There's been some very intriguing developments about Mars going on, quietly of course, and interestingly enough, going on while all the theater about Snowden and the NSA have been transpiring. Consider this article for a moment (sent to me courtesy of Mr. S.D.):
There is a very arresting statement in this article, and it is this one:
"The goal of NASA's Curiosity rover is to determine if Mars was ever capable of supporting life. But the Agency's next rover, set to launch in 2020, could take things one giant step further. Given recent findings, says Jack Mustard, chairman of the Agency's Science Definition Team, 'past Martian life seems possible, and we should begin the difficult endeavor of seeking the signs of life.'" (Emphasis added)
Of course, the article goes on to make it clear that NASA is thinking in terms of past microbial life, but in an article with quotations as carefully phrased as possible, one cannot altogether exclude the idea that they may be ready to admit they're searching for some other kind of indicator of past life, such as artifacts or buildings.
In that respect, consider this most recent article by Mars anomaly researcher Richard C. Hoagland, and its rather stunning array of pictures:
Now the picture with which we are concerned is the one Mr. Hoagland links at this point toward the end of his article:
"Here (below) is the most spectacular and best preserved 3-D version of this crucially significant "geometry" yet found -- a fully three-dimensional Reuleaux Tetrahedral Pyramid, discovered by the late Wilmer Faust on Mars Surveyor image E06002 -- taken July 7, 2001 in West Candor Chasma (one of the smaller, northern side canyons of the vast ~3000-mile-long "Vallis Marineris" system)."
The link is:
When this link opens, go to the image link beneath the thumbnail pictures of strips, that says
and click that image. What will open up is a thin strip, which you will have to enlarge, and then scroll down until you see the feature - clear and unmistakeable - on the picture, which is the tetrahedral shape seen on Hoagland's article. I have myself cropped this picture from the Surveyor picture linked above:
Had I not taken the time to search for this image and found it, I would have disbelieved it myself.
Now all scenarios aside, this image points to some serious philosophical questions, the most obvious of which are that it is either (1) "photoshopped", in which case, one has a government agency perpetrating a hoax, and in these days, that scenario is one that a great many people would entertain. I am not among them, but nonetheless, it's a possibility. On the other hand, one has the possibility that (2) it's real, raising even more difficult questions of how any sort of geological or natural process could account for it. I suppose that some intrepid scientismist might contrive to do so, but I for one just wouldn't buy stock in any such explanation.
Which leaves the possibility that someone built it. Leaving the questions of who, and how, to the types of speculations Hoagland argues in his article.
The trouble is, there are indicates of such extraordinarily large engineering all over the local celestial neighborhood, and that raises all those nasty questions from ancient human myths and texts about wars of the gods, cosmic wars, and so on. We needn't rehearse them here.
So what does all of this mean or portend. I'm not jumping on any disclosure bandwagons. What the NASA article appears to me to be is the type of limited hangout position that one would expect, for notably, after years and years of controversy between Face-on-Mars advocates such as Hoagland, Carlotto, Pozos, Brandenburg et al - and I would certainly number myself among them - and "it's just a trick of light and shadow" skeptics , such images with all sorts of strange artificial-looking "stuff" in them now seem to be released by NASA without any commentary whatsoever.
In other words, there is no longer even the attempt to head off the opposition at the pass with statements like "this may look artificial but it's really just a ______________ (fill in the blank with your favorite scientism "explanation" here). NASA may have just grown tired of having to "non-explain" things, or it may just be that the lack of such non-explanations in recent years is the story.
As for the Brookings Report that Mr. Hoagland mentions in his article, well, there's a lot more going on with that, but you'll have to wait for Covert Wars and the Clash of Civilizations to come out to see what that might be. But this non-explanation news may indeed be a part of it.
See you on the flip side.