The story of Mars has always intrigued me I read a few books on the intelligent life subject on this planet so I thought I would post it. Thanks Arjun
The Pyramids, The Face & The Case For Intelligent Life on Mars Before Its Massive Climate Change
At a 2015 news conference at NASA headquarters, scientists and officials discussed new findings from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO). At that conference, where they announced water was discovered on Mars, recently retired director of planetary sciences, James Green, expressed this fact,
“Mars was a very different planet, it had an extensive atmosphere, and in fact, it had what we believe was a huge ocean, perhaps as large as two thirds of the Northern Hemisphere. And that ocean may have been as much as a mile deep. So Mars indeed three billion years ago had extensive water resources. But something happened. Mars suffered a major climate change and lost its surface water.”
The scientists at that conference went on to explain that data from the Curiosity Rover confirms that Mars was once a planet very much like Earth. It had big salty oceans, fresh water lakes, probably snow capped peaks, clouds, and a water cycle. They said this with certainty.
They then expressed that the atmosphere on Mars is still moist, and as the rovers ingest the soils they are finding that they are quite hydrated and full of water. This suggests that microbial life may still exist on Mars.
This is what’s discussed in the mainstream about this subject. But is there something even more mysterious going on that hasn’t been discussed? It seems that way.
Because of my bias and interest in the history of intelligent life in our universe(s), I was drawn to the interesting theory of Dr. John Brandenburg.
Given the other interesting anomalies found on Mars that we cannot ignore, which we will get to shortly, I thought Brandenburg’s theory was quite plausible and the most likely.
Brandenburg worked for NASA for a number of years. He was the Deputy Manager of the Clementine Mission to the Moon, which was part of a joint space project between the Ballistic Missile Defence Organization (BMDO) and NASA. The mission discovered water at the Moon’s poles in 1994, although Brandenburg claimed the real purpose of the mission was to examine what appeared to be artificially built structures on the back side of the Moon.
Just to give you an idea of his background, Brandenburg has also worked on space plasma technologies, nuclear fusion, and advanced space propulsion for a long time. He invented the Microwave Electro-Thermal plasma thruster using a water propellant for space propulsion. Before he introduced his theories, he was a renowned and well respected scientist in the field.
According to Brandenburg, a large nuclear blast was responsible for the climate shift on Mars. He believes this to be so due to the large presence of xenon-129 found in the Martian atmosphere. Xenon-129 is a chemical isotope that can be produced in a number of ways, including a nuclear blast.
Brandenburg claims that the analysis of xenon-129 on Mars has a very different signature than compared to xenon-129 on Earth, or on any other planet for that matter.
This is no secret, NASA has expressed this fact over and over again as well, only they tell us that the large and strange presence of xenon-129 in the Martian atmosphere is either unexplainable, or likely due to natural causes.
“The atmospheres of Earth and Mars exhibit very different patterns of xenon and krypton isotopes, particularly for xenon-129. Mars has much more of it in the atmosphere than does Earth.”
According to NASA, isotopes like xenon-129 could have been released into the atmosphere by impacts on the surface, and by gas escaping from the regolith, which is the soil and broken rocks of the surface. It may also come from what are known as “SNC” meteorites.
SNC meteorites are fine-grained igneous cumulates of mafic or komatiitic composition that are thought to have come from the surface of Mars. The most convincing evidence that they have come from there is the presence of a trapped atmospheric component similar to the composition of the Martian atmosphere, as determined from spectral studies.
But, according to Brandenburg, as explained in 2007 at an American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting presentation,
“It has long been known that the isotopic ratios 129 Xe/132Xe and 40Ar/36Ar are very high in Mars atmosphere relative to Earth or meteoritic backgrounds. This fact has allowed the SNC meteorites to be identified as Martian based on their trapped gases (1). However, while the isotopic anomalies explained one mystery, the origin of the SNC meteorites, they created a new mystery: the rock samples from Mars show no evidence of the large amounts of Iodine or Potassium that would give naturally give rise to the Xenon and Argon isotopic anomalies (2). In fact, the Martian meteorites are depleted in Potassium relative to earth rocks. This is added to the fact that for other isotopic systems such as 80Kr, Mars rock samples must be irradiated by neutrons at fluences of 1015 /cm2 to explain observed abundances (1) . Compounding the mystery is the fact that Mars surface layer has elevated levels of Uranium and Thorium relative to Earth and even its own rocks, as determined from SNCs (3). These anomalies can be explained if some large nuclear energy release, such as by natural nuclear reactors known to have operated on Earth (4) in in some concentrated ore body, occurred with perhaps a large volcano like explosion that spread residues over the planets surface. Based on gamma ray observations from orbit (3), and the correlations of normally uncorrelated Th and K deposits , the approximate location of this event would appear to have been in the north of Mars in a region in Acidalia Planitia centered at 45N Latitude and 15W Longitude (5). The possibility of such a large radiological event in Mars past adds impetus to Mars exploration efforts and particularly to a human mission to Mars to learn more about this possible occurrence.”
His argument is very technical, and one has to have a specific background and expertise in the area to even have these conversations. But in the simplest terms possible, there appears to be a superabundance of xenon 129 in the atmosphere of Mars relative to every other planet. To have this amount of naturally occurring xenon 129 is highly unlikely, and according to Brandenburg, it has a clear nuclear weapons signature.
He has presented this theory time and time again over the years at a number of conferences and in a number of his publications. At a 2014 meeting of the American Physical Society, the abstract to his presentation reads as follows,
“Analysis of recent Mars isotopic, gamma ray, and imaging data supports the hypothesis that perhaps two immense thermonuclear explosions occurred on Mars in the distant past and these explosions were targeted on sites of previously reported artifacts. Analysis rules out large unstable “natural nuclear reactors”, instead, data is consistent with mixed fusion-fission explosions. Imagery at the radioactive centers of the explosions shows no craters, consistent with “airbursts.” Explosions appear correlated with the sites of reported artifacts at Cydonia Mensa and Galaxias Chaos, Analysis of new images from Odyssey, MRO and Mars Express orbiters now show strong evidence of eroded archeological objects at these sites. Taken together, the data requires that the hypothesis of Mars as the site of an ancient planetary nuclear massacre, must now be considered. Fermi’s Paradox, the unexpected silence of the stars, may be solved at Mars. Providentially, we are forewarned of this possible aspect of the cosmos. The author therefore advocates that a human mission to Mars is mounted immediately to maximize knowledge of what occurred.”
When Could This Nuclear Explosion Have Happened, Was There Life On Mars?
“Evidence suggesting a past humanoid civilization has been found at several sites on Mars. In particular, what appear to be large carved faces, with similar details, have been found at two separate sites. Together with geochemical and geological evidence that suggests Mars was once more Earth-like in climate, the images of the objects support the Cydonian Hypothesis: That Mars once lived as the Earth now lives, and that it was once the home of an indigenous humanoid intelligence.
Perhaps it is our imagination and our desire to find other life in the universe that makes us see it as an intelligently crafted object, or perhaps not.
What makes the artificially constructed theory more plausible is the fact that it’s not alone. Nearby are other strange looking objects, some quite geometrical in shape. A number of them look like pyramids, one apparently five-sided. Moreover, the objects seem to be arranged on the Martian surface in an organized pattern with precision.
Is our imagination tricking us into seeing something that’s not there? That’s what NASA told us when these images came back to Earth in 1976. But is it the truth?
Let’s examine the science that has been done on these objects, and then you can decide for yourself.
The Face is an astonishing 2.5 km long x 2.0 km wide x 0.4 km tall and is located on a flat plain known as Cydonia Mensae in Mars’ northern hemisphere (41 deg. N latitude 9.5 deg. longitude). The Face and other objects described on this page were imaged by one of the Viking Orbiters in the summer of 1976.
The picture (below) is one of many taken in the northern latitude of Mars by the Viking 1 Orbiter in search of a landing site for Viking 2.
Many academics in the field consider the images from 1976 alone to be strong evidence for artificial surface interventions on Mars. There are multiple examples throughout the decades, and also some funny business which we will examine later on in the article.
The feature which resembles a human head was discovered by Dr. Tobias Owen and became famous as “The Face on Mars”. In the ensuing years, the feature and related anomalies mentioned in this article have received detailed study by several authors and have been referenced in various publications.
The original images, upon enhancement, also appeared to show teeth like structures in the mouth, as pointed out in the image below. This analysis and image enhancement (below) comes from Mark Carlotto, a renowned image analysis expert who works in the aerospace industry. He published it, and others, in Applied Optics in 1988. According to him,
“Image enhancements of the face show it to be a bisymmetrical object having two eyes, a nose, and a mouth; fine structure in the mouth suggesting teeth are apparent in the enhanced imagery as well as crossed symmetrical lines on the forehead. Facial features are also evident in the underlying 3-D surface which was reconstructed using a single image shape-from-shading technique. Synthetic images derived from the 3-D model by computer graphics techniques suggest that the impression of facial features evident in the original Viking imagery are not a transient phenomenon; i.e., they persist over a wide range of illumination and viewing conditions.”
Fascinating stuff, isn’t it? As if the face on Mars wasn’t already causing a rift in the scientific community, the teeth further added to the controversy, so much so that NASA addressed the results of image enhancements as “bit-error correction, contrast and brightness adjustment, reseau mark removal, and sharpening of digital images using bicubic interpolation.”
NASA claimed that the teeth and forehead lines were simply a result of faulty digital image enhancement, and they did so publicly. More on this later, including other images that appear to show an eyeball in the socket of the eye.
A 2016 study published in the Journal of Space Exploration titled, “The Mounds of Cydonia: Elegant Geology, or Tetrahedral Geometry and Reactions of Pythagoras and Dirac?” explains that, if these structures are indeed artificial, they,
“Provide an elegant and concise way for an intelligent species to transmit to another intelligence evidence that it understands the basics of tetrahedral geometry, prime numbers, and the quantum mechanics of the electrons spin, thereby giving additional evidence for the possibility of intelligent intervention. We also explore plausible geological explanations for the individual mounds and survey the possible natural mechanisms which may have been involved in their unusual and mathematically precise positioning.”
The formations on Mars are quite complex. So complex that, according the study, the appearance of these configurations are far beyond chance. This means that the likelihood of them being natural formations are extremely small. According to my conversation with one of the authors of the study, the odds are millions to one, and in some cases for other formations, billions to one.
The lead author of the study was Dr. Horace Crater from the University of Tennessee Space Institute, where he taught advanced quantum mechanics. It’s another highly technical and advanced study which I cannot interpret fully, but another that goes to show how seriously academics take the Face on Mars and the Mars pyramid anomalies.
In another paper titled, “Face on Mars – Four Decades Later,” Crater and his co-authors explain,
“The anomalous characteristics of the so-called “Face on Mars” feature, as seen in the 1976 Viking image, was debunked 20 years ago by reference to a 1998 image taken by the Mars Global Surveyor. However ten years later, in 2008, a far superior image was obtained that shows details consistent with the original of 1976. By means of side-by-side comparisons, we show how this 2008 image gives an improvement in identification of the allegedly anomalous details.”
As you can see from earlier in the article, the images from 1976 are strikingly clear, and as controversy lasted for more than 20 years, it wasn’t until 1998 when more images were released to the public.
The image below was acquired by the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) in 1998, and it made the issue of facial features more or less moot. Prior to this, NASA spent a long time ridiculing the idea that the structure on Mars could indeed be an artificially made face, and claimed that the pyramids were nothing more than natural formations.
In 1995, NASA stated the following,
“First, given the interest in the general public about the “Face,” it is appropriate to acquire such images for public relations purposes, especially since the public interest has been generated in no small way by the people who claim there is a conspiracy at NASA to withhold information from the public. Second, there are valid scientific reasons to examine landforms in the area (which, after all, is why the Viking spacecraft were photographing the area in the first place).”
In 1998, when they released the image above, they stated,
“As can be seen, fortuitously, the area imaged was relatively clear, although the lack of surface definition in many nearby areas, and the low contrast of the raw MOC high resolution image, suggests haze or fog over much of the area.”
NASA said that image processing had been applied to the image in order to improve the visibility of features. As you can see, it is extremely different from the first images that were taken in 1976, almost too hard to believe, but apparently this image was taken with better technology providing a more accurate portrayal of the face, so NASA claimed.
Below is a comparison. Notice how much more detail appears to be implied in the older, lower resolution image of 1976, compared to the 1998 release.
Below is another, more high definition image released by NASA in 2001.
However, shown below, is the MRO CTX image: B01_010143_2216, acquired on 24th September 2008, from a distance of just over 311 km. This image has not been processed and presented here as it was obtained from the MRO HiRise website. According to Crater and colleagues, “It shows clearly an ‘eyeball’ in the eye cavity and ‘teeth’ in the mouth area.
Below is a comparison with the image from 1976 to the 2008 image, both still seems more accurate compared to the image released in 1998.
The Pulse is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
I mean, the criticism started as early as 1976 when the first images were released. What happened back then was the same thing that happens now with legitimate questions, observations, data and evidence that seems to call into question the “status quo.” They are censored and ridiculed, often labelled a “conspiracy theory” despite a number of experts and academics claiming the opposite. We saw this with COVID.
According to Crater and colleagues,
“The effect of the 1998 image of the facial feature, released by MSSS, has been to draw mainstream attention away from a feature on Mars that could be of great cultural value to humanity and to our future search for extraterrestrial intelligence. SETI will have to expand away from only a radio- signal search to searching for planetary artefacts as a standard procedure. Perhaps our discovery of ETI may be closer to home than we ever thought possible.”
NASA astronaut and Princeton Physics Professor, Dr. Brain O’Leary, who published a paper in 1991 titled “Analysis of images of the Face on Mars and Possible Intelligent Origin” in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, hinted to this possibility multiple times, and even accused Carl Sagan of fudging data and the image of the Face on Mars.
At this time, Sagan and O’Leary were arguably the world’s two leading experts on Mars, and they entered into many disagreements over the face. This rift was made clear in O’Leary’s publication in 1998, “Carl Sagan & I: On Opposite Sides of Mars.” It can be found in The Case for the Face: Scientists Examine the Evidence for Alien Artifacts on Mars, eds. (Stanley V. McDaniel and Monica Rix Paxson. Kempton, IL: Adventures Unlimited Press)
Brandenburg has also hinted to a cover up (see lecture below), and there are various others inside of NASA who have said the same. Dr. Norman Bergrun, for example, who worked for Ames Research Laboratory, NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics), and Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, now known as Lockheed Martin, mentioned this as well. He provided personal examples of fudged data and the manipulation of images in this fascinating interview.
Why would these academics make such claims if they didn’t experience it or know about it? Why would NASA, since the original images were taken, instantaneously debunk the idea that the structures seen in this region of Mars could be artificial in origin? Why wouldn’t they even consider the possibility and have an open dialogue with those that were showing that it could indeed be a strong possibility?
Other Interesting Documents That Corroborate With The Images
“To summarize, over the years, the back-and-forth criticism of protocols, refinement of methods, and successful replication of this type of remote viewing in independent laboratories has yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the (remote viewing) phenomenon. Adding to the strength of these results was the discovery that a growing number of individuals could be found to demonstrate high-quality remote viewing, often to their own surprise…The development of this capability at SRI has evolved to the point where visiting CIA personnel with no previous exposure to such concepts have performed well under controlled laboratory conditions.”
Remote viewing is the ability to perceive or “view” a remote geographical location where one is not present. Remote viewing allows the viewer to view a location in present time regardless of distance to the target, as well as past and potential future scenarios of the site. Remote viewing sessions and experiments were no joke, they had an extremely high statistical success rate and were used for various intelligence gathering purposes. The phenomenon was repeated in various laboratories with solid methodology.
Dr. Jessica Utts, a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Statistics at the University of California, Irvine further emphasizes my point on the show Talking Points. I used this quote in a previous article I wrote regarding the Moon, so forgive me if you came across it.
“What convinced me was just the evidence, the accumulating evidence as I worked in this field and I got to see more and more of the evidence. I visited the laboratories, even beyond where I was working to see what they were doing and I could see that they had really tight controls… and so I got convinced by the good science that I saw being done. And in fact I will say as a statistician I’ve consulted in a lot of different areas of science; the methodology and the controls on these experiments are much tighter than any other area of science where I’ve worked.”
There are documents from the Stargate files showing that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) tasked remote viewers to view Mars. In this particular case, as with most others, the remote viewer was given coordinates, and was completely unaware of the location these coordinates represented.
It’s interesting to note that this viewing session occurred in 1984.
What else did the viewer see? He saw signs of life. Now keep in mind that this is before the big climate change, and it’s interesting because he describes them as tall thin humanoids wearing some sort of suit.
The defence employee is constantly asking the viewer to shift coordinates.
After this, if you continue to read the document, the viewer describes large pyramid structures, and much more.
All of this is very interesting, especially when you consider that the remote viewing program had such a high success rate.
What’s so significant about the document above is that there is corroborating information. As you saw, the remote viewer in this case was tasked with remote viewing Mars, but again, they did so in a time period approximately 1 million years BC.
It’s interesting to note how the remote viewer was ‘brought back.’
Final Thoughts & A Full Lecture From Brandenburg
At the end of the day, the anomalies on Mars are one of countless examples of legitimate information that warrant, at the very least, a discussion and more transparency. Imagine if after these images were captured, global space agencies focused their attention on landing rovers in the Cydonia region of Mars to take a closer look at these anomalies. Perhaps there are some “within” that decided that information like this is simply too much for the citizenry to contemplate, and perhaps it threatens long held beliefs of what we have been told regarding extraterrestrial discoveries. Who knows?
It’s just strange that as soon as the first images came out, a massive censorship and ridicule campaign began like we’ve seen so many other times with so many other topics.
Ask yourself, what would be the implications of the possibility that there are structures on Mars, similar to what we’ve seen in Egypt and in other parts of our own planet? How would this impact human consciousness?
Perhaps when Mars was indeed a planet like our own, an intelligent civilization was thriving, and perhaps a nuclear blast was responsible for the massive climate shift?
There seems to be, in my opinion, an intentional ‘squashing’ of information, ideas and discussion that not only oppose what we are told from governments, but of topics that really have the potential to expand our consciousness and discover new concepts about the nature of our reality. Exploration and critical questioning is not encouraged. Instead, compliance and following the status quo is almost forced upon us, leading many to self censor their thoughts on various topics in order to appear ‘normal.’
Below is a lecture from Brandenburg, I thought it was a good video to leave you with if you are curious and want to go into even more details regarding his expertise and theories regarding The Face and pyramids on Mars.