes:
"But again and again, in his writing and public appearances, Hoagland refers to the "message" of Cydonia as an attempt to preserve and communicate his tetrahedral "hyper-dimensional" physics. Either Hoagland is being merely rhetorical, and no message was intended for us, or Hoagland - if he means his rhetoric - has made an assumption that exceeds the evidence.
In short, the basic problem with the Message Model is simply this: the presence of redundant mathematical and geometric relationships may be an indicator of intelligent design, but it is not thereby simultaneously an indication of attempted communication. Any hypothetical reconstruction of the motivations of the builders can only come as a corollary of an analysis of the possible functions of the structures, and any functional analysis must introduce external factors that exist outside of the formal mathematical theorems embodied in the structure. In short, the Message Hypothesis is rather weak, since it violates, or rather, ignores the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem. To maintain that the Cydonia or Giza structures were intended as communication is an a posteriori argument and therefore a weak argument (but not invalid). Gödel's theorem in fact exposes a serious weakness in any argument that universal mathematical symbols can function as a message to or from extra-terrestrials beyond the mere communication of "here we are and we are intelligent because we know this." Any formal system remains incomplete, and points to information outside that system, and hence, the pyramid, if it is such a "statement" or "message in geometry" must perforce be an incomplete one. It invites interpretation or "completion" by propositions lying outside the system itself."
It is my contention that Hoagland means every word of his "rhetoric" and is simply withholding his findings.
(end of edit)
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
There is nothing, repeat nothing, about the geometry which could possibly lead one to conjure such a graph plotting angular momentum against specific luminosity.
The only plausible explanation for Hoagland's genius is that he was fully aware of all the reflections.
Luminosity = Reflectivity.
Given that I have proved Hoagland knew where Mars' True North was all along, is it really so hard to believe him when he says...
"The lie is different at EVERY level"?
***
So where does this leave us with regard to dating Cydonia?
In reference to both Hoagland's and Carlotto's dating methods, on page 43 of Giza Death Star Deployed, Dr. Farrell writes:
"... dating by alignments is weak, since structures can be built after the fact to align with certain celestial markers at some prior time. In themselves and without corroborative contextual data, alignments are not compelling evidence for the dating of structures." (emphasis added)
I think this is a brilliant insight and gives a tremendous amount of weight to my hypothesis.
The only thing I would add is that Cydonia aligns with certain celestial markers now as well as in the past.
Recall...
I've been able to at least verify the geometry of Hoagland's original solstice scenario and supplement it by adding the rising of Leo.
I soon discovered there is a very meaningful current solstice alignment, as well.
Furthermore, I now know that Cydonia relates specifically to The Dog Star, Sirius...
... and The Hunter, Orion...
... through the geometry.
In my estimation, all of this throws everything we assumed about Cydonia out the window.
Why?
Because it provides a great deal more of the necessary corroborative contextual (& empirical) data required by Dr. Farrell.
What I don't know is when these alignments (save the current one) might have occurred.
But do I really need to know in order to surmise a reasonable scenario?
I don't think so and here's why.
On page 13 of Giza Death Star Deployed, referring to Alan Alford's "Phoenix Solution" and Tom Van Flandern's Exploded Planet Hypothesis (EPH), Farrell writes:
"For Alford, this constitutes evidence for his reading of the Egyptian religion, for it complements the metaphor of Seth chopping Osiris to pieces."
Meaning, Osiris represented the now exploded Planet V.
That gave me an idea.
What if my speculation about the mighty D&M representing a super massive black hole at the center of our galaxy is wrong?
What if the D&M represents the exploded Planet V!?
If so, then this specific 33.3 degree alignment, which reveals the Dragon, might be a clue as to what caused Planet V's explosion.
I think the possibility remains that Planet V was not destroyed by an ancient war as Dr. Farrell convincingly argues.
It may have been destroyed through natural means vis-à-vis Hyper-dimensional Physics and planetary alignments.
Or perhaps... a combination of the two... the physics and a war.
Regardless...
If I leave the exact dates open ended I think I can narrow the two scenarios laid out in Humble Pie down to one.
Cydonia was constructed in the wake of Planet V's explosion (or some other solar system wide cataclysmic event) by an extra terrestrial intelligence to provide a benign message to us all exactly when we need it most.
I invoke E.T. rather than humans for the simple reason that in the wake of such a devastating event, the infrastructure would not exist to build something on a scale witnessed at Cydonia.
The celestial alignments are in place to conveniently relay the history of our solar system, the builders, and the human race.
If my theory is correct, I see two possible explanations for the "Blockies".
1) The 'Blockies' are an underground complex or city as suggested by Hoagland (another hint?) in Monuments à la Paolo Soleri's speculated ecologies or "arcologies".
2) The "Blockies" are ruins of a formerly great human city.
If this is the case, then Cydonia was built on top of these ruins to bring attention to them for a reason yet to be discovered.
This notion would be consistent with the ruins still being discovered on Earth...
(Yonaguni)
... the Moon...
(Shorty crater, AS17-137-21000)
(Data's Head, Hoagland enhancement)
... Mars...
... and orbiting our Sun.
Against this backdrop of obvious battered ruins, the sore thumb, so to speak, is Cydonia.
***
I've never pretended to have all the answers.
I know exactly where the weaknesses of my arguments lie.
I also know that being able to discern the difference between drawn and measured lines has taken me a long way.
All I've done is measure, follow the data, and not take the word of established authority figures as gospel.
Having said that, considering what was at stake, I think Hoagland has acted honorably.
I also believe both he and Farrell are definitely on the right track with regards to their respective research.
Meaning, while I think the message of Cydonia is benign, I think our current geopolitical problems are our own and ours to solve.
***
At present, it is my considered opinion that determining an exact age for Cydonia is not nearly as important as discerning the message.
Even if I'm wrong about some of this, it seems rather obvious that if we do not start taking the Message of Cydonia seriously we will probably end up exactly like the ones who came before.
***
"An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it." ~J. Michener
***
