Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/genufo/genufo/alien/main_archive/j_upto_r/mars.txt

Internet Message Format | 1997-01-02 | 32KB

From [e-mail] (David Jones) Mon Sep 30 23:34:38 1991
Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!dimacs.rutgers.edu!mips!pacbell.com!pacbell!rtech!wrs!davidj
From: [e-mail] (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: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Oct 91 03:34:38 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (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
  [e-mail] OR
  uunet!wrs!davidj
-------------------

From [e-mail] (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: [e-mail] (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: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Oct 91 07:14:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
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 <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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    [e-mail]    [e-mail]
I speak for myself.

From [e-mail] (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: [e-mail] (James 'Kibo' Parry)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: Richard Hoagland's Face on Mars
Keywords: Mars Face
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Oct 91 07:27:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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      [e-mail]    Independent graphic designer
271 Dartmouth St. #3D                         (specialty: logos & corporate
Boston, MA 02116          [phone]      identities) and type designer.

From [e-mail] (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: [e-mail] (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: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Oct 91 14:04:38 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
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 [e-mail] (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: [e-mail] (Alan M. Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranormal,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Richard Hoagland's Face on Mars
Keywords: Mars Face
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Oct 91 20:34:52 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Lines: 167
Nntp-Posting-Host: ash.cs.uiuc.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (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