More "compression artifacts" spotted on mars

by **slimmouse** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:40 pm

What im trying to say is that Hoaglands original Mars stuff is so accurate, its not even funny. And my oh my, what they would pay for you to NOT know that kinda fact.

by **streeb** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:10 pm

Thanks slimmouse - now, if you could just clarify how that brings us to "9/11 gone large". I'm afraid I don't follow.

by **slimmouse** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> now, if you could just clarify how that brings us to "9/11 gone large". I'm afraid I don't follow.<hr></blockquote> Heres the simplest analogy available to me ; Anyone questioning the official version of 9/11 is generally considered stupid. Despite the indisputable evidence to the contrary. But for those folks rational enough to clearly understand that 9/11 was an inside job, then IMHO you havent even started yet, with regards to Hoagland and co.

by **thoughtographer** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:36 pm

Slimmouse: People haven't even scratched the surface on the "geomantic" patterns on our planet, so in my opinion, Hoagland jumped the gun with his theories based on the "Cydonia Complex" by not completing the work on Earth before he moved on. If he had his whole 33/19.5/... thing worked out BEFORE he misinterpreted the Mars images, then maybe I'd listen to him, but to the best of my knowledge, he didn't. This indicates that he's had plenty of opportunity and reason to skew the data to fit his constantly morphing theories. It's been done before. Remember the "canals" on Mars? "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **slimmouse** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:44 pm

19.5(3) degrees ? Do some simple double tetrahedron geometry, and come back with the results. I mean that in all earnest. Theres a lot at stake for my belief systems here <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\">

by **thoughtographer** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:49 pm

I'm not trying to attack your beliefs, and I hope you know that. 19.5 * 3 degrees = 58.5 degrees? What does that mean? To me, it doesn't mean much. Like I said, I think there's something there, but Hoagland is a media clown, and he knows it. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **slimmouse** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I'm not trying to attack your beliefs, and I hope you know that.<hr></blockquote> OK. Youre probably right after all. But of course there comes a time when you say 'publish and be damned' That time is coming........again...... of course <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **thoughtographer** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:08 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>OK. Youre probably right after all. But of course there comes a time when you say 'publish and be damned'<hr></blockquote> I'd still like to know what your point was with that equation. 58.5 would be 58 degrees, 30 minutes (or 1,800 seconds). Was I supposed to get something else, or did I do something wrong? "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **slimmouse** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:14 pm

Draw a Double tetrahedron within a sphere. Take the centre of your sphere as the "equator" Work it out from there. And then try coming back to me with 19.53 degrees. Good luck to you if you can. I WANT you to be right !

by **thoughtographer** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:16 pm

Dude, given those instructions, I can find 19.53 SOMEHOW. Give me the whole thing, or I can't review your work. This IS your work, right? "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **slimmouse** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I can find 19.53 SOMEHOW. Give me the whole thing, or I can't review your work. This IS your work, right?<hr></blockquote> This has been taught to me. and it doesnt end up as 19.53 as was taught to me. Its the old (point) 6 degrees argument. Perhaps we can throw this one out to the forum ? You like ? Meanwhile, I trust my tutor - Implicitly. Can you prove We wrong ? And in all truth, does it really matter, other than of course, the (point ) 6 degrees of seperation - which in itself is interesting enough between us wouldnt ya say <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **thoughtographer** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:32 pm

You didn't give me the information that I need to draw a conclusion. I think you need to check your guru. Trust is one thing, but blind faith is something else. Yes, this stuff is interesting, but it goes on and on if you let it. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **slimmouse** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:36 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think you need to check your guru. Trust is one thing, but blind faith is something else.<hr></blockquote> Which works both ways of course. So , where does this 19.53 come from ? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> Or is that your secret too ? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **thoughtographer** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:40 pm

Just explain what you're talking about, in detail. After you do that, I'll contribute by arriving at my own results. If not, I won't waste my time guessing. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **slimmouse** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Just explain what you're talking about, in detail. After you do that, I'll contribute by arriving at my own results. If not, I won't waste my time guessing<hr></blockquote>. You show me yours and I wont show you mine ? LOL. In the meantime, Im going to research more into what you are talking about. This 1953 stuff that you volunteered a while back, as is recorded on this forum. My own opinion ? Surely somewhere in between lies the answers to this whole issue. Right ?

More "compression artifacts" spotted on mars

What Im trying to say is.

Re: What Im trying to say is.

Think coverup. Think "official" truth

Re: Think coverup. Think "official" truth

Did we not have this discussion before ?

Re: Did we not have this discussion before ?

Perhaps youre right.

Re: Perhaps youre right.

Draw a DT within a sphere

Re: Draw a DT within a sphere

This is taught to me.

Re: This is taught to me.

Which of course works both ways huh ?

Re: Which of course works both ways huh ?

I know precisely what Im talking about

Who is online