Thursday, November 13, 2014

The Science of "Interstellar" isn't Science at All

The new SciFi film Interstellar, brought to you by the Nolan brothers Christopher and Jonathon, who also brought you the "Dark Night" Batman movies, is an ambitious attempt to tell a "big" science fiction story in the mold of 2001, but from a much more human perspective. While a beautiful and emotional work of art, the film relies on a number of conventions of modern mainstream physics and cosmology to tell its story. A great deal has been made of the "science" contributions of physicist Kip Thorne to the movie (he even wrote a book about it), with praise from the media about how Interstellar sticks to "real" science and is therefore a more accurate depiction of space exploration than say, Star Trek or Star Wars.

There's only one problem with that take on the film: It isn't true.

"The Lid": A Dozen Facts Debunking Global Warming Obama Can't...

"The Lid": A Dozen Facts Debunking Global Warming Obama Can't...: The news was announced early Wednesday November 12, a pseudo climate agreement between the U.S. and China. Under the deal, the Unit...

Thursday, November 6, 2014

A Valve Mechanism on Mars -- Or How "Aliens Caused Global Warming."

Recently, a new video surfaced showing what appears to be one of the clearest examples of a mechanical implement on Mars. A set of images from the microscopic camera on the rover Opportunity, which landed on Mars in 2004 and is still operating 10 years later, show an object that is quite clearly a fossilized valve mechanism of some kind.


Source Image:

In fact, it looks exactly like a common water shut-off valve, the kind which might be found in any house hold on Earth. So what's it doing on Mars?

Apparently, pretty much the same thing it would have done on Earth.

Original NASA source image

Although the image was taken with the microscopic imager camera, which can resolve objects as small as 0.1mm across, this shut off valve is significantly larger than that, probably a couple of inches long. NASA critics, just as they did with the Martian figurine a few years ago, will probably argue that this is too small to be what it clearly is; a fossilized valve mechanism. But that argument is as invalid here as it was then.
The Martian Figurine (L) and an Egyptian statue of the Pharaoh Khufu, to scale.

The truth is, size is not relevant in determining the artificiality of a given object on Mars. As our own development of nano-technology grows, such arguments (excuses) get lamer and lamer. The truth is, a mechanical object is a mechanical object, regardless of scale. And this is unquestionably a mechanical object, as you can see from the close-up.
A side-by side comparison is also useful in this case.
Side-by-side with a terrestrial water shut off valve

It also bears more than a passing resemblance to other mechanical objects on Mars, and even to well known Earth artifacts like the Antikythera mechanism.


And it's not as if this fossilized valve is in any way unique. In doing research for my books Ancient Aliens on Mars and Ancient Aliens on Mars II, I found dozens of similar examples to include in those books. Discovered by numerous researchers who spend a lot of time looking at the rover images, the truth is that this new discovery is just one of hundreds of mechanical implements that have been found on Mars by the rovers.

What I've found is that when making these comparisons, the object most probably is exactly what it looks like, in this case a small flow valve of some kind. It appears to have been buried and fossilized long ago, but there is no doubt it is of mechanical origin.

NASA's arguments against these objects being artifacts from a ruined civilization on Mars basically come down to "it doesn't look like that," (see the Face on Mars) or "it isn't what it looks like, no matter how much it looks like (fill in the blank)." Of course, besides the discredited "size" argument, they never provide any kind of example or rational reason as to why it cannot be what it obviously appears to be. All they can do is go back to what I like to call the "Jedi mind trick defense."

"These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along."


Unfortunately, "these aren't the droids you're looking for" isn't a scientific argument, or even science. It's just a political debating point that lacks any kind of scientific validity. The simple Truth is that the only scientifically neutral position on Mars is that it is just as likely that there was a highly advanced civilization on Mars as that there wasn't. The fact that there is a "consensus" against the idea within the NASA funded planetary science community means nothing. What matters is the evidence, and that we have in ever increasing abundance. As author Michael Crichton pointed out so eloquently in an address given at Caltech entitled "Aliens Caused Global Warming": "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."
So as a veritable army of independent, sharp-eyed researchers continues to scour the images being returned from Mars, the odds are that we will continue to find new evidence that a vast and highly advanced civilization once flourished there. If our opponents truly cared about science, they would move on from the currently unprovable but increasingly unlikely position that it didn't exist to studying what in fact happened to it, as that question has far more critical implications to our own survival.
And whatever destroyed that civilization on Mars, I'm betting big bucks that it wasn't Global Warming.

My Ancient Aliens buddy Jason Martell has suggested this could be a Rock Abrasion Tool (RAT) mark left over from Opportunity drilling on the rock. I initially considered this but dismissed it for several reasons, although I should have probably brought it up in my initial post.
The RAT is a circular saw that has been used hundreds of times on rocks (and fossils) on Mars since the twin rovers landed in 2004. It leaves a very distinctive circular cut on rocks characterized by a powdery residue around the edges and occasionally a second concentric circle inside the wider circle. It does not, under any circumstances, leave a cut with 4 equally spaced "spokes" inside the circular cut, which is what we see on the valve feature. Typical RAT cuts are seen below.
In addition, as is plainly obvious from the images presented, the RAT leaves not only the powdery residue, but a clearly recessed cut on the rock. The circular portion of the "valve wheel" feature is clearly not recessed, but actually sticking slightly out of the surrounding rock.

Just like we'd expect from a fossilized mechanical implement.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Did Apollo 12 Conduct a Secret "Standup EVA?"

Yes, they did. But not for the reasons the narrator believes. This is an excellently researched piece on NASA's deceptions. The truth is, they were looking for something, and it wasn't "digital noise"...

Monday, September 8, 2014

Refacing the Face on Mars - NOT

For some reason last week, Phil "Dr. Phil" Plait, that grotesque little toad of a man, decided to bring up the Face on Mars in his blog on As we all know, Slate is popular destination for political liberals, who love it for it's dysentery-like stream of attacks on anyone who believes in God or actually seeks the truth, as opposed to groveling at the altar of scientific materialism.

I'm not clear exactly why Plait chose to attack the Face again. Maybe it's because he ran out of things to lie to his readers about (like man-made Global Warming), or maybe it's just because my Mars books are selling too well....

In any event, the end result of his latest bit of tripe on the subject will not be to discourage anyone from looking into the Face or the mysteries of Mars in general, but rather to reinforce just how unscientific and weak the case against the Face really is. At this point, after almost 35 years of debate, their only argument comes down to one incredibly feeble entreaty: "It's NOT a Face."

Or, as I put in my recent tome, Ancient Aliens on Mars:

"It’s not a Face, in spite of the fact it rests on a bi-laterally symmetrical platform, it has two aligned eye sockets, the tip of the nose is the tallest point on the structure, there are two clearly defined nostrils in the nose, the west eye socket is shaped like a human eye including a tear duct, there is a spherical pupil in the eye, there are geometric, cell-like structures around the eye, the two halves of the Face make up two distinct visages when mirrored, one human, one feline, it is placed nearby a series of pyramidal mountains which have rectilinear cells visible in their interiors at high-resolution, it is in close proximity to an isolated pentagonal “mountain” which is bi-laterally symmetrical about two different axes, it has anomalous reflective properties under pre-dawn conditions, it is surrounded by a series of tetrahedral mounds which are placed according to tetrahedral geometry and in high-resolution it displays features identical to ruined artificial structures here on Earth…”

Well, I could literally go on and on. But you get the point. Their argument is really weak.
Whether you look at the Face from far away, like the early Viking images, or in ultra-close-up, as in the MRO image, you still see one thing clearly— someone built it. It is not an example of the mythical “pareidolia” that the NASA sycophants are always asserting. It is a rather an elegant and enduring example of something far more: Ancient Alien extraterrestrial monumental architecture."

Of course, contrary to what Plait states in his article and what the dingbat narrator claims in an accompanying video, the Face is also not dependent on "low resolution images" to appear Face-like or artificial. High resolution images show the Face is covered in artificial features, including one area that is an exact visual match for a collapsed sports arena...

Collapsed area on the Face on Mars compared with a sports arena with a collapsed roof.

Nor do they ever address the fact that the Face is far from an isolated object on Mars. There are simply so many obviously artificial structures on Mars besides the Face that you can't even cover it in one book. I had to write two, and I could easily write many more if I were so inclined.

Chinese Pyramid and a pyramid in Elysium on Mars

The D&M Pyramid on Mars, just over the hill from the Face.

But no matter how many examples of correct predictions and structural components we find on the Face, the debunkers will never back down from their simple denials, which are not based on data or logic but rather their pre-conceived political stances. There simply is no scientific basis for their stance. It's just an opinion.

And we all know what opinions are like, don't we?


None of this should really come as a surprise to anybody who knows anything about Plait or his tactics. He's a well established, inveterate liar who never argues science, logic or facts, but rather prefers to use the time honored debunking techniques of character assassination and personal attack. In my new book Ancient Aliens on Mars II, I cover how he deliberately lied to his readers about the THEMIS thermal infrared images of Cydonia, and he has been caught flat out lying about Global Warming by climate scientists on several occasions.

Image artifacts? Nope.

I will leave it readers to consider my arguments and the arguments of the long standing independent Mars research community. I'd encourage you to weigh them against Plait's counter arguments, but the simple reality is that Plait doesn't present any factual counter arguments at all. All he does is deceive his readers and attack those who disagree with him. He never actually takes any kind of scientific stance on any aspect of the Mars debate. Yet he calls himself a scientist.

At least he's not a comedian, which is something of an upgrade over the usual suspects who attack those that do real planetary or climate science.

Plait's post
Really Bad Astronomy
Phil Plait Lying About Ice Today
Plait's article making false claims about THEMIS thermal infrared images

Monday, September 1, 2014

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

"Cell Like" Structure Found in Martian Meteorite - Scientists Then Attack Their Own Findings

An ovoid, "cell-like" structure has been found in a Martian meteorite that has been studied since 1911. The Nakhla 1911 Mars Meteorite was found in Egypt in -- you guessed it -- 1911, but a new study using electron microscopy, X-Rays and other techniques has shown that the cell looks pretty much exactly like a eukaryote, a complex form of microbial life until now only found on Earth. Although the scientists who made the discovery are certain it is not the result of terrestrial contamination, they were also quick to attack their own findings.

"Despite the extremely biomorphic overall shape of the ovoid, it is highly unlikely that it itself was an organism," the lead author of the paper said. Of course, he doesn't really say why it's "highly unlikely," that it was once alive, except that if did say that, he knows his work and reputation would be assaulted and possibly destroyed in a inquisition-like process NASA likes to call "peer-review."

So after properly flagellating himself for simply pointing out that it looks exactly like a complex, once living organism, Dr. Elias Chatzitheodoridis then goes on to point out all the other details that support that conclusion:

"It could have been formed directly by micro-organisms, or it could trap organic material that came from elsewhere," Chatzitheodoridis said in an email. "That the ovoid is hollow means that there is enough space to accommodate colonies of microorganisms."

He goes on to say that he'd feel better about the whole thing if there were more than one of them, which would mean that the meteorite contained a "colony" of microbial life, but that would require cutting up Nakhla 1911 to look for them. I say let's start slicing, but of course since it's "highly unlikely" that this is really a eukaryotic fossil, NASA and NASA funded scientists will do nothing of the kind.

This all serves as a lesson in the mindset of the scientific materialist establishment. Having found compelling evidence of life on Mars (for at least the 4th time), rather than dig further into the mystery, the discoverer is forced to make silly statements that its probably "abiotic" in origin and beg fro his colleagues to make him look the fool. And these are the people we look to in hopes of expanding the boundaries of our knowledge?

Just cut the thing up already...

Sunday, July 27, 2014

A Quick Listing of Things my Critics Have Lied/Been Wrong About (By no Means Complete)

This is just a partial list of the lies and complete distortions my critics have put out about me. Some of them are long and very technical, but so are their false claims about me, my co-author and sources. As you will see, I never said that orbital eccentricity was measured from the Earth, that centrifugal force makes you heavier, or for that matter any of the other false and stupid things these obsessed people say I did. I have stopped responding to these people because they have used multiple false identities to attack and me, sexually harassed my female friends and threatened me with physical violence. Enough is enough.

Consider this just a quick reference to the innumerable claims they have made. I could easily rebut all of their claims, but I would have no time to work on my own projects and I will spend no further energy refuting them.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Did Water or Lava Form Valles Marineris?
Ancient Aliens on Mars II
A new research paper by Giovanni Leone of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology published in the Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, argues that Mars' vast canyons and outflow channels were formed by volcanism, not water. This is crucial to the debate about whether life on Mars ever existed (it did) or even exists now (it does) because if canyons like Valles Marineris were formed by lava, there is much less water to work with in Mars' distant past, making life less likely.

Valles Marineris on Mars

However, there are several flaws with the paper, primarily that it is extremely difficult to distinguish between igneous (volcanic) and sedimentary (usually water formed) rocks from orbit. It also depends on the existence of a series of invisible ancient volcanos on the Tharsis rise for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

There really are only two viable scenarios for the existence of Valles Marineris, Graham Hancock's "Astra" scenario, in which a massive asteroid got inside Mars' Roche Limit and blasted the planet in the location of the Hellas Basin, and the Mars Tidal Model authored by Richard C. Hoagland and myself.
The "Astra" concept.

In the "Astra" scenario, a massive asteroid or planetoid wanders inside the Roche Limit of Mars and blasts the planet in the Hellas basin, ripping through the guts of Mars. The impact tears a split in the side of the planet (Valles Marineris) and pushes out the massive Tharsis bulge on the other side. In this scenario, Valles Marineris would be mostly lava, because the rip in the side of the planet would allow volcanic lava and magma from deep inside the planet to bubble upward and then cool. 
In the Mars Tidal Model however, Valles Marineris is a massive tidal bore, formed when the planet had vast liquid oceans on the Tharsis and Arabia bulges 180 degrees apart on the surface on Mars. With Mars imprisoned in a tidally-locked orbital relationship with a Super Earth named Maldek or "Planet V," the water flowed back and forth between the two oceans for eons and carved out the deep scar of Valles Marineris.
Either way, the new paper is not conclusive to either argument. The ultimate test will be NASA ever lands a probe/rover in Valles Marineris and tests for sodium in the soil. The presence of salt would conclusively prove that Valles Marineris was formed by a salt water flow, rather than the "Astra" impact. But who knows how long it will be (if ever) before such a landing is even attempted, much less made. Time will, as always, tell.
Join me at Contact in the Desert August 8-11 to discuss this!