Re: Face crap

Ian Goddard (
Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:23:12 -0400

At 07:29 AM 4/23/98 -0700, CALYK wrote:

>>I dont think the face is manmade, but I'm still looking forward to when they
>>take a picture of the pyramid. Does anyone know when they might do that?
>There is a 'pyramid' image on the Web somewhere, I think it's on Hoagland's
>site (I thought I bookmarked it but obviously didn't).

IAN: Here are some images of one of the pyramids seen
from the Viking mission (the first is a 3Dized image):

> Oddly, it looks a lot like a bunch of rocks.

IAN: Well, what if one or both of the pyramids were
not like "a bunch of rocks" but were perfectly formed,
or about 95% perfect, would that alter the possibility
that they were not of natural origin? Well they ARE both
about 95% perfectly formed 5-sided pyramids. There are
other formations in the area, however, that are pyramid
like, yet do appear natural, so it could be some freak
geological formations. Or maybe the others are badly
eroded Martian-made structure 10,000,000 years old.?

That fact that so many symmetrically converging straight
lines and angles appear in one area is simply noteworthy.

>You know, when I predicted this face denial a few weeks ago I really didn't
>expect it would be as widespread as it seems to be. These people are really

IAN: But Dr. Mark J. Carlotto, a scientist who has
done more research on the face than probably anyone
alive, is not bizarre at all. He has published many
articles on the face in leading scientific journals.

Here's his page:

I think that the many perfectly straight lines around
the base of the face are remarkable in and of themselves.
The best case against the face is that there are other
objects in the area, clearly nature, also have similar
unique features. But that is all certainly interesting
from a geological stand point if not an ET standpoint.

VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ---->

G O N E ->