Mirrors - Invitation for discussion
Page 1 of 1

Author:  crotonmystic [ Sun Apr 27, 2003 4:57 am ]
Post subject: 

No one has anything to say about this book? I'm finding this great chat opportunity but have no one to chat with. Is this site even used anymore?
If not, I will simply speak into the sea of information until someone picks up my trail.
This is an open invitation towards conversation and debate.
Let me know what you are thinking. I will listen.

Author:  Agnostic [ Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:06 am ]
Post subject: 

I have read this book, but it has been a while. Like all of Hancock's books, it is interesting and provocative.

I was especially impressed by his theory that Mars was struck by a sizable meteor/comet/something at some time, causing spalling on the side of it opposite the point of impact. This seems to satifactorily explain its present topography.

Author:  slug [ Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:24 am ]
Post subject: 

I also enjoy Hancocks description of massive impact(s) upon Mars in recent history. I find it describes the topography of Mars better than any other suggestion, and also makes sense when you consider the volatile nature of our solar system. Obviously, if you are in this site, you are familiar with the description of earth formation in the Tiamat collision, common planetary bombardments and collisions etc seem all the more credible for it - being not common only on the scale of our lifetimes, however, Shumaker Levy and Tunguska anyone?

Tied in with the electric universe guys, i mean really, how else did the Vallis Marineris come about?

I have to give Hancock credit especially for being my "in" to the whole catastrophic earth possiblities, but he overcooked his interpretation of the Mar's Face i think. If the earth experienced a collision on that scale, i think the amount of mud and stuff washing around the world in kilometer high waves would probably leave our "developed" earth looking just as enigmatic, drawing attention to features such as Australias Ayers Rock (or Uluru to give it its real pre-colonization name), which maybe one day will be the "Face on Earth" while the cities get overlooked as nothing but rock and rubble. Actually i have a bit of a fantasy that one day in the distant (or maybe not so distant ;)) there might be arguments amongst the Annunaki that some of them might claim in the surveying photos of probes on an advance mission that they see the "Pentagon on Earth", much to the ridicule of others...

(Edited by slug at 6:25 am on Aug. 8, 2005)

Author:  Tripp [ Sat Aug 13, 2005 12:12 am ]
Post subject: 

Hancock did not come up with the theory that Mars was struck by a sizable meteor/comet/something at some time, causing spalling on the side of it. It's rather obvious if you look at topo maps or even a large scale, detailed photo of the entire planet.

Hancock did not come up with anything novel in describing the more recent impacts on Mars.

I have no way of knowing what is uniquely Hancock's in this book , but I do recognize what is not.

What I do find curious is why you would cling to the feeling the face is artificial when it only appeared so in an image years ago under very low resolution and poor illumination? This Jan. 2001 image really has no aspect whatsoever that indicates a "face"; the median line isn't even medial. I'm just curious: before you adopted your opinion that this resemblance is due to artificial manipulations, did you even inquire what the tell-tale signs are of natural origin?

(Edited by Tripp at 9:14 pm on Aug. 12, 2005)

Author:  MardukOfBabylon [ Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

It is a face no doubt.

How will you dismiss these pictures?

<img src="http://www.freewebs.com/2012prophecy/5677.JPG">
<img src="http://www.freewebs.com/2012prophecy/6366.JPG">

Author:  ThaRevrendAl [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

ok...where'd marduk's pics go? (hi, marduk! ThaRev here. nice to "see" you.) it is my understanding the the 2001 images, though looking might sexy in their apparent clarity, are in fact well executed approximations of what the whole structure looks like based on extending the scant images picked up by the surveying satellite which passed over the site twice (i think). maybe i am confusing this with a previous mission. have there been more than two? one with the face pictured clearly (which was taken at a lower resolution, but does in fact image the whole site) and one with a very crisp image but not face evident...and another? hmmm....i suppose i have just muddied the water. i'll look for a link or something.

Author:  ThaRevrendAl [ Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

i seem to have forgotten that the volume of the moon and the volume of the pacific ocean are the same...hmmmmm

(i'll be inserting this interesting tidbit in the threads where the moon shows up. so feel free to inore it if you see it again. or don't.)

ha-ha. you've been mooned by ThaRev

Author:  ThaRevrendAl [ Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

don't know if anyone's still interested, but here is a side-by-side comparison of viking's image and two of the moc images. i still don't think this refutes the "face", though. (esp. when taken with the nearby pyramidal structures)

Author:  MrPP [ Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

Tra: well, i'll be a bifurcated totem pole! what does it take to offend the face of the "face"??? and what nearby pyramids???

Author:  ThaRevrendAl [ Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:26 am ]
Post subject: 

Bifurcated totem pole, eh? they have piercings to rectify that...or to enhance it or something. did i say pyramids? i guess i did. well... what some purport to be pyramidal structures. http://www.mufor.org/cydonia.htm
i can't say the pyramids and face are or aren't. the moc images could be disinformation or not. the pyramidal structures (formations?) could be natural occurances or not. perhaps the "face" is heavily deteriorated, as are the pyramids. considering the necesary age, heavy erosion wouldn't be a surprise. thinking of much younger structures on earth and their level of decomposition, it isn't inconceivable that the martian structures/formations are manufactured. anywho, chalk me up as a "perhaps so".

Author:  MrPP [ Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

Tra: yea, the mars face looks as eroded as my own. but if v. was right about the major encounter between mars and the comet venus (1700-1650 bc???), that would have virtually obliterated any and all structures erected on mars by intelligent beings. praps, indeed.

Author:  ThaRevrendAl [ Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

True dat, pp. true dat. i haven't seen anything on mars to convince me, irrefutably, that there are any manufactured structures. all maybes. but, certainly maybes. now...this: http://www.star-one.org.uk/consp/phobos.htm
occasionaly i stumble across the missing couple of seconds before phobosii goes to static... it shows something streaking (it is only a couple of seconds of footage) from phobos (moon) toward phobosii (probe).

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group