a reply to: Aliensun
The Hidden In Plain Sight Mars Conspiracy (part 2)
Where in the entire universe we know is it most likely and logical by pure scientific determination to find another place that harbors life or did
support life in the past? What are the fantastic odds that scientists keep telling us that must co-inside with other fantastic odds to allow life on
a planet? For starters, we need a nice G-type of sun like our own, a “goldilocks” region, around that sun and a planetary body within a certain
size and composition within that area which will decently allow life. Water would be a prerequisite.
Under such criteria and other requirements various efforts are engaged in looking out at the deep heavens. An earlier search found 30 stars within a
distance of 100 light years that seem equivalent to Sol. Whether they harbor planets of any type is unknown. A 100 light years volume around our
position is a very large and sparse neighborhood in which to look for possible life-supporting suns. It is sparser still to expect “living”
planets around any of them. The Kepler satellite is at this moment amassing a catalog of possible host suns. We search into the distance with a
diligence and a certain amount of blindness because we suffer from our own, imposed lie.
How ironic. Mars is what we seek distantly around other suns yet is beneath consideration as it is virtually beneath our gaze. Is that not exactly
the situation we have been taught to view the UFO? The public and military report millions of sighting over the decades but officially their
existence is denied even as we urgently look "out there" for exactly the same things—signs of intelligence. Maybe the fact that we are directed and
caused to gaze and listen and even fantasize beyond our own system with the likes of Hubble, Kepler and SETI programs has not been an accident. True
those efforts also serves as a useful tools for growing of our cosmic view (which MUST eventually come) but should we not seriously and patiently look
at the UFO phenomena and examine its very aspect with finality to finally be able to say, “Nope. Not alien craft. Now, let’s send up the Hubble,
Kepler unit and get our search for ET life going in earnest.” But we do just the opposite.
Did you ever wonder about the logic of sending recorded messages and plaques out on probes, such as the two Pioneers and Voyager? Were they honestly
and wishfully intended to be intercepted by ETs at some distant place and future time? Those efforts were intended as more of a public relations
stunt. We give ourselves a pat on the back for our space prowess, to garner public support for NASA’s programs and to open a sleepy public's eyes.
Educational they were to be sure, but we may wonder if the real reason for those missions was to have us look further afield, taking our minds off of
our promising neighbor while the US and the Soviets were still firing probe after probe directly there to learn its secrets.
The US has had great success from 21 Mars mission attempts since 1962, 6 failures and one partial success.(Two of the more recent “failures” are
considered suspect by some.) On the other hand, during the same span, the Soviets/Russians have had not one success out of 19 missions, only four
extremely limited successes. It bears pointing out another connection between two widely different series of events that have a common thread. These
would be the prevalence of abduction cases that apparently happen chiefly in the United States and the lack of the Soviet/Russian ability to plant
their equipment on Mars. The disastrous record of the Russian attempts did not go unnoticed in JPL and NASA. They joked that a “Mars Monster”
was seeing to it that the hammer and sickle crowd would not succeed with a single mission. That was self-evident. To whom the mysterious
“monster” owed alliance seems clear.
In the basic data of deep space missions we find a most curious and insightful situation in looking at probes launched to Mars and Venus by the
Soviets and the United States during that aspect of the space race. The Soviets fired off 29 missions toward Venus over the years from 1964-1972.
They achieved only 10 successes, about a third of their attempts. The Soviets were trying hard to get landings and then to get their craft to survive
once they landed. They failed to harden their landers well enough to survive on the brutally hot planet and they continually failed to have a single,
fully successful mission. If a probe landed at all on Venus, it shortly melted.
On the other hand, the basic launch data clearly shows that the United States hardly seemed to bother with Venus. In truth, the missions were all
flybys, never was a probe sent to land and get serious. There were only six rocket launches toward Venus, one of which failed, but the data from the
flyby was conclusive enough. Venus was hot. If you were a government sending out probes to find the likely home of the UFO within our solar system,
than Venus could be quickly crossed from your list of possibilities, joining the other inhospitable planets. Let the Soviets have the twin efforts
of chasing and Mars. We concentrated on Mars. It needs mentioning that every bit of Russian data from their deep space efforts came (by agreement)
first through NASA’s gigantic “Big Ear Horn” antenna in California before it was fed by land line to Russia. We knew exactly what their probes
were doing even before they did.
Our scientific knowledge and thinking about Mars has come a long way from the days not too long ago when it was considered a sterile, dead planet.
The shocking discovery of huge amounts of water therein mandated new thinking about the existence of the red planet. Not many decades before that
discovery, water was considered rare in the universe. It was called the elixir of life, a requirement for life anywhere.
The evidence of water having flowed in extreme manners across the Mars eventually required a complete rethink of the abundance and likelihood of that
resource. Much of science had to reprogram itself to that very basic truth that was revealed despite what they expected. That remarkable admission
that Mars, indeed, did show vast evidences of water had more to do with science overcoming an old and false scientific superstition rather than the
lack of indicative data. Many observers in the public arena stood slack-jawed, wondering why it took so long for science to recognize and admit to
the truth of water on Mars. The problem, as with the legitimacy of UFOs themselves, wasn’t a lack of evidence but due to a collective mindset. As
with the recognition of UFOs, it was a problem for science but not the so much for the layman.
(Continued to next email)