MARS ANOMALY RESEARCH
MEDIA OFFERS

Commentary #012

August 11, 2006

 

 

I thought you might like to know that within the last few weeks, Mars Anomaly Research received an offer from one of the most well known prestigious publications for a place in an hour long documentary piece to be presented on television. Of course I can't reveal their identity without their permission but let me just say that this old line organization is so thoroughly mainstream that there isn't a place in the world that wouldn't instantly recognize the name. It is perhaps the leading publication in its field and on the surface could be seen as a real recognition prize for this work. Even so, sadly I had to pass on it.

No, even though it may sound like it, I haven't lost my mind, at least not yet. I had to do so because as a getting old geezer myself and a long admirer of this organization's presentation content on Earth archaeology as well as Earth animal life and Earth different peoples, I am quite familiar with its historical presentations. Unfortunately that also means that I am also familiar with its bias on what it regards as controversial planetary subject matter. I anticipated that, even if the offer was legitimate and not a scenario thought up by lower level people that their own higher up people would never have agreed to, they would still want to characterize and try their best to place this work in a defensive posture promoting the controversial aspect and me and my personality while minimizing and/or marginalizing examination of the hard visual evidence itself.

It occurs to me that, even if this very famous old line organization may have been a bit premature in approaching me possibly without the benefit of higher level approval (?), it is still at minimum fairly clear evidence that this work is making headway in coming to such old line mainstream attention and that's a good thing. With such thoughts in mind, it also occurs to me that it would be a productive thing for some in the media business to understand up front where I'm coming from when it comes to the potential of media exposure offers for this material and it wouldn't hurt for my viewers to know where I'm coming from on this as well.

A good way to provide insight into this is for me to share knowledge of both sides of my recent exchange with this old line organization without of course identifying or embarrassing anyone. The following highlighted in color text represents my recent exchange with this organization and the insight that may come with it. We start off below with my first reply to their offer.

"Thanks to _____ as to this opportunity for what appears to be the chance of greater mainstream exposure of this planetary evidence record at www.marsanomalyresearch.com through the well respected _____ TV & Film venue. It is gratifying to learn that this body of anomalous planetary evidence has at least come to your awareness and your attention on it is much appreciated.

On the other hand, I must also be honest with you. I personally have reservations as to such an invitation from the _____ you represent. I am a man in my early 60s and I have been a follower of _____'s work and appreciating it since I was a boy. Unfortunately, after decades of general familiarity, it has also led to my being considerably familiar with _____'s programming and its slant on things over time, particularly with what _____ regards as fringe controversial material.

Briefly, here is my mixed perception of _____'s programming. When it comes to Earth peoples, wildlife, forestation, geology, archaeology, deep space, or underwater subject matter, the view and presentation of material is quality, objective, interesting and wonderful. It is what has made _____ the leader it is today in its field and a record to be proud of. However, when it comes to other issues like that of off planet issues that may not agree for example with the NASA or JPL or their associates as primary sponsors of _____'s programming, _____ in my humble opinion not only too often demonstrates insufficient objectivity, it actually seems to serve as a very one sided debunking tool serving the exclusive interest of the official party line and too often moving in the opposite direction of achieving any valid measure of truth.

With that personal perception in mind, I suspect that the venue format you suggest will only at best serve to pit this growing anomalous evidence record of mine and me against an array of NASA/JPL associated scientist and academics trotted out for the specific purpose of politely (if I'm lucky) and condescendingly debunking my perhaps well intentioned but ultimately very "misguided" efforts. I suspect that the anomalous visual evidence itself will not receive much exposure at all but that my personal self as a "character" and my "qualifications" will receive plenty of exposure. I would also not be surprised to see my work also associated with that of others cherry picked in this field that clearly do not know what they are doing so that I will be guilty by association with them.

As you can see _____, I am very cautious about such "opportunities" where myself and my work are set up to be in conflict with others so that sides can bang away at each other on camera rather than truth be given a true voice. It may be admittedly exciting and interesting for the public to watch and may sell products and copy but it does little or nothing for revealing truth, only further obscuring it in the murky water of ongoing controversy.

Likewise, anticipating such a potential presentation direction, I would most definitely not reveal the identity of or ask any current or former NASA, etc. or Government employees that might be associated with my work to reveal themselves or become involved in such a project. In my opinion, if the stronger visual evidence cannot stand on its own merit in the _____ audience's perception at least enough to raise some serious questions, then I was wrong about it because there obviously wasn't much to it to start with.

Now if you were doing a piece only on my work and not in association with others? If you were concentrating primarily on the anomalous visual evidence itself drawn from and supported by the official science data rather than on me personally and my "claims" and just putting hard visual evidence before your audience letting the visual evidence speak for itself? We both know that the "WOW" interest factor on some of this strange anomalous visual evidence is very high and that your audience would have a great deal of interest in it and line up to see it if they knew about it before hand. That is, if _____'s purpose was to raise interest and questions as to this material and questions associated with it?

Now, if you were presenting the evidence in a objective questioning format rather than either side trying to pound points home trying to persuade and influence your audience's perception and conclusions? Later in another separate piece you could let those associated with NASA and JPL concentrate on picking the hard visual evidence presentation apart in their own piece and explaining the evidence away dealing only with it, if they can that is. Then you would really be talking my game.

I can easily imagine that flashing some of this strange visual evidence before the public in some advance advertising prior to the show would cause people to flock to the show when it came time for it. You and I both know it. Even so, I doubt that _____ with its past consistency on this kind of subject matter it so very often regards as fringe and controversial is going to allow such visual evidence to get in front of its audience in a objective questioning only venue or allow them to raise their own questions on that evidence without someone trying to tell them what to think. Too bad, it could have been some really interesting quality programming designed to raise questions as to truth and the truth bar in general.

In conclusion, my above comments should not be confused with the considerable general respect I have for _____ and its other good works as well as yourself. Thanks much _____ for the consideration. It helps to at least know you are there, aware and interested."

I thought my above initial reply might have squashed their interest right then and there but this person was cool, collected, smooth, very articulate, very professional, not to be put off easily, and a credit to their profession. As you will see in this person's reply below in the blue text, this person articulates both personal and the mainstream point of view so ably and convincingly well that I've included it here verbatim. It offers tremendous insight into the state of mind and attitude that the revelations of this work face in the mainstream public as well as science and academia and it is easy to be persuaded by it. It is the nature of the sheer magnitude of peer pressure numbers that this person represents so well.

"Thanks for your reply. And I appreciate you taking the time to voice your concerns. I don't know if I can satisfy your concerns in this email but I will try. First, let me tell you that _____ is an independent, _____ organization which is not sponsored by NASA nor the United States government. Has _____ collaborated with NASA on previous shows? I don't have the history to answer that question confidently but we can probably assume that they have. Has the US government ever provided _____ with grants either for research or production, space-related or otherwise? There's probably a good chance that they have. Does NASA or the US government exert any editorial control over our programs? Absolutely not. Do our shows tend to follow mainstream scientific views when it comes to space exploration, which in turn tend to mimic NASA's views on the subject? I'd say you were probably right. But, this does not have to do with pressure exerted on us by NASA but by what we believe to be the clearest scientific explanation. Does this mean that we will not allow other evidence and arguments to be presented on the show? No. Are we open to other opinions and evidence in regards to space and Mars? Yes.

This is a science-based show and we intend to look at the evidence using the scientific process. Let me stress that we will look at the evidence. If you present the mars visual anomalies and have the science to back up your theories, then there is nothing that NASA or other critics can say that can hurt your case. Nor will the show lower itself to character attacks. Credentials, for better or for worse, do have standing both in the scientific community as well as with the public. You must agree that they can be a necessary benchmark for determining the level of expertise of an individual and, thus, the quality of said individual's research. Let me stress, however, that credentials can -- not must -- be necessary, as individuals without scientific credentials certainly can, and do, carry out interesting, significant research. In short, credentials help, as it allows the scientific community AND the public to know what one's background is and how one became interested in a certain field. I also believe that credentials must be explained. A doctorate in literature does not a scientist make, and so on. In short, I am a believer in full disclosure of one's background as it pertains to the subject at hand. If one's character or credentials may influence one's research, I think it would be important to mention it.

As for your work being associated with others who have "cherry picked in this field that clearly do not know what they are doing," I would hope that any issues that you may have with others doing similar research to yours would be fully addressed. Since this is material that is controversial, distinguishing yourself from others in the field that may be interested in what you are doing but are not applying their research with the same scientific rigor is as important to you as it is to us.

Your suggestion to split the topic into two episodes is a good one though we only have an hour to canvas the subject. Is this enough time? Probably not. This, unfortunately, is the state of television these days. I do believe that all sides should be presented in the same show. This does not, in my opinion, obscure truth in controversy but allow for the viewer to understand that these are not issues that are agreed upon readily and should not be taken lightly. And you are certainly right that we will have scientists who don't believe in your claims to attempt to pick apart your evidence. As you will have a chance to answer those critiques and pick apart their own evidence.

Your research is interesting and very controversial, is it not only contradicts what the mainstream scientific community believes but also contends that the US government is involved with a huge cover-up. These are not token phrases, as you well know, and you have an uphill battle in convincing the general public of your claims. The visual anomalies themselves are not enough or at least as I understand them so far. Are there interesting things in the images? Yes, absolutely. Can you provide evidence that pictures have been manipulated? I'm not sure. Have geologists, biologists, and satellite imagery experts looked over the pictures to confirm your speculations regarding flora and fauna on the planet? I'm not sure. You have a section on images that you think may show evidence of warfare but you are not ready to release it becuase of its sensitive nature. Is that becuase it the pictures are too gruesome for the general public or because you may become a target of the government? These are certainly heavy claims. More good reasons to speak to you about your work.

Regarding my request for additional contacts in the field as well as former government employees who have provided information to you on the subject, I understand your need for discretion. Those who continue to remain anonymous should certainly remain anonymous. There is no need to expose their identities if they feel that in doing so they may put their lives, families, or livelihoods in jeopardy. I am more interested in contacts you have that are willing to go on the record. As you are well aware, it is hard to make a strong case based on anonymous sources (unless you are, of course, trying to invade Iraq). But you can't disclose sources if they feel their lives might be put in danger.

In short, I would like to speak to you in greater detail as intentions and points are sometimes lost over the internet and I feel that I need more explanation than what your website provides (maybe I'm just a little dense). Perhaps I can convince you to participate. At the very least, you can give me a greater sense of your research.

I apologize if this email has dragged on. I've tried to address a number of concerns and I apologize that many have fallen through the cracks. Please do not take any offense to any of the comments made above. This is a controversial subject, indeed. And your statements do go against prevailing scientific wisdom. Finally, this is a science show. We would like to hear your arguments and analyze your evidence using the scientific process. We make no apologies if we find that one set of evidence holds up better under scrutiny than another.

Hope to hear from you soon."

Except perhaps in some spots, it sounds very reasonable and quite persuasive now doesn't? Further, at this stage of my work, it is a huge opportunity to get this evidence mainstream exposure. If this organization could have treated this evidence objectively and fairly, the result would have been that a great many more such publications would have picked up their lead and brought this material to the attention of even more mainstream viewers. Unfortunately, the operational key word is "if." Now take a look at my reply comments below that should help better define my own position.

"Well and articulately expressed in yours to me of _____ copied below. For the moment let's stick to this type of written communication where we can take the time to be more thoughtful and accurate in what we express and where misunderstandings or miscommunications are perhaps less likely.

You articulate yours and _____'s position very well and I'm satisfied that you believe and stand by it based on the information that you have. But, the fact remains that my perception as to your venue's role and what it espouses in this kind of content still remain very different than yours and that perception divides not only you and I but the many who follow what we present.

For example, what you accept and regard as science certainly places you squarely in the well accepted mainstream thinking and the comfort of the numbers thereof. On the other hand, I and a great many like me regard your perceptions as too subject to conditioning that does not allow you to see what is right in front of you very plain to be seen.

As an example, you are already implying, at least to my perception, that for you the visual evidence I've discovered so far and presented for public consideration is perhaps strange and interesting on some level but in of itself is otherwise insufficiently compelling enough to warrant raising serious questions. You are already telling me that for you or for the mainstream like you to find this visual evidence more credible, you are going to need my personality factor involved defending it at the minimum and supporting independent "credentials" testimony if you can get it and if I can produce it. It is what defines you and, don't get me wrong here, I can respect that position to a degree.

However, it also tells someone like me, as well as the many thousands of very bright independent thinking people following this disturbing evidence I present, that you are bound by your conditioning and are perhaps unable and/or unwilling to think or interact outside this confining box. It is in fact the very psychology that prevents mainstream scientists from being able to recognize and make the discoveries that I make even though we are both researching the very same science data. Where you and those you represent see little of importance in the visual evidence, others that follow this work see a great deal of importance and of major magnitude and are incredibly frustrated as to why you can't see it as well. After all, it doesn't take a string of degrees after one's name and/or great mental acuity, only decent eyesight and some common sense.

Apparently for you the visual evidence is not nearly as important or worthy of closer examination via your mainstream venue as is what you and those like you regard as "fringe" psychology. In fact, I strongly suspect that it is the "fringe psychology" concept you may really be after here with your TV/film special whether you care to admit it to me or yourself or not. Worse, it is what will control the show's general direction and theme because it is the base thinking that permeates its background organization and presentation rather than open questioning objectivity. In other words, we are in two different worlds of perception _____ and sadly you appear to have already passed judgment with conviction on the visual evidence in this way, whether you're willing to admit that to me or yourself or not, and the show's path and direction will almost certainly reflect that coloration rather than achieve any objective truths.

From my point of view and so many out here like me, the strongest visual evidence is very compelling and can easily stand on its own merit demanding more in depth consideration and exploration. For us, this and its exploration and the questions that it raises along with its powerful implication potential is what should be you and your show's primary interest and focus. Is there something to this or not?? That is the question and what needs to be explored! The fact that you already find the visual evidence alone insufficiently compelling says it all and it's the fundamental difference between us. Further, whether you and I want it or not and despite our best intentions, the more you and I interact on this content, this psychology will color our relationship moving us relentlessly toward polarizing adversarial opposing positions and the conflict that will naturally come from that.

That kind of conflict and polarizing point of view is not what my reason for posting this new discovery information is all about and is a waste of my time as well as yours. The fact is that I have no faith that doing battle in such a defensive manner and trying to open very many already closed judgmental minds out there will reveal any truth one way or the other, only serve to entertain but otherwise obfuscate any truth. This evidence is for those that I regard as either objective and open minded enough, or potentially so, to be able to begin to see and recognize the visual evidence for what it is and its implications. It is about information and free choice, not conflict, entertainment and manipulation.

Now it is true that at my website I also express my interpretation on the evidence to the extent that I feel it appropriate. It is after all my right as discoverer. Who else is any better suited to do so based on the discoverer's unique demonstrated ability to root out this kind of visual anomalous evidence where so many others appear to be unable to? Frankly, from my point of view, it is hard to imagine those that have so far shown themselves simply unable to recognize and discover this kind of anomalous evidence on their own then being qualified enough to after the fact comment on it in a manner that may reveal any real truth. But, whether that may be true or not, ultimately everyone exposed to this evidence will make up their own minds based primarily on the visual aspect of the evidence as it presents itself, not my expressed thoughts, and I'm satisfied with leaving it at that.

By the way, I do not "claim" that there is a Government cover-up of this information as you say. That is your statement and not mine nor is it my meaning implied or otherwise. So let's not get confused about that. What I do say is that there certainly appears to be a secrecy agenda associated with this science data as demonstrated by obfuscating digital image tampering evidence obscuring anomalous information in that data. Now who specifically is doing this? I of course have my logical suspicions and perhaps even opinions that amount to no more than that but certainly do not claim that the "Government" in general is an entity doing this. More appropriate is to logically more tightly define and follow the path of responsibility as any professional investigator would as to the entities in whose primary care, custody, and control this science data is in. In other words, not only who has the motive but who has the most opportunity to manipulate it and to where and who that leads.

The bottom line is that, while this material may be viewed as controversial by many and especially those that your venue represents, I'm not interested in seeing my work presented in a fashion that outright pits it and its information in a defensive polarizing adversarial way against mainstream conservative communities. I suspect that is precisely what would happen in the mixed it up type show that you propose.

On the other hand, for future reference and depending on details and their specifics, I would be receptive to ideas of for example a media presentation that exclusively presents primarily my visual discovery evidence in the first continuous half of the show in an objective fair question raising fashion without the presence of innuendos, debunking incredulous attitudes, or disclaimers. Be forewarned that I would also not be interested in any part of my side of such a show that gives more than the very briefest passing exposure, if any at all, to any issues of image tampering, cover-up, conspiracy theory, etc. or my personal interpretations of the evidence or the labeling of such as my "claims." Either the show will be primarily about the visual evidence itself presented in a objective questioning fashion with any questions it may potentially raise in the public consciousness or my work and I will not be involved.

The next half of the show can then be about what ever independent experts you wish to bring forth to deal with the visual evidence and its implications as they will and if they can. Even though these others of your choice would have the clear advantage of final say with its obvious impact on viewers and will be able to collectively stack up "credentials" arrayed against this information, basically both sides and the issues are then presented in a straight up fair fashion for public consumption, consideration, and judgment. That's fair enough for me.

Please understand _____ that, despite how you may view my comments here, my purpose in saying all this is not to try to dominate and control such presentations. That is only an unfortunate and unavoidable incidental byproduct as I try through my stewardship to insure giving this anomalous discovery evidence every chance I can at objective consideration in the mainstream public consciousness that venues like yours represents and try to avoid what I regard as potentially defensive negative scenarios not conducive to it or the truth in general.

I am satisfied that this evidence record, as it steadily grows and becomes more and more powerful and extending its reach further and further into public awareness, will eventually have its way in public perception as just having just too much truth to ignore without warranting full independent aggressive examination. I suspect your venue at least in part intelligently anticipates this to or you would not be wasting your time contacting what you regard as just another "fringe conspiracy nut" type about it. The fact is that your mainstream venue reaching out to me now is in part like Wal-Mart strongly considering moving into a new still small, young and relatively untapped marketing area. The current traffic patterns might not warrant it but Wal-Mart professional marketing site analysis as to near future traffic expectations from the target area is very effective and can never be dismissed.

Sadly, I suspect _____ isn't yet ready to tackle this evidence record, at least in the more fair and objective question raising manner I've described here. Further, even if you and your people personally are, I suspect you would discover at some point that such a thing would most definitely not fly with those up the line over you and that only a thoroughly debunking oriented piece, as long as its effectiveness could be counted on or a later rejection of my content as lacking in merit, might be a consideration. If in doubt, check.

One day in the not too distant future maybe it will be different on your end depending on public demand at the time but I suspect not now and not yet. Of course, if I'm wrong, then I'm happy to forge ahead and do something meaningful in your venue but, if I'm not, then it stops here in mutual respect. Either way and again, your interest and attention is still much appreciated and encouraging."

After the above second reply of mine, I have heard nothing further from this person or this organization just as I suspected would be the case. Let's face it, I'm no doubt viewed as too independent and probably too ornery (their more polite term) and difficult to deal with. But at least the secrecy agenda now increasingly knows for sure that I can think a bit for myself, look out for the welfare of this evidence reasonably well, and that just dangling the bright bobble prize of supposed big time mainstream exposure isn't enough by itself to lure me and this work in.

As I see it, I have a job here and you have a job right along with me should you choose to be a part of this. Together eventually our job is to explore and define some critical planetary truths, push back ignorance, and move ourselves first and then second some of this world toward what is real, what ever that may be. My being approached with this mainstream very attractive bait tells me that this evidence record is being felt right where it needs to be felt and I have no doubt it is influencing the secrecy agenda and their decision making. I am satisfied that scientific modeling alone via artificial intelligence super computers would have predicted this very result and I can only imagine what they may have thought about that at the time. Now evidence of such a prediction's advance is now beginning to demonstrate itself. What must they be thinking now?

In any case, the above quoted exchange material should be informative to any in the future that may wish to pursue an offer of media exposure with me and anticipate what may constructively work in an exchange with me. Time will tell.