HARD SELL

COMMENTARY #059

January 5, 2014

 

The Mars exploration data over the years is fascinating and this person I quote below in general expresses some cautious reactions that many in the mainstream public understand all too well. The caution is certainly understandable.

"I found your photos of Mars fascinating. I am a hard sell, though. So, please bear with me as I make some comments. They are not meant to be offensive, but objective in nature.

Yours, like so many conspiracy theorist's theories out there on the web are very difficult to discern as to their veracity. I also believ that even if some of those theories may not be 100% correct, they may be partially correct. Your arguments regarding the case for water and life on Mars, and the guarding of that big secret bank on "common sense," and your photos appear to be very real and unretouched, but photoshop is a remarkable thing, and all photos are easily faked.

Anyone with a gift for computerized imagery can do remarkable things with images to support their case. Again, not trying to blind myself as to what may be actual, but pointing out the things which are the most easily faked. You also seem to forget that everything you observe is your interpretation of the images. Assuming the images are true and not retouched in any way, shape or form, what appears to be water may or may not be water. Could be another liquid (now, this is a stretch, but you have be open to that possibility. Without analyzing it, it is still only an educated guess and not fact, and to suggest otherwise is human arrogance.)

Your argumentation about the scientific community, the secrecy, the greed, the selfish pride, the arrogance is all spot on. You, too, however stand to cash in with your own book and materials. Very difficult to keep your hands and heart pure in this business.

My biggest roadblock is the fact that you appear to be the only public commentator with your views. So, the obvious question is, what makes you special? What makes your interpretation correct? Why is no one else presenting the same evidence if it is so obvious? Because it is obvious, if what you present is true to form. Furthermore, no one else has seemed to take you on, which means they either regard you as a nut (again, not trying to be offensive, but the questions have to be asked), or a fraud. If your images are not public domain, how did you obtain them? If they are public domain, why does no one else see the obvious, that there is water and evidence of life (past or present) on Mars?

I get that news media and the federal government would want to hold back that information for their own exploitative purposes, etc, etc., but if the evidence is so obvious and no one else is presenting it, one has to ask why not? Because this is about as open and shut a case for life on Mars as you can get.

Lastly, there is an emotion to your argumentation which begs a few questions. Sure, I'd love to hear from you if you have a response, but what would be most helpful in convincing me of the evidence and argument you present is a believable answer to the questions in the third and fourth paragraph to this e-mail."

Viewers want to have confidence in someone they can believe is in the know but to them there is no one that stands out above the crowd that they can have high confidence in. There is so much misinformation and disinformation out here so that few can blame anyone exercising some serious caution. Obviously caution is a good thing but likewise painting everyone with a form of disbelief is an extreme that can equate to throwing the baby out with the bath water as an old saying goes. This is especially true of what excessive official secrecy does, as the major players misdeeds corrupts the whole field and all who might try to participate.

So is there any answer that makes sense? Even if many answers may not be a standout among those of us in this field, perhaps the best one is in a logical process dependent on the viewer rather than on a person or persons doing the presenting.

What do I mean? Well, for example, vast public resources are provided to the major players like NASA and JPL for space exploration and the advanced technologies that support its continuing development. However, having experienced excessive secrecy early in this, there is also an attempt to protect this wealth and insure meaningful performance by requiring certain things of those accepting the resources. This is in the form of timely public release of new technology and exploration findings. If secrecy is to survive, it must work within these constraints or find a way around them.

In finding a way around them, some of the solutions are for secrecy to maintain a controlling influence over scientists and the public and especially the educational institutions that produce them. Similarly control of the media to act as a filter also becomes a part of it with only the officially "approved" material being able to get through filters. Patience and slippery activities enabled by serious wealth often too large in scale to be psychologically grasped by individuals is also part of it until global humanity itself is impacted in the desired secrecy way.

Tools of the secrecy trade logically are the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation into the general background human experience to create confusion and raise distrust levels and especially anyone missed in the more direct obfuscation processes. The official visual exploration science data exists in this corrupt massive scale atmosphere and is of course heavily influenced by it. So questioning what you are looking at online is a good thing. However, allowing that questioning to stop you in your tracks and be the end of your pursuit or involvement is also allowing yourself to be manipulated by the corruption.

In my presentations It needs to be understood that all of this is evidence is drawn from the official science data. Further, a link is provided to the particular official science data for viewers to verify that the evidence is sourced from it without alteration. If you will go to any of the links in the reports, you will see that key visual evidence and see that it is the same except that my images are often a little clearer as I've tried to bring the anomaly into sharper focus but the A-B comparison will confirm that this is clearly all that I have done. As I say, this is a "process" in which anyone with a computer and browser can participate verifying that the evidence is drawn from the official science data and not something invented, created, or changed by me.

Since none of the evidence I present is altered from the original found in the official science data, this means that, if there is something in the viewer's mind to question in the visual evidence I present, then such questions are really of the official science data itself rather than my work and so there is no reason for me to take offense even if the questioning is sometimes misguidedly directed at me just because I'm the one that brought it to attention. In other words, if there is something wrong, it is with the official science data from which it is drawn and not what I present.

That is why you rarely see an attack on me based on the visual evidence. Rather, attacks are usually based on psychology painting me as a nut case with some hidden agenda or at best as a confused and/or misguided person. After all, if the attack included too much focus on the visual evidence, then the attack might itself motivate too many to visit the official source material where they would see the truth. Very much of that would of course lead to serious problems for them, their credibility, and their own agenda.

The last thing they want is for more and more people to start concentrating on the visual evidence and move away from wondering about the human factor and if I really am some sort of nut case. It is after all easy enough to check behind me on the visual evidence in the official science data but much more difficult to determine if I am some kind of psychologically handicapped or unbalanced person or not. However, all that they need is just to create a few questions as to a whistle blower's motives creating doubt and pretty soon enough viewers will not know what to think and their job is done.

For example, they say that Mars is a super frozen dry dead world without surface water, vegetation, or life. I don't harp as to my conclusions about that but I do present hard visual evidence drawn from and verifiable in their own official record that indicates otherwise and ask viewers to think for themselves and draw your own conclusions. It is true that someone like me that sees so much anomalous evidence during the research process finds that visual evidence telling as well as the reality that much more is kept hidden from us. Needless to say, hiding evidence is not a good thing. It for example defines the character of those doing it and we must remember run this world that we all inhabit for the most part.

All together the anomalous evidence shown at my website and in my book, although none of it is suppose to exist, is enough to indicate that Mars has surface water, vegetation, and life and that we are not being told the truth about it. That message is so obvious, so why hide it? It's something that so many of us want to know. WHY!

If I put that question to any group of scientists involved in planetary exploration, they would without a doubt look at me like I had completely lost my mind. Most of them would at first almost certainly be thrilled inside to consider that life other than our own exists and would be appalled that they might be viewed otherwise. They just could not at first identify with or accept any motivations to the contrary. They would never believe that to be plausible or that they might have been scammed. From their point of view I would be instantly convicted as a basket case by my own utterances.

Yet such anticipated emotional reactions do not change the fact that so much of what is made available to us of the official visual science data record is riddled with information that is untrue and has been manipulated by someone to that end. It does not change the fact that at minimum overlooked unfrozen Mars surface water sites exist right in the official science data along with vegetation. It also does not change the fact this evidence dating back many years has been overlooked on the scientist's watch and that many opportunities to ring the bell of truth have over time come and gone on their watch.

When forced into dealing with this while staying away from the evidence itself and trying to remain silent and removed, their next predictable step will be to try to characterize me as a disturbed and confused person who has misinterpreted what I report as anomalous evidence. Well I cannot help what others may characterize me as, I can only present the evidence I find and leave it to you to check out and make up your own mind.

If the majority choose to believe in the official story of space exploration and not question it, then we'll all have to live with the consequences good or bad that stem from that global choosing. As for me, I just cannot choose to live in ignorance and let others decide my life for me without my input in it. That is why I continue to build this anomalous "hard sell" evidence record out of what I find in the official exploration record that is made available to us.

As I've stated a number of times in my reporting, often the problem isn't with the evidence itself but with the psychology of those viewing it. Sadly, too many need to believe what those they acknowledge as leaders tell them is true rather than think for themselves and question.