Can Al de Grazia save NASA?
A question which a lot of people have been asking over the last decade or thereabouts is this: Why has the most stupendous series of scientific discoveries of all time been hushed up to the point that it appears to be hiding in plain sight? You might think that the discovery of overwhelming and unambiguous evidence of our neighbor planet Mars having formerly been inhabited would be shouted to the rooftops. That would be in an ideal world; in the world we actually live in, that evidence is pooh-poohed, swept under the rug, hushed up, and declared to be politically and scientifically incorrect.
The problem, as usual, is one of paradigms. Nobody could build megalithic structures on a two or three-mile scale with space suits on; for the structures we observe on Mars to get built, the planet would have to be habitable and there is simply no way, given the accepted version of the history of our solar system, that Mars could ever have been habitable. It would always have been too cold, and would never have been able to hold a breathable atmosphere given its gravity. In other words, for NASA and JPL scientists to believe the obvious evidence in front of their eyes, they would have to completely toss all existing ideas about the history of our system and go straight back to the drawing board and at least half of them refuse to go there and see denial as the better option.
Now, this is arguably the greatest conundrum that there has ever been in science and it turns out that Al de Grazia, just like Superman, is capable of salvaging this horrific situation but, before getting into a discussion of what Al or anybody else in the neo-catastrophism movement might add to this picture, it would be good to go over the situation regarding the current status of Mars images, since many have not kept up with the subject.
Most of us have seen the familiar “face on Mars” image, if nothing else on the occasional tabloid while we purchase groceries:
http://www.msss.com/education/facepage/face.html
That image was first seen amongst the images coming back from the Viking probe in 1976. The official word was that this was a natural land formation:
http://www.msss.com/education/facepage/pio.html
“This picture is one of many taken in the northern latitudes of Mars by the Viking 1 Orbiter in search of a landing site for Viking 2. The picture shows eroded mesa-like landforms. The huge rock formation in the center, which resembles a human head, is formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose and mouth. The feature is 1.5 kilometers (one mile) across, with the sun angle at approximately 20 degrees…”
What you likely did not see on the tabloid front covers was the fact that the area in which the “face” occurs contains a number of items which appear unusual, to say the least, and that this was clear even from the low resolution Viking images of 76:
One of the large objects in the 76 images appeared to be a gigantic five-sided pyramid, which is now called the D&M Pyramid after the two scientists (Vincent DiPietro and Gregory Molenaar) who first noticed it:
Image of D&M Pyramid from 76 Viking probe
Now, Mother Nature does not do equilateral triangles on a two-mile scale; nonetheless the official position of NASA was that these things were all natural land formations and tricks of light and shadow. Nor is it possible to get much more than that from standard media sources. The Wikipedia article to this day, with one small exception, shows only the 76 images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_%28region_of_Mars%29
Naturally enough, a number of scientists never bought into those proclamations. Beginning in 1997 when NASA finally got around to taking high resolution images of the Martian surface, they were more or less forced into imaging the region in which the megalithic structures occur, which is called Cydonia. Here are a few of those images:
New April
2001 view, MOC image E03-00824
Face image
Face Image, April 2001, MOC image
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/extended_may2001/face/
Nature, of course, does not do straight lines or Bezier curves on a three mile scale. Aside from eye sockets, nostrils, lips, and a helmet or head dress of some sort involving smooth curves, we observe the following: Nobody would build such a thing with carved stones; what you would do is pile stones into the general shape you wanted and then pour some sort of a hard facing material like concrete over the stones. Assuming such a structure were many thousands of years old and given a planet on which sand and wind were in plentiful supply, you would expect to see that hard facing weathered away on the windward side and falling away in slabs on the leeward side. In the picture thus obviously, the wind and sand come from the lower left.
D&M Pyramid, 2003 image
http://www.mactonnies.com/dmphotos.html
Nature does not do five-sided pyramids with multiple equilateral triangles either. The official word from NASA is still that this is a natural land form. Unofficial word is that NASA and the JPL are about evenly split with about half of the researchers willing to believe their eyes and the other half still caught in the paradigm bottle.
Aside from the D&M pyramid, there was a ring of what appeared to be smaller pyramids (only about a half mile on an edge…) in the same region in the 76 images. Here is a more recent and higher resolution image of the largest of those:
To me at least, the pyramid is four sided and the four triangular sides are clear enough, and I've marked them (below) with green lines. The other part of the image which I believe I'm seeing amounts to some sort of an enclosed corridor or causeway leading out from one corner of the pyramid, and then two funny and nearly rectangular features at the end of that causeway which may be doors or some sort of adjunct buildings or some such. There also seems to be a line going from the Eastern corner of the pyramid to the two doors or whatever, which I've marked with a blue line, but I suspect that's just an edge of sand being blown up into a sort of an apron abutting the pyramid, and that the hollow between the pyramid and the corridor would naturally trap sand. In particular, if you didn't look at the whole thing closely enough, the line (blue) from the Eastern corner to the two doors might cause you to think that the whole structure was irregular enough to be a natural formation but, again, a closer look forbids that.
All of that, again, is in a relatively small region named “Cydonia”. The question is, is that all there is to the story, or is there any evidence of habitation in other parts of Mars?
Amongst the people with serious kinds of credentials who believe these structures to be clearly artificial was the late Dr. Tom Van Flandern, whose website at metaresearch.org retains the slides from a press conference given in 2001:
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/asom/pressconf_nyc.asp
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/asom/artifact_html/default.htm
These slides include building foundations ( triangular bases for something which no longer exists) in the sands ( item 11); other human(oid) face megaliths discovered only since the high resolution images have become available (items 41 – 44):
There are too many of these for all of them to be natural.
Item 46 shows what appears to be a village with clear rectangular structures and terracing:
In this image the wind and sand come from the right, i.e. the lines and corners to the left are clear while the right sides of the structures are clearly weathered.
Other remains of things which appear to have been villages and city blocks have been found as well:
Mars Odyssey Infrared Image of the Hydroates
Chaos Region of Mars (
http://www.enterprisemission.com/right2.html
“
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/8_2002_releases/incacity/index.html
There are several websites with no end of this kind of thing; if I had to pick one to recommend at this point it would be this:
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/
That’s before you even get to the Spirit probe and other Mars rover images. Those show broken foundation pieces and wooden beams:
Tiny-ized version:
Rover images also show ancient mechanical debris strewn across the sands. Such images have numeric designations and separate web pages at NASA sites which offer low and high resolution jpeg (lossy) images as well as a significantly larger .tif image which is lossless. To see the details I refer to you have to download the .tif images. One such is PIA04995:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA04995
The .tif image on that page shows minimally the following items:
Individual Items from PIA04995
Tongue-in-groove mechanism of (partial remains of); red component of image shows object most clearly:
Mechanical housing; left side is perfect rectangle, front is mechanism of some sort
Piston-like object
Bell/cup-like object and corrugated (icecube tray-like) object:
Crown-like piece (obviously not a rock)
Lest anybody think it’s just the one image (04995) in which you see anomalies…
Individual Items from PIA05314
The images above, while representing only a tiny fragment of what’s been coming back over the past decade, should nonetheless suffice to convince the casual observer that something unusual is going on and, as I noted above, what is going on is a paradigm crash. Again as I noted above, nobody could build megalithic structures on a two or three-mile scale with space suits on; for the megalithic structures we observe on Mars to get built or for that matter for all of the things in the other images to be real, the planet would have to be habitable and there is simply no way, given the accepted version of the history of our solar system, that Mars could ever have been habitable. That is the basis for the present state of denial at NASA.
Suppose for a moment that NASA, the JPL, and all other agencies of the federal government which were involved in space science in any way were to announce something like
“Hey, we give up! We
want to take this opportunity to announce to the public that we are totally
clueless about the history of our solar system both recent and long past, and
we are therefore putting out a request for proposals for a replacement theory
of the history of our solar system on governmentbids.com and findrfp.com, and
look forward to seeing what turns up! We
basically require a theory of the history of our solar system which would allow
for Mars to have been habitable in past ages.”
The basic requirement would be to have Mars close enough to the sun or some other source of energy to be warm enough to be inhabited, and for it to have a breathable atmosphere despite not being big enough to hold such an atmosphere via gravity. Assuming that were to happen, the government wonks would discover two similar versions of such a theory which were sufficiently believable to want to look at.
One would be Al de Grazia’s version, which was fully fleshed out and articulated and published in the form of a book in 1984 and this would not be difficult to find or come up with since it is available both on de Grazia’s own website on media and in the form of a .PDF file on the internet at:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/solaria_binaria.pdf
and/or a shorter description on de Grazia’s website:
http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_05.htm#a_2
de Grazia’s version of the thing does not involve stars being captured by other stars. It involves the idea of our sun having been larger than it is at present and fissioning off a companion star (which de Grazia terms “Super Uranus” due to electrical pressures, and it involves a continual electrical discharge thereafter between the two elements of the double star system thus created:
The image shows planets such as ours orbiting around that electrical arc and the entire thing contained in a magnetic bottle of sorts, which would include an atmosphere which was general to the system rather than specific to individual planets as is now the case. De Grazia notes that this system-wide atmosphere was thick at first and then ultimately thinned out:
“…In the Age of
Urania, Super Uranus was located about as far from the Sun as the orbit of the
planet Venus today. This would provide the plenum with a volume of about 1020
cubic kilometers. If the plenum contained as much as one per cent of the atoms
in the present Sun, the gas density would be several times that found at the
base of the Earth’s atmosphere today.
Neither star would be seen directly, and only a dim diffused light could
reach the planetary surfaces. As the
binary evolved, the plenum came to contain an increased electrical charge; it
expanded, leaving less and less gas in the space between the principals. Thus
it became gradually more transparent…”
“…Almost from
the beginning life burgeoned and flourished in the plenum, and subsequently on
Earth and other planets. Celestial objects were not then visible from the Earth
because the plenum was too dense to let light pass directly from the binary
stars to the planets. Hence mankind originated its physical being almost
entirely in a world where murky grey skies softened the light through a misty
air….”
Similarly we shade our eyes from the sun when it is overhead but can look right at it when it is low on the horizon and we have more of our own atmosphere between us and it. De Grazia is saying that a study of ancient traditions indicates that the ancient atmosphere was so thick at first that nobody here or on Mars or anywhere else in the system ever saw any sort of stars at all. I would assume that was how the people who built all of those things on Mars (above) managed to breathe while they were doing it. In fact given the picture which de Grazia presents, there doesn’t seem to be any particular reason to think that anybody anywhere in that system would ever have a problem breathing or staying warm.
The other version of such a theory would be that of Dwardu Cardona, Wal Thornhill, and David Talbott, all associated with the thunderbolts.info website and the Kronia organization. The closest thing to any sort of a coherent description of this version as I understand it is going to be found in one or more of Dwardu Cardona’s books and I believe it’s safe to say that the Kronia/Thunderbolts group has shown more interest in studying the Saturnian system itself than in questions of how that system arose. This version, again as I understand it, has a system including Saturn, Earth, Mars, and possibly other planetary objects being pulled by electromagnetic forces into a capture by our present sun, and the Saturnian system prior to that involving planets orbiting Saturn, a dwarf star at the time, inside a shared atmosphere which again was general to the system and not individual by planet.
Obviously you would need a time machine to try to pick a certain winner between these two versions of such a theory. If I HAD to bet it, and I’d not want to have to, my money would be on de Grazia for two basic reasons. One would be what appears to me to be the extreme unlikelihood of any star ever capturing another star given the basic density of space in our galaxy. As Donald Scott notes, if you scale the universe to a size at which our solar system is a yard across and our sun the diameter of that of a human hair i.e. make the sun a dust mote, then the nearest other star, Alpha Centauri, is four miles away on that scale. The second reason for preferring de Grazia’s version is the thing which de Grazia notes about more than half of the 60 stars closest to us being members of dual or multi star systems. There is certainly no way to believe in the idea of that many stars capturing each other willy-nilly and a quick Google search supports de Grazia e.g.
http://www.astro.psu.edu/~cpalma/astro293/L4.pdf
“Our sun
appears to be a rarity in space.
Approximately two thirds of all solar-type field stars are members of
binary systems, and recent studies suggest that virtually all stars begin life as
members of multiple systems…”
Either one of these two theories would salvage NASA’s otherwise hopeless
situation and if you were to assume that the NASA wonks were to prefer de Grazia’s
version for the same reasons I do, then by all rights Al ought to charge them
for it and not just a little. This is no
longer an academic discussion or something which the