Statue on Mars? New Images and Commentary

As Freud said, when a student askd him if his cigars were a phallic symbol, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (and also the cause of jaw cancer.) Sometimes a statue is just a statue. We have today a large group of pseudo intellectuals and people who think that google is a part of their brains and knowledge, and that because we can create images digitally, that no image is real or valid, and they state this, in one way or another, with pseudosophistication.

THe first remarkable images I saw were in a mid-1960s Washington Post or Star front page article, when the first very close up images of the moon were taken, and it showed three shadows in a small area that had to have been from tower-like objects very similar to the Washington Monument. After that article absolutely nothing (to my knowledge) ever appeared on it, although there were six manned landings. (The sophisticated today scoff at those because obviously they were faked, probably by the aliens at the landing sites.)

NASA has for decades maintained the varying degrees of lights and shadows from different angles to refute what is obviously on the imagery sent back from Mars. The statue is taken under excellent lighting conditions, we need the rover to reverse course and image it up close, to see its face and also if there is a plaque or any engravings associated with it. Now as well they're beginning to admit that the Viking labs showed organic activity and not just chemical activity. We need rovers in the forest areas of Mars, say down by the south pole, to maintain a vigil as to growth over three years for example and also to image from inches away the bark to look for signs of insect life.

As Freud said, when a student askd him if his cigars were a phallic symbol, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (and also the cause of jaw cancer.) Sometimes a statue is just a statue. We have today a large group of pseudo intellectuals and people who think that google is a part of their brains and knowledge, and that because we can create images digitally, that no image is real or valid, and they state this, in one way or another, with pseudosophistication.

THe first remarkable images I saw were in a mid-1960s Washington Post or Star front page article, when the first very close up images of the moon were taken, and it showed three shadows in a small area that had to have been from tower-like objects very similar to the Washington Monument. After that article absolutely nothing (to my knowledge) ever appeared on it, although there were six manned landings. (The sophisticated today scoff at those because obviously they were faked, probably by the aliens at the landing sites.)

NASA has for decades maintained the varying degrees of lights and shadows from different angles to refute what is obviously on the imagery sent back from Mars. The statue is taken under excellent lighting conditions, we need the rover to reverse course and image it up close, to see its face and also if there is a plaque or any engravings associated with it. Now as well they're beginning to admit that the Viking labs showed organic activity and not just chemical activity. We need rovers in the forest areas of Mars, say down by the south pole, to maintain a vigil as to growth over three years for example and also to image from inches away the bark to look for signs of insect life.

As Freud once said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," in response to one of his students commenting that Freud's tobacco product was a phallic symbol.

The ability to digitalize images, and fake them, to create optical illusions, like the contests OMNI magazine used to run each month, does not mean that images we don't like are optical illusions or faked. I'm sure a holdup man caught on a security camera would like that to be so, but NASA or no NASA there is some pretty interesting stuff on Mars that should be viewed very close up.

It is also to be remembered that there are other countries in the space race right now. NASA is spending its time trying to finish construction of a rather useless space station, and is gyrating around between Martian microbes in meteorites and geologic evidence of "past" water on Mars. China is making some horrendous pollution industrializing, but they are in the race to the Moon and then to Mars for real and for true, and somewhere btwn 2025 and 2030 could have vehicles and astronauts on Mars pulling up plants and doing rubbings of inscriptions on plaques that we could have already imaged and possibly retrieved, is this means anything to anybody. It was the radical left in this country that destroyed the Saturn-Apollo program that was meant to have put a continuing manned presence on the Moon. If anyone thinks this is too expensive, every dollar spent going to the Moon returned nine dollars in gross national product. One result of the cancellation of the moon landings is the flight of our factories overseas and the loss of our incredible technical superiority. If we simply reverse field one Rover now on Mars and discover that that thing is really artificial, this will be a massive boost to American prestige and the economy. But NASA is completely cowed by politics.

I just wrote a very long comment. Where is it?

I guess everyone lost interest.  Was there some newsworthy event that distracted people from the really important cosmic questions?  I don't think so.

NASA and astronomy in general are trying to sell the sad story that a Mars-sized body in an incredibly rare event collided with the earth some 4 billion years ago and that created the Moon somehow, yet still rejects the virgin birth of Venus from Jupiter that was witnessed by civilizations across the globe, and the cometary orbit of Venus that resulted in near collisions with the Earth, as recorded, clearly, in history, including the Bible.  This has to do with the denuding of Mars of most of its atmosphere.  Leading to its present condition with hardy plant growth remaining and what is obviously the ruins of a civilization.  NASA still looks for proof of water on Mars, and, EUREKA!!, found water ice just a few months ago but ignores the imagery of geysers from the 1976 Viking missions.

We're going to put a lander on Phobos and bring back soil samples, hurrah, hurrah, but with the amount of dust kicked up from Mars by meteoric impact, there may well be microorganisms encysted on surface rocks there that will flourish in a terrestrial environment, we'll know by 2013 or 2014.

Other solar systems include gas giant planets extremely close to the primary star, where they could not have formed, let's say that they're in Velikovskian orbits.  And Pluto was demoted from a planet to a planette, so we could more "scientifically" classify objects in the solar system, and Venus could never have been a comet, because everyone knows comets are small and light and Venus is big and heavy.   

This Island Earth, the movie, has a scene at the end, on Metaluna, where the Engineer tells the earth couple that the aliens attacking Metaluna are from a planet that was once a comet, a striking integration of the Velikovskian discoveries for film.  Earth's civilizations were bombarded from space and wiped out at least some number of times, leaving "legends" and "myths" in their wakes.  Chicago was wiped out from a space bombardment of naptha, left over from the huge globs (for want of a better term) that deposited the oil fields of Arabia and elsewhere. 

Of course organized Geology would have oil deposits forming from dinosaurs and maybe plants.  It all came from Jupiter via Venus and other routes, all the new searches for killer asteroids would do well to look for floating blobs of naptha orbiting the Sun.

What is truly odd is that there has not been a comment since January of 'o8.  Was there an election or something in the way that took people's minds off of it?  Why not just turn the rover around and run it back to the "statue on Mars?"  If the view from three feet shows it to be a true sculpture, it will change the course of human history.  If it shows otherwise, then the speculators have mud on their faces, and all the skeptical inquirers can bray to their hearts content. 

Right now there are probably, at least, several million civilizations in this galaxy alone, most of them stranded from each other.  What are the odds that two civilizations grew up, almost simultaneously or simultaneously, on adjacent planets?  Some people just can't adjust themselves to that line of thought.  Just like some people cannot adjust themselves to the findings of Immanuel Velikovsky, or John Keel, or Jacques Vallee.  Try reading "1491" for extremely accurate alternative history, and it has nothing to do with Mars, or this artificial/natural formation in stone.

Ron Ruloff, bqruloff@yahoo.com

I just entered a fairly long comment. Why is it that it has been deleted, and then, jokingly, the computer asks me to "Enter Your Comment?" Does the Editor fear words?

Ron Ruloff

Where are my 2009 postings?

I just did. Where are my 2009 postings?