Top positive review
10 people found this helpful
Very gutsy, exhaustingly researched, a stunner...
on May 13, 2004
I read some of the negative reviews here at Amazon and they all struck me as inane drivel of the highest degree. If you're going to agree or disagree with any thesis you have to show why. If all you're going to come up with is name-calling and arguments about "math in cereal" (!!!, man, give us a break) or other , even worse, "arguments" like "NASA says it aint no face and that's what i believe" you're in my mind absolutely and positively hopeless. If, in the end, NASA and any institution of that order is for you a credible source, why bother thinking? Turn your brain OFFICIALLY off and let whomever, may that be NASA or anybody else, programm it for you. Why read what Hoagland or a number of other researchers out there profess?
"The Monuments Of Mars" is a book for people who are keen of doing something rare: think for themselves. In order to do that, you need to entertain whatever available notion out there even if it totally comes in conflict with the definition of the world in your mind. Especially if such a notion is well argumentated and has been hardly refuted with adequacy.
For those not familiar with what's presented in this book, here's a very ( and i mean, very) short summary: Hoagland along with a team of scientists ranging anywhere from geologists to physicists to computer programmers who resoluted photos, to historians and other specialties, analysed a vast series of photographs taken by NASA of the Cydonia region in Mars, photos in which the infamous "Face" appears, along with other clearly geometrical features such as pyramids or the clear designs of a former city. All these features, and their undisputed geometry, one would have to be either blind not to see, or terminally brainwashed.
The only question which remained, was to first verify through statistical probability, what the odds were of these features having been made "naturally". The odds are so staggeringly low that it would be a travesty to dismiss these as natural creations. The next, and more important questions have to do with who made them and why.
Why resort to odds when we could have more and clearer photographs of these features so the matter could be put to rest? Well, that's just it (especially for the naysayers), because Nasa refuses to rephotograph the region with a high resolution camera saying there's nothing there to be seen..And that despite all the "noise" about these features. Mysterious if not downright conspiratorial? Yes, obviously and undoudtedly so.
I don't intend to go more into what Hoagland says. You can pretty much imagine in broad lines, and besides it's your decicion and your inclination whether you'll invest the effort in reading his book anyway. To me, if your inclination is beforehand negative, you would've easily fit in in a past world who thought the world is flat because the church or "scientists" say so. And i could list a high number of such embarrasing examples, there's no shortage of them nor will there ever be.
As to the book itself, it is one which is incredibly researched. The degree of scholarship in it is superb, and more importantly, it is not the work of ONE person. Hoagland did not sit down and think all this up as some would like the case to be. There's a vast array of people who worked with him from the scientific community and who agree with him. There's also a number of other resarchers who did NOT research this subject but yet came to the same conclusions with him. Sitchin would be one. Robert Temple would be another. And the list does go on you know, as any search on alternative archaelogy in Amazon or elsewhere would show you.
The fact that we know only 5000-7000 years of human history when this planet numbers over a million years of existence means that we are actually in the dark about our origins. At least as far as "mainstream science" is concerned and this is a fact they accept themselves while offering us all kinds of comical explanations and tons of "missing links" in the process. The truth might be in fact very simple, that is, simple if you actually realise that the Universe is very probably bursting with intelligent life, not only now, but for millions of years in the past, and that the chance that we, are in very intriguing ways connected with the "out there" is also nothing shocking. It only is if you allow the world in your mind to be something painfully small.
Only reading this book will more than likely not be enough to provide you with all the data supporting such theories. Yes i mean data, and not speculations. Raw data. You will need to pick up some Sitchin, some Temple, some Colin Wilson, or others. Only then will you able to form a more spherical and stronger opinion.
But if you haven't done so up to now, Hoagland's book is a great place to start.
Absolutely essential material for people not content with the hilarious version of the truth spoon-fed to us on a daily basis.