"A stunning survey of the latest evidence for intelligent life on Mars. Mac Tonnies brings a thoughtful, balanced and highly accessible approach to one of the most fascinating enigmas of our time."
--Herbie Brennan, author of Martian Genesis and The Atlantis Enigma
"Tonnies drops all predetermined opinions about Mars, and asks us to do the same."
--Greg Bishop, author of Project Beta
"I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in the search for extra-terrestrial artifacts, and the political intrigues that invariably accompany it."
--David Jinks, author of The Monkey and the Tetrahredron
"Mac Tonnies goes where NASA fears to tread and he goes first class."
--Peter Gersten, former Director of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy
And don't miss...
(Includes my essay "The Ancients Are Watching.")
Join the Posthuman Blues Geographical Matrix!
24 comments:
Everything in the pop-culture is a clue or coded revelation... hints that our underlying reality is much less mundane than we perceive it to be, and the power-elite really are plotting against us, but not for the sake of simple greed, no. It's because of ancient civilizations and extraterrestrial beings.
And people wonder why I dropped out of the whole armchair planetary SETI scene.
That's why a lot of people read his articles. He's founded a new genre.
I couldn't help but notice he has comments turned off. :D
As always, he's fun to read. But to say I "disagree" with his conspiratorial take on Spielberg is putting it lightly. The irony is that, for a guy who utilizes pop-culture so adroitly, Hoagland never fails to overlook it before latching onto to some unlikely, weird-ass hidden agenda...
Reading "Moon with a View Part VI" had me chasing references all over the place. (What else is new?) When I hit the phrase "miles-high glass ruins on the Moon" I tracked down a decade-old description of one of Hoagland's early lectures on the subject of artificial structures on the Moon:
Concerning Structures on the Moon
which also has some great insights on NASA secrecy re ETI. And then there's Hoagland's suggestion of Wall functionality:
Is "the wall" an Einstein UFT [Unified Field Theory] Field Propulsion System?
Works for me!
He's got loads of potentially testable ideas. I thought Part Six was the weakest of his Iapetus pieces, but still interesting.
I'm a bit disappointed that he went with a "religious signifance" angle to the "why" of an artificial Iapetus.
It's just the standard dodge: any archeological site that can't be otherwise explained on Earth is written off as "religious". It's a safe explanation because it automatically explains all apparent contradictions or oddities without the need for proof (or real explanations), and the only way to really disprove it is to prove an alternate explanation is more likely.
It's just the standard dodge: any archeological site that can't be otherwise explained on Earth is written off as "religious".
I wonder is RCH, iconoclast that he is, is aware of the irony.
I'm a bit disappointed that he went with a "religious signifance" angle to the "why" of an artificial Iapetus.
Yeah, I thought it was a bit on the dorky side too. I like explanation #4 the best:
The fourth (and most striking) possibility for the existence of this profoundly bizarre, 900-mile, highly modified “base 60 world” – endlessly pursuing its precise “base 60” orbit around the most remarkable planet of this solar system – is that Iapetus was once part of an ancient, extraterrestrial program to convert this system of planets (among how many others in this Galaxy…?), from one of those myriad uninhabitable systems astronomers are finding-- Into a Special Place …. Which could one day support the origin and evolution of Conscious Life around our Sun! That Iapetus was, indeed— An ancient “seedship” … from the Stars.
That works for me too.
Personally, I see only a superficial similarity between Iapetus and the particular spherical object which Hoagland singles out. The "ring" around Iapetus protrudes - it looks like a wall; the "ring" around the spherical object is an etched groove. The crater-like hole in the spherical object is also not in the same place as the apparent crater on Iapetus's surface. If you ask me, the spherical object strikingly resembles the Death Star -- but neither of these strikingly resemble Iapetus (the similarities are probably only coincidental).
The "ring" around Iapetus protrudes - it looks like a wall; the "ring" around the spherical object is an etched groove.
There's a good explanation for this. At the time the sphere with the groove was left on Earth, Iapetus was still under construction. The Wall is actually the covering for a HUGE superconducting COIL (see my post above on the UFT drive) that originally girded the entire satellite's equator. The groove was made to "seat" the coil. Then, when the coil was finally put in place and covered over, it formed the protruding ring that we see.
Have I out-Hoaglanded Hoagland or what? (He should pay me for this.)
Actually probably THREE parallel coils, but my "explanation" remains valid.
Like his Iapetus arguments, this article started out ... engaging but as soon as he started talking about today's WoTW, everything turned to shit.
1) We're waaaay too media-saturated and cynical in the present for that sort of thing (Wellesian scare) to work anymore
and
2)See 1)
Hoagland's claims fall short...as always.
Even his "recipient of the Angstrom medal" cheeseball is demonstrably false.
Any new "theory" that seems discounted by mainstream science, inevitably gets rolled into Hoagland's "cosmic spliff".
Happy toking!!
Kyle
UFOreflections.blogspot.com
There is far too much Hoagland Hater-aid gettin past around here.
You dorks wish you had a 1/4 of the imagination or ingenuity of RCH.
A 100 years ago you would of been sayin, "yeah this Jules Vern guy is a freekin nut!".
Hoagland has come up with several very plausible theories.
I like the idea of an Alien hotel over looking Saturn the best.
I bet if MAC would of came up with this idea you all would of been all over his nuts, saying he was the greatest writer since Burroughs.
Instead of clicking your mouse, you should all be raising your fists in the air and chanting "hate, hate, hate, hate hate hate....."
someday, orion33, you will know... and you'll be wishing you didn't
"When I hit the phrase "miles-high glass ruins on the Moon" I tracked down a decade-old description of one of Hoagland's early lectures on the subject of artificial structures on the Moon."
I agree with Hoagland that there are probably artifacts on Mars - but I don't buy the idea that there is anything artificial on the moon (our moon, not Iapetus, which is another story). I've looked at the photos of these supposed anomalies and they don't look very convincing to me. Grainy black and white photos can leave a lot of room for the imagination.
Orion33 -
Notice the only post on this thread with the word hate in it...several times.
"...Methinks thou dost protest too much."
Thinking Hoagland is full of hot air doesn't mean I hate him. It just means I think he's full of hot air, and a few untruths mixed in to boost his "credibility".
And believe it or not, I don't agree with everything Mac says, either.
Color me curmudgeon if you must. :)
Kyle
UFOreflections.blogspot.com
There is far too much Hoagland Hater-aid gettin past around here.
No sips of Haterade for me. I pretty much regard Hoagland's theory spinning in the same light that I do good s.f. -- it's a Great Escape. My approach when reading Hoagland is simply to give his ideas temporary assent just to get the feel of them. I neither take him seriously nor not-seriously. He's just a hell of an interesting head trip.
Hey, *I* don't even agree with all my theories! But at least I have the ability to sift through them and present the possibilities. You should try it sometime; it beats lurking.
I find it interesting that Hoagland's website is named after a work of fiction, and he uses the death star from Star Wars as if it had a non fictional significance.
I'm ready to listen to anything, and I find him interesting. His egotism is a turn off. But, I like to read, and he is a good read.
Stan
I find it quite hilarious that one can't offer honest criticisms of Hoagland's work without being demonized. I've run into this again and again and suspect one of the only people who *isn't* bitter is Hoagland himself, with whom I've swapped plenty of friendly emails. If Hoagland can take it in stride, why not his fans?
His egotism is a turn off.
Actually, I think it's more of just a military fetish. I think he chose the Star Trek metaphor as kind of the best of both worlds -- the Navy and s.f. I mean, really, "Now Hear This" and "Captain's Blog"? At least he's consistent in extending the metaphor!
You forgot "Open Hailing Frequencies."