priligy generico

Ex Luna

Is That Lipstick On The Doll’s Head? Part Seven: I Am Epilogue











In the final pages of Dark Mission, after having slogged our way through a dozen chapters that were almost somehow related to the subject and title of the book a little bit, we arrive, at last, at the Epilogue, rather unusually subtitled Richard C Hoagland, wherein 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 explains to us that he understands that the big picture he has illustrated in the preceding 508 pages of manuscript is imperfect.

This is much like saying hurricane Katrina was a spot of bad weather.

Part of the reason for the inadequate nature of the material, he confides, is that many of the astronauts involved in this intricate web of intrigue have had ‘their own memories deliberately altered after seeing first-hand the wonders we have laid out here.’

Strange. I wish I could wipe this ponderous load of shit from my memory as well. Lucky astronauts…

The other blame goes to the fact that the investigation for this book, such as is it, conducted by The Enterprise Mission (et al) ‘lacks the force of law’ and does not offer the authors legal authority to fully deduce the truth.  Of course, how this also stops them doing proper research as well is not at all addressed. Once he’s done pointing fingers at everyone but himself for The Enterprise Mission’s inability to conduct proper research, or to provide adequate documentation, or to helpfully explain the methodology so that others can easily replicate the ‘striking’ discoveries (as we are so often told we can and as anyone who wishes to offer ‘informed criticism’ is challenged to do), Hoagland explains that, as work on Dark Mission was coming to a close, the focus of Enterprise began shifting to

…several major “creeping breakthroughs” in our quiet, ten-year investigation of the moon

the first of which was the reported 2006 disappearance of the original Apollo 11 tapes. How, exactly, this incident constitutes a breakthrough – ‘creeping’ or otherwise – is, of course, not fully addressed. In classic Hoagland fashion the subject is introduced, spelt out over some 22 additional paragraphs in excruciating detail, and summarily dropped with the vague notion that his argument has somehow been solidified.

I felt like Steve Martin in what would sadly be one of the last truly great John Hughes films, yelling at John Candy: ‘And by the way, you know, when you’re telling these little stories? Here’s a good idea – have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the listener!’

In brief, the mystery of the missing Apollo 11 tapes is cunningly linked to the belief of Hoagland and Bara that all of the Apollo astronauts were sent on lunar recon missions to ‘find the lost power of the gods that may have been left lying around… in the form of instrumentalities from eons past.’

You have no idea how hard it was to type that sentence with my eyes rolling all over the place.

Hoagland believes that NASA were up to something because, although colour television was readily available in the 60s, we sent ‘crappy, low resolution black and white’ cameras to record our historic first step on another world because NASA didn’t want colour cameras anywhere near the surface of the moon to accidentally capture images of the ‘glass-like lunar domes’ and Obvious Mechanical Debris. Apparently it is a little-known fact that black and white cameras cannot see giant glass domes or broken machinery. Only colour cameras can.

Whilst I largely agree with the assessment that we ought to have sent better quality cameras to the moon (since we had them), it is the reasoning I have trouble with. I do not doubt for a moment that there are things NASA haven’t told the public, but I do not think that they sent black and white cameras on Apollo 11 because a secret cabal inside the administration was ‘pulling strings.’ It’s all conjecture with very little proof. Hoagland goes on to say that this decision by NASA only makes sense in light of the Enterprise Mission arguments that NASA is, for want of a better term, a black ops organisation operating beyond the pale of their ostensibly civilian charter. Of course all of this talk of video quality or lack thereof flatly contradicts Hoagland’s previous argument that the video images taken on the lunar surface were superior quality to what we have been lead to believe.

‘All of the transmissions,’ he writes, ‘were run through a bandwidth limiting “low-pass” filter which dramatically reduced the image quality.’

Not a terribly convincing argument for your previous assertions, Dick. In the end it is NASA who were responsible for the loss of the Apollo 11 tapes and surely the originals will never be seen again because the secret cabal operating inside NASA won’t let them out.

The second breakthrough was the ‘sudden, public availability of a veritable flood’ of lunar photographs. Hoagland claims that moments before they went to press, NASA began flooding their various official web sites with amazing new Apollo imagery. Obviously, due to their secret Masonic network of covert operatives, NASA are deeply aware of the Feral House publishing timetable and have so very little on their plate that they exist solely to taunt and tease with their damned ‘last minute’ releases so that the information will just have to wait for Dark Mission II. Damn that NASA. Damn them and their public sharing of information at the last minute.

‘This immense amount of data, suddenly “dumped” on the web…’ Hoagland insists, ‘abruptly made possible Enterprise analyses never before practical–starting with a one-to-one “calibration” of the validity of the entire database,’ which sounds like it means something all very fascinating and scientific but ultimately says virtually nothing of any real substance.

It is specifically mentioned, with regards to this wealth of information, that the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal was one of the recipients to benefit from these new – ‘literally thousands…‘ Hoagland emotes – of images from as far back as 2006 (which may hardly be defined as ‘last minute’). This assertion seems to be entirely disproved, however, by the list of corrections and additions entitled the Journal Update File available at the Surface Journal itself, for those knowing where to look. (You need to scroll down past the ‘Nail Soup’ bit at the top of the linked page to get to the list of changes).

According to the Surface Journal Update File there were approximately 1o, maybe 11, updates made in 2007 prior to Dark Mission going to press (if one supposes that the book, available October 2007, went to press even as late as September 2007) and one of these updates included, on 16 September 2007, ‘more than 30 new pan assemblies.’ Beyond that, there are no updates listed in either 2007 or 2006 indicating a ‘flood’ of any kind, let alone a ‘last minute’ flood consisting of ‘thousands of images.’

This niggling little detail aside, however, Hoagland points to these ‘thousands’ of photographs being, in his words, ‘quietly leaked’ by NASA – without any fanfare, mind you – onto public places like the Surface Journal, (because, you know, quiet leaks of information are so often done with fanfare) allowed him to ‘quantitatively test the information’ in the so-called ‘newly released scans’ against the information he gleaned from Ken Johnston’s ‘pristine’ 30 year old photos.

And if you sense the sound of a riding crop slowly being drawn into the air in aid of soon beating yet another dead horse, well…

Hoagland plunges us immediately back into the agonising morass which made Chapter Four: The Crystal Towers of the Moon such a joyless odyssey through the Bog of Eternal Stench as he once again focusses our attention on the idiotic ‘Mitchell Under Glass’ image (it will be at the bottom of the left-side column on the linked page, because the direct link doesn’t want to play nice for some reason).

I will not bother to repeat my previous assessment of this obtuse Enterprise ‘enhancement’ and why I feel it is spurious at best, as I believe I gave a full and reasoned counter argument, including a contextual visual record of crucial ancillary images conspicuously absent from the Enterprise data. Suffice to say that it is my considered opinion that the Enterprise version of NASA frame AS14-66-9301, the laughable ‘Mitchell Under Glass’ image, represents a deliberate and nescient misrepresentation of common optical aberrations inherent in bright sun photography and an astonishing deficiency in essential deductive reasoning and critical thinking.


As if somehow believing he is providing indisputable validity to the ridiculous original Enterprise assessment of this image, Hoagland states that one of the so-called ‘new’ high resolution scans from the ‘veritable flood’ of photographs ‘suddenly’ available for public viewing was none other than AS14-66-9279. This is the very frame I used, you might recall, in Part 5 of Do You See What I See? to illustrate that precisely the same lens flare and hazing seen in ‘Mitchell Under Glass’ was also seen in a number of other Apollo 14 images, and that this evidence was largely ignored by Hoagland – despite his assertion of having ‘downloaded and microscopically examined’ so many images – because it instantly negates his preposterous claims.

It’s not my intention to belabour the the point or continue to dignify the lunacy of these imperceptive and demonstrably flawed suppositions, though I would like you to read the following quote very carefully, in light of the counter-arguments and photographic evidence I have previously provided, and consider what is being said:

Though, again, nowhere near as detailed as Ken’s pristine 30-year-old version, the correspondence of the major sky features in the two separate Apollo 14 images definitively, scientifically proves that the deep blue, ancient lunar glass dome — seen arching over the Edgar Mitchell on frame 9301 — is not a photographic “fluke.”

I’m sorry – ‘scientifically proves?’

I honestly believe that is the single most ludicrous and unsupported statement I have ever read. And, yes, kids, we’re not just talking about any old Edgar Mitchell, mind you, but the Edgar Mitchell…


The authors of Dark Mission seem content to cast stones at others who wish to challenge the veracity of their so-called ‘image enhancements,’ but frankly the only thing the references to these photographs prove is that they clearly don’t have any knowledge of the fundamentals of basic photography. Pressing the boundaries of logic and reason even further, Hoagland states that

‘after going through the entire newly-released ALSJ Archive for Apollo 14–‘ [you know, the one for which there seems to be no clearly defined evidence] ‘–I ultimately found four independent Hasselblad scans– all showing the same general “towering glass geometry” visible on Ken Johnston’s original print. You can’t get much better scientific validation for a controversial optical phenomenon that four independent photographic confirmations!”

Wow. Four? Really? I found hundreds. All showing lens flare. And of course in typical Enterprise fashion there is no reference to just what the other two found images might be. Because someone might want to verify that information.

funquiz03One example I found can be seen to the left in Fun Quiz #3. I specifically pulled this photograph for two reasons: One because it ought to (by now) be somewhat familiar as it is a companion photograph seen in a pan sequence from which Hoagland isolated his ridiculous ‘LM-Butt’ image (the Lunar Module ‘parked’ beside a ‘giant glass buttress’), and Two; the identical lens flare to both 9301 and 9279, right down to the shape, style and relative positioning, is seen in the upper left corner – not because it is photographic confirmation of giant lunar domes, but because it is light similarly bouncing round inside the same style Hasselblad EL camera.

The next casualty in the battle against common sense in Hoagland’s purportedly massive ‘image dump’ is AS15-88-12013, and nothing to do with the Apollo 17 secret mission. In this image we are asked to believe that we can clearly see, at last, the full scale of the glass-like lunar domes.

Hoagland flips the image over, offering no explanation for his needing to do (and, as such, I have likewise done the same in the copy below – only because Hoagland did, not because I felt it made for a more aesthetically pleasing image). He then directs our attention to the ‘glow’ encircling the lunar surface.

This, he tells us, is some of the best evidence yet of miles-high glass structures because the moon which, according to Hoagland, has no atmosphere or water, would not glow round the perimeter like it is in this image and, quid pro quo, we have clear proof of ancient lunar domes!


Obviously he fails to mention that this image was taken, not by an astronaut hanging out the window of the rapidly departing Command Module, but rather taken through the window – through two panes of glass each roughly a quarter-inch-thick – and with the sun at such an angle (look at the direction of the shadows, or lack thereof, in the craters) that the albedo was at its greatest.

Strangely he also does not reference frame 11987 (an up-sun image showing similarly diffused light), or any of the other approximately 28 remaining frames at the end of this magazine which, to varying degrees, show some sort of diffusion, lens flare, or numerous window reflections, even the same sort of bluish dots which Hoagland so firmly believes denotes light reflecting off the giant lunar domes. And knowledgeable readers (both of you) will note the ghostly remnants of a band of reddish haze across the lower portion of the image – one quite similar to another such visual aberration discussed very early on in this series – and a hint of overexposure at the top the image. In combination or alone, any one of these factors could produce this ‘glow,’ and not one of them has anything to do with imaginary giant glass domes.

And, of course, the other dead horse beaten with the zealous glee of a drooling simpleton is ‘The Spar’ – yes, again – and the surrounding ‘glass-like matrix’ which, of course, NASA knew were there all along but the astronauts couldn’t see because the gold Mylar-coated visors on their helmets were especially ‘tuned’ by NASA to filter out the invisible glass.

Did I type that correctly? My eyes were rolling again.

And, anyway, even if they did see the glass and the Obvious Mechanical Debris (because they did not have their visors down all the time), their memory was erased of it later. I cannot begin to describe how I won’t even bother with this imbecilic subject again…

Lurching clumsily to the next topic like a cocaine-fuelled Robin Williams monologue from a 1980s HBO special, we are told that another ‘late development’ (though clearly one not important enough to qualify as a ‘breakthrough’ it seems) was the ‘sudden acquisition’ by NASA of another image of the Face on Mars. Because you just can’t talk about Mars enough in a book ostensibly about the Moon.

Just as they were ‘closing out the book,’ Hoagland says, NASA – oh damn them and their efficacious nature! – finally got the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, equipped with the HiRISE camera, to fly over the Face and – ‘quietly,’ you can’t forget ‘quietly’ – acquire new images, this time at a resolution of approximately 11 inches per pixel. With this higher resolution imaging, Hoagland says, it is now possible to prove the Face is an artificial construction because you can see rooms, and walls, and girders and well…

moremarsruinsOh, come on! You see them, don’t you?

I admit that, if you squint a little, you can see what sort of looks like structures, but there is simply no way of knowing, given the nature of this picture, just what it is you are looking at.

Hoagland states unequivocally that ‘The key to proper interpretation of aerial or satellite imagery of man-made ruins on Earth lies in noting the multiple examples of “parallel walls” and redundant rectilinear geometry,’ virtually none of which is present in this image with the exception of a few squarish areas which could simply be pixels at this particular resolution, whatever that is.

Without the benefit of knowing how the original image was processed and manipulated, or which version of the image was used as the primary source material, or if The Enterprise Mission used the imaging software available from the University of Arizona or if they just used Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro or a trial of Picasa, it is impossible to claim that what we are seeing here are ancient ruins.

It’s untenable, I believe, to claim that at this current resolution and quality (such as it is) one can see with perfectly recognisable clarity such fine structural details as beams and girders. Hoagland, of course, addresses the limited quality of this image in Dark Mission, explaining, as one might suspect, that the Evil Puppet Masters at NASA (and their henchmen at UA who maintain the HiRISE site) have deliberately diminished the quality of Face acquisition so that adequate processing is impossible, an assertion which seems to run counter to his slightly earlier statement that new high resolution images had suddenly become available which would prove the Face is artificial.

I often get the feeling that, in primary school, little Richie Hoagland was frequently explaining to his teachers in exhaustive and tangential narratives that his dog ate his homework.

At the HiRISE web site you can download a few variations of PSP_003234_2210 (oh surely you didn’t expect Hoagland to tell you that, did you?), one of which is a fairly large (about 32MB) colour version of the Face and see for yourself the amount of detail available. Below is a section of that colour image, at 100% resolution, from roughly the same ‘chin’ area seen in the Enterprise black and white. (I included the scale chart used on the original image so you can gauge the size of the area).


Honestly, though I would still like to believe that the Face may ultimately turn out to be an artificially carved landform, similar to the Sphinx at Giza, I cannot accept (without unimpeachable evidence) that it is an artificially constructed landform or an entirely artificial building complete with hotel rooms, office suites, and observation decks. I just don’t see it. The much-discussed (on the internet and amongst the anomalists) Inca City image from 2002, even at an area of some 14000 metres larger than the Face, is far more compelling evidence of artificial internal structures (especially when compared, as it inevitably is, with Qoy Qirilg’an, the ‘Khorezmian Fortress’) than the ultra close-up and over-pixellated Enterprise images of Cydonia.

Perhaps one of the more humorous bits in the epilogue, though certainly unintentionally, is a quote from Hoagland stating ‘…we at Enterprise immediately realized that trying to evaluate the potential artificial possibilities for this object (and it’s surrounding structures)– based on “what does it look like?”–were not only unscientific… they were pointless.’

Unfortunately they are not able to apply this same reasoning used for the Face to the ‘miles-high glass-like lunar domes.’

Another (presumably) unintentionally hilarious quote is: ‘We have been proposing for over 15 years that the Face is, in fact, just such a massive assemblage of ancient, high-tech buildings.‘ Astute readers of this blog will realise that this utterly contradicts an earlier assertion (originally referenced in Part 3 of this review) which tells us in no uncertain terms that: ‘No one, not even Hoagland, had expressed a specific belief that the Face or any of the other objects at Cydonia were artificial.’

Before this rambling Pandora’s Box was opened by a smallish bit of misinformation provided in one almost insignificant little image, and before I found myself delving deeper into the background only to have my eyes opened to the painful truth that I was holding 548 pages of mostly elaborate faerie tales, I was – by my own admission – stupid enough to look at a vast majority of the work of Richard C Hoagland and think that he was truly uncovering some marvellous things. To some considerably smaller degree now I would still like to believe that, though I have always had my share of scepticism, particularly with regards to the lunar anomalies. But the truth is I was gullible, and someone’s gullibility is, in my opinion, exactly what Hoagland is (and has been) banking on.

I think Hoagland likes to present the grand illusion of this ultra-sleek scientific research facility staffed by loads of people running hither and thither, poring over the microscopic details of NASA photographs, sifting through reams of dense and profoundly occult data, consulting a vast dark library of material, when in reality it’s an old guy in bad shorts at a cluttered desk.


(I found this image at by the way.)

Do the circumstances make the research any less credible? No, not especially. What it does do, however, is put into perspective, I think, the manner by which much of this type of research is conducted and tarnishes the perpetuated grand illusion.

Everything I have presented in this review (if it can even be called that) has been done from the relative comfort of my laptop (and mostly part time because I have another job). Does it mean that my research is flawed? I don’t think so. I believe I have presented, to the best of my ability, valid counter arguments and solid photographic documentation which ought to make one stop and think before blindly accepting Hoagland’s often extravagant claims.

Besides, to quote Hoagland as his words were transcribed in the IRC log of his 1996 National Press Club meeting: ‘You only have to have a home office computer and image software to scan and enhance the data.’

If that is the criteria established by The Master, then I have done exactly what was expected. Having uncovered over the last few months just how fundamentally wanting and obtuse most of The Enterprise Mission’s ‘research’ seems to be, I feel that my distant theory that Hoagland is an agent of disinformation for the very system he proclaims to rally against is coming into sharper focus. Horribly flawed research, inaccurate information, incomplete documentation, effusive H.O.G.W.A.S.H. and, more than anything, just plain terrible and laughable ‘science’ tends to cast all anomaly hunters in a bad light. It runs the risk of making anyone look like a crackpot if they claim to see something in the photographs from NASA, or the ESA, or whomever.

It seems to me that someone like Hoagland, who insists that he be an indispensable and integral part of ‘the conversation’ can do far more irreparable harm than good to the anomalist community with these outrageous and unsupportable claims. The arrogance to believe that fallible ‘research’ and equivocal ‘analysis’ is somehow flawless or impervious to question and should be wilfully accepted or fully endorsed not only by the public but by the scientific community, or demanding that fallacious ‘evidence’ be peer reviewed without providing the specific means to do so strikes me as saying:

If I went round saying I was Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!

Don’t ever for a moment think that I am saying Hoagland is a total crackpot. I’m not. I think that, for the most part, he’s a fairly smart guy. What I am strenuously criticising is bad evidence and bad science. A fairly massive chunk of Dark Mission is barely representative of the acceptable Scientific Method. It’s little more than observation and hypothesis with the other critical steps in the essential process completely missed out. That’s not science. And if you ever want to be taken seriously and not be laughed out of the room, you have to present better science than this misleading and meaningless load of shit.

Think of this as a performance review. If I am expected to believe, then I want better performance. There is potential there. But it needs to be used correctly, not just to make a little fast cash from the doe-eyed slobbering dullards who don’t know any better.

Is That Lipstick On The Doll’s Head? Part Eight: Look Back In Angle










A few years ago, in part two of this little review, I mentioned that there was one particular bit of H.O.G.W.A.S.H. I would address in some detail as we got closer to the subject. Unfortunately I was diverted by some badly rendered photographs with inaccurate documentation and, as you know, got sidetracked. One of the reasons this term wasn’t more fully addressed earlier on has more to do with the fact that it wasn’t as irritatingly ubiquitous in Dark Mission as it was in Monuments of Mars, or in other writings from the Enterprise Mission. So here is the promised look at the other Hoaglandism which, in the immortal words of Frank Burns, gripes my cookies…

•H.O.G.W.A.S.H. version: ‘Circumscribed Tetrahedral Geometry.’

Oh. My. God. I hate this phrase. I hate it all over the place. It pisses me off more than ‘stunning’ or ‘striking’ or ‘highly’ or ‘arcology’, or just about any other Hoagland adjectival insipidity or catch-phrase with the possible exception of ‘rectilinear.’ It’s another one of those over-worked, over-used, rarely (if ever) defined terms which just demands that you simply bow down and accept that Hoagland is better than you, because where such an ignorant fop as yourself would dare to suggest ‘You mean a triangle inside of a circle?’ the Master Mind of Mars would scoff at your stunted and minuscule vocabulary and clearly inept elocution.

What it means:

At the risk of sounding like an ignorant fop with a stunted and minuscule vocabulary and clearly inept elocution, this concept is best described as ‘A triangle inside of a circle.’  Really. That’s it. At its most fundamental level, that is what it means: a triangle inside of a circle. Obviously it lacks the epic scale and grandiloquent punch of Circumscribed Tetrahedral Geometry, but that is the core definition.

In the interest of fairness and completeness, it should be noted that the triangle in question is of course an equilateral triangle.

Advancing outwards from the core idea to better understand the overall concept of the circumscription of (or circle going round) the equilateral triangle, it helps to have a little knowledge of basic geometry. Perhaps you will recall this from a maths or science class in your early school years. I know I don’t. I remember Theresa Webster from my science class. And I remember very little else other than nearly not passing because of certain firmly in place obstacles subverting the learning process and making it very hard.

Anyway, the triangle, like the circle, is a two dimensional form. Unlike the circle, however, the triangle, when represented as a three-dimensional form, is known as a polyhedron or tetrahedron. It is one of the Platonic Solids. If you do not remember your Platonic Solids, here is a quick refresher which you mind find helpful:


The tetrahedron is, as you can see, shaped somewhat like a pyramid, with three of its four sides meeting in points called ‘vertices.’

A circle, conversely, is represented in three dimensional space as a sphere, which still quite remarkably resembles a circle. When a tetrahedron is placed inside of the sphere (for whatever peculiar reason one might have for doing such a thing) with one of the vertices touching a point inside the sphere (for example a point we might call ‘south’) the remaining vertices generally tend to point to regions of the sphere which reside at approximately 19.5 degrees above the equator of the sphere.

Like this:


Isn’t that fun?

Undoubtedly the next question is ‘So what?’ and it is a question I often share. In effort to answer that query one must step far out of the mundane world of boring old Euclidean Geometry and, according 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, into the ‘lost work’ of James Clerk Maxwell and the somewhat fascinating realm of Hyperdimensional Physics.

A discussion and dissection of this particular ‘model’ is simply well past the parameters of both this blog and my attention span, especially since it was only my point to explain the basic meaning of Circumscribed Tetrahedral Geometry. As I’ve said, I really only remember a couple of pertinent points from science class and, the fact is, the related subject of Hyperdimensional Physics – though interesting – starts to become deeply technical and is often bogged down with arcane arithmetical equations of sines and cosines and loads of squiggly bits which rapidly cease to have any meaning to me.

Suffice to say that the 19.5 position (either North or South of the equator) seems to have a fair number of curiosities attached to it, in that it is the relative position of – or very near to – Olympus Mons on Mars, the Red Spot on Jupiter, the Dark Spot on Neptune, Mauna Kea (Hawaii) here on Earth, and it is definitely worth reading about at your leisure.

But not here.

The fundamental issue I have with the term Circumscribed Tetrahedral Geometry is the same issue I have with every other Hoaglandism: it is used as a verbal or written Jedi Mind Trick to inflate a point of discussion into an unnecessarily obscure and mythic domain where Hoagland is The Great and Powerful and we are, for want of a better term, ‘some insects called the human race’ who need not – and dare not – be allowed a quick glimpse behind the curtain. To deign to define the idiom is to erase its mystical nature, to break the magic spell of a potent talisman, and stoop to the unwanted level of those of us ‘crawling on the planet’s face.’

The second issue I have with discussions of Circumscribed Tetrahedral Geometry is that the application of it as a useful methodology or its function as a tool for deciphering impenetrable mathematical relationships is almost never divulged. How is it used? What does it mean exactly? How does it relate? What is the significance of it?

We are left virtually in the dark about how this ‘model’ predicts or resolves anything, but are reliably informed that it is clearly referenced in not only the complex internal geometry of scattered structures on the Cydonia mesa, but throughout the vastness of the cosmos.

There is a point in Bram Stoker’s Dracula when the eponymous Count states, ‘There is reason that all things are as they are, and did you see with my eyes and know with my knowledge, you would perhaps better understand.’

I believe that if Hoagland were writing that quote it would be followed by, ‘But you don’t. Ha ha. Sucks to be you!’

Is That Lipstick On The Doll’s Head? Part Nine: Famous Last Words











Oh, and the part where the authors of Dark Mission promised to show us photographs and an ‘in-depth analysis’ of certain alien artefacts retrieved by Apollo astronauts as final proof of the grand NASA conspiracy? Yeah, well, it’s not it the book.