priligy generico

Is That Lipstick On The Doll’s Head? Part Four: Do You See What I See? 4.0

rosebud1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOUR

We’re an odd lot, humans. We seem to have an innate, almost primordial desire to see patterns in the most common of objects; to interpret the random as the recognisable; to anthropomorphise in any number of  peculiar ways just about everything we see, whether it’s…

assorted-faces

…or whatever else you can conceivably imagine. But despite the occasional odd propensity to imagine inquisitive faces staring up at you from patterns in flooring tiles or thinking of a toilet as the Giant Scary Pee Pee Eating Monster, it’s odder still that the well trained eye might easily misconstrue something as common as a rock for a piece of high-tech machinery.

Granted down to a few thousand years ago a fine piece of igneous or sedimentary rock could be as amazingly useful as an iPod (except for the part where the rock wouldn’t actually play music, and the advertisements probably wouldn’t have been very interesting) and even as late as the 1970s many people unaccountably paid money for packaged ‘pet’ rocks (I found mine free-range), which makes as little sense today as it did then. Of course people now have traded the passée rock for the far more fashionable water in a plastic bottle – a tangent for another day perhaps…

And the ability to see patterns, faces, or functional items in what otherwise would appear to be stone is not wholly without merit. On the contrary, it is through this very desire to create order out of chaos, to make familiar the otherwise unknown, that we can often rather quickly distinguish the useful from the useless, or the real from the imaginary.

giza-cydoniaThis skill is particularly useful in areas like archaeology or palaeontology, for example, where it becomes critical to the method of recognising and identifying the remnants of a past civilisation from just a mound of stones, or determining bones from other surrounding objects, or discerning the difference between functional every day items such as pottery or tools from items created by natural geological processes.

On a larger scale we can, with our vast wealth of knowledge and understanding amassed over thousands of years, point to items such as, for example, the pyramids at Giza and know immediately that they are manufactured items and did not just naturally occur on the Egyptian plateau. And it is with the understanding of what a manufactured item looks like which makes areas of Cydonia on Mars (compared to Giza, as in the provided image) so compelling and warrant further exploration.

Unquestionably, however, there are curious things created in nature which can very often fool us into believing they are something else entirely; things seeming to defy all logic and explanation and whose very genesis appears utterly extraordinary. But certainly with a bit of well reasoned investigation and the application of reason one can quickly work out that there are enough obvious and distinctive differences separating a basic mechanical device from a simple rock that one could not easily get them confused. (See Helpful Visual Tip #1 for clarification).

visual-tip-1

Of course, the opposite can also be true: there are virtually billions of artefacts littering the surface of the Earth which may go entirely unnoticed at first simply due to the fact that they are almost completely indistinguishable from their surroundings in either size, shape, colour, weathering, or any number of other natural means.

antikytheraTerrestrially speaking, we have the benefit of being able to see and touch items of unusual circumstance, like the Antikythera Mechanism, to study them up close and, with luck, figure out just how they came to be and what practical or useful function they might have served. And despite the condition of this particular artefact, as an example, it would seem to be reasonable to deduce that it is not merely a really unusual metamorphic rock. Even with the corrosion and various  oceanic mineral deposits, it is perfectly clear that this object is some form of manufactured equipment.

When it comes to dealing only with photographic evidence, however, trying to determine the nature of an object can prove quite a challenge, especially when the photographs are not only of varied or inferior quality but when they are of objects on other worlds.

There are, without a doubt, some extremely curious things to be seen in a great number of the photographs taken throughout our unfortunately relatively short history of extra-planetary excursions, whether manned or unmanned, and most especially of Mars – which we will get to later (why yes, that does mean there’s more, thanks for noticing!) – but for the moment we’ll continue to focus on the moon.

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 who desperately needs to update this tediously outdated laurel upon which he seems compelled to rest points out frequently in Dork Mission – sorry, Dark Mission – that there is clearly defined, obvious evidence of prior habitation on our moon. This startling conclusion is culled from evidence of the ‘miles-high glass-like structures’ invisibly peppering gigantic areas of the moonscape, the ‘rectilinear arrangement’ of once great cities like his ‘Los Angeles,’ the ‘highly geometric internal grid’ so blatant in the ‘Tower,’ the evident grandiosity of ‘The Castle’ – all obviously manufactured items which speak to some form of prior civilisation. But these marvellous and spectacular things only pale to insignificance against some of the most critical and most damning pieces of evidence presented in Chapter Twelve: Where Titans Slept…

A casual reader may not be fully prepared for one of the most shocking bits of evidence of all – torn from the pages of Hoagland’s scathing disclosure and provided by none other than NASA itself! Well, not torn exactly. Not as such. I used a scanner. But that sort of diminishes the impact.

obvious-1-lander
I reeled at this image. Later I did the Electric Slide.

Then I began to look very closely. Perhaps you might have done as well, now the shock’s worn off.

As usual, the image provided in the text of Dark Mission is just so incredibly (deliberately perhaps?) poor that no amount of magnification or adjustments to the clarity can make it any better. I did however take the liberty of clarifying as best as possible the most important bit:

obvious-debris

‘Obvious mechanical debris.’

My question is this: If NASA know all about the artificial structures on the moon, as we are told they do, and are somehow intending to quietly leak this information in some sort of innocuous fashion, then why would they not simply (and correctly) illustrate this ‘obvious mechanical debris’ in such a way that it would actually resemble ‘obvious mechanical debris’ instead of just looking like a bunch of big rocks? Clearly whomever created the picture understood what a machine looks like – i.e. the big testicle-like Lunar Lander in the centre of the frame – so why not render the ‘obvious mechanical debris’ with equal care and precision? If the artist could not distinguish a piece of ‘obvious mechanical debris’ from a rock, then he might have simply illustrated the image this way:

obvious-lander-rock
If you wish to point to photographic evidence of things that are truly and glaringly obvious, then let’s take an prime example from some classic Viking imagery:

mars-viking-small
At first blush the robot (centre) seems to be almost as large as the Burger Chef sign (frame right) yet simultaneously not quite as large as the boulder (frame left). Careful inspection, however, clearly proves this is photographic ‘stacking’ produced with a long focus or ‘telephoto’ lens on the Viking lander. The rock is actually far closer to the lens than it initially appears, giving the illusion that the robot is therefore smaller. Also, the footprints behind the robot unquestionably indicate that it has travelled some distance prior to nearing the rock, which in turn would then place the Burger Chef sign at a considerable point further away from the lander than one would immediately surmise.

But I am getting ahead of myself…

On Earth, ancient, broken, disused or discarded pieces of machinery frequently tend to appear much like what we can see in the images below.

debris-1

That being the case, one is forced to ask a myriad of questions regarding the ‘obvious mechanical debris’ illustrated in the Lunar Lander image Hoagland points to as critical evidence of ‘disclosure’ and, as such, his theory – sorry, model – of former lunar colonisation: Why is the stuff just laying there?  Clearly, as per the fantasy of the illustration, we have already landed repeatedly at this site – there are permanent structures, probably habitats or power stations, seen in the background, which clearly took some time to build – so why would this ‘obvious mechanical debris’ still be there? Wouldn’t it have been gathered up and studied by now? Why would the lander be touching down amongst loads of broken machine parts? Was this a settlement? Was this a crash? Is this a lunar junkyard?

Even a rubbish pile has some type of context and at least some relationship to its surroundings which can not only be seen and understood but which also make it quite clear just what it is (or was) and what function it served…

debris-2

Archaeologically speaking even a midden, whether a small pile of organic waste or debitage from a nomadic group or a colossal festering mass used by an entire city (like the one outside Jerusalem which was so completely putrid that the very name for it, ‘gehenna,’ became synonymous with ‘hell’) has some recognisable frame of reference, something which we recognise as material culture of some form. So what is this lander image – and, by extension, Hoagland – supposed to be illustrating?

Let’s take a moment and set the Wayback Machine to a little-visited place called ‘logic.’

Perhaps it seems a bit naive, but my understanding of the moon is that it has no atmosphere; no air. I’m pretty sure I read that some place. A lot. Whatever atmosphere it does have is created mostly through occasional out-gassing which is then stripped away into space. Although it has been years since I took a chemistry class, I seem to recall that corrosion or oxidation of metals happens when something is exposed to the elements – like moisture. It needs some type of atmospheric environment. The Antikythera Mechanism, as seen previously, is a perfect example of this. But rather than relying solely on my memory, here is a thirty second crash course in Basic Chemistry 101.

If you want to get really specific, check chapter 19.13 in Chemistry: The Molecular Science which tells you almost everything you could ever want to know about the subject of corrosion – including, in the Answers To Exercises page A.77 (found immediately after page 1055) section 19.17, where it is explained that ‘On the moon… there would be a lack of moisture and oxygen. This would lead to a very low rate of corrosion.’

So how is it, if there is no significantly measurable atmosphere on the the moon – the airless moon, as we are told so often in Dark Mission – that the ‘obvious mechanical debris’ lying scattered about would look like rocks? Or at best, why does it all appear to have been under water for thousands of years and is crusted with so much growth that it looks like… oh I don’t know, a bunch of rocks?

According to commonly-found data on the subject, the rudimentary geomorphology of the moon indicates that the regolith, or fine surface layer, the ‘moondust’ covering the lunar crust, was (and still is) formed by impact events. As a result, older layers are by necessity (just like here on Earth) buried beneath newer layers. The regolith was said by astronauts to be like walking in wet sand or ‘like snow’ says a NASA article on the subject. And though it is a subject of much debate, it is theorised that the first footprint on the moon, if it wasn’t blasted away by the Apollo 11 ascent module, will remain more or less intact for perhaps 100 years – possibly longer – because, despite the reported ‘talcum powder-like’ quality of the regolith, there are no elemental forces on the lunar surface to wash things away.

It would follow, then, that there are no elemental forces on the moon to create the severe type of corrosion seen on the ‘obvious mechanical debris.’ Certainly they might be covered with a fine dust stirred up by continued impacts on the lunar surface or from out-gassing or ‘sputtering,’ but unless they’ve been underwater or exposed long term to some sort of atmosphere (which we’ve been repeatedly told the moon lacks) they would still resemble ‘obvious mechanical debris,’ albeit slightly dirty ‘obvious mechanical debris,’ for a very long time.

For some hard-core photographic proof – incontrovertible evidence – of this ‘obvious mechanical debris,’ we need only look here:

not-shorty

See?

Yeah, neither do I.

Not only do I not see any mechanical debris, I also do not see AS17-137-20996HR. Clearly this is two separate images put together in a mosaic or panorama and, frankly, I have no idea if this is Shorty Crater or not – mostly because I refuse to spend another massive chunk of my time sifting through all 31 fucking film magazines shot by Apollo 17 astronauts just to figure out what it is we are being shown because someone can’t be bothered to label their stupid fucking images or check to see that their images are labelled correctly – or professionally – for review. And lest you feel my animosity towards bad and or misleading research is misplaced, this utterly amateurish ‘mistake’ is not isolated.  It is one of many such errors in Dark Mission – and also on The Enterprise Mission web site regarding Shorty Crater.

For example:

Available in full at Enterprise, in an entry entitled Data’s Head is an excerpt from the (at the time still forthcoming) book Dark Mission. This information is, of course, expanded upon more fully in the complete manuscript, but the link makes it easier for you to quickly reference the material and see for yourself, and it doesn’t cost you $25.  It also saves me re-posting the Enterprise Mission ‘enhanced’ versions of the photos in question. Directly after some introductory material regarding astronauts Cernan and Schmitt arriving at Shorty Crater, the first image seen in the excerpt is a much larger version of this…

as17-140-21409hr-copy
This is AS17-140-21409, (seen above) and which is linked to here so that you can, if you wish, browse it in full and in High Resolution at the NASA page from which it was originally downloaded.  And as The Enterprise Mission could not be bothered to share this information with anyone, I provided it for them.

Neither could they be bothered, apparently, to tell you that this image is not only not of Shorty Crater, but it’s not even from the same EVA which took Cernan and Schmitt to Shorty Crater. Of course, as always, and in the interest of fairness, they don’t not tell you this information either, though it certainly is suggested by the use of this image and by inference in the segue to the image:

‘After the scooping and core samples were taken, Schmitt moves off to the side to take numerous images of the interior of the crater. In some of these images, strange objects can be seen which do not resemble the fractured, volcanic rocks which would be expected at this site.’

To begin with, EVA-2, the one in question, utilised film magazines 133, 135, 137, 138, 144 (also used on EVA-1), and 145.  Magazine 137 was used at Station 4, Shorty Crater.  Magazine 140 – from which the above included image is taken – is from EVA-3. The astronauts were at Station 6, Tracy’s Rock, and this image is a ‘locator’ shot to determine where the Lunar Rover was.

Also, Magazine 133 was loaded with black & white film, so why is this rover (clearly not in the ‘interior of the crater’) seen in beautiful Eastman colour?

Once more the question arises: why such poor and misleading documentation?

As a short side note: I suppose, if it were important enough, someone could criticise me for primarily referencing web sites (including the apparently anathema ‘Wikipedia’). Of course as I am presently writing in the aetheric media it seems ever so much easier for anyone to quickly check the sources by linking to them as opposed to laboriously searching off-line material. And as I am largely addressing an audience of one or two and am certainly not being paid for my efforts, I have no compunction about citing what I believe to be accurate on-line sources. But at least I offer you, where I can, the opportunity to go to the same source material I have found and see – and test – for yourself. Besides, easily 75% of the ‘bibliography’ (or endnotes) in Dark Mission refer to URLs. This is done, of course, in such tiny, microfiche-sized print that it makes one wonder, again, if this was perhaps done deliberately to deter follow-up research.

Of course many of the notes are self-referential, directing the Inquisitive Mind (that slogged through the entire manuscript) back to Hoagland’s own material, almost as if he is metaphorically saying, ‘It’s the truth because I said so.’ Very professional indeed. Joe Nickell of the Skepical Inquirer stated once, in a reference to the so-called MJ-12 documents, that ‘The rule of best evidence says that you don’t use a copy of something when the original could be available,’ so I get as close as I can to original material with what resources I can find. Besides the Enterprise Mission versions are largely crap.

Here (if you click on the image) is the real Shorty Crater, for comparison, in a rough composite I pieced together:

shorty-mosaic

The images came from a number of panoramic shots taken by Gene Cernan, starting with AS17-137-20991 and ending with 21024. Not all of them were used, of course, just the ones seeming to fit together best without too much trouble. No adjustments were made to the images other than to reduce their sizes so they fitted together more easily. You may also note that Hoagland says Jack Schmitt was the astronaut to take ‘numerous images’ inside the crater. Well, he was. In black and white. With film magazine 133. But what are referenced, however, and used as evidence in Dark Mission are photographs taken from Gene Cernan’s two panorama shots – in colour – on Magazine 137.

AS17-137-20996The image referred to in Dark Mission as AS17-137-20996 is actually the photo on the left (and one of the frames I used in the above mosaic). As you can see, though it is an entirely different image to what is so wrongly illustrated in the Dark Mission manuscript, it is, as we have been told, absolutely rife with not simply ‘obvious mechanical debris’ but with ‘mangled, reflective mechanical debris’ as well.

Just exactly the type of ‘obvious mechanical debris’ or ‘mangled, reflective debris’ that we didn’t see in the image that isn’t really 20996 – or from the image that isn’t really of Shorty Crater!

I took the liberty of copying the ‘obvious mechanical debris’ seen in the poorly non-labelled, non-Shorty Crater Hoagland image (AS17-140-21409) and making a side-by-side comparative enhancement of my own.

as17-140-21409hr-detailIs it honestly any real surprise that the Enterprise Mission enhancement – which almost resembles a Buck Rogers-style rocket ship – is, in fact, more like a rock than a rocket, or a piece of ‘obvious mechanical debris?

The detail image is a 900x enlargement from the high resolution original available from the Apollo 17 Image Library with no other enhancements. The indicated section is a copy of the enlarged image with the contrast pushed to +60.

Still looks like a rock to me. Kind of a cool looking rock, but still just a rock.

Something else to consider; if it was, in fact, ‘obvious mechanical debris,’ then why did the astronauts completely ignore it? Of the last 100 or so images captured at Station 6 before the film magazine was used up, why are almost 80 frames spent on the fine details of Tracy’s Rock instead of this fascinating and obvious ‘mangled, reflective mechanical debris?’

as17-140-21402 Could it be that astronauts Cernan and Schmitt were so amused and distracted by the rather large phallic-shaped representation which had apparently been carved into the shadowy base of the Station 6 rock at some distant prehistoric period that they’d no time to document or comment on any of the ‘obvious mechanical debris’ lying scattered about apparently just metres away?

Or might it have been that the ‘obvious mechanical debris’ was just so obvious, so thoroughly commonplace, so anticipated, and such an expected part of the lunar experience that – exactly like the ‘miles-high ancient glass-like structures’ soaring everywhere they looked – it really just didn’t warrant any further waste of their time, energy, or film because it was just easier for them to simply say there was all this stuff there than to expend any effort actually documenting it all on film?

Or perhaps they had seen and photographed so much ‘obvious mechanical debris’ or ‘mangled reflective debris’ on their previous Extra Vehicular Activity at Shorty Crater that they just didn’t think it was that important to gather any more data.

OMD1After seeing so many of these breathtakingly ancient artefacts spread out everywhere they looked, and in plain view – just sitting there for anyone and everyone to see! – so ‘obviously’ and so ‘mangled’ and so clearly ‘mechanical,’ not to mention so completely ‘reflective,’ at the bottom of Shorty Crater, is it really any wonder that they simply felt overwhelmed and, as such, just ignored the Buck Rogers rocket ship that looked like some old rock?

Without a doubt, amongst some of the most monumental discoveries Hoagland points to as having come from the vast treasure trove of ‘obvious mechanical debris’ so ‘blatantly’ evident in Shorty Crater would have to be the image featured below. Directly quoted from The Enterprise Mission excerpt on ‘Data’s Head,’ is this little diamond in the rough:

‘Another shattered mechanical housing from the interior of Shorty Crater ( NASA Frame AS17-132-21000).’

OMD2

Can I just take a moment and try to explain just how this sort of shockingly rank amateurish ‘mistake’  smacks of absolutely purposeful deception? Apollo 17 film magazines started at 133 – which ten gruelling seconds of  painstaking research on Google (or basic proof-reading) can prove. That same ten second search will also reveal that on the forum at abovetopsecret.com there is a correction offered for this error: AS17-137-21000. It is also indicated on said forum that the 3 and the 7 are not exactly in close proximity to each other on the keyboard, so was this incorrectly labelled reference done deliberately? If not, why has it never been corrected? To quote Hoagland on his 1996 Coast To Coast AM appearance about these Lunar Anomalies: ‘What I find, is a pattern of deception, a pattern of losing information, of mis-labelling…’

Sure this could be an honest mistake. I’ve inadvertently labelled something incorrectly when dealing with these strings of numerals. Typos are common. But then you or someone else proof-reads the material and the error, one hopes, gets caught and corrected. For someone who claims to be such a powerhouse of knowledge and information regarding all things NASA, you think the guy would not only get his facts straight but check them as well.

OMD3Another boot in the groin of common sense is this object, also from the cache of glittering prizes scattered round the bottom of Shorty Crater, which The Enterprise Mission have decided is some sort of a ‘pump mechanism or engine housing.’ They further claim that ‘this object appears to have a series of tubes and mechanical features extending from a geometric, metallic case. There are even what appear to be forged connectors or mounting points on the object.’

Whatever.

I’m reasonably certain there is a far more accurate answer as to why they decided to refer to this image as ‘The Turkey.’

OMD4After careful observation and examination of ‘The Turkey’ image, and without the unnecessary visual ‘enhancements’ made to it by The Enterprise Mission in effort to make it appear more metallic than it already isn’t, I have come to the conclusion that, rather than representing an ‘engine housing’ or ‘pump mechanism’ which has a ‘geometric, metallic case,’ this piece of ‘obvious mechanical debris’ is much more likely to be an Energizer Bunny plush toy which has been destroyed and carelessly cast aside; abandoned long ago and left to gather a fine coat of dust on the airless regolith of the airless moon.

Has it been mentioned yet that the moon has no air?

The penultimate discovery in Shorty Crater, however, was found (if you read the excerpt to which I referred previously) within merely a few feet from ‘The Turkey,’ and, it seems, is the pivotal issue upon which the entire tale of Dark Mission rests. My words only pale to insignificance when compared to the original description:

‘It was in studying this particular object more closely that Hoagland first spotted an even more bizarre discovery, laying on the crater wall beyond the “turkey.”‘

On the wall?

On second thought, let’s quote the final re-write in the Dark Mission manuscript where all the power and impact – that visceral punch of stunning and striking surprise so well and richly deserved – is spelt out in spectacularly declamatory fashion:

‘It was while carefully studying this bizarre, apparently blatant piece of lunar junk [which would be the ‘turkey’] that Hoagland spotted an even more unusual artifact, obviously lying some distance beyond it on the crater floor.’

The floor this time. Not the wall. And now ‘some distance beyond’ the ‘turkey.’ Obviously.

‘Even as he suddenly realized what he was seeing, he couldn’t bring himself to admit what it appeared to be…

[turning to the next page]

‘A human head!

‘In a crater—

On the moon…’

dollshead1

It’s pie. And chips. For free.

AS17-137-20997smThis object, fascinating as it is, appears in at least seven other frames from the two panorama shots of Shorty Crater taken by Gene Cernan, as seen in the example to the left – along with the requisite NASA catalogue number so that those of you playing along at home can check and see that I’m not making this shit up. You will note that for ease of reference, however, the head is already pointed out to save you endless searching through a mass of ‘obvious mechanical debris’ including the objects previously discussed.

In Dark Mission (and as can be seen in the oft alluded to on-line excerpt) Hoagland explains that, despite his initial assumption, this head could not be organic in origin because it would not long survive the harsh conditions on the airless Lunar surface. So therefore it must be mechanical in origin. As perfectly rational and acceptable as that explanation sounds on the surface, it  still raises some of the same fundamentally nagging issues as the other ‘artefacts,’ such as:

If it really was a head – organic or mechanical – surely the astronauts would have seen it…

If it was reflective, as we are told it was, surely the astronauts would have seen it…

If it stood out against the surroundings as something totally out of place – like ‘obvious mechanical debris’ would tend to do – surely the astronauts would have seen it…

Cernan took seven pictures of it, surely he must have seen it…

It was right there in the middle of everything, surely the astronauts must have seen it…

They saw the orange soil, but not a head?

According to the details provided in Dark Mission regarding the astronaut’s reactions to Shorty Crater and its environs, there is a sense of mystery and amazement at the the ‘obvious mechanical debris’ and the orange-tinted soil found on the crater rim. This information is not only misleading, but presented in such a manner that it appears to support Hoagland’s claim. The problem is, of course, one does not manipulate the data to fit a hypothesis. Rather, one forms a hypothesis based on the available data.

Jack Schmitt’s reaction to the sight of the Short Crater is indeed ‘Whoo, whoo, whoo!’ (at 145:22:22 on the Apollo Surface Journal site). And as a geologist, what else would one expect? This crater had presumably been carved down to the very bedrock, deeper than any crater, and was far more interesting than anything they had seen thus far. And was littered like a geologists dream. Schmitt, who was described as ‘a little kid at Christmas time’ over the crater, even found bits of volcanic glass which twinkled in the blazing sun.

Schmitt’s own panoramic shots began with AS17-133-20229 and ended with frame 20259, and seem to have been taken simultaneously to his noticing the orange soil, which tends to conflict with the Hoagland data. The remainder of the stop at Shorty Crater is, apart from the soil samples and vista of this enormous crater, fairly mundane if you both read the Journal entry or browse through the audio and video clips. Even the video isn’t that exciting.

Also, Hoagland bends the orange soil discovery to suit his needs to better validate the existence of ‘obvious mechanical debris,’ telling us first that the soil is simply ‘high oxidized’ and then later saying it is ‘highly oxidized titanium.‘ Though this does not conflict with the later geological findings that the orange soil was titanium-rich ‘volcanic glass that had been spewed out of some fire-fountain-like eruptions 3.5 billion years ago’ (which you can read in the Surface Journal and see in this image for yourself), it does seem to conflict with the visible nature of the ‘obvious mechanical debris’ which, if made from or had contained the titanium oxide, would be unlikely to resemble just some old rocks.

Probably one of the most curious tidbits regarding the Shorty Crater anomalies unearthed in Dark Mission is the fact that Hoagland and Bara seem to want us to blindly except that all of the other ‘obvious mechanical debris’ is so completely encrusted with corrosion that it is virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding rocks (and only their well-trained eyes can suss out this information for us mere mortals) whilst at the same time telling us that this theoretically non-organic head is not subject to the same forces even though it is presumably made of the same metallic and obviously ‘highly-reflective’ materials.

My question to that somewhat skewed assessment is this: Is that lipstick on the doll’s head?

dollshead-EM-version

 

Comments are closed.