Friday, April 23, 2021


 Space is back in the news... or is it? P.T. sent along the following photographs from January of last year taken by NASA's Mars probe, and at first glance, you're looking at a bunch of rocks, lots and lots of them, and notably, there was no lamestream propatainment media coverage of the photo:

In fact, when one looks at this picture, one wonders why NASA would take a picture of a bunch of rocks. Before we get around to answering that question, there is one thing that struck me right out of the gate about this picture, and that is the colours in it. You'll note that gone are the days when any picture of Mars had to be heavily filtered through a red filter. Here the sky is a pale blue (as one might reasonably expect with Mars' thin atmosphere) and the ground is anything but unending red; it's pale brown, with brown and gray rocks scattered around.

But now, if the reader clicks on the "snapshots" button at the lower left of the picture, all sorts of stuff pops out. As you scroll through the "snapshots", all sorts of "regularities" begin to show up: square and rectangular indentations, holes and "crosshatching" in neat regular intervals, even, in the fifteenth snapshot, a "something" that appears to be peering out toward the camera, which "something" even appears to have its "left limb" hung over a rock; in the seventeenth "snapshot" what looks rather like a statue of a man with a crown on his head(!); rubble and debris again with odd rectilinearity, something that looks like a skeleton (or a machine part); another "something" that looks a bit like the head of a dog, or fox, or wolf, or "something."

And, in the sixth snapshot, even a "something" that looks a bit like a swastika, stamped or carved in raised relief on yet another "something."

There are three basic ways to interpret all of this: (1) all those "somethings" are not there, and have been cleverly photoshopped into the picture, and what we're looking at is fake. In that case, we can all have a good chuckle at my (and P.T.'s) expense, and "move on, nothing to see here folks."

Then there's possibility number (2): what we're all seeing as we scroll through the "snapshot" enlargements is a case of run-away pareidolia, that phenomenon by which we humans imagine we're seeing faces or other familiar forms in rocks, pancakes, clouds, and so on. The trouble is, in this case, I'll wager that most of you are seeing the same things I'm seeing, and that the compiler of the "snapshots" also saw (which is why they were highlighted to begin with). What we're seeing is a lot of "pareidolia" concentrated in one place, over and over again.

Which brings us to possibility number (3): what we're seeing is really there, and we're looking less at a "bunch of rocks" and more at a field of debris, and hence, we have a reason for why NASA might be interested in snapping a photo of the place.

I'm reminder of what alternative researcher Graham Hancock said about Mars: we're looking at "a murder victim," meaning the planet itself...

See you on the flip side...


No comments: