PLANETARY EXPLORATION: A FALSEHOOD?

David Calvert

It is estimated that within our galaxy alone there are approximately four hundred thousand million stars, and where there are stars there may be planets similar to that of our home world. It is in these vast reaches of space that the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence is being conducted.

It is generally accepted within the scientific mainstream that intelligent life does not exist within the confines of our Solar System because of the data received from probes sent out to our neighbouring worlds. But what if that data was flawed or, worse still, falsified in order to maintain that belief? Could intelligent life be much closer to home than we think, or are led to believe? Thanks to Joseph P. Skipper, et al, truths are emerging into the public domain that there may well indeed be intelligent life in our Solar System, and that they occupy our distant planetary neighbour Mars.

Skipper was an insurance investigator with an interest in space exploration and decades of investigative experience behind him. It was after viewing an official science data strip that his ‘suspicion meter’ started rising. He knew that what he was looking at was not any kind of natural geology, but evidence of life on the supposedly dead and inhospitable planet. ‘If no natural geological explanation fits’, he contends, ‘then one logically has to consider seriously that these anomalies are forms created by life of some kind.’ If this is true then why has NASA failed to report such a startling discovery to the media? The answer to that question may lie in a report prepared for NASA by the Brookings Institution, Washington DC, on November 30, 1960 and titled, Proposed Studies On The Peaceful Space Activities For Human Affairs.

THE BROOKING REPORT.

On page 215 of the document it names the Moon, Mars or Venus as possible candidates where artefacts left by life forms may be discovered. It goes on to say, ‘Anthropological files contain many examples of societies sure in their place in the universe, which had disintegrated when they had to associate with previously unfamiliar societies espousing different ideas and different life ways: others that survived such an experience usually did so by paying the price of changes in values and attitudes and behaviour.’ It then suggests two areas of study, the first dealing with the emotional and intellectual consequences of discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life, the second dealing with the behaviour of peoples and their leaders when confronted with such a discovery. Questions arising from these studies, it suggests, would include: ‘how might such information, under what circumstances, be presented to or withheld from the public for what ends?’ Tellingly, on page 225 this sentence appears: ‘It has been speculated that of all groups, scientists and engineers might be the most devastated by the discovery of relatively superior creatures’.

THE McDANIEL REPORT.

Sixteen years later the McDaniel report was published. It is a scathing indictment of NASA’s handling of the scientific Mars data. In his Executive Summary, McDaniel writes of the extensive analysis of the 1976 Viking Mars mission photographs of the Cydonia region, carried out by independent investigators who concluded that the photographs appeared to be evidence that some landforms could be artificial. To date, NASA still insists that there is no credible evidence of artificiality. ‘NASA has regularly sent false and misleading statements regarding the  landforms to members of Congress and their constituents.’ writes McDaniel. ‘Furthermore, they have condoned efforts to unfairly ridicule and discredit independent researchers, and have insisted that there is a “scientific consensus” that the landforms are natural – despitethe fact that the only real scientific study of the landforms indicates a clear possibility that they are artificial.’

Clearly, the Brooking Report was instrumental in NASA’s decision making in order to avoid political change and the devastating effect it would have upon the scientists themselves. Such a discovery, after all, would put at risk their own cherished theories and funding. What is more, NASA’s behaviour regarding the Martian objects is in direct conflict of their policy that a ‘verified discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence should be shared promptly with all humanity.’

What may come as a real eye opener to many is that the real control of the Mars exploration does not rest with NASA but with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and its partners. It was discovered that  Navy Admiral, “Bobby” Inman a famous and skilled ‘super spook’, was chairing the JPL oversight committee in secret. When this was discovered a high-ranking NASA official ousted him. Under the ‘super spooks’ control however the Mars exploration programme had been effectively hijacked and had become subservient to a possible military agenda for, perhaps, the acquirement of extraterrestrial technology.

Let’s not forget Operation Paperclip, at the closing of WWII, when the Soviets and Western allied forces became involved in a race to seize top ranking German scientists and their rocket technology documents.

THE RED PLANET?

Mars appears red to us because its surface is largely composed of red iron oxide dust, commonly referred to as rust. Its atmospheric composition – so we have been led to believe – is 95% carbon dioxide, 2.7% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and 0.7% oxygen, carbon monoxide, and water vapour. Its atmosphere is therefore poisonous to human life. Prior to January 10, 2004, NASA had released images showing an orange or red sky. The images had been doctored to give the appearance of a lifeless and dead planet. In reality the first colour image from Mars, taken by Viking Lander I in 1976, showed a beautiful blue sky. The landscape of brown and reddish soil was littered with rocks with patches of green on them. The world never got to see these images because according to the men who worked at the Viking Image Formatting and Processing section of JPL they were ordered to destroy the Mars blue sky negative and to falsely redden the images to make it look like there was no life, no green algae or lichen. The book, Mars The Living Planet, by Barry Digregorio, Dr. Gilbert Levin, and Dr. Pat Straat, tells of how the tests carried out by Viking Lander were rigged to deny life.

A PREREQUISITE FOR LIFE.

Over twenty years ago Viking principal investigator, Norman Horowitz, stated that ‘liquid water does not exist on the surface of Mars … Without liquid water life as we know it cannot exist.’ Thus he established the paradigm of a barren Mars today. Mars’ atmospheric pressure on average is about six millibars. Its average temperature is about -60° C. Because of the low atmospheric pressure and low surface temperature water can only exist as ice or vapour. However, at certain times and locations on the planet, when the air pressure and temperature are high enough, it is theoretically possible for liquid water to exist, but its evaporation rate would be so great that it would quickly vaporise.

From the above and other scientific data we are indoctrinated into believing Mars is a hard frozen wilderness. Its temperature is not only cold enough to freeze water. 3-5 times over but also cold enough to freeze CO2 as snow right out of the atmosphere. And yet there are images that refute these scientific tenets and suggest that the Martian atmospheric temperature conditions are not nearly as bad and hostile to life as officially promoted by NASA, JPL, et al.

Water is a prerequisite for life and it is perhaps telling that in images of standing liquid water on Mars there is also prima-facie evidence of civilisation around these bodies of water, despite attempts to hide it beneath layers of image tampering techniques, as shown in Skipper’s second report image at www.marsanomalyresearch.com.

The reflections in the water and the surrounding rectangular structures surrounding the ‘reservoir’ become more distinct when one inverts the colours. To counter the argument that Skipper is himself responsible for the image tampering, he has provided documentation at the end of each report so one can check behind him to confirm and validate that the official NASA science data is as he received it. You will require a graphics software programme such as PhotoShop, however, to analyze the images.

THE QUESTION OF LIFE.

As one might imagine, where there is water there should be biological life too. There are many images showing what appears to be vegetation, only on a vast scale in comparison to what we see on Earth. NASA dismisses these as ‘geological structures’ or ‘rock formations’. When shown similar images the late Arthur C. Clarke, science fiction writer and father of global communications, likened them to Earth’s Banyan trees and repeatedly supported the idea that some of the images can only be reasonably interpreted in terms of vegetation.

THE MOON.

Our only natural satellite, the Moon, has come under similar suspicion of photographic tampering as the images on Skipper’s site show quite clearly. Vast towers and rectangular forms have been subjected to smudge tampering techniques. However, early imaging techniques were not as sophisticated as today’s and some of these forms can clearly be seen poking through and, in some instances, left out completely. If they are merely geological forms then why have the powers that be gone to such lengths to hide them?

IMAGING TECHNOLOGY.

In the 1970s satellite imaging resolution limits available to the military were equal to, if not better than, those being released today. Are we to believe that up-to-date and state-of-the-art Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) and Mars Orbital Camera (MOC) satellite imaging systems are inferior to those of some forty years ago and that there have been no significant technological advancements in this area over that period of time? It is unreasonable to assume that JPL, with its heavy military connections and funding and at a cost of billions of dollars, would do such a thing. Certainly, much of the image tampering has been done at closer resolutions than is being admitted to. The question still remains; why would they go to such great expense and trouble to hide the evidence? And what do the images contain that they are so afraid to show us?

THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

Truth, as defined in the Reader’s Digest Universal Dictionary, is ‘That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.’ and scientific method as ‘The totality of principles and processes regarded as characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation …’ But where is the truth in planetary exploration? Has it become subservient to the military industrial complex with its own secret agendas, of which President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address in 1961? And what regard is there for scientific principle as elitist scientists embroil themselves in this web of intrigue?

Truth, it would seem, has become the first casualty in this war of fact and falsehood. But the truth, whatever it may ultimately prove to be, is out there for those who wish to seek it: a grass roots movement that is gathering momentum and members thanks to the likes of Joseph P. Skipper and others.

New facts have come to light since I first wrote this blog which suggest that more recent pictures, which purportedly show surface water, skeletal remains, and living creatures, on the Martian surface. The following links below show a few images of said anomalies. Were they taken on Mars or somewhere much closer? .If the latter case is true then some of the above images are questionable.

 

http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=192&part=3

http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=192&part=4

 

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.