| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The visible evidence of linkage between Earth and Mars should be considered beyond dispute. All one needs do is look. The biggest stumbling block to that recognition has always been cultural stubbornness. Even those who are predisposed to accept the concept of a connection between the two planets tend to look for supporting evidence rather than simply look at the evidence. “Everybody knows” that Sumer and Egypt were the ancient cultures with extraterrestrial overtones, so Mars would have to have Egyptian-type pyramids, right? That is a not quite true. An unbiased check of the archeological record will show anyone not preprogrammed to automatically think Middle East first that the real root-culture appears to be Mayan- or Inca.
The reason this is not as obvious to the over-credentialed is twofold: cultural prejudice, and the officially accepted timelines. Partly because the Jesuit priests who accompanied the early Spanish explorers to the New World so zealously destroyed the records of the native peoples, there is a perception that the American cultures are not old enough. Plus, the official Historical Perspective does not allow for trans-oceanic contact thousands of years ago. The numerous archeological finds of sites “too old to be there” in the last thirty years have made proponents of the official models rather defensive, but there has been no adjustment of the mainstream timelines. The Egyptian lists of kings that stretch back 40,000 years, the Vedic accounts, the Mayan calendar of 26,000 years, are all assumed to be “in error”. After all, Scientists can’t be wrong, can they? Tell you what, Science Guy- you go build me a pyramid with hand tools, and then we’ll talk. FACT: Every single Egyptian Pharaoh
mummy that has been tested by modern hair-analysis techniques
(dozens by now) shows traces of both nicotine and cocaine. These are the
same tests that are used to put people in prison, so it isn’t
laboratory error. Those are both New World plants, one North American,
the other South American. I need to mention one related fact I have not
seen reported elsewhere- there is wild tobacco growing in parts
of West Africa. This was reported to me in 1968, by a professor of
Anthropology in Freetown, Sierra Leone. He disagreed with the assumption
that it was a relatively modern import. There has never been any
commercial tobacco farming there, even during the Colonial period. He
claimed to have historical and botanical evidence dating it back far
before the slave trade. If true, and if any of that tobacco has survived
the Diamond Wars, this also would support
ancient contact with the Americas. I heard this years before any of the
tests had been done on mummies. Pyramids have been found in North and South
America, China, and elsewhere in Asia if you include the pagoda
variations, as well as the Middle East. Totem poles
and closely related items (like Tikis) are found almost anywhere but
the Middle East, including Europe, Russia, India, and the Pacific
islands . Even pre-Islam, the Middle East seems to have favored sphinxes
and singular idols. Mars has
totem poles. Many, many totem
poles. It appears to have been a basic structural and design convention.
There are, of course, faces everywhere, but for some reason the specific
totem pole concept was brought back here. Also the tiki- yes,
like at a Hawaiian restaurant . That’s the proper generic term for
those grotesque faces and figures, whether grouped or stacked or painted
like a Balinese dance mask or sitting on Easter island. I was a little
surprised to find that out myself, but pleased. I would have called them
that anyway. There’s a separate word, moai, used
for the
famous faces of Easter Island. The word moai
just means
“statue” in the local language, by the way.
There are a few anthropologists who object to
linking them with the tiki statues, but I think when you include
the totem poles the total group is fairly obviously related. The moai
proponents include kneeling statues along with the half-torso ones in
their catalogue, so I can’t see why they shouldn’t all be classed
with those other types. In the publish-or-perish world of Academia, the
term sociological research is often a
synonym for agenda, in the local language,
Regardless, you see all the styles on Mars.
Space Patrol episode #180 "THE MARTIAN TOTEM HEAD"- June 4, 1954 Commander Corry and Cadet Happy, in their efforts to rescue Dr. Lambert, find themselves trapped once again ( in a pyramid) by the ruthless men posing as the real Carnacans. Buzz and Happy find the hiding place of the real Carnacan treasure in the Martian Totem Heads. (synopsis from Space Patrol TV Log by Joe Sarno)
One factor that makes the whole matter seem more than coincidental is this: in order to see the totem-like feature on the upper level of the Face, you need to view it from a particular angle and distance, just like most Martian details. None of the available archive images were taken from exactly the right perspective, but on most of them you can see well enough to spot it. And strangest of all perhaps, one MGS image which I had almost forgotten about, M16-00184, concentrates on just that area at the expense of all else. You won't, however, see the feature in the previous pictures from this view, so the actual locus of interest for this image is unclear. They were looking for something... The odd color may be partly a result of some unusual filter combination- there was nothing odd about the file itself or how it responded to processing, so the color should not have been anomalous. Certainly the image is peculiar when compared with others, color aside.
That curiously limited framing was why I (and probably most people) had dismissed the image as useless at the time it was released. For Face fanatics, this ought to be an intriguing addition to the mystery. The M16 image was taken from the wrong angle altogether, so what exactly were they trying to determine? Could this also be more evidence that they really did not understand what they were trying to photograph, or is there something there besides the totem head? Actually, there is a whole group of tikis and other faces, but even that is not apparently anything unique. I have even seen a very similar totem head on another, non-Cydonia image (FHA00818)- I make the connection with the Face for all those other reasons. Ah, mystery.
Speaking of Mysteries, let's move off of the Cydonia plateau for a bit... There are at least seven items in the catalogue of Odd Martian Surface Features tagged as “holes” or “cave openings”. The one detail shared by every one of them is longitude, of all things. They all lie between 239 and 242 E. This is a peculiar commonality, to me. I don’t know what it might mean, if anything. If they all sat at approximately the same latitude (the equator is Latitude Zero, if you were just trying to remember which goes which way), I might have a theory. Of course, they might actually be various different things unfairly grouped together. Since there is so much
misdirection built in to the official descriptions presented by NASA, I
cannot yet say flatly that all of the “holes” or “possible
cavern skylights” are mislabeled. One of them is, however. On the
northwest slope of Arsia
Mons, there is one very round little feature that is on that list, and
it is not a hole. No Arsia Hole (sorry). The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
took a very good photo of it, and then posted that image along with a
banal description of a “possible cavern entrance”. There are remarks
about how deep it must be, since the interior is so dark. An earlier
paper read at some NASA conference in 2005 claimed that the depth had
been determined by comparing MGS and Odyssey IR images to be some 1500
meters, but no mention of that report is made in the MRO description,
and in fact when I tried to check those results, I found that the wrong
MGS image had been cited by the author! So I am inclined to dismiss the
whole tale as earlier disinformation. I would include that paper
for you as evidence of I-don't-know-what, but it seems to have become rather
elusive, even though it was near the top of my first search results.
Maybe someone noticed the errors and pulled it. Keep that in mind for
later, when I will have ( a different) one of those papers
for you to peruse. It is unlikely very many
had actually read the now-missing report before this new image was released- it predated the
MRO mission. That would itself have meaning,
though. It implies that the “hole” was already known to be something
far more interesting, and a background was being prepared for a cover
story. If I can find it again, I'll include it here. One really cannot see much of anything on the earlier images- the
feature is only 300 feet wide, so all the raw images show is a little
dot. The MRO camera can resolve details only a foot or two across, so
300 is a piece of cake. As you have already noticed, the
raw images can be enhanced to resolve much more detail,
but most people never see anything but the posted examples of the basic
images. So the newest picture was the first good look offered to the
public. Of a hole. A black, black, spot. Oh, boy. That is certainly an
exciting addition to the Mars Atlas, huh? They even include a close-up
of the hole itself, and stretched the contrast to demonstrate how devoid
of interior detail the spot is. You don’t suppose somebody was really
trying to draw attention to the absurdity, in the hope someone would
take the clue and properly enhance the image, do you? I took it that
way. Guess what I found? No, don’t guess…look.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
+
