Hoagland's Mars 1

Neither of these groups (skeptics or agers) are critical thinkers. One dismisses information without even looking into the claims or being open to possibilities. The other seems willing to accept anything with absolutely no evidence or even understanding of what it is they are believing.

But if you are open-minded, and a critical thinker, Hoagland's video will be both interesting and provocative. The basis of Hoagland's findings is mathematical, looking into redundant ratios and measurements within the placement of structures in the Cydonia region on Mars. He relies upon statistical analysis to demonstrate significance and show how unlikely it is that all of this could simply be the result of random, natural forces.

What he uncovers is a relatively new science, based upon tetrahedonal geometry. Without giving away the plot, here's the basics: if you place a three-sided equalatoral pyramid inside of a sphere so that all corners are touching the surface of the sphere, and assign one point as 0 degrees latitude, it just so happens that the other three points will line up at exactly 19.5 degrees latitude. What's the point? Well, angles of 19.5 degrees appear repeatedly within structures and in the distances between various structures. And it so happens that Cydonia is located at 19.5 degrees on Mars. It got Hoagland looking for anomylous structures at 19.5 degrees here on Earth --and he found them. So he looked at other planets --and found them, essentially vortices that appear as large fozen swirls. He hypothesized that when planets are still swirling masses of molten liquid, their motion creates energy vortices (not unlike the whirlpool in the center of liquid in a blender), and that these vortices appear at 21.5 degrees. And whether the vortex is at north latitude or south latitude depends upon whether the vortex is swirling clockwise or counterclockwise. His prediction that Pluto would have a vortex at 19.5 degrees south latitude has been verified by photos from Hubble.

Hoagland only starts to sound somewhat loopy when he starts hypothesizing about possible connections between the structures on Mars and ones on Earth (and crop circles, which is another debunked phenomenom that needs the debunkers to be debunked). Surely, he's looking for meaning in his findings, and because any theory is going to be very tenuous, such theorizing does lead one to think, "Please, stop while you're ahead." Thinking aloud doesn't tend to win over those people who are already trying to digest everything that's already been presented with mathematical models.

The one glitch for me is, when they were making their measurements, drawing lines between objects and measuring angles; if they had been off by just a half a degree, they wouldn't have come up with such fascinating equations, numerical
constants, and redundancy. I only wish he'd have tempered his certainty somewhat for those of us who don't and cannot share his self-assuredness.


NASA + face   June 24, 2003
R. Lang (Sydney, Australia)
Hi
Just thought I better correct the following mis-statement.
>"when NASA's newer photos indicated that the "face" is simply a natural rock formation, there were, as might be expected, accusations that NASA's scientists were covering up the truth. --Robert J. McNamara"

Wrong,the new shots of the "face" were put through several filters.No features there would have survived.
NASA doesnt control the imagery manipulation anyway.
The private contractor does. :)


Excellent intro to the Face on Mars   December 4, 1999
This NASA briefing is the precursor to a vast knowledge base since developed by Hoagland and a large community of exceptional scientists which you can find through enterprisemission.com. Geometric and Astrological alignments similar to those at Gizeh tell us that the face is no "accident". This is a must see, especially if you do not have access to the more detailed "Hoagland's Mars Vol. II United Nations Briefing"


The first of a great series   October 30, 1999
John Joseph Mercieca (Tal Virtu, Malta.)
While low on special effects, the material presented in this video is stunning. Richard Hoagland has a great way of presenting the "Case for the Face" and although Hoagland's Mars Vol 2 and Vol 3 are better because they include the latest (up to their release) information and are more expertly produced, the first in the series is not to be missed. As a "primer" on the Mars Face this video is excellent.


An excellent example of non-science and quackery   September 25, 1999
Hoagland's presentation in this video masquerades as a serious scientific seminar on the "Mars anomaly", but it isn't long before it becomes apparent that Hoagland has no concept of standards of proof, logic, or of the scientific method. Tenuous assumptions are taken as fundamental truths upon which even more outlandish theories are proposed. If you do watch it, don't be put off when it starts to get boring. Stick with it, and you'll be rewarded with shots of people leaving the auditorium around the time that Hoagland tries to tie Mars, crop circles, the pyramids, and ancient Mayan temples to a massive NASA conspiracy that's keeping the truth from us. Uh-huh. After the show is over, you'll be left feeling slightly embaressed for this man takes himself very seriously, but whose theories are more at home in a bad X-Files episode or an L Ron Hubbard space opera pulper.