a. Hoagland on the Paleophysics Message of Cydonia
Hoagland and some of his closest associates have persistently hinted at such possibilities - though admittedly not in such starkly clear terms — with their insistence that the whole Cydonia complex embodies a geometry that encodes a lost, “hyper-dimensional” physics. He does not mince words about the enormity of the physics he believes is embodied at Cydonia: it “involves nothing less, we now believe, than the fundamental constructive energy of the Universe...whose existence - and accessibility — was apparently one of the prime reasons for the very creation of the ‘ruins’ at Cydonia.”636
In Hoagland’s view, the Cydonia complex is an encoded message of this physics, a message that he also finds echoed in “ancient Egyptian temples and other ‘sacred’ structures here on Earth.’”637 But there might be another functional reason for the geometries that Hoagland and his associates found at Cydonia beyond that of merely memorializing a “hyper-dimensional” physics. Hoagland himself hints at this function by his own suggestion that the region was deliberately destroyed in a war. He himself points to the peculiar damage done to the D&M pyramid as the best example of this intentional destruction. So might it be that the geometries found at Cydonia are there, like the geometries in the Great Pyramid, for some other, less benign purpose? Might the compound be, as I have argued in my Giza Death Star Trilogy, a vast military compound, and might the D&M pyramid be the Martian version of the Sumerian Azag, able to “pull down the skies” on its enemies? Might it be a kind of Martian “Rostau”?
The answer to these questions is, I believe, a tentative yes.
But whatever the answer to them is, Hoagland has done one significant thing in his work, a significance few have appreciated. He has pointed out, for those who would care to weigh what he has said carefully, that there is a common cultural matrix, inclusive of common architectural forms, that is shared between Earth, and Mars. In short, he has given the Cosmic War of the Pantheon a planetary context from which to be viewed.638
b. The Possible Locations of the Tablets of Destinies Based on the Scenario: Giza, Iraq, and Mars
The possibility that there is a hidden “paleophysics” component to the Two Space Programs Hypothesis now raises another significant question and possibility. As has been seen throughout this work, the “interplanetary context” of the Cosmic War Hypothesis involves the local space of our solar system, including the planets Earth, Mars, and, as we have also seen, Saturn, Jupiter, and their satellites, and finally, the Sun itself.
As was seen in chapter two, a physics sufficient to the task of tremendously scarring planets by means of plasma discharges does exist, and this physics in turn couples quite easily to an even more powerful physics - scalar physics - in which the planets and the Sun act as massive natural resonators of stresses in the medium. And as we speculated in chapter eight, the Tablets of Destinies — the cause of that Cosmic War and one of the principal means by which it was fought - were ultimately components in the technology that tapped these tremendous resources. As noted in part two of this work, the components of these Tablets were inventoried, and some carted off and used elsewhere by the victors in a kind of “paleoancient Operation Paperclip,” some were deliberately hidden because of their potential destructive power, and because of the impossibility of destroying them, and some components were permanently destroyed. All of these features of the story have the profound ring of truth, for precisely such events transpired after the end of World War Two, with the Allied inventory of the Nazi war machine’s arsenal of exotic technologies. Some of it was carted off to be used elsewhere in other applications, some of it was permanently destroyed and lost, and some of it was deliberately hidden because of its enormous potential for destruction. The parallels are amazing, and make the ancient myths ring of an underlying truth.
And the ancient myths, viewed against this interplanetary context provided by the review of anomalous data from our nearby planetary neighbors, also allows us to reconstruct the general locations for some of these missing components. As was seen previously, the myths suggest quite obviously that modem day Iraq, and Giza or other “ancient sacred environs” in Egypt, are locations where these components might be found some day, buried beneath untold yards of sand and dirt. But another location must also surely be Mars, and possibly even the Moon. If the Two Space Programs Hypothesis is true, then perhaps this too forms one of its hidden mission agendas.
c. The Remote Viewing of Lost Technology: Implications of Hurtak and the Face
And this raises a last possibility.
While the “Face” on Mars and all the attendant controversy surrounding it are well known, it is not so well known that it was viewed before the Viking probe first photographed the Cydonia region. Dr. James J. Hurtak, well-known antiquities scholar and esotericist, claimed to have remote-viewed precisely such an object before the Viking probe ever reached Mars.
While I remain personally skeptical of the spiritual influences and consequences of such techniques, I do not doubt their actuality or even their accuracy. Thus, while it is possible that Hurtak was merely releasing information that had been made available to him, information that in turn was collected by technological means well in advance of its actual public release date, I am skeptical of this explanation, and tend to take Hurtak’s claims here at face value, since they were published in a book before the Viking photos were ever taken, much less making the rounds in the general public or becoming topics of magazine articles and radio talk shows.
Hurtak’s viewing of the Mars Face thus raises another disturbing possibility, one known to be in use presently by the various countries’ militaries and also by large corporations researching exotic technologies, and that is that such technologies might be located via such processes. And it raises the possibility that such processes were being used to guide technological exploration of Mars long before probes were actually sent. If so, it casts another shadow on the Two Space Programs Hypothesis. It will only be a matter of time before someone, somewhere, attempts to use the same process to view and generally locate the missing components of the cause of that Cosmic War, the Tablets of Destinies.
And after that, it will only be a matter of time...
15.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS OF SATURN
“Without venturing a hypothesis, even an ‘outrageous one’ — attempting to knit together all the various assembled facts into some kind of a coherent storyline (the speculative part) - ‘science’ would simply be an exercise in making lists....”
Richard C. Hoagland639
It is perhaps only fair that the epigraph for this chapter be taken from a series of papers - essays really - by Richard C. Hoagland, and posted on his website, for his thoughts on what he himself justifiably calls the “most baffling” and “the most important object” in the solar system,640 including the Cydonia Face and all the other anomalies on Mars and even on Earth’s Moon, will form the main focus of this penultimate chapter. Indeed, Mars’ tiny moonlet Phobos, and the Earth’s own gigantic Moon, are not the only satellites to exhibit anomalies that betoken a possible artificial origin. The “most baffling” and “most important object” in question is Saturn’s “moon” Iapetus, and the reasons for the qualification of Iapetus as a “moon” will become abundantly clear.
Hoagland’s remark comes from a series of papers entitled A Moon With a View: Or, What Did Arthur Know, and When Did He Know It?, a subtitle that reflects the curious fact that internationally-known and respected science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke first speculated on a catalogue of weird facts about one of Saturn’s many satellites, and by any reckoning, its strangest. Clarke did so in his well-known fictional work 2001: A Space Odyssey, a work that predated the many photographs that we will examine in this chapter by approximately three decades. Hoagland’s work is entirely about Saturn’s “moon” Iapetus.
We have already encountered in this book the peculiar association of Mars with Saturn in ancient my
thology. However, it is an association extending far beyond the astrological relationships usually conceived in this regard. The association is, in fact, related to the Cosmic War itself, and to the role of Saturn in it. This role is best exhibited by a brief consideration of Saturn in Greek mythology.
A. Saturn in Greek Mythology: The War With the Titans
Hoagland summarizes Saturn’s role in Greek mythology in the following fashion:
Iapetus...is the seventeenth of Saturn’s thirty three currently known moons, and the third largest. It was named after a Titan - the son of Uranus and the father of Prometheus and Atlas (the latter said to be the “fathers of Mankind”). Thus, in Greek myth, Iapetus was also an ancestor... a progenitor... of “Homo Sapiens Sapiens.”
....
The current names of Saturn’s major moons, taken from a group of “:superbeings” in Greek myth called “Titans,” were given them by Sir John Herschel, in 1847. Herschel’s nomenclature for Iapetus and the other six (then) known moons, was based on the logical association of Saturn (“Cronus” (sic) in Greek) with the Titans; Herschel, continuing the ritual, named the largest Saturnian moon “Titan” itself - in honor of the entire pantheon.641
But Kronos (to give Saturn’s Greek name literal transliteration) was more than just the father of the Titans. In Greek mythology he was the “first god” prior to Zeus, and he was overthrown by a rebellion against him by the Titans, who were, let it be noted, a race of giants.
So in other words, the entire mythological conceptual matrix concerning Saturn - at least in Greek mythology - is precisely that of the ancient Cosmic War in the Pantheon, a war which, in its Greek version, is clearly associated with rebellion and a race of physiologically large humanoids called Titans. And Iapetus is precisely one of these Titans. The Titans, rebelling against Kronos, eventually overthrow him, and in turn are overthrown by Zeus, who then becomes the more familiar principle god in the Greek pantheon. One might therefore justifiably amend the subtitle to Hoagland’s essay to include the more pertinent question of “What did the ancient Greeks know, and when did they know it?”
Hoagland does eventually mention the connection of Saturn and Iapetus with this ancient cosmic civil war in the pantheon, but ultimately favors a very different hypothesis, as we shall see. In my opinion, however, the mythological context of the War Against the Titans forms an essential backdrop from which to view the anomalies of Iapetus, and from which to weigh the various hypotheses Hoagland advances to explain them.
B. The Anomalous Orbital Mechanics of Iapetus
Like the Earth’s Moon, Saturn’s “moon” Iapetus has an orbit whose physical mechanics makes it next to impossible that the “moon” was “captured” by Saturn’s gravitation as it wandered aimlessly through the solar system. And in the case of Iapetus, it is an impossibility acknowledged by all that it did not “fission” and separate from Saturn early in the history of the formation of the giant ringed planet. Ever since the astronomer Cassini first discovered the small satellite in 1671, its orbit around Saturn has been a mystery. Unlike all of Saturn’s other known satellites, only Iapetus’ orbit is inclined some fifteen degrees from Saturn’s equator; the rest of Saturn’s satellites all orbit at the equator. And like the Earth’s moon, Saturn’s Iapetus also orbits Saturn, and revolves on its own axis, in such a fashion that one of its hemispheres always faces Saturn, while the other does not.642
But these are but the least peculiar features of Iapetus’ anomalous orbital mechanics! It is best to cite Hoagland’s summary of the other strange features of its orbital mechanics in their entirety, to place his concluding remarks in the wide physics context that his stunning concluding observation deserves:
Once the (amazing) possibility is admitted that lapetus could be an artificial “moon” — and may have been deliberately inserted into such an odd orbit - the “coincidental” nature of its unique, steep inclination (relative to the other similar-sized Saturnian moons - Dione, Rhea, etc.) goes away.
But, equally “coincidental” is the shape of Iapetus’ inclined orbit...and its precise distance from Saturn.
Iapetus’ orbit is extremely close to being circular —
Shades of Earth’s Moon!
with an eccentricity of only 0.0283 departing from a perfect circle by slightly less than 3%. (By comparison, our Moon’s orbital eccentricity ...is 0.0549 or ~6%...essentially twice as eccentric as Iapetus!)
For an almost circular, very high inclination orbit to have formed through “random chance” is really pushing coincidence - if the agent for achieving that low eccentricity and the high inclination is supposed to be the same “random” collisional event, back when Iapetus was forming.643
Recall that such orbital mechanics were strong arguments advanced by some scientists for the radical notion that Earth’s Moon was an artificial satellite that had been “braked” and “parked” into terrestrial orbit. In other words, if one advances the argument for the Moon having been artificially steered into Earth orbit on the basis of its perfect circularity and the fact that its orbital mechanics also show only one hemisphere to the Earth, then much more so is it the case for Iapetus and Saturn!
And, there’s more.
The sharp reader will have noticed, from the preceding references, that Iapetus orbits slightly less than 60 radii away from Saturn (59.09) radii, to be exact...). This discrepancy, 0.15% - in the artificial model that precisely 60 radii was originally intended - would represent how much Iapetus has drifted since it was “parked” (as a designed “station”) in Saturn orbit. That rate of drift, either due to Saturnian/sun tides, or other forces...could give another way to estimate - other than by counting craters - roughly “when” this entire scenario in fact occurred....644
Hoagland is here referring to the fact that Iapetus orbits Saturn some two million miles from the planet, which is almost exactly sixty times the radius of Saturn. And that number, sixty, should sound very familiar:
That “ideal” Iapetus distance from Saturn just “happens” to also be base 60 - another tetrahedral number — suddenly appearing in the first Sumerian civilization on Earth some 6000 years ago... 645
In other words, Iapetus’ orbital mechanics are massively artificial, and even bear a connection to Sumeria!
As if this were not enough, Hoagland even runs the numbers a bit further, in order to drive home the point that Iapetus’ orbit simply is not explainable on any naturalist model.
If you take the inclination of Iapetus’ orbit (~ 15 degrees) and multiply by its distance in Saturn radii (60), the result is the average of the current (Cassini probe) triaxial measurements of Iapetus’ diameter - ~ 900 miles!
All these numbers - Iapetus’ size, distance from Saturn, and orbital inclination - are “independent variables.” Meaning - none of them are automatically interrelated, or mandated by any current theory of satellite formation. Yet, for some reason, they have all come together in Iapetus... this one bizarre “moon”...orbiting Saturn. This simply makes no sense, and the odds of it happening coincidentally - especially, resulting in the actual diameter of Iapetus expressed in miles! Are (really!) “astronomical” —
Unless this was designed!646
But statistically improbable orbital mechanics for a natural satellite are the least substantial arguments that may be advanced in favor of the artificiality of Iapetus. To see why, one must actually look at Iapetus itself, a vision that was only possible in very recent history, with the Cassini probe’s mission to the ringed planet, and its many extremely unusual photographs of the “moon”.
C. Anomalous Surface Features of lapetus
1. The “Yin-Yang” Moon
Our exploration of the unusual features of lapetus - and we catalogue but a few mentioned by Hoagland in his excellent series - begins with the fact that this “moon” has two distinctly different regions, a “dark” region, and a “white” region, that is, a region of high albedo and reflectivity, regions which are not mere artifacts of photograph
y, but actually present on the small “planetoid.” Even more strangely, these regions are roughly interpenetrating ellipses, a pattern that earned Iapetus the nickname the “Yin-Yang” Moon, after scientists saw the following photo taken by the Cassini probe:
Iapetus, the Yin-Yang Moon 647
And there is another feature denoting artificiality, one that we have encountered before, on Earth’s Moon, and again to an even greater degree, on Mars and its little moonlet, Phobos: hexagonal cratering.
2. Hexagonal Craters, Again and Again
A careful examination of the following Cassini probe photograph will reveal numerous craters of Iapetus are in fact degraded hexagons.
lapetus’ Hexagonal Craters648
Hoagland observes that while Iapetus has obviously been subjected to a meteoric bombardment, “the larger structural geometry literally holding it together - on a variety of scales — is repeatedly revealed.”649
3. A Darkly Suggestive Coincidence? Iapetus’ “Equatorial Ridge”
Another Cassini view of the Saturnian “moon” reveals an even more highly irregular feature on a supposedly “natural” object: a ridge or “wall” running the entire length of Iapetus’ equator, in a straight line, a feature visible in the previous picture just below the two large (and perceptibly hexagonal) craters, and thrown into even more stark relief in the following close-up.
The Cosmic War: Interplanetary Warfare, Modern Physics and Ancient Texts Page 39
