Space.com article SUPPORTS Cydonia research

[psynapz]

Given the fact that fusion in art is nothing new...

.. it is reasonable to assume there might be something to the orignal assertion that the Face is a half human/half feline Sphinx.
Especially if the reflection correlates precisely within the geometric framework I've begun to develop with the above 60 degree D&M/Face/City Square relationship.

And that geometric framework is most simply expressed as what? Pretend I'm literally blind and reading a braille screen or something, so I can't see your image work. Why are long thought experiments about mirroring satellite images along angles meaningful to the features of those images somehow objectively valid carriers of rational information?

I love the topic of Cydonia. So why am I almost fed up with your material?

You seem to complicate your own message by delivering it a format that's both aesthetically-displeasing and cognitively difficult to follow because the rational logical explanations are interspersed with admonitions and castigations and whatnot of the disbelievers, and in that apparently imitable RCH style that just seems to inevitably grate on my nerves after the fourth or fifth ellipsis and seventh or eighth unnecessary paragraph break for dramatic emphasis.

I don't mean this offensively, but your personalization of your message in the context of your own life sounds like it would be fascinating material to share with a therapist who could help you process some things, but not quite so elucidating for your fellow fringe thinkers who are only interested in the meat of your message and not how you feel about your family and about broad philosophical invocations of even broader decontextualized terms like "truth" and "light".

It's awesome that you show your work so thoroughly, and that your body of work as a whole can be seen as a showing of work of an even bigger, fuzzier calculation of sorts that's led you to where you are now. So perhaps you should start over from scratch, ditch the euphamisms and Hoagland prose, and write something serious. Like, pretend you're submitting it to the New England Journal of Cryptoastronomy for peer review by lab-coated, acid-tripping, overachieving weirdos. Or something. Demonstrate a working model that can be used to formulate and prove predictions self-consistently.

Make a hypothesis, state your methods, show your data, show your findings, state the conclusions. Make it a blueprint for repeatable experimentation by the uninitiated wallowing in Lies and Darkness.

I keep trying here out of love for the topic and respect for the time you've invested in it. Please make something awesome.

[MaxtheKnife]

Pretty sure I gave you two other links to follow up on...

[MaxtheKnife]

Btw... I appreciate your feedback, and in case you didn't notice, I agree as I just wrote at the very end of the 04/28/10 update I posted today: "... and leaves me really wanting to revise my entire website"

[psynapz]

You're welcome. I saw those links. They made my head hurt and really didn't answer my question.

So yeah, redo your entire website. But organize your information in a non-redundant fashion first, and the structure of the site will become obvious like true north, and you'll be able to build it out sensibly into sections.

http://www.usabilityfirst.com/about-usa ... hitecture/

http://www.webdesignfromscratch.com/web ... models.php

http://www.webdesignfromscratch.com/web ... ecture.php

http://www.webdesignfromscratch.com/web ... models.php

and most certainly not least:

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot. ... guide.html

[psynapz]

and whatever you do, don't pay any attention to how Hoagland organizes, designs and writes the content for his site. He's been given all the tools before to have a really coherent, modern, usable site, and he's consistently ignored these methodologies in favor of his own stubbornly-idiosyncratic "style". Best to forget you ever saw it, at least while you're re-doing yours.

[slimmouse]

Firstly, may I apologise to Barracuda for any nastiness. Born of frustration. Ive posted often on the topic of Cydonia, and Egypt and many other such areas often considered "esoteric" by the establishment in general.

But if the raw maths and a look at even our own solar system werent enough, the Cydonia stuff from even first glimpse alone convinces me that its genuine.

You cant convince people of the fractal nature of the universe or the fact that we are all ultimately connected in a wave of infinity. That would have the fuckers in charge shaking in their boots. You either know it or you dont. Nonetheless, it is a fact. So why arent we tought this from primary grade ?

Some might argue that If everyone understood this, the self created Ivory towers of just about everything we consider to be real would be shattered in the blink of an eye. Put simply - The game would be up

As such therefore, the many who are deliberately trained NOT to understand this are probably the bastions of this mortal coil. Some might subsuquently argue that those who think they are in charge....Bankers, Warmongers, and all the rest of em are in fact our greatest teachers. The infinite consciousness that I believe we all are, is , like ourselves always searching for a new angle.

So all that said, anyone who considers this mortal coil to be a blessing have a serious conundrum to deal with.

In the words of the immortal bard ;

"To be or not to be.....etc"

[Simulist]

You cant convince people of the fractal nature of the universe or the fact that we are all ultimately connected in a wave of infinity.

Yes, you can. But it's almost impossible for people to see it with rubbish like the Face on Mars standing in the way.

[slimmouse]

You cant convince people of the fractal nature of the universe or the fact that we are all ultimately connected in a wave of infinity.

Yes, you can. But it's almost impossible for people to see it with rubbish like the Face on Mars standing in the way.

Well thats got to be the quote of the day for me.

If you would like to get your prospectus for such education on the table, then Im all ears. Indeed, if you get it past a fucking preliminary hearing then you would astound me.

Why so ?

[Simulist]

You cant convince people of the fractal nature of the universe or the fact that we are all ultimately connected in a wave of infinity.

Yes, you can. But it's almost impossible for people to see it with rubbish like the Face on Mars standing in the way.

Well thats got to be the quote of the day for me.

If you would like to get your agenda for such education on the table, then Im all ears.

My "agenda"? People are always expected to have an "agenda" when they don't buy someone else's crackpot theory.

[slimmouse]

You cant convince people of the fractal nature of the universe or the fact that we are all ultimately connected in a wave of infinity.

Yes, you can. But it's almost impossible for people to see it with rubbish like the Face on Mars standing in the way.

Well thats got to be the quote of the day for me.

If you would like to get your agenda for such education on the table, then Im all ears.

My "agenda"? People are always expected to have an "agenda" when they don't buy someone else's crackpot theory.

Apologies simulist . I amended my answer to incorporate the word prospectus. So how would you get your prospectus on the very hard scary to the establishment facts of our reality on the table in basic education ? Or would you in fact be laughed out of the place ?

[Simulist]

If you're talking about "the factal nature of the universe" or "the fact that we are all ultimately connected in a wave of infinity" — both beautifully poetic descriptions of ideas I very much support and wholeheartedly agree with — then I'd start by focusing on those ideas themselves, and use conventional examples instead of the non-conventional ones which are easily dismissed.

By themselves, those ideas can be persuasive to many, many people.

But when lumped together with increasingly fringe-sounding notions, people begin dismissing them.

[slimmouse]

If you're talking about "the factal nature of the universe" or "the fact that we are all ultimately connected in a wave of infinity" — both beautifully poetic descriptions of ideas I very much support and wholeheartedly agree with — then I'd start by focusing on those ideas themselves, and use conventional examples instead of the non-conventional ones which are easily dismissed.

By themselves, those ideas can be persuasive to many, many people.

But when lumped together with increasingly fringe-sounding notions, people begin dismissing them.

Well if the concept of 19.47 degrees is something of a "fringe sounding" notion to you, then so be it.

I personally would begin with that notion. Id begin with the Idea of the Double tetrahedron, and the angles at which it circumvents a spere - you know - all that "sacred geometry nonsense" that has been doubtlessly "accidentally omitted" from any single modern day curriculum. Id begin with basic maths, because that is what this universe is founded upon - long before the intelligent apes came along to decipher it.

[Simulist]

If you're talking about "the factal nature of the universe" or "the fact that we are all ultimately connected in a wave of infinity" — both beautifully poetic descriptions of ideas I very much support and wholeheartedly agree with — then I'd start by focusing on those ideas themselves, and use conventional examples instead of the non-conventional ones which are easily dismissed.

By themselves, those ideas can be persuasive to many, many people.

But when lumped together with increasingly fringe-sounding notions, people begin dismissing them.

Well if the concept of 19.47 degrees is something of a "fringe sounding" notion to you, then so be it.

I personally would begin with that notion. Id begin with the Idea of the Double tetrahedron, and the angles at which it circumvents a spere - you know - all that "sacred geometry nonsense" that has been doubtlessly "accidentally omitted" from any single modern day curriculum. Id begin with basic maths, because that is what this universe is founded upon - long before the intelligent apes came along to decipher it.

Well, if someone's real purpose were to impart truth about the deeper mysteries of the universe, then it's probably not a good idea to "begin with" supporting evidence that is both opaque and difficult-to-follow for most people or with stuff that is likely to trigger any and all "Baloney Detection Kits" the listener might have available.

But hey, Richard C. Hoagland has made a (fairly lucrative?) career of it.

[slimmouse]

If you're talking about "the factal nature of the universe" or "the fact that we are all ultimately connected in a wave of infinity" — both beautifully poetic descriptions of ideas I very much support and wholeheartedly agree with — then I'd start by focusing on those ideas themselves, and use conventional examples instead of the non-conventional ones which are easily dismissed.

By themselves, those ideas can be persuasive to many, many people.

But when lumped together with increasingly fringe-sounding notions, people begin dismissing them.

Well if the concept of 19.47 degrees is something of a "fringe sounding" notion to you, then so be it.

I personally would begin with that notion. Id begin with the Idea of the Double tetrahedron, and the angles at which it circumvents a spere - you know - all that "sacred geometry nonsense" that has been doubtlessly "accidentally omitted" from any single modern day curriculum. Id begin with basic maths, because that is what this universe is founded upon - long before the intelligent apes came along to decipher it.

Well, if someone's real purpose were to impart truth about the deeper mysteries of the universe, then it's probably not a good idea to "begin with" supporting evidence that is both opaque and difficult-to-follow for most people or with stuff that is likely to trigger any and all "Baloney Detection Kits" the listener might have available.

But hey, Richard C. Hoagland has made a (fairly lucrative?) career of it.

FFS simulist. You surely arent that dumb are you ?

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanoes/maunakea/

Olympus Mons .

The eternal storm on jupiter ?

The rings on Saturn ?

Where exactly do the points of a tetrahedron circumvent a sphere.

When any sphere is rotating where is the likliest point of kinetic energy release ?

[Simulist]

If you're talking about "the factal nature of the universe" or "the fact that we are all ultimately connected in a wave of infinity" — both beautifully poetic descriptions of ideas I very much support and wholeheartedly agree with — then I'd start by focusing on those ideas themselves, and use conventional examples instead of the non-conventional ones which are easily dismissed.

By themselves, those ideas can be persuasive to many, many people.

But when lumped together with increasingly fringe-sounding notions, people begin dismissing them.

Well if the concept of 19.47 degrees is something of a "fringe sounding" notion to you, then so be it.

I personally would begin with that notion. Id begin with the Idea of the Double tetrahedron, and the angles at which it circumvents a spere - you know - all that "sacred geometry nonsense" that has been doubtlessly "accidentally omitted" from any single modern day curriculum. Id begin with basic maths, because that is what this universe is founded upon - long before the intelligent apes came along to decipher it.

Well, if someone's real purpose were to impart truth about the deeper mysteries of the universe, then it's probably not a good idea to "begin with" supporting evidence that is both opaque and difficult-to-follow for most people or with stuff that is likely to trigger any and all "Baloney Detection Kits" the listener might have available.

But hey, Richard C. Hoagland has made a (fairly lucrative?) career of it.

FFS simulist. You surely arent that dumb are you ?

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanoes/maunakea/

Olympus Mons .

The eternal storm on jupiter ?

The rings on Saturn ?

Where exactly do the points of a tetrahedron circumvent a sphere.

When any sphere is rotating where is the likliest point of kinetic energy release ?

Ah, the old "You aren't that dumb are you?" ploy.

Try again. (Or not.)