Sunday, April 13, 2008

Updated Dark

Just a note to let you know that I updated Dark today. I added the books endnotes (which a lot of people have requested since they were printed so small in the the book) and updated the errata page.

Go to to see the changes.


  1. No, the only thing I'll acknowledge is that I allow you to keep posting here because I have so much fun watching you hang yourself with your own stupidity.

  2. Are there any plans for an index in the revised edition?

  3. "Are there any plans for an index in the revised edition?"

    It's a priority Carol. The problem is that it needs to be generated by the guy who did our book layout because otherwise the page numbers might not match.

  4. One of the things I think people have a rpoblem with in regarsds to this work, is that alot of the photographs, just tend to look like grainy blurry pictures of panetary landscapes.

    In my own opinion, I've seen things that make me raise an eyebrow for a moment or two, but nothing that I would say qualifies as a smoking gun. For myself, I need to hold either a rock or a raygun in my hand to be convinced either way at this point.

    Having said that, there's a wonderful 2-hour documentary running on the History Channel, about what would happen to the Earth, to nature and to our structures, if Mankind vanished.

    And it showed how after only 1000 years nearly every trace of construction is obliterated, certainly from an orbital viewpoint at least. It made me think that if the purported structures are far older than 1000 years, that could go a long way in explaining why alot of the structures that laymen like myself view as nothing more than a pile of rocks, could by a trained eye be spotted out as millenia old ruins.

    If our structures here on Earth would essentially vanish after only a thousand years without Man's presence, what would be left of structures on other planets after many thousands of years?

    Check out the documentary, it's pretty good.

    Life After People

  5. In regard to Adrian,

    I don't know about highly scientific, but it's certainly the first documentary I've seen that tackles such a subject.

    As far as the Pyramids, the documentary does in fact touch upon megalithic structures, and instrestingly enough, talks about how the sands would cover them and then shows "pyramidal" (I can't believe I'm saying that word) sand dunes that eventually would cover them up.

    Regardless, the degredation of megalithic structures vs. modern structures would be an entirely different process.

    The Blog owners are free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the thrust of their argument is that the Monuments of Mars are modern stuctures, or structures made with iron girders and such, as opposed to megalithic stone structures.

    The two would have entirely different and seperate erosion and degredation processes as far as I know.

    Like I said, I'm an open minded skeptic fence sitter. At this point for myself, I think there's compelling arguments on both sides. But for myself, I won't fall on either side until I go to Mars myself, and sit inside of either a cave, or some ruined apartment. I'm very much a show me and I'll believe it kind of guy.

    I just hope until that happens, that dialogue on both sides continue.

    Even if it turns out to be just rocks, I think something invauable will be learned by TEM's process in extraterrestrial archaeology, since I think that is something Mankind will eventually need to learn anyway, even if the stuff they show in our own Solar System turns out to be just rocks.

    Even if they're wrong, we can still look to what they've done, and what mistakes they may have made, to improve the science of extraterrestrial archaeology for future generations. Eventually, Mankind will have to confront E.T. ruins, even if it's not the ones that TEM is writing about.

  6. Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the TV Digital, I hope you enjoy. The address is A hug.

  7. I see. Your six URLs appear to confirm that the LR data is being openly discussed, rather than concealed. I guess that's what in the world of soccer they call an "own goal".

  8. No. What they show is that Dr. Levin was right all along, and that NASA clearly knew this very early on, but continues to cling to their absurd "chemical reaction" explanation.

  9. It seems what we all need is for the following
    scenario to actually occur:

    A UFO appears out of the blue and lands at a
    TV station. They go to network for the event.

    The Alien says, "It's a Face, and we built it.
    So there." (The Alien sticks out his tongue.)

    The Alien returns to his UFO and flies away.

    Moments later, the UFO returns and lands again.

    The Alien re-emerges and says, "And we also
    built all the Moon stuff. So there." (The Alien
    sticks out his tongue again.)

    The Alien once again departs.

    The news crew gives the camera dumb looks.

    The network goes to commercials....


  10. That would probably help sales for sure...

  11. I'm not aware of any "errors" you've brought to my attention.


  12. jjrakman,

    interesting reply on the subject. In relation to that I then would pose the following question in general;

    what then would be the (phases) of presumed degradation of buildingmaterials exotic, materials commonly known to us or otherwise in a zero atmosphere environment?

    Next to that and more on a personal level it never seizes to amaze me that, when people like Hoagland, Bara and others bring scientific (and thus veriviable data to the fore, that some people instantly try to debunk, deny or ridicule it without analizing the content of it. A kind of Pavlov reflex in order to lead away from the essence and subject of the story, article or book.

    take expat for's almost like it is his lifelong ambition to divert the attention away from any presented data..and then start arguing in a manner like "...well, oke so you think you have found an apple...but since there's no appletree in the can't be an apple".

    Every out of place artifact or anomaly albeit a structure or artifact of which it can't be proven to be of natural origin....must have and deserve our fullest attention for further reserch. Otherwise it may turn out that we simply are..monkeys with a few trick's up our sleeve

  13. what then would be the (phases) of presumed degradation of buildingmaterials exotic, materials commonly known to us or otherwise in a zero atmosphere environment?

    Adrian, that's a really good question.

    Unfortunately, in my opinion all we can do is speculate, since Mankind doesn't really have extended experience with manmade strucutres in a Zero Atmosphere environment yet.

    But in terms of speculation, I wouls say that there has to be some kind of degredation involved, otherwise the Moon itself would look as pristine as it was immediately after its creation.

    Certainly there are meteors, micrometers and the like that could compromise structures.

    In addition if there was a supposed civilization that colonized the Moon, I think it would be safe to say that they may have had their own artificial satellite system much like Earth's. It certainly wouldn't have remained in orbit forever so I imagine there could be an argument for the presence of space junk falling to the surface potenitally causing damage to structures.

    We know that the ultraviolet rays of the sun cause damage to materials on Earth, imagine what they might do to strcutures on the Moon with no O-Zone ove many thousands of years.

    Someone else will have to verify this, but if there was any past seismic or volcanic activity on the Moon, that could certainly aid in degradation.

    And of course the lack of presence of Man (whoever) means the lack of regular maintenance, which all artifical systems need to prevent degredation.

    Once degredation began by any one of these factors or a combination of them, the one sixth gravity of the Moon could be enough to pull down large enough compromised structures over a long period of time.

    But as I said, all this is pure speculation on my part.

  14. Something you also need to consider is the diferences of structures eroding in a biosphere like Earth with its atmosphere density, sea salt, etc, etc, vs. the much different conditions on Mars, the moon, etc.

    The processes may be different, definitely. But I would think that the end result, at least visually from an orbital point of view, but be strikingly similar.

    In other words, it doesn't matter how you get from Point A to Point B, only that you eventally arrive at Point B.

    But I could be wrong.

  15. Adrian: " never seizes to amaze me that, when people like Hoagland, Bara and others bring scientific (and thus verifiable) data to the fore, that some people instantly try to debunk, deny or ridicule it without analizing the content of it. A kind of Pavlov reflex in order to lead away from the essence and subject of the story, article or book."

    Some people do. Not all critics.

    Pay attention to those who bring their own expertise and logic -- and verifiable data -- to the debate. Don't use the clowns as an excuse to shut your eyes to all criticism.

  16. There was, BTW, another TV documentary in the past month or so on another channel that also covered the same concept of what would happen if humans vanished from the earth. I can't remember the channel (maybe National Geographic?), but I recall it being somewhat better than the first one.

    I've always found Lan Fleming's article "On Mounds, Mesas, and Martians" to be an interesting perspective on how we would go about determining the difference between long-term degradation of a natural, geological feature, compared to a artificially constructed one.

    Those who reject the exploration of the idea that the Face on Mars or other features could be artificial have never managed to present any useful criteria for distinguishing the two states. If the Face is possibly an eroded sculpture, you've got to be able to use the vocabulary and tools of art and archeology to discuss it, not just geology. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

  17. to jimo on his remark

    "Don't use the clowns as an excuse to shut your eyes to all criticism"

    where or when did I mention that I shut my eyes to all criticism? I'll help you in answering that...I did'nt :-)

    I simply mentioned my amazement towards "some" people and their clownlike behaviour, as you so eloquently phrased it. Sure thing, criticism is good. For instance the critical data on the workings and behavior of NASA.

  18. Biological Unit:

    Another aspect regarding degredation of artificial strcutures on the Moon,

    If these are arcologies, or contained environments as I believe TEM argues, then there would be a contained atmosphere inside the strucutres. Which means somekind of humidity level, which means moisture. That could cause degredation from the inside.

    Just a thought.

  19. Hey Unit,

    Unless you are suggesting that possibly an
    alien ship crashed into the Face at some
    point in the distant past, I don't quite see
    the relevance.

    Of course, RCH has plenty of very interesting
    pictures of some...shall we say, "candidate

    But none of them are anywhere near the Face.

    Bounced off and crashed elswhere, maybe?

    (Kind of like those little guys in the movie
    "Spaced Invaders" trying to take off?)


  20. Hi jjrakman,

    Like I said, I'm an open minded skeptic fence
    sitter. I'm very much a show me and I'll
    believe it kind of guy.

    First of all, I'd like to say that as "skeptics"
    go (at least in my own experience), you are
    a breath of fresh air.

    Secondly, do you happen to live anywhere near
    Southern California?

    The reason I ask is that I have been to a
    place in the high desert there where there
    are ET ruins---a crashed "rod" ship which is
    now petrified, and a very obvious bunker
    facility, which appears to have been destroyed
    in some sort of fire fight, apparently with
    the crashed ship.

    I wish I could remember the name of the man
    who took us (myself and two others) on a
    "tour" of the bunker site (from which you
    could see the crashed rod ship, lying in a
    "saddle" between two peaks on the opposite
    side of the valley).

    He was studying some vortex or other
    together with some people from one of
    the local colleges, I think. It's been years
    ago, and I regret that I've forgotten many

    Point being, that you can see ET "ruins"
    right here on Earth.

    These were reportedly some 80,000 years old.


  21. Hi Mike,

    All I recall is that we went west on I-10
    (we were coming from Joshua Tree via #62)
    to some exit I forget, took a new-looking
    two-lane blacktop north, turned right on
    some other blacktop with a name starting
    with "K" (Kaitlin? Katy? I dunno) which went
    eastward through some small town where
    the "something-or-other-a-tron" was located,
    but the vortex had shifted to a new location,
    so we went there first, then to the site of
    the bunker.

    I've been trying to find this stuff on
    Google Maps, and...

    After some thought, I think the part about
    going on I-10 was erroneous.

    I think it was more like---

    We went west on #62 out of Joshua Tree and
    turned north on #247 in Yucca Valley, then
    followed that to Lucerne Valley where you
    pick up #18, then followed that to 165th St E,
    which we followed to 170th St E (it changes),
    then up to East Avenue K 8 (which is where
    the "K" got into it, I think), then right
    into (and through) Wilsona Gardens.

    From there, you have to know the roads out
    into the desert. I might be able to remember
    the way, but I wouldn't trust my memory
    quite that far these days.

    Anyway, I'm pretty sure this stuff is located
    somewhere between Saddleback Butte State
    Park and Shadow Mountain, out in the high
    desert area east (or southeast) of Wilsona

    I still haven't heard from either Loren or
    Abbie (the other two parties on this little
    "field trip"), but I'll give you a buzz if or
    whenever I do.

    And I'll get you our guide's name if only I
    can think of it.


  22. Hi jjrakman,

    I can understand. Then again, perhaps they
    "were" tailor made for TEM's theories! :-)
    (I just couldn't resist that one.)

    As for myself, I may be somewhat less
    "skeptical" than my fellows, but that is
    only because I have been in the position
    to know things that most people would
    never dream could be.

    The view is very different from "inside the
    security curtain."

    I've been there. And my father was there
    before me.

    Naturally, this tends to affect the way I
    look at what TEM has to say.


  23. Hi Mike,

    Here's another piece of the recollection puzzle:

    The "something-or-other-atron" was the *Integratron*.

    They were discussing it on Coast To Coast AM
    last night, and I recognized the name.

    Now...if I can just remember our guide's name...

    Tom Valone?

    I'm looking at the pictures on Google images
    and I'm thinking, "'s not the guy I



    P.S.: You can go to and put in
    these coordinates:

    * 34°17'39.29"N
    * 116°24'13.51"W

    That'll get you a satellite image (after you select
    "Satellite" of course) of the Integratron.

    Then you can "back away from it" and see the
    surrounding area.

    There's a complete article on WikiPedia:

  24. Yeah I've been to the Integratron. It's pretty cool.

  25. Since I see the Integratron is just off #247,
    I guess my "corrected" recollection is a little
    more on the accurate side.

    But I still think we came out of Wilsona Gardens
    to go see the bunker and stuff.

    We must have gone by the Integratron on the way
    out to the other locales, because we did stop by


    P.S.: Maybe it was Tom Valone...white hair, and
    face a little more "full"...maybe....

    This guy looked a little more "movie star" than
    the pictures I see on Google. At least that's
    how I remember him.

    And while I know the name "Tom Valone," that
    just doesn't ring any bells, like when I heard
    the Coast guys mention the Integratron.

    I'll think of it eventually....



Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.