From davidj@wrs.com (David Jones) Mon Sep 30 23:34:38 1991 Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!dimacs.rutgers.edu!mips!pacbell.com!pacbell!rtech!wrs!davidj From: davidj@wrs.com (David Jones) Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,sci.astro,misc.headlines,alt.paranormal,alt.conspiracy Subject: Richard Hoagland's Face on Mars Summary: New information Keywords: Mars Face Message-ID: Date: 1 Oct 91 03:34:38 GMT Sender: usenet@wrs.com (News Manager) Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc. Lines: 142 Nntp-Posting-Host: erra ************************************************************************* * I share this with you in the hopes that the more people that know the * * truth, that the truth will be known by more people. * ************************************************************************* I recently attended the Whole Life Expo in San Jose. Richard Hoagland took part in two talks and one panel discussion, which he moderated. He indicated that he was now revealing information that he had never before revealed. I share with you my notes. I present this with the knowledge that in order to fully understand this material; in order to be able to corroborate or disprove what he claims, you must first review the evidence that he presents. This which I state should be obvious but, as I have woefully discovered, many readers of this will jump to conclusions before doing their homework. I apologize for any redundancy and pray you will forgive my incompleteness. Any discrepancies are most likely my misunderstanding rather than Richard's information. There is a new paradigm of man`s origins currently evolving in our consciousness on this planet. Up until now, we have had 2 choices: Creationism (whatever the Bible says has to be true) and Evolution (Darwinism: we evolved out of some primordial soup). This new paradigm, as the Sumerians of Sitchen indicated, is that we came from the Heavens (meaning other planets in other star systems), a sort of extra-galactic Darwinism. Richard used phrases like: "... mitocondrial DNA scientists ..." " and "... self-reflective dimensional expansion" to describe this idea. Using the photographs from the Mars mission, with 150 foot per pixel resolution, and using techno-hacker wizardry, he shows that we are in the process of matriculating into racial maturity. He has created a gorgeous video (currently available) created from the stills of the Mars mission and made into three dimensional fly-bys of the face, the pyramids and the city. He quotes Zechariah Sitchen "someone is meddling ...". In order to completely realize the possible truth of the material presented in his discussions, you should understand tetrahedral geometry and it's associated simple trigonometry. Tetrahedral geometry only works with a 360 degree system with 60 minutes of arc and 60 seconds per minute. In addition, 12 is a fundamental aspect of this system. Richard Hoagland used two universal constants and their ratio, in order to substantiate his claims. These two numbers are pi (3.14) and e, the base of natural logarithms (2.72), and the resulting ratio: e/pi ~= 0.865. For instance. it you take the slope of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, and divide it by the 60 degrees, it's top angle, you get 0.865. This is replicated for the pyramids on Mars. Through tetrahedral geometry, he shows how we are converging on an Universal Geometry. Tetrahedral geometry is what we have in a 360 degree circle and that which gives us 24 hours in a day, both with with 60 minutes and 60 seconds. Whoever built the Egyptian pyramid, had the same knowledge as whoever it was that built the face and the city on Mars. The Martians used a 360 degree system. Sitchen shows that the ancient Sumerians (c. 8500 BC) used the 360 degree system and counted minutes and degrees of arc by 60's, just like the Martians. The Martian year is equivalent to 687 Earth days. The Fibonacci spiral is a tetrahedral mathematic. Follow the numbers and follow the logic..... The Egyptian Pyramids are made of calcium carbonate which has an internal structure that is exactly like the structure of the pyramid (in Egypt) itself. There are 20,000 books written on the Egyptian pyramids. It is located 5' 30" of direct North. This is caused by tektonic plate movements (otherwise it would be direct north). The plate that it sits on moves an approximate maximum of 1' arc every 45,000 years. This means that it would take about 247,000 years to get to it's present position. The mean arc location is 4' which gives about 180,000 years or, an estimation that the pyramids in Egypt were REALLY build about 214,000 years ago (give or take). The pyramids (in Egypt) were weathered by water, not wind. This is an intentional misinterpretation by scholars so as not to get into trouble with their colleagues and not challenge western religions. The Sphinx dates to a time to before when the Sahara was desert. The land forms found on Mars are NOT those done by Nature. The angles formed by the pyramids are impossible for nature to create. There are too many variations on the e/pi constant. Even the latitude on Mars where the city/ face/pyramid are found is a function of e/pi. He spent several hours creating an exquisite mathematical trail showing that the pyramid on Mars, the pyramid at Gizeh and, co-equivalently, the Sphinx in Egypt, are all more than 200,000 years old. More specifically, about 217,000 +/- 15,000 years. It is impossible for me to go into all the details, but he had people from 3 different professions, all working independently and unknown to the others, who had all come to the same conclusions in regards to the age of the Egyptian pyramids. The D & M pyramid (on Mars) is self-referential (it knows where it is). It is located at 30 degree North latitude just like the Egyptian pyramid on Earth.. Mars has two carbon moons. The planet Mars does not contain this carbon. The moons appear to be asteriods that the Martians, using technology that is available to us today, moved into Martian orbit and, apparently, to mine. The two moons are in perfect circular orbits around Mars. Phobos is spiraling inward toward Mars. The density of Phobos is 1.95 which means that 30% is missing, or hollowed out, or mined. Richard believes that the Soviets covered up the truth of this by saying that it was a UFO that grabbed up their spacecraft and by so doing, knew that the mainstream press would not touch the story. The Russians probably have close up photos of extraterrestrial artifacts (a Martain monkey wrench?) and Marina Popovich went around the world and spread false rumors to put the nail in the coffin in order to cover-up the Truth. The Phobos orbit is 20 Km off true circular, due to it's decaying orbit. If it were circular to begin with, it would have taken 217,000 years to cause it to be off course at it's present rate. Something disruptive happened on Mars at that time (217,000 years ago). Something attacked the city there. The Egyptian word for Shinx means, the ending, inferring an ending of one thing (Martain civilization) -- a beginning somewhere else (planet Earth). He speaks of the Nephalim, "Those who were cast down", or "Giants" and by so indicating he infers that there was a war of some sort on Mars about about 217,000 years ago and that they `escaped' to planet Earth. The ratio of the Earth to it's moon is .272. The moon takes 27.32 (Earth) days to orbit the Earth. It should be 27.2. If we interpolate the difference and how much the Earth's moon is moving away, we get 200,000 years ago for our moon to be the 27.2 he speaks of. Was OUR moon put there by extraterrestrials that escaped to this planet to mine? Will we find extraterrestrial artifacts on our own moon? (Maybe we already have?) Carl Sagan and Richard Hoagland used to be friends. In public, Sagan says that this information is nonsense, but in private, he says something quite different. Richard indicated that he will read anything that will bring him even 1 data point closer to the Truth. Original cassette tapes of the above may be obtained from the Whole Life Expo tape people (email me for the number). Video tapes of the above presentations, and more information on this may be obtained from Richard Hoagland's organization, The Mars Mission (they publish a quarterly journal entitled Martian Horizons) from: The Mars Mission P.O. Box 123 Danville, CA 94526-0123 *************************************************************************** * COMING NEXT: My discussions with Wendelle Stevens regarding Grey * * aliens from the Reticulum Star cluster and his playing of a * * cassette tape of the sounds of one of their space ships. * *************************************************************************** ------------------- David W. Jones davidj@wrs.com OR uunet!wrs!davidj ------------------- From ersmith@julian.uwo.ca (Eric Smith) Wed Oct 2 03:14:33 1991 Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!paul.rutgers.edu!dorm.rutgers.edu!zeus.ieee.org!sdd.hp.com!usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!generic.physics.utoronto.ca!julian!julian.uwo.ca!ersmith From: ersmith@julian.uwo.ca (Eric Smith) Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,sci.astro,misc.headlines,alt.paranormal,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Richard Hoagland's Face on Mars Keywords: Mars Face Message-ID: <5001@julian.uwo.ca> Date: 2 Oct 91 07:14:33 GMT References: Sender: news@julian.uwo.ca Followup-To: sci.skeptic Organization: University of Western Ontario, London, Ont. Lines: 225 [ Please follow up to sci.skeptic, since this is a skeptical kind of post... ] I am a mathematician, and there are a number of mathematical statements made in the article which I find, shall we say, dubious. I don't claim infallibility, though, so perhaps Mr. Jones (or others) can enlighten me... In article davidj@wrs.com (David Jones) writes: > * I share this with you in the hopes that the more people that know the * > * truth, that the truth will be known by more people. * (Hmmm... this would seem to be a slightly ungrammatical tautology. Are tautologies considered profound these days?) >There is a new paradigm of man`s origins currently evolving in our >consciousness on this planet. Up until now, we have had 2 choices: >Creationism (whatever the Bible says has to be true) and Evolution (Darwinism: >we evolved out of some primordial soup). This new paradigm, as the Sumerians >of Sitchen indicated, is that we came from the Heavens (meaning other planets >in other star systems), a sort of extra-galactic Darwinism. I don't think this is a particularly new idea; I think that Fred Hoyle suggested something similar back in the 1940's (namely that life on Earth arose from extraterrestrial spores). Many people might also refer to this theory as "begging the question", since it still leaves unresolved the question of how life arose on the other planets. (How can a paradigm "evolve" in the "consciousness on this planet"? Is this a fancy (read: deliberately obscure) way of saying that the idea is catching on?) > Richard used >phrases like: "... mitocondrial DNA scientists ..." " and "... self-reflective >dimensional expansion" to describe this idea. I think I know what "mitochondrial DNA scientists" are, but I'd like to know what this has to do with our origins. As I recall, the mitochondrial DNA is just "along for the ride" with the nuclear DNA, which is what really determines our characteristics. But I'm not a biologist, and any clarification of this would be welcome. Also, I'm afraid I can't understand "self-reflective dimensional expansion", or what it has to do with the idea of extraterrestrial life, at all. It *sounds* like some random impressive sounding words thrown together to make pseudo-scientific gobbledegook, but I'm sure that's just my ignorance showing :-). > Using the photographs from the >Mars mission, with 150 foot per pixel resolution, and using techno-hacker >wizardry, he shows that we are in the process of matriculating into racial >maturity. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ (I know this may be a silly question, but why must all revealed wisdom be couched in such obscure language? What's wrong with "we are, as a race, growing up"?) > > [ special effects deleted ] > >In order to completely realize the possible truth of the material presented >in his discussions, you should understand tetrahedral geometry and it's >associated simple trigonometry. Tetrahedral geometry only works with a >360 degree system with 60 minutes of arc and 60 seconds per minute. I must read up on "tetrahedral geometry". All the geometries I know of are independent of the choice of units. Could you provide a reference, please? (I tried looking for "tetrahedral geometry" in _Modern_Geometries_ by James R. Smart, but it wasn't there.) > In >addition, 12 is a fundamental aspect of this system. Hmmm... why is this? Is it because the symmetry group of a tetrahedron has 12 elements? But what does this have to do with the Great Pyramid, which is *not* a tetrahedron? (the former has a square base, the latter an equilateral triangle). > Richard Hoagland used >two universal constants and their ratio, in order to substantiate his claims. >These two numbers are pi (3.14) and e, the base of natural logarithms >(2.72), and the resulting ratio: e/pi ~= 0.865. >For instance. it you take the slope of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, and >divide it by the 60 degrees, it's top angle, you get 0.865. But do you actually get e/pi (which, being irrational, is *not* equal to 0.865)? >Through tetrahedral geometry, he shows >how we are converging on an Universal Geometry. A "Universal Geometry" would, a priori, have to be independent of the measuring system; you claimed above that it was tied to a particular set of units. Moreover, "Universal Geometry" is meaningless; different spaces have different geometries. (I do know something about this, since I'm a mathematician.) > Tetrahedral geometry is what >we have in a 360 degree circle and that which gives us 24 hours in a day, >both with with 60 minutes and 60 seconds. The symmetry group of a tetrahedron (or pyramid) is finite (there are only a finite number of ways of turning it so that it still looks the same and has the same orientation); the symmetry group of a circle is infinite (we can rotate a circle by any arbitrary amount and it still looks the same). Clearly tetrahedral geometry is *not* what we have in a 360 degree circle. >The Martian year is equivalent to 687 Earth days. What does this have to do with anything? >The Fibonacci spiral is a tetrahedral mathematic. How is the Fibonacci spiral connected with tetrahedra? > Follow the numbers and follow the logic..... (I haven't seen any logic so far, just some random numbers thrown around.) >There are 20,000 books written on the Egyptian pyramids. It is located 5' 30" >of direct North. This is caused by tektonic plate movements (otherwise it >would be direct north). The plate that it sits on moves an approximate >maximum of 1' arc every 45,000 years. This means that it would take about >247,000 years to get to it's present position. How do we know that it originally faced directly North? Maybe the Egyptians weren't perfect? (Plus: what is "North"? As defined by the magnetic pole, or the real North Pole?) > The mean arc location is 4' >which gives about 180,000 years or, an estimation that the pyramids in Egypt >were REALLY build about 214,000 years ago (give or take). If one method gives an age of 180,000 years, and another method gives an age of 247,000 years, then there's a contradiction -- one or both of them must be wrong. To average the two numbers and get 214,000 is thus meaningless. > The pyramids (in >Egypt) were weathered by water, not wind. This is an intentional >misinterpretation by scholars so as not to get into trouble with their >colleagues and not challenge western religions. My understanding (which is supported by the fact that water is denser than air) is that water would cause erosion to occur more quickly than wind, and hence if that were the cause of the weathering then the pyramids would actually be *younger* than they appear to be, i.e. they couldn't last as long with water erosion as with wind erosion. Perhaps a geologist could clarify this. >The land forms found on Mars are NOT those done by Nature. The angles formed >by the pyramids are impossible for nature to create. There are too many >variations on the e/pi constant. e is the base of *natural* logarithms. pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Both numbers are found frequently in nature; why shouldn't their ratio be? > Even the latitude on Mars where the city/ >face/pyramid are found is a function of e/pi. He spent several hours creating >an exquisite mathematical trail showing that the pyramid on Mars, the >pyramid at Gizeh and, co-equivalently, the Sphinx in Egypt, are all more than >200,000 years old. As much as I hate to put limits on mathematics (remember, I have a personal stake in math!), I'm afraid that no "mathematical trail" can *ever* establish the age of any artifact; that's an archeological problem. All that one can establish with mathematics is that given such and such assumptions, this and that follows. It's the job of the experimental sciences to actually decide what assumptions are true, and which are not. >Mars has two carbon moons. The planet Mars does not contain this carbon. The >moons appear to be asteriods that the Martians, using technology that is >available to us today, moved into Martian orbit and, apparently, to >mine. Mars has plenty of carbon (its polar ice caps are formed of carbon dioxide, which is also a major component of its atmosphere). >The two moons are in perfect circular orbits around Mars. Phobos is spiraling >inward toward Mars. If the moon is in a perfect circular orbit, how can it possibly be spiralling inward? >The ratio of the Earth to it's moon is .272. The ratio of Earth's *what* to the moon's *what*? > The moon takes 27.32 (Earth) >days to orbit the Earth. It should be 27.2. It "should" be 27.2? Why? I presume that it's because .272 * 1000 = 27.2. But what's special about base 10? Surely in light of the Sumerian knowledge base 60 is much better; so "shouldn't" it be .272 * 3600 = 979.2? And who said that the length of the orbit "should" be anything in particular? >Carl Sagan and Richard Hoagland used to be friends. In public, Sagan says >that this information is nonsense, but in private, he says something quite >different. What evidence do you have for this? >Richard indicated that he will read anything that will bring him even 1 >data point closer to the Truth. To quote Pilate, "What is Truth"? It sounds from the above that he already has his mind made up. (And no, I don't have _my_ mind made up already. I was just following the exhortation to "Follow the numbers, follow the logic". They lead me to the conclusion that there's nothing to this. However, I freely admit my own limitations, which is why I had so many questions to ask. Surely the Truth can stand up to scrutiny, and so I scrutinize everything that claims to be Truth. (How's that for profound? :-)). -- Eric R. Smith ersmith@julian.uwo.ca eric.smith@uwo.ca I speak for myself. From kibo@world.std.com (James 'Kibo' Parry) Wed Oct 2 03:27:26 1991 Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!wupost!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!world!kibo From: kibo@world.std.com (James 'Kibo' Parry) Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal Subject: Re: Richard Hoagland's Face on Mars Keywords: Mars Face Message-ID: Date: 2 Oct 91 07:27:26 GMT References: Organization: Kibo's Home Office (in Boston's Back Bay) Lines: 45 [about four completely irrelevant newsgroups removed from the distribution. Gosh, I realize that what follows is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT (sarcasm), but I really don't think it rates misc.headlines.]\ In article davidj@wrs.com (David Jones) writes: >This which I state should be obvious but, as I have woefully discovered, many >readers of this will jump to conclusions before doing their homework. >... >In order to completely realize the possible truth of the material presented >in his discussions, you should understand tetrahedral geometry and it's >associated simple trigonometry. Tetrahedral geometry only works with a >... >The Egyptian Pyramids are made of calcium carbonate which has an internal >structure that is exactly like the structure of the pyramid (in Egypt) itself. It *IS*? Gosh, I thought it was CaCO3. Which part of the Egyptian pyramids corresponds to the carbon atom and which to the calcium atom? Which parts are the three oxygen atoms? >The two moons are in perfect circular orbits around Mars. Phobos is spiraling >inward toward Mars. Those two claims are inherently contradictory. (For the record, there are no known objects in our Solar System which are considered to oribt in circles; all show measurable orbital eccentricity. In a ddition, of course, no orbits are mathematically perfect ellipses, due to things such as gravity of neighboring planets.) >The ratio of the Earth to it's moon is .272. Gee, the Moon is almost four times as large as the Earth? This article was greatly amusing, and I think it served a great social value: by providing a concrete example of how the American school system is failing to give students basic knowledge of such things as science or critical thought... -- K. -- ............................................................................. James "Kibo" Parry kibo@world.std.com Independent graphic designer 271 Dartmouth St. #3D (specialty: logos & corporate Boston, MA 02116 (617) 262-3922 identities) and type designer. From anachem@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (mark s gilstrap) Wed Oct 2 10:04:38 1991 Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!dimacs.rutgers.edu!mips!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!anachem From: anachem@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (mark s gilstrap) Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,sci.astro,misc.headlines,alt.paranormal,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Richard Hoagland's Face on Mars Keywords: Mars Face Message-ID: <1991Oct2.140438.12854@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> Date: 2 Oct 91 14:04:38 GMT References: Organization: Indiana University Lines: 40 I am intrigued by the psychlogy of this Mar's face story as much as anything. I first heard about it on the "For the People" show on shortwave (WWCR) - and am equally intrigued by their psychological profiles. Anyway, my psychological profile must have something in it that makes me curious. I don't know why I'm using pyschology as a theme here?? on to the subject... Just another data point / coincidence to offer. The NYTimes article yesterday on the "Eve" hypothesis says mitochondrial DNA traces back to a single female some 220,000 years ago - who is the common ancestor of all humans today. My curiosity is most picqued by the sudden interest in a wildly expensive and seemingly ridiculous proposal for Mars exploration. From being a belly-laugh of an idea, to real proposals for joint US/Russian explorations seems quite a jump in these tough economic times. The same issue of the NY Times went in to great detail on the tasks ahead for Mars missions. They specifically mentioned that it would be possible to warm the planet up to a workable level using carbon brought in from an asteroid (or moon?). I must say that I was struck by the parallels to your Hoagland transcript. When something seems too crazy to be going on (my psychology theme) I have always invoked the "follow the money" rule to find out who is going to profit - most things are then under- standable. Money is not a good motivation in this confusing story - so my next step is to invoke the "follow the power" rule - hence my appearance here in alt.conspiracy..... Could you provide more details wrt your allusion to what the Soviets may have found on Mars/Phobos and what you meant re a cover-up. I am curious as to why we all of a sudden want to go to Mars with the "soviets". But then I also see that all of these Hoagland-like stories could be the artifacts of some sort of "psychological" propensity in those who also are trying to make sense out of the senseless. From carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) Wed Oct 2 16:34:52 1991 Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!paul.rutgers.edu!dorm.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!m.cs.uiuc.edu!uiucdcs!carroll From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranormal,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: Richard Hoagland's Face on Mars Keywords: Mars Face Message-ID: <1991Oct2.203452.18169@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 2 Oct 91 20:34:52 GMT References: Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager)) Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude Lines: 167 Nntp-Posting-Host: ash.cs.uiuc.edu In article , davidj@wrs.com (David Jones) writes: > you must first review the evidence that he presents. I do reserve the right to compare his claims with physical reality. > There is a new paradigm of man`s origins currently evolving in our > consciousness on this planet. Jeez, can't any of you ever say anything without random fancy words? What's the point of "on this planet"? How many news readers are not on this planet? (Dan Quayle doesn't read news, so he doesn't count). > Up until now, we have had 2 choices: > Creationism (whatever the Bible says has to be true) and Evolution (Darwinism: > we evolved out of some primordial soup). If you're going to include Creationism, why not the Norse or Greek human origin mythologies? That's more than 2 choices. Besids, a number of alternate "extraterrestial" origin theories get published all the time. > This new paradigm, as the Sumerians of Sitchen indicated Yep, that's who I check with when I want the latest in scientifc information. I assume that Mr. Hoagland reads Sumerian? > Richard used > phrases like: "... mitocondrial DNA scientists ..." " and "... self-reflective > dimensional expansion" to describe this idea. Really, this makes no sense. There's no relationship between Sumerian myths and "mitocondrial [sic] DNA scientists", and I doubt that there is any meaning in the second phrase. > Mars mission, with 150 foot per pixel resolution, and using techno-hacker > wizardry Ooh! Ooh! techno-hacker wizardry! Do you know any non-techno hackers? Sounds like the latest advertising hype from Madison Avenue. > the stills of the Mars mission and made into three dimensional fly-bys of > the face, the pyramids and the city. At 150 ft / pixel? I don't think you realize what a poor resolution that is in the human scale. > you should understand tetrahedral geometry and it's > associated simple trigonometry. But you never explain it, and I don't see any trigonometry in the rest of the post. > Tetrahedral geometry only works with a > 360 degree system with 60 minutes of arc and 60 seconds per minute. Why? I've _never_ heard of a geometry that depends on the system of measure and I've had a lot of math. Certainly one can measure tetrahedrons in a variety of systems. > addition, 12 is a fundamental aspect of this system. Why? What relationship does it have? > For instance. it you take the slope of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, and > divide it by the 60 degrees, it's top angle, you get 0.865. Why would you want to do this? How do you measure the slope? length / run, or by degrees? From the horizontal or vertical? If you take the slope in radians and divide by pi / 3 (which is 60 degrees in radians), you get the same value. So what is special about the 360 degree system? > we have in a 360 degree circle and that which gives us 24 hours in a day, How is that again? Where does 24 come out of 360? Shouldn't we have 360 hours / day? > The Martian year > is equivalent to 687 Earth days. And so? > The Fibonacci spiral is a tetrahedral mathematic. You've never defined tetrahedral geometry or tetrahedral mathematic, so this claim is meaningless - "The Fibonacci helix is a synergistic mathematic. Follow the numbers and follow the logic". > The Egyptian Pyramids are made of calcium carbonate which has an internal > structure that is exactly like the structure of the pyramid (in Egypt) itself. Uh, you're not under the very mistaken impression that the Egyptain pyramids are tetrahedrons, are you? They're not. Calcium carbonate is tetrahedral, and therefore _doesn't_ have the same structure as the pyramids. > There are 20,000 books written on the Egyptian pyramids. Again, so what? What is the point of these random facts? Just trying to confuse us? > This is an intentional > misinterpretation by scholars so as not to get into trouble with their > colleagues and not challenge western religions. And how did they get the Eastern religions, and the non-religious in on the deal? > Even the latitude on Mars where the city/ > face/pyramid are found is a function of e/pi. What's your measurement system? The exact values rather depend onthat, don't they? How do you know that the Martians used the same measurements as we do? > He spent several hours creating > an exquisite mathematical trail showing that the pyramid on Mars, the > pyramid at Gizeh and, co-equivalently, the Sphinx in Egypt, are all more than > 200,000 years old. This has nothing to do with mathematics. > Mars has two carbon moons. The planet Mars does not contain this carbon. Obviously not, if it's in the moons. "The Earth has a rocky moon. Earth does not contain these rocks". Besides, Mars has plenty of carbon. > The two moons are in perfect circular orbits around Mars. Phobos is spiraling > inward toward Mars. These two statement are contradictory. One of them is a lie. Which one? > The density of Phobos is 1.95 which means that 30% is > missing, or hollowed out, or mined. It means nothing of the sort. The density of Saturn is less than 1 - does that mean most of it is missing, hollowed out, or mined? > The Phobos orbit is 20 Km off true circular, due to it's decaying > orbit. But you said that both moons are in perfect cicular orbits. Read a few lines above. > If it were circular to begin with A completely ad hoc assumption. > The ratio of the Earth to it's moon is .272. The moon takes 27.32 (Earth) > days to orbit the Earth. It should be 27.2. Terrestial or sidereal time? Who says it "should be" 27.2? Why isn't it? What do these numbers have to do with each other? In summary, this whole things makes no sense, is filled with random and often incorrect facts, and even contradicts itself. Get a clue, dude. -- Alan M. Carroll <-- Another casualty of applied metaphysics Epoch Development Team Urbana Il. "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan