priligy generico


Magnificent Domelessness

Despite appearances and infrequent updates, I’ve been continuing to work on the new version of this site, a project which, sadly, got derailed for a few weeks for reasons I won’t bother to bore you with at the moment, and which may still take a bit of fiddling before it’s finalised.

In the meantime, I stumbled across a video today at Giant Freakin Robot during a break in working on a journalism project which I felt needed re-posting here. The video, not the journalism project.

Long time visitors to this small, dark Time Out Chair will no doubt recall that one of my biggest irritations with the ridiculous theory of ancient invisible glass domes soaring hugely into space from the lunar surface put forth by certain less than informed individuals, whose names I’ll not bother to mention because they simply annoy me to even type them out any longer, is that they continue to point out, as so-called unequivocal evidence of their absurd notions, certain frames from Apollo mission photography which would appear to show massive crystalline structures…

Unbelievably massive domes just soaring like vast soaring things over the surface of the moon, yet unseen but to the most sagacious inquisitor

…but which, when adjacent frames in the various sequences are seen, more often than not prove to simply be a matter of a staggering inability to recognise the common bright-light photography phenomena called lens flare…

Sadly the enigmatic magic domes do not sparkle in direct sunlight, unlike Edward Cullen

Some people – not you, of course – have questioned the veracity of my contention. And in further defence of my stance, as it’s rather unlikely for me to show you first-hand from the surface of the moon itself precisely what I mean, I offer the video below for the express purpose of directing your esteemed attention – and, yes, I mean both of you – to the first segment, running approximately between the 24-second mark and continuing on through roughly the 55-second mark. This, by the way, is the same video which Giant Freakin Robot linked to from, unfortunately aren’t capable of creating a simple video link or an embed code at all compatible with WordPress, so I’ve embedded the YouTube link in its place. Do you care? Of course not.

However, even with no sun directly visible in frame, the Ebb spacecraft’s forward-facing (or up-sun angle) camera is subjected to a fairly typical display of lens flare which, in several places, mirror exactly the sort of lighting anomalies being emptily paraded about as conclusive proofs of enormous ancient glass domes we can’t see because they are invisible.

You decide…

Ghost of Conspiranoia Past

Though I’ve continued being off the grid for purposes of both struggling through the end of this university term and also for assembling the new home for this blog, which is taking quite some time, I had to take a moment to post this.

When you have a vast store of useless knowledge, as I do, and a long history with all things conspiranoia, you, or at least I, tend to sometimes forget to remember I know something until something else entirely pokes those slumbering memories with a nice pointy stick. Whilst conducting research on the uncomfortable and often-contradictory assimilation of Christianity into indigenous cultures, a number of YouTube videos appeared in and amongst my Google results, including the one at the bottom of this post.

The late William Cooper, tragically shot and killed in November of 2001 after having essentially predicted the events of 9/11 in a radio broadcast in late June of 2001, was a firm believer in and, he claimed, an eyewitness to an alien presence on Earth. Denying that he was a conspiracy theorist, only someone who knew and was compelled to spread the truth, Mr Cooper often wove intricate and fascinating connections between aliens, world governments and, well, generally all the things most conspiracy theorists often weave intricate and fascinating connections between. But he did it with a straightforward simplicity and an honesty which endeared him to many, including myself. None of that outlandish David Icke nonsense about shape-shifting reptilians and their ties to royalty.

As I listened to this upload, it crystallised for me just why I’m so completely sick to death of Richard C Hoagland, founder of The Enterprise Mission, recipient of an Angstrom Medal, former science advisor to CBS News and Walter Cronkite, author of The Monuments of Mars, co-creator of the ‘Pioneer Plaque,’ originator of the ‘Europa Proposal,’ and principal investigator of The Enterprise Mission and his nasty little trained monkey. I’ve posted previously about how some people have noted that Hoagland often shows a propensity for usurping the work of others and either claiming it as his own or insinuating his involvement in the research, when it is clearly not the case, so it came as no surprise when listening to this 1997 programme to hear what very clearly seems to be the foundation of the Hoagland/Bara ‘ancient lunar structures model’ being discussed by Mr Cooper. What was surprising, however, comes at about the 12.52 mark, and you can enjoy that for yourself.

Suffice to say, for now, that William Cooper and others, such as Fred Steckling, discussed these identical concepts ages before Hoagland and Bara had done, and with far more veracity. And if you know anything about William Cooper (and if you don’t, you ought to do), I believe he would have agreed with my assessment that Hoagland and Bara are simply bumbling agents of disinformation…


If the above fails to work…

…just click on this link.



That’ll Do, Pig: Part The First

After unexpectedly spending several weeks having very annoying things completely consume my limited free time, details of which are currently unimportant,  I finally managed to get back to poking about the interwebs for new and interesting things, and to do a bit of catching up with what’s been happening in the world. Sadly, or perhaps thankfully it would seem, I’d missed out on some interesting virtual badinage over a very silly image, theoretically taken during the Apollo 11 mission, of what is purported to be something of a giant ziggurat on the surface of the moon…


This has been loosely defined as an ‘enhancement’ of the original image, which you can peruse in further and much larger detail at your leisure here. For the moment, however, you may be inclined towards browsing the considerably smaller and more convenient version below:


As is no doubt abundantly and immediately clear, even from the scaled-down image, this so-called ziggurat is simply a vast and staggering structure which dominates the lunar landscape like some vast dominating thing. Or rather it would do once the full image has been rotated clockwise about 80° or so, distorted a bit, and then selectively cropped and manipulated in the photo editor of one’s choice.  Then it would be quite dominating indeed.

idiotic-magic-castle-detailI call the image silly because, A) it is – silly, I mean – and, B) my initial reaction to it was, ‘Oh. Well that’s a bad fake.’

Seriously. Look at those crap shadows on the edge of the ‘wall.’ No other shadows like that exist elsewhere in the image and they stand out in horribly amateurish contrast to the rest of the surroundings. And trying to unsee them or to ignore them is nearly as impossible as attempting to ignore the face of an actor poorly grafted into an ‘old family photo’ in a film. You know the type I’m talking about: someone – say in a horror film – picks up an ‘old family photo’ and sees the face of a current husband or wife or a kindly old caretaker staring eerily back at them from the distant past. And usually the actor’s face is just so blatantly pasted on the photograph that’s it’s nearly embarrassing to look at, but you try to pretend that it’s all very real because you paid some extortionate fee to sit in the darkened cinema and you don’t want to spoil it.

It’s like that.

idiotic-magic-castle-compareThe other very noteworthy bit of wrongness here is the gradation of the shadow on the left-hand ‘wall,’ which is far more pronounced when the shit version is rotated back to its correct angle and compared against the original. It’s  fairly obvious that someone knows  precious little about correctly rendering shadows under hard, unidirectional key lighting or on which angle they would naturally occur. It’s too bad, really, since there are perfect examples of this very thing only just mere millimetres way if only they’d bothered to notice.

It will, I’m sure, come as little surprise to either of you that this ridiculous image was ‘found’ by Mike Bara and will apparently be one of the central foundations for his most recent fantasy book due out sometime in October. The twisting tale of how this image was bandied about is long, interesting, sometimes very amusing, often frustrating, and heavily detailed. Rather than attempt to recount it all for you, though, I will provide the appropriate links and, should you be at all interested (and I know you are), you can sort it all out for yourselves.

Suffice to say, for now, it’s clear that Mr Mike discovered this ‘compelling’ image at the über-scientific website Call of Duty: Zombies. Yes, that’s right, Call of Duty: Zombies. And if you read through some of the discussion threads in the forum, you will see that it appears the image was important to a role-playing scenario being crafted by several forum users. Their intent seems to have been to have certain game characters teleported to this Magic Moon Castle from deep inside Area 51. The image is credited as being sourced from here and another place neither you nor I can access. And, just an FYI, the image is also found at Hollow Orbs, in case anyone is interested.

Regardless of its actual origin, Mike presumably felt the image was of such great and significant scientific import that, after he had a go at it himself in Photoshop, he sent it almost immediately to Richard C Hoagland, founder of The Enterprise Mission, recipient of an Angstrom Medal, former science advisor to CBS News and Walter Cronkite, author of The Monuments of Mars, co-creator of the ‘Pioneer Plaque,’ originator of the ‘Europa Proposal,’ and principal investigator of The Enterprise Mission so that he could further ‘enhance’ it and, later, submit it for posting on the Coast to Coast AM website. What they did to the image, exactly, is unclear, as their version looks much the same as the original taken from Call of Duty: Zombies.

At this point those appropriate links I mentioned might come in handy. The first I’d heard of this thing dates back to a 21 July post at The Emoluments of Mars, where Expat did his usual brilliant job of poking great loads of holes in everything Hoagland and Bara inexpertly and clumsily attempt to do. It was followed a few days later by this post from 24 July (in which he, Expat, included a link to this video by Dr Stuart Robbins) and then by this one from 25 July. The latter includes references to Mike’s post of the same day explaining the discovery of the ziggurat image.

And then I lost track of everything.

Having only just got back into all of this, it appears that Dr Robbins has been busy posting in some detail on the subject – as seen here, here, and here – and Expat has likewise been diligently following the story – as seen here, here, here, here and, later, here.  Mr Mike, in turn, has been busily protesting and whinging about the ‘haters’ and ‘douchebags’ and the awful ‘homos’ who are just jealous of his success and who don’t realise how important he is and who won’t stop persecuting him over his flawed science and preposterous image enhancements sourced from video game web forums very popular amongst adolescents and creepy thirty-somethings living mole-like in mum’s basement. Because this is really where the cutting edge, hard science is often found, you understand – the kind of hard science around which an entire poor theory may be awkwardly built. Not from NASA or the ESA – because they are liars, we are told – but from Call of Duty: Zombies.

Again, it is not my intention to reiterate the full story, but I do compel you take the time to read it all for yourselves. I would, however, like to add some thoughts of my own regarding the photo because… well… as you can probably well imagine, I cannot simply leave it be. Hilariously, Mr Mike claims, as you will discover when you go back and follow all the threads, that he and Hoagland did what he calls their ‘due diligence on the it’ (because ‘the’ it helps to clarify that it wasn’t just any it) in researching the veracity of this image. He also presents Photoshop histograms as proof of just how ‘the goons at NASA’ manipulated the original image and posted a version for public consumption upon which, apparently, someone quite gleefully ‘went to town.’ That’s Pro-Speak for image tampering.

In a desire to see this for myself, I downloaded both images and, by following along in the very time-honoured tradition of the scientific method, attempted to replicate the results of this experiment for myself. (As a side note, I’d be remiss not to mention that the histograms from my copy of Photoshop are well within the same general dynamic range as those Mike presented, so I’m good with that).  If I’m honest, however, I was actually rather shocked to see there was something tangible enough to replicate being offered. As is so often the case with Hoagland and Bara, they claim anyone can replicate whatever results they’ve purported to have found, and yet they’ve failed miserably at suggesting the precise methods by which this might be done. Though Hoagland is quite fond of such tedious rhetoric as ‘Science is nothing if it isn’t [blank],’ good science – proper science – is, amongst other things, recording and sharing all data for review. Any science textbook – and, yes, even Wikipedia – explains it very simply:

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. [Emphasis added] Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).

So, as I said, I was amazed to find a suggested experiment which was so very easily reproducible. It also amazed me because this idea ran entirely counter to what Mr Mike’s manager stated on Facebook when she lashed out at his naysayers, suggesting:  ‘Just because someone doesn’t understand something he has stated or they don’t agree with a topic or concept of his, it doesn’t mean that he is obligated to explain it to them further.’

Er, yeah, it does, actually. If you expect to be taken at all seriously as a researcher it absolutely means you are obligated to present your full data and methodology for review. Otherwise you lack any and all credibility. And by admitting straight away on your blog that you are ‘no Photoshop expert,’ how would you ever expect not to be questioned on your research or erroneous conclusions?

Anyway, to the histograms…

I will confess here at the outset that I don’t typically have much need for poring over histograms in the sort of Photoshop work I do – or ever have done – so it took a while to put my finger on just what it was in the back of my head telling me something was amiss in Mike’s description of his histograms of the two images. Eventually, though, I realised what it was. Of course that meant going back to some of my first forays into transitioning from film (where the use of histograms is not really an issue) to digital photography – back to about 2008 – to refresh my memory.

To help understand the issue more clearly, it’s probably best to explain – as briefly as possible – that a luminosity histogram is, essentially, a map of an image and all of the pixels making it up.



There are two axes: the X, indicating the dynamic range of the image data, and the Y, indicating the number of pixels in a given range. In the data field area, the left side represents the shadows and darker areas, the centre represents the midtone values, and right represents the highlights and lighter areas. Corresponding to these regions is a graph of 256 gradient values which trick the eye into seeing a smooth, continuous flow of all possible shades between absolute black – given a value of 0 – and absolute white – given a value of 255. This is also true of colour imaging as well, but since we’re concentrating on black and white for the moment, it’s easier not to complicate the issue.

Another thing to note is that ever-so-slightly to the right of the ‘middle grey’ value of 128 is often suggested by photographers as the place where you really want most of the primary image data to live, if at all possible, for best results. This is not true in every case, but the more image data just around or to the right of 128, the better your printed image will be because it has been correctly exposed and contains as much reproducible data (or detail) as possible. It’s also worth mentioning that ‘noise’ in a digital image is often indicated in the left side of the histogram.

Looking at the histogram, for example, of an image I captured ages ago of a place miles away from Grantown-on-Spey I happened to see whilst trying to find the A939 again and desperately trying not to get turned round in a heavily wooded area one fine day in a hired Fiat, you can see there are a good number of light coloured, nearly white pixels – that large cluster near the far right…


The height indicates, as mentioned, the intensity of colour or the density or amount of pixels in a given range, and since they are the pixels making up the sky, it follows that they would necessarily be spiking as they are because the sky takes up a fair swath in the image. Due to the contrasty nature of the photo (not my best work) those spikes are very nearly clipping and you can see there is a corresponding loss of some detail in the sky. To the left, almost to absolute black, you can see the range for all the various dark pixels in the hills, and the mound in the centre indicates all the various shades of grey making up the lower half of the image.

The important bit here is the clipping.

‘Clipping’ means areas where image intensity tends to fall outside the range of correct reproducibility. What that translates to are areas of absolute black (0) or absolute white (255) with no actual image data present and these are seen as tall spikes on the far sides of the histogram. They are specific spots of very high contrast beyond the ability of a printer to print or your eyes to perceive. In effect, there is simply nothing there. A clipped region on the far left means an area which is under-exposed, such as a deep shadow with no detail, and, conversely, a clipped region on the far right will indicate an over-exposed area. Clipping doesn’t only happen in the sensor of a digital camera at the point of data capture, but can also occur when scanning an image or when manipulating an image in a photo editor.

So what does this have to do with anything? Well, the reason it’s important to understand how to interpret a histogram and to know the definition of clipping is that it relates to what seems to be a very concerted effort on Mike’s part to quite intentionally and spectacularly get it all completely wrong. His interpretation of the histogram of the original NASA version of AS11-38-5564…


(which does, indeed, have a very tall spike on the left side, indicating possible clipping – or an under-exposure – of shadows and which also maps the absolute black pixels in the image) also includes a quote from a Photoshop tutorial which states…

If many pixels are bunched up at either the shadow or highlight ends of the chart, it may indicate that image detail in the shadows or highlights may be clipped—blocked up as pure black or pure white. There is little you can do to recover this type of image.

From this simple (albeit somewhat badly-worded) statement, he immediately makes an extraordinary and capacious leap of logic and arrives at this stunning conclusion: ‘In other words, it’s a deliberate manipulation of the image in question.’

No. In other words, it isn’t.

In other words, it means the NASA image has too much contrast making the shadows in the craters absolute black. In other words, it means the spike on the left indicates a numerical value of all the absolute black pixels in the image. In other words, it means the remainder of the image is reasonably well exposed and has plenty of image data and detail – plenty of detail, in fact, to determine if there was indeed a giant Magic Castle sitting there inexplicably in the middle of fucking nowhere for some reason regardless of the amount of shadows or how dark they are. In other words, it means the lack of available shadow detail on the imaginary wall of an imaginary fortress does not automatically eradicate all possible evidence of potential artificiality around it. In other words, it means it’s fairly well idiotic to point an accusatory finger and pronounce a ‘deliberate manipulation’ simply because the shadows are too dark when the smartest thing for someone to do, should they be so inclined to remove ‘evidence’ from an image, would be to either ‘lose’ the photograph completely or erase the entire questionable area with a two-minute cut and paste job rather than piss away loads of valuable time and effort with a paint tool set to nought and blacken in a thousand craters.


In other words, it means the only thing deliberate here is a colossal misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the data simply to perpetuate some fallacious and deceptive mythology. In other words, it means that if – as he states in his woefully inaccurate ‘analysis’ based on an admitted lack of knowledge in the use of Photoshop – that since both the Magic Castle image and the NASA image are jpegs which ‘have quality issues and are not acceptable as research quality documents,’ then, honestly, this discussion is moot until his ‘due diligence on the it’ can produce the proper documentation. In other words, it means he probably ought not to include the Magic Castle image in a published work until he’s got a proper ‘research quality document’ upon which he can conduct a definitive study and, thus, base a knowledgeable and reasoned argument – providing Call of Duty: Zombies has an archival print available. In other words, it means that by selectively choosing to miss out the words ‘may indicate’ and ‘may be clipped’ in the Adobe tutorial he quotes, there is an obvious and predisposed biased towards justifying and rationalising his fatuous accusation of image tampering.

Of course, in his own words, ‘if your intent is to deceive your readers into buying into your own petty biases and jealousies…you go the extra mile, don’t you?’

Funnily enough, he does not seem in the least bit put off by the fact that his ridiculous Magic Castle image also has a large concentration of very dark values piled on the left – much more so than the NASA image and most of which is a likely indication of high ‘noise’ levels from having the original pixel count doubled to increase the size of the image. histogram-3Or that, according to the rest of the histogram, the useful detail is diminished (probably from the original enlargement) and has terrible contrast. However, in support of his ‘case closed’ notion that someone at NASA took a paint tool and ‘went to town’ to colour out all the crater details, he highlights a small area of the absolute black pixels inside of a crater on the NASA version and illustrates just exactly how the corresponding histogram indicates an area of absolute black pixels. Yes. That certainly is definitive. A shocking indictment of black pixels in a shadowed area of black pixels.

He also attempts to provide further evidence of his claims by illustrating something about how adjusting the contrast in the shadows and highlights means something of great importance, but I keep laughing too hard to bother trying to replicate the pointlessness of the endeavour. In the meantime, though, one thing he doesn’t provide, which I took it upon myself to do, is to compare ‘apples to apples,’ so to speak. The Magic Castle image Mike uses is an RBG (red, blue, green) jpeg file. The original NASA image is in greyscale. And though it seems trivial, and perhaps it is, by converting the RBG file to a greyscale image, it imposes the same restrictions on both of them; namely that the number of available enhancement tools available are now equal. Interestingly enough, once the Magic Castle is converted to greyscale and one simple adjustment is made by tweaking the contrast up by 25%, two things happen: one, the Magic Castle doesn’t disappear forever into the lost world of darkness and shadows upon which someone conspiritorially ‘went to town’ never to be recovered, as Mike appears to imply it would do and, two, the histogram suddenly indicates that ‘many pixels are bunched up’ on the left side, which ‘may indicate that image detail in the shadows… may be clipped’ – just like the NASA original.


Shocking, that.

Even the poorly-rendered imaginary shadow on the imaginary wall is still there (contrary to what Mike suggests would happen) as is all visual evidence needed to prove or disprove potential artificiality. The bottom line here is that these special tell-tale histograms indicate that the shit version – The Magic Castle is the one having been tampered with, not the other way round. Hard to believe that Mikey claims (in a Facebook post to his doe-eyed minions) to have ‘outwitted NASA’s best Phd.’s multiple times’ and yet he continues, also multiple times, to make these easily falsifiable derisory claims without the backing of solid reasoning and research.

Magnificent Desolation



43 years ago this weekend, on 21 July 1969, Astronaut Neil Armstrong stepped from the Apollo 11 Lunar Module and may or may not have set foot on the moon, depending upon what your beliefs may be, and declared ‘One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,’ and at last brought to fruition, or then again possibly not, the great challenge set before the nation just a few years earlier by President John F Kennedy.

The second human we know of who also may or may not have stood on the surface of the moon, Astronaut  Buzz Aldrin, described the place as ‘Magnificent desolation,’ a term which would turn out to be quite prophetic as it would also go on to described the continued interest of the United States in manned lunar missions after 1972.

To say that an entire generation was consummately robbed of the future it was often promised in films and television of the 60s and 70s is an understatement. And the fact that virtually nothing of any intrinsic value other than a couple of telescopes and a few robotic probes have been produced in the last 40 years since the crew of Apollo 17 took one final look at the dusty grey regolith of Taurus-Littrow before heading back to Earth is an embarrassment.

Thankfully, though, the allure of the moon is kept alive for us through the strenuously tenebrous research of the egocentric homophobe Mike Bara and his keeper, Richard C Hoagland, founder of The Enterprise Mission, recipient of an Angstrom Medal, former science advisor to CBS News and Walter Cronkite, author of The Monuments of Mars, co-creator of the ‘Pioneer Plaque,’ originator of the ‘Europa Proposal,’ and principal investigator of The Enterprise Mission.

Whilst subjecting myself again just recently to various bits of The Little Golden Book of Happy Made-Up Faerie Stories and Other Unbearable H.O.G.W.A.S.H.1 called Dark Mission, I couldn’t help but notice something seemed almost conspicuously missing from the thick dissection of the ‘mythology’ surrounding the Apollo mission patch (pictured at the top of this post). If you’ve followed along with the previously-posted links to the stunning Dark Mission and/or ‘Secrets’ videos, or suffered through the book for yourself despite the warnings, you likely know that Egyptian-born geologist Dr Farouk El-Baz was, according to Hoagland and Bara, the ‘most powerful single individual in the American space program,’ information which would have no doubt been surprising to NASA administrators James Webb, Thomas Paine, George Low, or James Fletcher. Dr El-Baz was important, so we are told, because between 1967 and 1972 he was the secretary of the Landing Site Selection Committee and was probably personally responsible for all the perfectly-timed ‘ritual alignments’ of the various Apollo landing sites which didn’t really occur unless it was just entirely by random accident on possibly one out of six occasions. Sort of.

Dr El-Baz, due to his stunning Egyptianness, was also theoretically instrumental in helping facilitate the ostensibly ‘fanatical, relentless’ push by NASA to worship the gods Osiris, Horus, and Isis. Part of that worship was ‘coded’ or ‘hidden’ in plain view on the aforementioned Apollo mission patch. On Planet Hoagland, the common and permeating consensus is that the ‘A’ on the patch isn’t really Apollo, but rather the counterpart to Apollo, the Egyptian god Asar or, as he is more widely known, Osiris. Funny thing is, Apollo – the Greek sun god – really hasn’t anything to do with Osiris – the god of the underworld or afterlife – apart from them both being gods. There is no correlation. They didn’t know each other, they didn’t travel in the same social circles, and it’s likely they wouldn’t have got on. But beyond that minor blurring of the lines, it’s clear enough that Osiris is represented by the constellation of Orion, though some might argue that Osiris and Isis were more often represented by the stars Sirius and Rigel, and that Orion was often thought of as representing the god Sahu. But apart from all that, the argument for the patch being all very mystical and Egyptian is really quite convincing indeed.

Except there is one thing, or possibly a few, which I do tend to find if only just vaguely interesting. And maybe Hoagland was far too busy trying to appropriate the work of others and insinuate himself into research he didn’t do himself to notice. Or if he did do, then I must have missed it and, well, who really cares anyway? But it strikes me as odd that on this patch from the 60s the moon is depicted as orange – similar to the planet Mars  – with a face (surely meant to be Apollo) on it – interestingly similar in some ways to the now-famous and ubiquitous ‘face’ seen in the 1976 Viking photographs – with a potential or plausible landing site indicated by the termination of the large S-shaped swooshy thing at more or less the same general area on ‘the moon’ as is the Cydonia region of Mars.


I’ve often said that, like Fox Mulder, I want to believe. And despite how incredibly difficult a certain ‘bearded Viking warrior’ (insert comic spit-take) and his porcine hate-monger lackey make that desire possible with each vapid bog roll they produce for fortune and fame, I continue to hold on to the idea that, as the poster for Close Encounters of the Third Kind so dramatically stated, ‘We Are Not Alone.’ So I find it endlessly fascinating to speculate on the credibility and viability of certain anomalies and many thus-far unexplained mysteries whilst poking holes in the vapour-thin logic of some other ones. And though I’m sure there’s a perfectly mundane and reasonable explanation for the apparent oddity of how NASA (and others) seemed to be very well aware of a so-called Face on Mars simple ages before we sent our little probes there, I’ve yet to find it.

So I just figured I toss that idea out there.

Again, I’m not saying it was aliens.

But it was probably aliens.


1.Hoagland Ostensible Glossary of Written and Spoken Hokum