I found this on YouTube a while back and I thought I would link to it here for your viewing pleasure. The interviewer asks Richard some tough questions and he handles them deftly, as always. One of my projects for the future is to make the pilgrimage to Richard's library in Albuquerque and get all of his old videos up on YouTube. Maybe one of these days.
Here's the link.
Posts
29 comments:
Dark Mission emphasizes NASA's fixation on Apollo/Orion, Horus/Osiris, the symbology of the three belt stars of Orion, etc.
Stan Tenen, in his article THE GOD OF ABRAHAM: A Mathematician's View, references this interesting historical background on the ancient concept underlying the god, Apollo:
This is from Anne Macaulay in Lindesfarne Letter No. 14, p. 109 (emphasis added):
"And finally let us return to Apollo. It came as a shock to me to find that this god was derived from a geometric figure. This is no deified hero nor an archetypal godlet, but a synthesis of observed facts about the relation of the stars, the moon and sun to earth; it is a timepiece and a calendar; it is a statement of the laws of the heavens in terms of geometrical and mathematical elements which themselves exhibit absolute laws; and these laws also apply to music: this must surely be the music of the spheres. The concept is total and the harmonic nature of the music demonstrates the great harmony of creation. Apollo can thus be seen as the logos or in another sense as the definition of the absolute god."
Now I can understand why the Free Masons would themselves be fixated on such ancient concepts.
Thanks for posting that. Very useful. So when Hoagland wrote, in 2001, "In a way, perhaps the name itself 'The Face on Mars,' unfairly raised expectations that we would see a friendly, all-American, _symmetrical_ human visage when we finally got a real good look. But we never expected that. And we said so … repeatedly … and for many years."[1]
...that was a lie, wasn't it?
[1]http://www.enterprisemission.com/catbox.htm
"So when Hoagland wrote, in 2001, 'In a way, perhaps the name itself 'The Face on Mars,' unfairly raised expectations that we would see a friendly, all-American, _symmetrical_ human visage when we finally got a real good look. But we never expected that. And we said so … repeatedly … and for many years."
...that was a lie, wasn't it?"
No expat, you blithering idiot, it wasn't a lie.
First of all, Hoagland didn't write that passage, I did.
Second, the passage refers to Hoagland's prediction, first made at the UN, that the Face would turn out to have a human half and a feline half, a popsition he came to based on new research.
You just never get tired of coming in here and revealing the depths of your idiocy, do you?
>>...would turn out to have a human half and a feline half..<<
In other words, NOT symmetrical. Now listen to the youtube audio again.
He's talking about the base (which IS symmetrical), and overall symmetry (see the Mars Express anaylsis), you moron.
Have you ever actually read anything we've ever printed, or do you just reflexively attack everything we post?
Nevermind, I know the answer.
Is interesting to see how most every public Internet venue that discusses Dark Mission and any subject matter pertaining to artifacts on the moon or Mars are haunted by pathological nut cases that have made it their mission in life to obfuscate by any means possible the ostensible subject matter of discussion.
These cranks are immediately recognizable for the tools they are, as they always fixate on various angles of character attacks and/or fixation on derivative minutia. They never really attempt to take on the meat of any of these subject matters - and the lame attempts of when they do stray into such, amounts to resurrecting long since discredited lines of critique.
They never really dare to get themselves bogged down on debates of substance as they don't want to see the full context of evidence brought out. So their lines of attack are always very narrowly focused - and disingenuous to any onlookers as they omit mountains or relevant context.
One suspects there's a hand book on how to employ these tactics, as they show up from different folks posting from different IP addresses in different venues associated with these topics, yet their lines of assault are all very similar and they parrot some of the same accusations from the same sources.
After following this matter for 15 years, I will say that Dark Mission has resulted in a peak in the frenzy of their efforts.
Too bad for the folks that are going to end up on the wrong side of history when this is all over - but the stooges have certainly earned their ignominy.
Roger, you get an "A".
Just wait until the 2008 Dark Mission Blog Christmas presents come out...
The use of the word "lie" seems a bit childish to me. That implies someone is deliberately giving out false information. Speculation on the symmetry/non symmetry of the face on mars (if later found out to be correct or incorrect) would be considered an inaccurate prediction, not a lie. I think most people can see the difference. I just finished "Dark Mission" a few days ago. I'm not sure what to think of it. I don't think we ever will until we get high-res close ups of these objects, and if they are artificial, I don't expect to see them in my lifetime.
Wow, an actual measured and thoughtful response.
Thanks
There's something seriously amiss here. It's as plain as a pikestaff that Richard Hoagland, on the Australian TV video, stated that the "face" is symmetrical. Now here we have Hoagland's co-author Mike Bara not only denying this absolutely incontrovertible fact, but haranguing the person who first mentioned it, calling him a "moron" and a "blithering idiot". If this is a fair indication of Bara's respect for the truth, it calls into question everything in this strange book.
Me calling Expat a blithering idiot is based on vast experience with said blithering idiot, and goes far beyond this post.
Hoagland, like many others, once argued that the Face was meant to be symmetrical. New data and enhancements led him to later conclude that while it was significantly symmetrical, it was actually meant to be a human/feline hybrid. He's held this position for more than a decade, consistently and openly.
This is all covered in Dark Mission.
In other news, Expat has accused me of "lying" because I predicted that the Patriots would beat the Giants in Super Bowl XLII.
Thanks for your response. It's helpful but not definitive. In 2001 you wrote that you never expected the "face" to be symmetrical. Mike, that's not a prediction, it's a review. And it does not appear to be accurate, from what you posted today.
Yes "never" as in "we never expected ONCE WE GOT NEW PICTURES that they would show the Face to be a symmetrical human visage."
http://www.enterprisemission.com/catbox.htm
The idea that there is anything deceptive, or even inconsistent in these statements is purely in the heads of some people who have deep emotional problems.
And again, the image in question, the 2001 MGS image, has since been found to be improperly ortho-rectified, greatly enhancing the asymmetry of the Face.
As the Mars Express article on darkmission.net shows, we now know that the Face is significantly more symmetrical than any of the MGS or even the MRO image show.
But it is still feline on one side, human on the other.
OK, I get it, thanks for the clarification. So presumably what Hoagland really said in 1992 was not "it's symmetrical" but "it looks symmetrical but I don't actually think it is symmetrical". Those perfidious Ozzies edited him to make him appear to say something that is not correct.
Now, I hope when you speak of "people who have deep emotional problems" you aren't referring to me. That would be a wholly unjustified ad hominem slur, quite unacceptable from a person who purports to be engaged in scientific inquiry.
No, he changed his opinion after this interview based on new evidence.
And how fortunate we are that people like you and Expat (assuming you're not the same person) are not the arbiter's of what is and is not civil debate, or science.
I think the problem is a lot of people are new on the scene. I am 28 now, and I started listening to Art bell when I was about 16(or younger, it seems so long ago now). The whole MGS mission was a journey I still remember. Its almost as if people think if anything changes something shady is going on. I saw the lecture Hoagland gave at nasa lewis where he presented the case the face was hominid, of course that was based on the viking images. The whole "feline" connection came later with newer pictures AND I would predict it would even change more if we had MORE evidence. We don't even need RCH or Mike to talk about symmetry or non symmetry. There are some things we can look at and decide on our own/ I believe the face can be looked at as being symmetrical or asymmetrical. I'd wager even calling it feline, human, etc, is a matter of some opinion. However, I can see how a symmetrical face would give more evidence of "being artificial" to someone who is casually observing an object. People have the right to question things but I must admit I have read some of expat's post and chuckled a little, but not because he is funny, but because he doesn't know he is. If the face is half and half as RCH (and mike?) is claiming, I can see how the concept of symmetry might be confusing. Lets assume this structure was created by artists/craftsman/engineers we have to take that artistic license into consideration as well as any functionality the face may have that we are unaware of. What I am trying to say is there is more that we don't know about the whole Giza plateau than we do know. Also, the face looks like it has some damage so that might cause more unintended asymmetry? The cliff side of the face is interesting!
I forgot I wanted to add I am donating my book to the library. I think its a good idea for people to do who have the book.
That's awesome! Of course, I'd rather the libraries bought the book... :)
> No, he changed his opinion...
So now this discussion has come full circle and we're back to my original proposition. What you wrote in 2001 was not accurate.
What I wrote is 100% accurate. And only a nit-picking, obsessed lunatic would argue otherwise.
Libraries are always struggling with underfunded book budgets. I work for the San Diego Public Library, and there are lots of things we'd love to have on our shelves, but there are simply not enough dollars in the kitty to purchase them. This is why I bought 2 copies of the book-- one was for me, and one went immediately to a branch library in the system where I know that the readership has an interest in the kinds of things that are discussed in 'Dark Mission'.
Also, many libraries provide their patrons with donation receipts for items given to them (especially brand new items), so folks can take a tax deduction for what they give. It's a kind of 'something for everyone' situation: the library gets books that it can use, the patrons get the books they'd like to read, and the donor gets a tax break.
As far as the dreary, recycled nit-picking goes, the last time I checked Webster's, both theories and hypotheses may be revised any time that more/better data becomes available. So far, all I have heard Mr. Hoagland and Mr. Bara talk about are their theories and hypotheses about what has happened/is happening, and they update or change their conjectures as more information becomes available. Having one idea about the Face on Mars (or anything else for that matter) and then modifying it or exchanging it for another is not 'lying'. It is simply 'revising a working hypothesis'. Elementary school children working on science fair projects learn all about 'revising hypotheses', and even they would not make the mistake of labeling a discarded or later-rejected theory a 'lie'.
> Having one idea about the Face on Mars ... and then modifying it or exchanging it for another is not 'lying'.
Of course not. The lie comes in writing "I never believed [the former idea]".
We never wrote "I never believed..."
As your own posts demonstrate.
Thanks for your work Mike + RCH. Dark Mission is keeping people on their toes and exponentially raising question marks which hopefully will drag some of these folks out of the doldrums and into the beauty of our place in the universe. :] cheers
Oh and try not to let the clash of egos get to you in this forum. In fact, leave that game to the people who don't know the truth about life. (We are all the same person) The information presented by anyone is a gift of their shared perspective and not a control mechanism. The end.. Mike Bara and RCH are only trying to build a case strong enough to help further civilianize NASA, draw attention to monuments that deserve further investigation, get any hidden agendas within NASA out in the open, present a broader scope for the possibilities of our ancestry, and maybe even open up the door for a new energy source. Sooo, whats to be so threatened by? Give them some respect please. They deserve it just like we all do. In fact, they deserve alot of respect if only a shred of their work is true.
Facial symmetry may be summed up as:
Two eyes, a nose, and a mouth.
That we have.
So, one side is the Man, and the other,
the Cat.
Hey, I'm a cat person!
:-)
< o||
(= o-)
< o||
P.S.: I'm still waiting to find out about
those cute little fuzzies running around
up there right now! (Those "Green Pets!")
Oh---and that same video has a shot of what
I would SWEAR is a black-furred domestic
shorthair Tabby cat looking at something
under a ledge. (But, of course, maybe that's
just a photo the video producer slipped in
for laughs. Who knows?)
But the possibility...of Cats on Mars?????
I LOVE IT!!!!! :-))
Rogerv: "Is interesting to see how most every public Internet venue that discusses Dark Mission and any subject matter pertaining to artifacts on the moon or Mars are haunted by pathological nut cases that have made it their mission in life to obfuscate by any means possible the ostensible subject matter of discussion. These cranks are immediately recognizable for the tools they are... They never really dare to get themselves bogged down on debates of substance as they don't want to see the full context of evidence brought out. So their lines of attack are always very narrowly focused - and disingenuous to any onlookers as they omit mountains or relevant context. One suspects there's a hand book on how to employ these tactics.."
Open debates are always messy and attract all sorts of folks. Some participants here just seem to enjoy baiting Mike since he always explodes volcanically and verbally on cue -- a phenomena that long ago lost any charm for me, I have to admit. Others do get fixated on specific H-B claims that they are sure they have refuted, and Mike seems to have a function key reply that just says "it's in the book but I'm too busy to tell you where" when stuck in that particular conversation.
But other comments here are of the type, Rogerv, that your message strongly implies do not exist. They intend to illuminate, not obfuscate. They intend to get into the details and the context of central -- not peripheral -- claims in Dark Mission that the posters find questionable, if not entirely bogus. If you seek out such criticisms and respond positively to them, you will contribute to both the content and the tone of this exchange, and will be a positive force for goodness in this messy forum. Please consider trying to play that role...
C'mon Jim, admit it: He's right. you're just a tool.
Come on, Mike -- admit you edit your blog to make yourself look cool... by dodging the hard questions and inconvenient facts.
Actually Jim, I live on Redondo Beach, California, I drive a 2007 BMW 5 Series, I’m a New York Times bestselling author, and I hang out with strippers and porn starlets half my age. I really don’t need to “edit” this blog to make myself look cool.
But I do moderate it, so buffoons like you can’t waste everyone’s time by asking the same questions over and over again and bogging the whole thing down.
Post a Comment