Re: Jaynes and Hoagland findings related??

Robert Huss (rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU)
17 Jan 1995 17:46:05 GMT

In article <3f8oci$>, (Ted Holden) writes:

|> Those who might be inclined to doubt Hoagland, in particular those like
|> my buddy Walter who might have figured Hoagland's "enhanced" images to
|> represent anything other or more than images cleaned up via digital
|> signal processing techniques, might wish to check out the images on:

Okay, I'm looking at the site as I go through your comments.

|> These include official government "enhanced" images, which show the same
|> things Hoagland's images show: a monument something like a mile and a
|> half long and 1500 feet high with a humanoid face on it, one gigantic
|> five sided pyramid with clear buttressing on the corners, the long sides
|> being over a mile in length, a complex of pyramids about 15 km to the
|> Northwest of the face, and one more complex structure with a triangular
|> enclosed space surrounded by two straight walls, and a curved wall.

The face: A mountain, half in shadow, which has two smaller shadows,
suggesting an eye and a mouth, with the peak of the mountain situated where
a nose could go. How can you say this is a monument with a humanoid face
on it when you can only see half the surface? We are very good at filling
in details in our minds and imagining complete images where none exists.
I predict that when we eventually get an image of the other half, ruining
the face image, Hoagland and others like him will suggest that it
must have been damaged over the eons.
Everything else in the enhanced pictures looks like mountains, again half
in shadow. The "five sided pyramid" is completely nonuniform, with a ridged
peak. I'm not sure which mountains are the complex of pyramids, but my
confusion alone shows the lack of uniformity.

|> Other, higher resolution images elsewhere on the net show traces of
|> rectangles in the sand in the surrounding area, basically foundations of
|> more ordinary buildings which got blown away by whatever happened. The
|> more massive structures, of course, survive.
|> The chances of all of that being "natural" formations or tricks of
|> sunlight, as astronomers would have us believe, is about the same as the
|> chance of hell freezing over tonight.

These look completely natural to me. Have you ever been to the Wisconson
Dells? There is one natural rock formation that looks like a grand piano,
and another that looks like an eagle head. Pyramids are pretty darn easy
to get naturally, especially when your definition is loose.

|> Astronomers are denying what their eyes obviously tell them because it blows
|> their cosmology. You can't build something like that with space-suits on;
|> the planet must be habitable before you build Cydonia. There being no
|> way to picture Mars inhabitable in anything like present circumstances,
|> they first try to use the time magic-wand again and picture the whole
|> thing being 200M years ago, but that creates an even bigger problem.
|> The face on the monument is obviously not one of us, but a recent
|> relative, from the look of it, one of Jay Matterness' reconstructions of
|> Neanderthals with an Egyptian haircut. But putting the entire business
|> back even 2M, much less 200M years, would force the face to be that of
|> homo-erectus or some such, basically a monkey. It then gets worse.
|> Aside from the monkeys getting to Mars before we did (since the odds of
|> simians developing on Mars as a separate evolutionary strain by
|> coincidence are overwhelming), there is the question of why we do not
|> find any evidence of the technical infrostructure which such a feat
|> would have entailed, here on Earth. You'd have to believe that
|> something like the biblical flood erased all traces of the former
|> advanced simian society, all of their Cape Canaverals etc.
|> The astronomers therefore prefer to deny the entire thing, but those
|> pictures are making them look like idiots.

Your amazing creative explanations make you look like an idiot.


|> And, of course, without knowing it, he has discovered the reason for
|> heiroglyphics in our oldest languages; without spoken speech, the idea
|> of a pheonetic alphabet could not possibly have occurred to anybody.

Without a written language the idea of a phonetic alphabet wouldn't
have occured to anybody either. It makes sense to me that the first
visual representations would be pictograms, rather than phonetics.