One cannot help but being inspired by the prospect of packing for Mars. Though I have not been paying attention to anything more than occasional routine announcements gleaned here and there about this fantastical mission, my memory does preserve NASA’s original offer of a one way trip to Mars for anyone with enough gusto to stump up the $10 million price tag. Maybe that proposal has changed many times over the marketing course, but I am drawn to the banality of the original offer. Humans, in general, are ultra-safe, dare I say pathologically cowardly creatures, so which fools would have the faith to trust NASA and the reckless stupidity to pay vast sums of money for the chance of almost guaranteed misfortune? Come on now, a one way trip to the unknown organised by the greatest conjurers known to man! I would feel safer at a dinner party hosted by serial cannibals.
Be it NASA has a massive propaganda machine, lovingly aided and abetted by all established Media cartels that cast the organisation as an immaculate, error free, “fun for the people” agency, cutting edge on space science and everything alien, outside the bubble the picture is far less rosy. Indeed, dissenters have wittily reworked the NASA acronym as Never a Straight Answer in response to obvious duplicity, the organisation’s invariably deceptive agendas and woeful double standards. In reflective light, I made the case that “Mars” rover Curiosity is one such evidence of mischief in a prior article and feel the content is so important; its partial duplication here is more than justified. There’s a little more to it than that, of course. People struggle reading oversized articles and the amount of time required to edit such marathons makes sure ample detail is missed, so I’ve added a lot here and given those with busy schedules the chance to read the whole thing.
Presuming the majority of honest critical thinkers have sufficient confidence to claim NASA never landed on the moon and, perhaps, did not even venture beyond Earth’s atmosphere; my heart goes out to those silly, foolhardy Mars adventurers. I realise every one signing on for this trip of a lifetime is fully cognisant, but wonder whether we, the onlookers, are not experiencing evidence of glaring symptoms showing a “new” yet to be categorised mental illness. Has not the World Health Organisation claimed Ebola virus will cause head shrinkage or microcephaly? Is this the outcome? Perhaps our brave travellers didn’t take their shots? Casting no aspersions here, I am just throwing it out there and perhaps being a little facetious at the same time. Indeed, being one of those critical thinkers’ that finds all evidence offered in support of the moon visits proves the reverse, for me, to trust NASA with a ten foot pole would be akin to bargaining the devil after he’d been evicted by his landlord, lost at the races and badly stubbed his big toe on the same day. Not a pretty sight.
Years ago, when I allowed myself to occasionally watch TV, I saw a half hour show supporting NASA in response to rabid critics of the moon landings. Predictably, the program ignored everything they could not answer (because there was no answer) and the rest was a master class of misdirection or false association. Even so my flatmate at the time agreed with every point, hook, line and sinker. That alone showed me there are gullible people out there with preconceptions so lacking in curiosity, inspection of the detail is rendered unfathomable. Perhaps, in individual cases, academic laziness plays a part. Thinking, doing the maths, investigating unbiasedly and thoroughly enough to find the heart of the debate are prerequisites for due diligence. For those with intellectual ambition, “validating excuses” don’t cut it.
Sadly, I fear complacent, slothful naysayers probably make the majority of those we generally assemble to call wider society. Thus, NASA knew there would be fools aplenty; most likely enough to justify the campaign (even with a $10 million price tag a head). The Medias have done a sterling job at elevating their profile. Even so, I am personally surprised anyone with the capability of amassing $10 million hasn’t learnt anything. To which end, I question why all attendees wouldn’t be preselected by NASA at no personal cost, perhaps even each paid off handsomely for individual contributions geared to making the bogus journey seem real for the “punters” (TV hogs). My prior article used the word “heist”. Whether “bogus” or “heist” is selected, anything associated with our presence in space should be questioned deeply. Whilst illogically incomplete, “flat Earth theory” does posit some good questions. Scientific anomalies have placed difficult answers pertaining to the authenticity of the International Space Station (ISS), for instance. In my other article I also suggested NASA plays a double game. Well removed from the popular public eye, their lesser known associates regularly present mind blowing gems of authenticity.
The article that has provided the basis for this entry was my largest web writing project of all time to date. One of the reasons I have partially duplicated content here was “Mars, Gods and Martian Mercenaries” is simply too long to read [constructively] in one sitting in my opinion, With this in mind, I made the conscious decision to reproduce sections as basis for a number of pieces here, expanding on original content where necessary. From the original “mighty tome”, there are possibly going to be around three section reproductions in total. Running parallel I have a very different writing project in progress, provisionally titled “Coming Clean on Cancer”. It will reveal the singular root cause of all cancers, but more importantly, explaining why this is so. Triggers and cures will be equally rationally evaluated and explained within context.
A “Packing for Mars” sequel to this entry will give some unknown detail on an ancient history of the planet stretching back a hundred million years. Focus is on two noteworthy vaguely related civilisations separated by tens of millions of years. Naturally, most, if not all, of the Information provided is going to be very much down to personal faith but also will be verifiable for those with access to “the record” (called by different names but “Akashic” will do as an example even though it is the part representing light frequencies or heavenly states). At this stage I very much doubt any proposed trip to Mars is authentic, though who knows what additional research might turn up. According to the record of ancient Atlantis (originally on Mars), a large asteroid struck which saw 90% of the surface atmosphere lost. A holographic blister field was erected in the nick of time. Obviously I will example the true dynamics of gravity (another “conspiracy” exposed by flat Earth theory) to scientifically explain how that happened. It does pose some tricky questions as to what those journeying might find at their target location. Would they be allowed to land, or is there something in place to protect the lost Atlantis legacy? Rumours have it Buzz Aldrin and the other mythical moon rocketeers were warned off by some very nasty looking entities half way.
Returning to the bogus journey theme, I make no secret of my opinion that NASA sourced evidence of moon cine footage and all photo stills generated by Mars rover were (or are currently) created on Earth. It was an opinion that nested a foothold in a prior article at my other WordPress site. There I postulated a possibility for one of the “set” locations might be Antarctica because it is barren enough to suit the topography. However, sane consideration of the place as plausible is dubiously doubtful. Further research has yielded no ice free positions of worthy comparison and the notion that mundane scientists have inadvertently accessed unencumbered inner realms that were once the dazzling grounds of the legendary Rainbow City would be the best kept secret of all time, if true. Moreover, it is rather cold for reptiles (given the number of possibly live ophidian pictorial irregularities).
Photographic resolutions of stills created by the Mars rover are poor enough to ensure all key details remain shrouded in mystery but good enough to generate endless “possibility” questions. Several desert dwelling (Earth) creatures, including reptiles and ground squirrels, have been snapped by the propaganda machine and this most favours a local Rocky Mountains reference point. Others may select any of the government restricted areas at the Nevada desert, one the occasional home to an alien race colloquially known as the “Tall Whites” according to Charles Hall. Other worldly sources tell me these are version eight human, created around thirty thousand years ago as our “advanced model”. In that capacity they may act as de facto physical controllers of Earth, “go-betweens” for dimensionally adrift reptilian overlords. With regards to clandestine photo shoots, I have considered infamous Area 51 too obvious, given the potential for voyeuristic eavesdroppers with long range surveillance equipment adequate enough for spying purposes.
Though I haven’t been paying a great amount of attention to what’s been happening in the public domain, for my limited research, other than that “mysterious” doughnut shaped “perambulating” rock, “Mars” rover has unearthed no alien artefacts at all. Wilful imaginations have inspired numerous commentaries on random boulder shapes that might signify something (but actually don’t). The trend was started by Barak Obama’s school chum, lawyer, Andrew Basiago, whose childish “book” conjectured numerous invalid fossilised hybrids of “household creatures” implausibly strewn here and there. What he wrote isn’t a far stretch from current stylised akin sentiment and I did feature a slide of a Mars shoe “anomaly” in a past article hoping to prompt “comments”.
Depicted was a rock (originally presented as evidence by a British national newspaper, “The Daily Express”) that straightforwardly looked like a shoe and the reason it made its mass Media “scoop” is the corporate press is being used to promulgate NASA’s indirect propaganda campaign. Richard C Hoagland (an ex. NASA departmental director) spent years “priming opinions” prior to the “launch”; a fantasy that expanded as a theoretical quest to discover and bust into a giant (ninety miles squared) “encased city” whose Ali Baba style treasures would surely put the Atlanteans to shame. But, of course, as with all things fantasy, there was no actual plan for the rover to visit on its slow weary wind towards its pointless unforeseen target destination. Hoagland did try and make a point out of pointlessness but, I, personally, failed to see it. Like the numerous pyramids, that “mountain” face picked up in the 1970’s or those strange “grooved” canals, Hoagland’s enticing “encased city” was guaranteed off limits as NASA was only interested in reviewing crap.
Having the ability to read energy signatures gives me a distinct advantage over other would be investigators that look at matters such as these. Everything that lives generates auras comprising layered signals that collectively consolidate all active and historic associated genetic data. These threads connect to timelines and, therefore, via supplementary routes it is possible to drill down into any aspect of any one of these pristine metaphysical “records”. If a rock had once lived and was the fossilised evidence of a life form its auric memory is preserved eternally. There are some limiters, of course.
One such is we do not have the technique or technical knowhow to upload a mind’s product to a designated location whereby it might be inspected and “verified” by third parties. Neither do we have the ability to network minds as fourth dimensional “reptilians” can. Thus, external records housed in auric fields are currently locked and exclusively subject to the integrity of those that claim they have the ability to discern them. Any feedback from these self-proclaimed savants would be an undeniable venture of faith for less attuned listeners, although aspects of that faith might afford opportunities to put feedback “to the test”. Discoveries are likely to be partially verifiable even by the spiritually deaf, at the very least.
Residue information from auric fields is not limited to that which is or was living. However, the connections and style of inanimate originated records are very different to ones stored as organic signatures even though, thinking practically; it is likely the whole thing is an aspect of quantum residual (or light). My book, “The Beauty of Existence Decoded” exposes the largely overlooked importance of the quantum layer as a super-facilitator (exchange). Anyway, suffice to say, inanimate objects can give vital clues about things that lived, clues that can be cross referenced and double checked against known (or presumed known) data. For instance, any [manual] work done on a rock will also detail the genetic path (of the craftsman/labourer) by its timeless energy signature. Even a bird that may have inadvertently sat on the same stone will be captured by a common signature.
From this anyone with ability to read signals can instantly interpret any object’s history and beyond. I went through the verification analysis of the sensational “shoe on Mars” to find only a bulk standard ordinary rock which happened to look like footwear in its unfavourable lighting conditions. Not having witnessed a “beyond a shadow of a doubt” bona fide Mars originated auric field, it would be implausible to test the shoe rock’s location that way as frequencies might be almost identical to ones’ defining Earth localities and vice versa. Even if it did “read” as being Martian, how could one be entirely sure that it had not been presented as a gift by an alien dignitary stationed here, broken off a comet or travelled to Earth by some unknown spurious means?
Unlike NASA, I see no point in sifting through mountains of crap knowing there is nothing [of value] to be seen. So I won’t labour the message. This (the Mars heist) is the best evidence I find that confirms fortuitous agency comparison against the similar sounding Hebrew word “Nasa” (to deceive) is not merely coincidental. For those not moved by my earlier indirect propaganda accusation I say to you, why did mainstream television “innocently” select that controversial slide showing a distinctive and “shocking” crouching “reptilian” as the preview to the rover’s launch without plausible follow up? It was because they wanted to stoke fertile imaginations to stimulate open but never resolving gossip about “aliens”. Jon Rappoport calls the practice “limited hangout”, by the way.
In this particular case, depending on what society is required to believe (by those that attempt to control by Media) would determine whether debunking campaigns against all those tired stage props (including the crouching alien) are launched or not. With the exception of a few accidentally shaped rocks, I believe just about every single intriguing item uncovered was either put in place by the heisters or evidence of operational malfunction. Those occasional possible glitches, such as the doughnut shaped rock, merely add to the “intrigue” as millions of synchronised sceptics’ chimes attempt to explain the anomalies away. However, there is a glaringly obvious operational flaw that exposes how the Mars program has been staged and, upon explicit analysis; the many parts of this ruse are slightly more complex than on “face value”.
That said, often concentrating on “the basics” will yield obvious rewards. Would not any serious investigator first question whether years’ worth of “Mars” footage could have been pre-shot to iron out or avoid unnecessary problems/complications in advance? It is clear that was how NASA handled the “moon” operations. Why, oh why, would a cautious image-centric marketing program with “everything to lose” take the unprecedented risk of channelling a “live” Earth feed “via Mars”? We can see from the all too numerous anomalies that potential mistakes have been made. The “team” has been sloppy in places. Obvious flaws with operational strategy can be found in two basic accounts. First and foremost, those erratic extended camera shutdowns/malfunctions undeniably confirm mitigated censorship.
The outcome has seen the apparently spontaneous outrage from numerous salacious gossip mongering internet TV channels who weigh into the (fictitious) debate as though they are “authorities”. Logically, “a gazillion” possible conspiracies behind the shutdowns are the consequence and many have been asserted. None, thus far, given the masquerading objective, are close to being reasonably correct. Supporting my opinions, it seems all or the vast majority of internet TV commentators are part and parcel of NASA’s indirect propaganda campaign. They are the “plan B”. For instance, I have yet to find one that doesn’t present as though he assumes Mars footage is being filmed “on Mars”, which, I have outlined, blatantly isn’t true. Mars rover Curiosity is definitely filming Earth.
The reason the rover has to be “live” impacts the second flaw in calculated operational planning. Why the rover’s roaming camera has been periodically shut down and switched off at a moment’s notice is it travels in tandem. Accompanying the Curiosity’s every beat is some sort of overhead satellite. This is where it starts to become really intriguing. Not only is the satellite feeding genuine Mars surface footage back to Earth, but it’s also live and the perspective has never been seen before “as presented”. Could that be a big old fraud too? It is unlikely because, if I understand details correctly, the satellite took the Curiosity rover to Mars. From memory, there was a gap between the satellite dropping the rover off on Mars and the surveillance machine firing up its all seeing eye. In other words, we are not entirely sure whether it was the Curiosity that was dropped off on Mars or, God forbid, NASA is running dual operations: one for the “scientists“ (or perhaps even the elites) and another simply geared to confounding the plebs.
Anyway, either way, there is no verifiable correlation between the overhead and the surface image perspectives. Even so, one interesting thing I do note is the Marian terrain (was it presumed to be real) happens to be deep green as presented by the overhead camera. In light of the way our eyes process colour, I have always maintained that if Mars seemed “red” in the distance, it would actually appear dark green when viewed close up. This leads me to believe the overhead photography hasn’t been embellished, as the logical move in pandering to popular ignorance would be to present Mars as a uniformly visually “red planet” (I suspect the Earth surface footage is run through filters to create the correlating ruddy effect). Another possibility is the green was too dark to alter sufficiently; too much work for such an insignificant payoff. We won’t go into the inexplicable reasons justifying why the Mars overhead satellite cannot drill down to present almost as much detail as the rover. Has NASA been triumphantly defeated by the Roman God of War?
In a nutshell, what actually seems to be going on here is this. Technicians (that are driving it) must constantly guide the rover on the turn of a penny because Mars terrain is unknown until “team NASA” receives more vague information from its overhead satellite. Rover drivers then have to roughly “map” the Earth terrain route as something that could plausibly be representative of the overhead footage in real time. No mean task! Naturally, fairly ambiguous, nondescript terrain was selected for the Earth leg as too many large landmarks might give away the ruse. Even vague very distinct topology (as seen from above) would be impossible to configure without lengthy strategic planning. Therefore camera “malfunctions” have pretty much been the only way to coordinate a response to those sections of overhead that by no stretch of the imagination could be matched against correlating terrains.
In addition endless phantom internet commentaries have admirably assisted the deception program by adding to the confusion, transforming the “ambiguous” into intrigue. My selected YouTube presentation above gives a classic example of hysteria over nothing. In this one an arguably naïve announcer does manage to blurt out something about the ground not matching the overhead at precise point when the last camera glitch happened. Though the penny predictably doesn’t drop in the right way in the presentation, it was conclusively obvious that NASA could not recreate Mars on Earth for that part of the journey.
“Curiosity” has found something that surely conclusively confirms its hoax status. A magnificent statue, the unmistakable bust of a “humanoid prince” (as is supposed) was discovered languishing in, otherwise nondescript, wasteland. Surrounded by nothing other than dusty coarse rocks was a mirage that might have been the ironic splitting image of outgoing President Obama if that was plausible. Of all contradictions! But, then again, did not Ayn Rand say “check your premises”? Therefore, if of all the people on Earth to be immortalised by that awful, cheesy NASA spoof paraded as “science” is Obama, then its only premise would be a giant fraud deliberately staged to lampoon consumer reasoning. Who better to display than the great spinner of cheese and the one that had “final say” on authorisation of Curiosity’s deceitful, bogus mission?
That history goes back further. Before, little Barak Obama and Andrew Basiago, when they were schoolchildren hand in hand, had reputedly been absconded to Mars via Hawaiian Stargate under instruction of code-named “Project Pegasus” (a CIA operation, no less). So, as the “pioneer” of Mars intrigue, perhaps he believes he has earned the right to phony privilege.
Information on Project Pegasus is the sum of a shadowy press mythology alongside an unconvincing, “atrociously written” book by “teamer” Basiago. I don’t recall ever seeing the mainstream running with any feeds (and “Google” comes up blank) on this, even Russian ones. If spurious reports are to be believed, the children were drafted as slaves on consignment to begin work at a reptilian run colony located at their overgrown inner sanctum. The atmosphere was so different to Earth’s it was potentially fatally noxious, but children were said to be able to adapt better. Consistent with this information, rumour had it that over a hundred thousand adults had succumbed in only a very few years after they were drafted. Even allowing for ad lib sensationalism and deliberate misinformation, I suspect there is more to this story than meets the eye, given repulsive Dick Cheney’s alleged honorary title “Mars Tsar”, so perhaps I will focus on the detail, sift for pertinence and gradually uncover loose truths one rainy day in the future.
My recent invite to a dinner occasion afforded me the opportunity to test my version of cosmic physics out on supposedly open minds. Every point I made was resisted by a wall of dissenting conventions. Those I was against, and it became a fortuitous “war”, could not detach themselves from ingrained superstitions no matter how plausible counter-objections were. I was, when considering how individuals form their beliefs, up against an army of anonymous information spinners over-simplifications’ and generalities’ vocalised as proverbial, popular conventions. “Why can’t you just go with the flow?” I was told, abruptly. But I did not go with the flow and after innumerable visual analogies; the group eventually conceded I might be right. They could not articulate conventions beyond their hollow beliefs’ status so; ultimately, none could back up their convictions. Some could well be equally critical of this article. You critics may argue, “Why didn’t he talk about the latest incidents/anomalies “on Mars”?” “He has seemed to have missed so much out. This essay is a very poor job.”