ooparts

The Giant Sandworm Theory on the Creation of the Channels and other Features of Mars

The Giant Sandworm Theory on the Creation of the Channels and other Features of Mars

Updated with evidence for the existence, sometime in the past, of Giant Sandworms on the Moon, Venus, Earth, Europa, Ceres, Phobos, Enceladus, Dione, Tethys, Ariel, Miranda, and Triton, as well.

By Rod Tritton – 2011.   Rev. 1 – 2014.   Rev. 2 – 2016.

(click Canals17b to download the latest updated pdf version)  (where all the contents and illustrations are bookmarked and all the hyperlinks work)

 

Abstract

This thesis presents images of twelve extraordinary landscape features on Mars (channels; caves; ridges; dune trains; labyrinths; chaotic areas; hills; mesas; inverted channels; back-to-front rivers; crater chains; and sinkholes) which cannot be adequately explained by the six current theories for their origin (water; lava; meteors; faulting; lightning; and venting).

This intriguing anomaly has spawned a new hypothesis: The Giant Sandworm Theory on the Creation of the Channels and Other Features of Mars, first published in the chapter on Life on Mars, in my book, Exploring Mystery, in 2011.

Once it has been established that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth about Mars, and that the existing theories of channel formation are questionable, we can entertain the possibility of an alternative explanation for the creation of these otherwise anomalous features. So, firstly, in order to understand the scientific and cultural environment within which this hypothesis appears, the introductory chapter examines the credibility of the authorities, and the movie industry habit of ‘hiding the truth in plain sight’. The second chapter discusses existing theories of channel formation.

Thirdly, the concept that giant sandworms, on seasonal migrations, and hunting and foraging forays, were the biological agents responsible for the creation of most, if not all of the channels, and many other prominent landscape features of Mars, is introduced. Some possible answers to questions about giant sandworm biology are given in chapter four.

Lastly, this thesis presents evidence of similar channels on the Moon, on Venus, on Earth, and on other nearby bodies (including: Europa; Ceres; Phobos; Enceladus; Dione; Tethys; Ariel; Miranda; and Triton), suggesting that giant sandworms were, at one time, a common feature of this part of our Solar System.

(276 of 18 957 words with 72 illustrations on 56 pages)


Contents

  1. Introduction                                     

1.1   Background                                             

1.2   Aims and Methods                             

1.3   NASA                                                            

1.4   The Authorities                                   

1.5   Dune’                                                           

1.6   ‘Alternative 3’

 

  1. Existing Theories
    of Channel Formation
             

2.1   Introduction                                         

2.2   Water                                                          

2.3   Lava                                                             

2.4   Meteors                                                     

2.5   Faulting                                                     

2.6   Lightning Scarring

2.7   Venting

 

  1. Giant Sandworm Evidence       

3.1   Introduction                                          

3.2   Channels                                                  

3.3   Sinkholes                                                 

3.4   Ridges                                                          

3.5   Dunes                                                           

3.6   Mesas                                                            

3.7   Back-to-front Rivers                           

3.8   Glass Tubes

  1. Giant Sandworm Biology             

4.1   Introduction                                              

4.2   Size                                                                   

4.3   Survival                                                         

4.4   Movement                                                   

4.5   Hunting and Foraging                         

4.6   Migration                                                    

4.7   Population

  1. The Moon, Venus and Earth

  2. Conclusion

  3. References                                                 

 

  

List of Figures

Fig. 1. Extensive Channelling on Mars                         3
Fig. 2. Extensive Furrowing on Mars                           4
Fig. 3. Directional Channelling                                        4
Fig. 4. White-tailed Antelope Squirrel on Mars?  6
Fig. 5. A Dune Scene from ‘Dune’                                     8
Fig. 6. A Dune Scene from Mars                                        9
Fig. 7. Squiggly Channels in the Flats                          10
Fig. 8. Tyrrhena Fossae – Back-to-front River       11
Fig. 9. Crater with Horizontal Trench                          11
Fig. 10. Vallis Marineris – A 2000km Channel      15
Fig. 11. Channels Across The Face on Mars              14
Fig. 12. Sinuous Channels                                                     15
Fig. 13. Sulci on Mars                                                                16
Fig. 14. Mars Chaos                                                                     16
Fig. 15. The Channels Cerberus Fossae                       17
Fig. 16. Catena Showing Sinkholes and Craters     18
Fig. 17. Cave Entrance or Sinkhole                                  19
Fig. 18. Sinkhole in a Forest                                                  19
Fig. 19. Sinkholes With and Without Bottoms        20
Fig. 20. Catena on a Ridge                                                      20
Fig. 21. Inverted Channel or Sandworm Burrow   21
Fig. 22. Sinuous Ridges Called Dorsa                             22
Fig. 23. Dune Network                                                              22
Fig. 24. Dune Ridges or Sandworm Skeletons         23
Fig. 25. Dune Trains or Fossilised Sandworms      23
Fig. 26. Linear Tubular Feature                                        24
Fig. 27. Exposed Giant Sandworm Fossils                 24
Fig. 28. Ribbed Ridges in Cerberus Fossae                 25
Fig. 29. Sandworm Skeletons in their Burrows     25
Fig. 30. Mensae on Mars                                                         26
Fig. 31. Colles on Mars                                                              27
Fig. 32. Regular Raised Rings in Rows                           27
Fig. 33. Anomalous Channels                                             28
Fig. 34. A Bombed Giant Sandworm                              29
Fig. 35. Glass Tubes, Dunes, or Sandworms             29
Fig. 36. Regular Rows of Mounds                                      30
Fig. 37. Dune Train with Nested Ribs                            32
Fig. 38. Sandworm Cemetery                                             32
Fig. 39. Ribbed Ridges in Rows                                           33
Fig. 40. Parallel Channels with the Contour            34
Fig. 41. Rima Hadley on the Moon                                   35
Fig. 42. Komarov Crater on the Moon                          36
Fig. 43. Channel in Karpinsky Crater                            36
Fig. 44. Baltis Vallis on Venus                                            37
Fig. 45. Tubes off California                                                 38
Fig. 46. Tubes as Ribbed Ridges off California         38
Fig. 47. Trench off Baja Mexico                                         39
Fig. 48. Atlantic Sea-floor Intricately Burrowed   39
Fig. 49. Anomalous Channels in the Atlantic        40


 

 

 

 

 

1.     Introduction

 

1.1   Background

There are highly anomalous, gigantic features visible on images from Mars that do not currently have an adequate explanation, and that intriguingly, look as if they could have been created by a prolific species of giant sandworm. This has provided a challenge to find out the truth about the formation of the channels and other features of Mars.

Since 1877, when Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli first described what he saw as ‘canals’ on Mars, speculation has been rife about life on The Red Planet. Irrigation canals would indeed be a sure sign of intelligent life, but the channels that are visible on Mars are certainly not straight and do not look artificially constructed for any form of transport system.

We are told by NASA, the supposed authority on the subject of anything extraterrestrial, that the channels that do occur on Mars are evidence of flowing surface water at some time in Martian history. However, most of the channels do not follow the slope of the land. In fact, what makes the features of Mars anomalous is the ‘unbelievability’ of the official explanations.

Canals, channels, trenches, gutters and gullies are all direct translations of Schiaparelli’s word canali, so it does not matter what we call them, especially as science labels the multitude of ditches that liberally scar The Red Planet, variously in Latin, as: ‘fossae’, ‘valles’, ‘sulci’, ‘chasma’, and ‘chasmata’, which is confusing because they are all canals, that is: gullies, furrows, trenches or channels, that meander across and criss-cross the landscape, without regard to the slope. Many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of such canals, or channels, or whatever you wish to call them, randomly criss-cross much of the surface of Mars, and, it is most intriguing that the official explanations (and even the unofficial explanations) for the creation of such a predominant landscape feature, make no geological sense.

The first three images below show the extent of the channelling on Mars. (Most of the images included are from Google Mars, which can be found by clicking the Saturn icon on Google Earth, and can be investigated further by flying to the co-ordinates supplied and scrolling in to see the detail.)

 

Fig. 1. Extensive Channelling on Mars

Fig. 1. Extensive Channelling on Mars

 

 

 

 

This image (from Google Mars 1S, 110W) shows the extent to which this area of Mars has been criss-crossed by channels and how these prevalent features, whatever you call them, ‘form’ the landscape. NASA calls the channels in this one image alone variously as: fossae; chasma; vallis; labyrinthus and chaos.  All the linear features or channels in this image are certainly not straight and they do not look intelligently constructed for any form of transport system.

 

 

 

 

Fig. 2. Extensive Furrowing on Mars

Fig. 2. Extensive Furrowing on Mars

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thousands of channels called ‘sulci’ (Latin for furrows), in this image (from Google Mars 24N, 136W) plough across the landscape, criss-crossing the area extensively, with no apparent regard to the gradient of the terrain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 3. Directional Channelling

Fig. 3. Directional Channelling

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is an area (from Google Mars 33S, 100W) where the channels are not labelled but it is clear that thousands of trenches run across and over each other, in a roughly north-south direction, straight through craters, without regard for the slope of the landscape.

 

 

 

 

From gigantic scars traversing thousands of kilometres across Mars, to intricately furrowed plains, the channels of Mars are clearly a major feature of the history of The Red Planet. A search around Google Mars shows that there is hardly an area of Mars in which channels are not found. I have spent many hours flying over the detail of Google Mars with the eyes of a naturalist, and I have seen very old features with fresh eyes.

The masses of channels on Mars are such prominent features that it would be ignorant to ignore their method of creation. And, however much we would like to believe the authority on the matter, it would be unwise to accept NASA’s explanation that they were created by water or lava flowing downhill, as most of the channels do not run with the slope.

In 1976 Viking 1 space probe sent tantalizing images of Mars back to Earth. A controversy has existed ever since about the origin of the feature that Viking 1 captured, in two separate frames, called ‘The Face on Mars’. NASA claims it to be a naturally formed mountain, and yet many independent Mars researchers such as DiPietro and Molenaar 1, Carlotto 2, Hoagland 3, and McDaniel 4, believe that it displays the hallmarks of artificiality, as do the pyramids on Mars. Hancock et al. 5 provide a thorough examination of the research, and they quote an artist, Jim Channon, who found that ‘The Face on Mars’ has classical proportions, and that the base upon which it stands also has classical proportions. Channon says that: “There is overwhelming evidence that the structure… [The Face on Mars]  …is a consciously created monument typical of the archaeology left to us by our predecessors”.

And, enough inconsistencies exist in NASA’s explanations for landforms on Mars to suspect a cover-up, and to entertain the idea of another theory to explain the creation of these otherwise anomalous features, that are so predominant that they ‘form’ the Martian landscape. The very reason a controversy exists over the origin of many of the features of Mars, is simply because the explanations given by both NASA and independent authorities do not adequately explain their creation. To understand this controversy, and before the evidence of giant sandworms can be introduced, the credibility of the authorities must firstly be established. And, all existing theories of channel formation must be considered before we can test the biological hypothesis for the creation of the channels of Mars.

 

1.2   Aims and Methods

The aim of this thesis is to present evidence to test the biological agency hypothesis that many giant sandworms, over many years, carved out most of the many channels evident on Mars, by burrowing in the loose topsoil below the surface, on migration routes, and on hunting and foraging forays, and that the collapse and erosion of these underground burrows has formed the open channels plainly visible all over Mars today.

Part of testing the hypothesis is testing the null-hypothesis, so each of the current theories for channel creation will be considered to see if a logically coherent explanation exists for the channels being created by something other than a biological agent.

NASA have been tasked with being the public face of American space exploration, and they have published images taken by a number of spacecraft to Mars over the years since the 1970s. These images and Google Mars are the main sources of visual information on the features of Mars that are available to the general public. I have an interest in mysterious phenomena, ancient civilizations, geology, and extraterrestrial influences, and these have given me an overview in my study of the images NASA do release to the public. This has provided the method of my enquiry: to study the available images of Mars through the eyes of a naturalist, with an open mind.

 

1.3   NASA

NASA is a US government agency (National Aeronautics Space Administration), set up in 1958 and charged with reporting everything they find to the American government. They are also charged with not reporting issues of ‘national security’ to the public. It is therefore NASA’s job to make sure that nothing of national security importance leaks out to the public, and it would seem that all extraterrestrial life has been deemed to be a ‘national security’ issue. So, NASA cannot only be accused of avoiding telling us the truth, which is their mandate, they are also guilty of purposefully telling us lies in order to deceive. Stanley McDaniel, a Mars researcher notes in The McDaniel Report 4, that NASA scientists were using “such faulty reasoning” that he “finds it difficult not to believe that they were following some sort of hidden agenda aimed at suppressing the true nature of the data”.

It is considered amongst many within the alternative research community that NASA is a propaganda institution for the elite controllers. There are stories from whistleblowers confirming that their job was to airbrush out UFOs from NASA pictures before they were released. The following bona fide scientist’s testimonials confirm that Carl Sagan was the chief propagandist for NASA for a number of years from the 1950s to the 1980s. I have heard of three people who provide personal testimonies that Carl Sagan released a touched-up photograph of ‘The Face on Mars’ to make it look like a natural mesa. Richard Hoagland 3 says he discussed this with Sagan and showed him an original, untouched image. Stanley McDaniel in a lecture at the ‘Quest for Knowledge’ conference in 1997 also pointed out this fraud. And, Brian O’Leary, an astronaut who worked with Sagan, said in a Red Ice Radio interview that he challenged Sagan about publishing a touched-up image of The Face on Mars. Sagan told him that he had to do it because otherwise it would turn society to chaos if humans were to find out about alien civilisations. This is the poor excuse that the powers that be have been giving for non-disclosure, and is direct evidence of NASA’s policy to obfuscate the evidence of extraterrestrial life. ‘The Mars Mystery’, of 1998 by Hancock, Bauval and Grigsby, presents an excellent historical account of Mars exploration and NASA’s cover-up of the artificiality of structures on Mars 5.

 

Fig. 4. A White-tailed Antelope Squirrel on Mars?

Fig. 4. A White-tailed Antelope Squirrel on Mars

 

 

 

 

This image is a screenshot from a NASA image 6 that is supposedly from Mars, sent to us via satellite by the ‘Curiosity Rover’. Christopher Bollyn 7 has identified this animal as a White-tailed Antelope Squirrel, a native of the Californian and Nevada deserts, co-incidentally, in the same place as the top secret military installation of Area 51.

 

 

 

 

 

The original image can be found at

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/694114main_Watkins-2-pia16204_full.jpg
and the article by Christopher Bollyn at
http://bollyn.com/are-there-chinchillas-on-mars-3/

 

The above image shows a White-tailed Antelope Squirrel in a NASA image supposedly from Mars, where it is doubtful that this Californian rodent could survive. The fact that this image shows an animal native to the top secret military installation of Area 51, is evidence that ‘Curiosity’ is roving Nevada and not Mars, and that Mars exploration is a billion dollar bad joke being played on the public, and a propaganda exercise to obfuscate the truth, rather than any sort of scientific enquiry.

It is doubtful that NASA scientists are stupid, so their implausible explanations for landforms on Mars, such as the so-called back-to-front rivers (chapter 3.7.) (that NASA claim are rivers but they are shallower further down the slope), the lines of sinkholes (chapter 3.3.) (that NASA claim are impact craters but they have no ejecta ridge), the ridges (chapter 3.4.) (that NASA claim are “inverted channels” but they do not flow with the terrain), and even the channels themselves (chapter 3.2.) (that NASA claim are created by water or lava but they also do not follow the slope), leads to the suspicion that at least some NASA officials know the truth, and it is their goal not to disclose it.

NASA would have access to the best and highest quality photographic and satellite imaging equipment available, and yet they release grainy, pixelated, obviously touched-up (see Fig. 10.), and blurry images with the detail obscured. It is very obvious that NASA is hiding something on Mars. This is particularly evident in the overlays that they apply over Google Mars images that patently obscure the detail (see Fig. 39.). My understanding of the UFO and alien cover-up is that there is a cabal of humans who control NASA and who have traded and retrieved alien technology, which they are using to control the rest of the human population, and the disclosure of extraterrestrial life is a threat to their source of money, control and power.

We can perhaps understand why the controlling cabal (and their various mouthpieces including NASA) are going to deny the artificiality of The Face on Mars, but it is difficult to see how the disclosure of extraterrestrial biological life could be a threat to national security. Perhaps they simply do not want any attention on Mars and if it is or was habitable for sandworms then it would be for humanoids as well. What we do know, from their implausible explanations for landforms on Mars and the evidence of Sagan’s Face on Mars conspiracy, is that NASA scientists will lie where they feel it necessary to hide information of so-called national security importance, and because we therefore cannot decipher the truth from the lies, we cannot believe everything NASA says. And, if we cannot believe everything they say, how can we believe anything they say?

 

1.4   The Authorities

There are many Mars researchers who set themselves up as authorities on the subject. Hundreds of books and thousands of articles have been written about Mars. Some researchers even claim to have been there and therefore have ‘the authority’ to dismiss theories that might contradict their particular story. Hundreds of bloggers and commentators exist and thousands of forum-goers enter the fray with varying degree of intelligent comment. These include a surprising number of ‘trolls’ who are also out to obfuscate the truth with distraction, ad hominem attacks, and irritation. There are so many Mars researchers claiming to see statues in rocks that I think that at least some of them are part of the disinformation campaign to obfuscate the truth by bringing scorn and disrepute onto the field of Mars anomaly research.

Although Wikipedia is supposed to be freely editable, there seems to be a fleet of sub-editors employed who immediately re-edit edits back to reflect the ‘official’ position. As a researcher into alternative and mysterious phenomena I have noted that every time I read the Wikipedia entry, I only get the officially-accepted, government-approved version of the story, the one promoted by the powers that be. So, from their party line, Wikipedia is also a mouthpiece of the controllers of humanity and also cannot be trusted to report the truth.

And, there is good evidence that Google is also part of the cover-up. (I believe this is because they were given their search-engine technology on condition that they do exactly as they are told). There are many examples of their complicity in the UFO and alien cover-up. I have three personal examples of cover-ups by Google. One of them is on Google Mars as it opens up on one particular area containing many explanations and overlays (near 23S, 33W. See Fig. 38.). There is a clear image that turns indistinct within a second as it is obscured by the overlay. This looks like an area of many fossilised, whole, giant sandworms in rows where the segments are clearly visible as regular indentations. They look like giant earthworms, and so obviously obscured by an overlay, that it is clear to me that many people at NASA and even Google must know about this gigantic biological life on Mars. What is not so obvious is why this information has not leaked out beyond their secrecy and obfuscation campaign, as so much other information has done.

Part of the UFO cover-up that has been in place since the 1940s (search ‘The Battle of Los Angeles’ of 1942 and ‘The Roswell Incident’ of 1947), seems to be an enormous effort by the powers that be and their mouthpieces, including NASA, Wikipedia, and Google, to deny the existence of extraterrestrial biological life. Over the last 70 years they have spent an enormous amount of money on this propaganda campaign to convince humanity that we are alone in the universe. And this, I believe, is in order to protect the source of their trillion dollar alien technology industry and the source of their power and control.

Clearly the powers that be have an agenda to hide the truth, so it is difficult to separate out the facts from the fiction and to know who the authority is on any subject. We were told that Carl Sagan was the authority on anything to do with space exploration, but it would seem, from the evidence, that it was quite the opposite: he was part of the scam to keep humanity in the dark about alien civilisations. It is foolish to believe anything anyone tells us without verification, but it is very difficult to verify information that comes from outer space, and especially when it comes from only one source. Perhaps independent space programmes will not succumb to the pressure of the cabal and will reveal information that the American space programme has been hiding.

As we have seen, more independent research is necessary to verify the information from ‘the authorities’ before we can believe anything they say.

 

1.5   ‘Dune’

The movie ‘Dune’, in true Hollywood style, has sensationalised the sandworm phenomenon, and this has the two-fold purpose of hiding any truth in the matter as fiction, and simultaneously providing ammunition for ‘debunkers’ to be able to negate claims by researchers into the subject. This has been the case with many movies, including ‘Star Wars’, ‘Contact’ (that Carl Sagan wrote), ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’, and even the Animal Planet feature about Mermaids. Interestingly, Frank Herbert who wrote the book, ‘Dune’, in the early 1960s, first had it set on Mars before he changed it to the fictional planet of Arrakis. Perhaps he knew something that has somehow successfully been kept hidden from humanity, and, by writing it as fiction, he has successfully continued the deceit. The next obvious, but unanswerable questions then of course are: who stands to gain what from keeping information about giant sandworms secret?

An interesting correlation between Mars and the movie ‘Dune’ is the fact that one of the scenes of the sandworms approaching, looked as if it is an image of channels and dunes on Mars. I include a screenshot from the movie and a similar-looking area from Mars to show the comparison.

 

Fig. 5. A Dune Scene from ‘Dune’

Fig. 5. A Dune Scene from ‘Dune’

 

 

 

 

 

This image is a screenshot taken from the movie ‘Dune’, of the fictional planet called Arrakis, but, interestingly, in Frank Herbert’s original manuscript of his 1965 book ‘Dune’, he named this planet Mars. These dunes look like a 1985 image taken for the movie of areas of interconnected channels on Mars called sulci.

 

 

 

 

 

 Fig.6. A Dune Scene from Mars

Fig. 6. A Dune Scene from Mars

 

 

 

 

 

 

These channels (from Google Mars 26N, 149W) are called sulci (Latin for furrows), and leave between them ridges that look very similar to the dunes in the movie ‘Dune’. (the Sun is shining onto the ridges from the right hand side in this image.)

 

 

 

Knowing that information is often hidden in movies as fiction, ‘in plain sight’, on purpose, I suspect that the director used an image taken from Mars to create the scene in the movie ‘Dune’. The $40 million that the movie cost in 1985 was a substantial investment in the mindset of the population. Hollywood is the obvious place to position propaganda so it is reasonable to suspect that ‘Dune’ was made to reinforce the mindset that sandworms are fictional and that alien life does not exist. Considering the ‘co-incidences’, this assumption becomes even more valid.

 

 

 

1.6  ‘Alternative 3’

Perhaps Frank Herbert received the information for his book ‘Dune’ of 1965 from having seen the ‘Ballantine Tape’9, of 1962, that first came to light in 1977 in the ”docudrama” (“fiction based on fact”), Science Report episode called ‘Alternative 3’. This showed scenes, supposedly from a joint US-Soviet mission flying over Mars, and landing at a docking facility, and the commentary of an astronaut witnessing something burrowing on the surface of Mars in 1962. Herbert said he received his inspiration for ‘Dune’ from flying over dunes on Earth, but perhaps he was talking about a fly-over the dunes of Mars that he undertook vicariously.

‘Alternative 3’ is a supposedly realistic look at a human colony on Mars as an alternative to human survival, in the eventuality of the Earth being damaged beyond repair. This Science Report episode linked up, in a credible way, recruitment for this colony, to the ‘brain drain’ from England, and the disappearances of many people in the early 70s. They suggest that people have been abducted into a colony on Mars as either a ‘brain’ or as a ‘worker’. The brains were desensitised and the workers were fractured and de-sexed. Although the film was proclaimed to be an April Fool’s joke and a giant hoax, where actors were used to play the parts of real and fictitious characters, the author Leslie Watkins says that he inadvertently stumbled upon a truth with ‘Alternative 3’.

Another strange coincidence is that the name NASA has given to the original image supposedly from ‘Curiosity’ on Mars that includes the white-tailed antelope squirrel, is Watkins, and it was Leslie Watkins who wrote the book ‘Alternative 3’ in 1978 8. He based it on the Anglia TV Science Report 9 show of 1977, and supporting documents (written by David Ambrose who wrote the book under the pseudonym of Leslie Watkins). He quotes the ‘Ballantine Tape’ of a supposed Mars landing and an astronaut proclaiming: “That’s it! We got it…we got it! Boy, if they ever take the wraps off this thing, it’s going to be the biggest date in history! May 22, 1962. We’re on the planet Mars – and we have air!” 9. During the screening of this tape in the Science Report  show called ‘Alternative 3’, aired once only in June 1977, the astronaut, after seeing a burrowing movement in the soil, as if it were a giant sandworm, exclaims: “We’re on the planet Mars – and we have life!”  Watkins has meticulously transcribed all the other details of the Science Report screening, and added even more detail from supposedly source-documents and credible sources, and yet, he changes “life” to “air”. Maybe the powers that be have convinced him to make this change as a part of a compromise to continue to keep extraterrestrial life a secret. Maybe it is all supposed to be so confusing that it takes us so long to work out all the details to find out the truth.

The ‘Alternative 3’ documentary and book have precipitated a storm of controversy and denials. Looking at all the features of this story, it would make sense that it is a propaganda film. The fact that the Science Report programme shows a live sandworm, leads one to think that, unless there is an oxygenated atmosphere, that this footage is propaganda. The original tape says “life”, and now having seen the footage of a ‘mole’ on Mars, this is exactly what a burrowing giant sandworm would look like, and I am surprised that no one has pointed this out. The footage does look to be faked, and from the movement of the soil above the ‘mole’ it looks literally to be as small as a mole

Because there is so much controversy and so many grey areas, it is reasonable to assume that ‘Alternative 3’ was also made in order to confuse the truth, and to set ‘truthers’ arguing amongst each other. Not only does this hide the truth in plain sight, but it sets up obvious flaws to throw researchers off the scent, and to make ‘believers’ seem ludicrous. This common Hollywood tactic makes it very difficult to know the truth or to be taken seriously.

The efforts of the powers that be to promote their agenda through propaganda and to vilify people who research conspiracies, has created the cultural background of scepticism of anything extraterrestrial or conspiratorial. And yet, people often blindly believe so-called documentaries that ‘the authorities’ put out as fact, that turn out to be blatant lies and propaganda, such as, for example, ‘The Inconvenient Truth’, which the British High Court found to contain “substantial inconsistencies”, or in layman’s terms, “blatant lies”, and yet this movie is still being punted as the truth, with a following of many people who now believe the lies, only one of which being that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

As Hollywood is wont to do, ‘Dune’ and ‘Alternative 3’ have succeeded in propagandizing people and creating the dismissive reaction in many on hearing of the giant sandworm theory or of a colony on Mars: “Yeah, I saw the movie too”. I suspect that this was the intention of the powers that be, to hide the truth about extraterrestrial life, so that they can continue profiteering and controlling.

 

 

  1. Existing Theories of Channel Formation

 

 

2.1   Introduction

Various so-called authorities have published various theories of channel formation, and these include: fluids; impacts; tectonic activity; and electrical discharge. Many of  ‘the authorities’ on Mars have proven to be unreliable so we cannot take their word for it. We must study the explanations that exist for features of Mars and come to our own conclusions, so I have put each of the existing theories of channel formation to the logic test.

The theory that frozen carbon dioxide formed the channels is an extrapolation of the finding that frozen carbon dioxide facilitates erosion by gravity, but this cannot account for the formation of the channels. Certainly the walls of the channels are further eroded by the presence of frozen carbon dioxide, but it is illogical to assume that the channels themselves were originally created by this agency. Frozen carbon dioxide will cause erosion as blocks of soil frozen together with carbon dioxide will roll, but this cannot flow, and can only create erosion gullies within pre-existing channels, not the channels themselves.

2.2   Water

NASA scientists have said that the channels on Mars are evidence of surface water, and this is the commonly accepted explanation for the creation of the channels on Mars. It is true that a few of the channels that I have studied do run with the slope, but by far the majority of the channels on Mars run completely independent of the slope, as can be vividly seen in the image below and in many images from all around Mars, and as any plotting of the contours of Mars will ascertain. Scientists should know better than to claim that the channels that are visible on Mars were created by water, because they often travel across slopes, and not with the slope, as water would do. Channels that occur without regard to the slope cannot be formed by the erosion caused by water or any fluid flowing downhill. Further questionable explanations have to be invoked to explain the water hypothesis such as continental drift or plate tectonics, hypothesising that the continental shelf somehow tipped while the gullies were being formed so that downhill kept changing and somehow that caused the channels to meander across slopes as they do. Even if this could happen, it does not explain the so-called back-to-front-rivers (see Fig. 8. below) that are shallower further down the slope. Also, channels on Mars are often parallel and often intersect at right angles and, logically, from evidence of drainage channels on Earth, water cannot do that as it flows down a slope. Water forms herring-bone drainage patterns with more water collecting further down the slope and cutting deeper channels further down-river, and in the process, leaving erosional and depositional features, none of which are associated with the channels of Mars.

 

Fig. 7. Squiggly Channels in the Flats

Fig. 7. Squiggly Channels in the Flats
The contours in this image (from Google Mars 0N, 0W), shown in white, show this to be a flat area, rising by only 100m over almost 10 kilometres. The entire area is covered with short squiggly channels that were certainly not created by water or lava flowing downhill as they are not oriented with the slope. Even the argument that subsequent tectonic activity could have tilted the landscape is flawed because whatever the angle of the terrain, squiggly channels similarly oriented cannot form from erosion without the associated erosional features such as herring-bone drainage systems, ox-bow cuttings and alluvial fans. The agent looks biological as the formations display a natural randomness that does not look geological or artificial.

 

Fig. 8. Tyrrhena Fossae – Back-to-front River

Fig. 8. Tyrrhena Fossae – Back-to-front River

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is an image (from Google Mars 20S, 107E) of Tyrrhenus Mons showing the 2500 metre contour in white. The so-called ‘back-to-front river’ heading off downhill to the north-east has a side channel coming into it on the contour, which was logically not created by water or lava. The fossa heading off downhill gets shallower further downhill. If it were created by water it would get deeper further downhill. Note that the channels and catenae immediately to the south and east of the peak also travel around the peak, on the contour. All of these so-called rivers are certainly not created by a fluid.

 

 

Fig. 9. Crater with Horizontal Trench

Fig. 10. Crater with Horizontal Trench

 

 

 

 

 

The crater in this image (from Google Mars 30S, 9W) has a canal that runs horizontally all the way around the inside of the rim at the base of the crater wall. Water or lava cannot have created this canal, and lightning is unlikely to create a circular trench at the base of a crater, and, there are no geological processes that can explain the formation of this trench either.

 

 

 

Surface flowing water might have created some of the channels on Mars, but I have not found any. It is certain that by far the majority of channels on Mars could not have been created by water because of their parallel and interconnected course, mostly without regard to the slope of the landscape. As can be seen in the channels illustrated in the images above, they do not flow downhill and do not show any erosional or depositional features that one would expect to find associated with a river.

 

2.3   Lava

Lava also flows downhill, so the same arguments exist for lava as they do for water. Even ‘lava tubes’ will flow downhill. And even if some of the channels can be accounted for as remnant lava tubes, as has been hypothesised by NASA, the remainder that do not follow the slope, clearly cannot. For this reason alone, the explanation of ‘lava tubes’ does not satisfactorily explain channel formation. Even if a lava flow did form a tube, the lava would still be visible that created it. The channels on Mars are clearly uniformly open and without solidified lava edges and without any lava flows visible.

The ‘lava tubes’ hypothesis for channel creation is so outlandish that it does seem a bit stupid to claim, or stupid to think that we are stupid enough to accept the claim, that the channels on Mars could be formed by flowing lava forming tubes, when by far the majority of the channels do not run with the slope, and they are uniformly open, without jagged edges. The soil of Mars looks to be mostly sandy, and as it erodes it uniformly leaves rounded edges. Solidified lava tubes would not erode uniformly. To this amateur geologist there is no evidence of lava having created any of the channels on Mars. I would be very interested to have an independent geologist show me an example of one channel on Mars that has been shown conclusively to have been created by lava.

 

2.4   Meteors

A Mars researcher by the name of Robert Morningstar, on a Red Ice Radio broadcast, said that he sees evidence that Vallis Marineris (see Fig. 10.) was created by a meteor impact. He points to Oudemans Crater which is exceptionally deep and he says that this obviously enormous impact, immediately to the south of the channel called Vallis Marineris, is what caused this huge gash to be rent into The Red Planet. This theory is implausible as there is no reason why a huge crack should open up, even a short distance away in Mars when hit by a meteor. Do we know if this has ever occurred in the history of the Earth? How can we assume a pre-existing weakness existed in the crust? It does not seem feasible, but, even if this does explain the creation of some of the channels, meteor impacts cannot explain the formation of the complexity of interconnected channels that exist in many places on Mars, such as all the regions of parallel fossae, of sulci, of labyrinthus, and of chaos. There are areas of interconnected channels that form a ‘crazed’ patterning that cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be ascribed to one, or even many meteor impacts.

Another meteor theory comes from Hancock et al. 5, but they say instead that the meteor came in through the planet from the other side, from the Hellas Planita area, bursting the side of the planet causing Vallis Marineris to tear open, and stopping short before bursting through, creating the enormous bulge on the other side of Mars called The Tharsis Bulge. This theory is so implausible that it almost seems as if the proponents are trying to confuse readers. Such a theory is untestable but, logically, even a titanium-tipped meteor travelling at an incredible speed, if it did not burst the entire planet apart, would meet with sufficient density in the bedrock of a planet to stop it over a few kilometres, let alone the few thousand kilometres of bedrock that possibly lie beneath the surface of Mars. Some of the impact would be taken up in a directional change of the planet, and that would also reduce the depth to which a meteor would penetrate.

My assessment is that the reason Oudemans Crater is so deep is because Mars is very sandy, and the meteor did not contact bedrock for a number of kilometres. This is evidenced by the depth of the adjacent channel, Vallis Marineris, which has been carved out to a depth of over 6 kilometres. The sandy topsoil could be that deep in the area of Oudemans Crater as well. So, Oudemans Crater could be so deep because of the depth of the topsoil in that area. I doubt that the depth of an adjacent crater can be taken as evidence for the meteor theory of channel formation.

The fact that there are masses of channels on Mars, in intricate, interconnected patterns, makes it plain that meteors could not have created all of the channels on Mars, or even a small percentage of them. The meteor theory therefore has major shortcomings in explaining channel formation. There is no evidence to suggest to this amateur geologist that meteors created any of the many channels on Mars. The so-called authorities could conceivably be wrong in their claim that any channels on Mars were created by meteors. And, they could be wrong for two reasons: either because they do not know of a more logical theory, or that they are purposefully trying to mislead the public.

  

2.5   Faulting

Faulting is the only geological process that could create linear channels that traverse the landscape irrespective of the slope, such as are found on Mars. Faulting is the official explanation for Cerberus Fossae, shown in Fig. 15, Fig. 28 and Fig. 29. This presupposes some tectonic activity such as continental drift, or the buckling of the crust caused by the expansion of the planet. There is, however, no other evidence that I can see for either of these processes on Mars, so they are unlikely to have created the channels. Also, cracks that do open up in the Earth are never of even width nor depth. Even allowing for weathering, geological faulting is unlikely to have created the evenly wide and deep channels called Cerberus Fossae. And, even if these channels could be shown to have been created by faulting, what could explain the presence of the ‘ribbed ridges’ in the trenches shown in Fig. 28. and Fig. 29.?

Catenae are often associated with channels, but lines of depressions cannot be the results of faulting, so faulting is unlikely to have created the channels either. And, even if faulting was responsible for some of the straighter channels, it cannot explain the curved or intricately criss-crossed channels that are evident on Mars. As faulting does not create curved or interconnected channels on Earth, there is no reason to assume that this process could do so on Mars.

Although faulting may be shown to be the cause of some of the channels, it is clear, for the reasons above, that by far the majority of the channels and associated features on Mars were not caused by faulting. Faulting is therefore also inadequate as an explanation for channel formation.

 

2.6   Lightning Scarring

In the absence of any other credible theory on the creation of the channels, the theory of ‘lightning scarring’, as espoused by David Talbot, is compelling, but there are fatal flaws. Logically, from a layperson’s perspective, lightning could not have created the channels on Mars for the following reasons: there is no evidence of the ejected material (as there is around impact craters); the channels are evenly curved with a rounded profile (lightning leaves a jagged scar on Earth); and, many channels occur around the base of craters (a discharge would be expected from a high point, not a low point). Also, many channels criss-cross extensively in intricate patterns, and it is difficult to imagine the scenario in which electrical discharges would cross each other to create these patterns. And, an electrical discharge that occurs at the speed of light, is more than likely to have shorted itself out on a high point before it can create a scar thousands of kilometres long. Also, the lines of depressions called catenae cannot be explained by an electrical discharge, or lightning in any form. So, as the explanation for the channels and associated features on Mars, the electrical discharge theory is also flawed.

2.7   Venting

It has been claimed by NASA that the channels on Triton were caused by venting of nitrogen gas. There is no precedent for horizontal venting. Gasses escape the Earth vertically, and there is no reason to assume that on Triton, or anywhere else in the Solar System, that gasses will ever vent horizontally and be able to cause a long, even, winding channel to be formed in the soil. Logically if a vent was capped and it sprayed out sideways, it would form a spray, causing scars to radiate outwards from the hole, and not a single, sinuous channel. As an agency for channel formation, venting seems extremely unlikely as there is no logical way this could happen.

 

Clearly the above six ‘official’ explanations for channel formation on Mars by ‘the authorities’ are, at best, inadequate, and, by their complete lack of logic and far-fetched reasoning, are more likely to be propaganda for political purposes.

 

 3. Giant Sandworm Evidence

 

3.1   Introduction

Since 2007 I have held a theory, that giant sandworms were the biological agents that created the channels of Mars, many eons ago. I have been studying the evidence and looking at all the features of Mars in the light of this giant sandworm theory, and so far, I have found nothing to contradict it. My assessments are purely visual, based on logic, and informed by an interest in geology and natural history. I present images in this chapter of otherwise anomalous features on Mars as evidence for the giant sandworm theory.

 

3.2   Channels

The channels are the dominant feature of Mars. They are such pervasive and monumental features that they are named variously as: ‘fossae’, ‘valles’, ‘sulci’, ‘chasma’, ‘chasmata’, ‘labyrinthus’, and ‘chaos’.

A number of channels run for over 2000 kilometres in one general direction across the face of Mars. This includes one particular channel called Vallis Marineris, shown below, which is said to be the longest and deepest valley in the entire Solar System.

 

Fig. 10. Vallis Marineris – An Over 2000km Long Channel on Mars

Fig. 9. Vallis Marineris – An Over 2000km Long Channel on Mars

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The canal, or channel, or valley in this image (from Google Mars 6S, 68W), marked by the red line, is well over 2000 kilometres long and over 100 kilometres wide and over 6 kilometres deep at the point where it is labelled Vallis Marineris on Google Mars, making this feature the biggest valley in our solar system and visible from Earth. In the west of this channel is Noctis Labyrinthus and in the east, Eos Chaos, both vast plains of interconnected channels.

 

Fig. 11. Channels Across The Face on Mars

Fig. 11. Channels Across The Face on Mars

 

 

 

 

This is an image of ‘The Face on Mars’ photoshopped to look like a natural mesa and released by NASA in 2001. This highly symmetrical mountain is two and a half kilometres long, over one and a half kilometres wide and over half a kilometre high. Smudging is evident in the lower left hand side and the shadows have changed from previous images of The Face released by NASA. As a tree specialist, if this was a wooden carving, I would say that it has wood borer. The right hand side is scarred by channels winding across the slope, ensuring that no one can claim that they were created by water or lava flowing downhill, even given subsequent tectonic activity. The most likely agent is biological, such as a mole or an earthworm. The burrowing in this image corroborates other evidence of giant sandworms and is evidence that the sandworm colonisation of Mars was after the colonisation by the humanoids who created ‘The Face on Mars’.

 

 

 


Fig. 12. Sinuous Channels

Fig. 12. Sinuous Channels

 

 

 

These channels of different, yet individually regular size, have rounded bottoms, and they wind their way across the Martian landscape without regard to the slope. Note that there is a challenge with perspective and if you cannot see that the Sun is shining from the left, you might think that these are dunes and not channels. The most logical explanation for these sinuous channels is that they are sandworm burrows with the roof having collapsed in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 13. Sulci on Mars

Fig. 13. Sulci on Mars

 

 

 

 

 

Sulci (Latin for furrows) is a label given by NASA to areas on Mars of extensive channel systems that have undergone much weathering. This area (from Google Mars 29N, 137W) shows thousands of channels that could conceivably have been made by thousands of giant sandworms burrowing for thousands of years.

 

 

 

The sulci on Mars are well-eroded areas of finely criss-crossed channels, and cannot be explained geologically. Biologically they can be easily explained as areas where thousands of giant sandworms have been burrowing for thousands of years.

 

Fig. 14. Mars Chaos

Fig. 14. Mars Chaos

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chaos’ are areas on Mars that look chaotic, and must represent chaos to the people who named them. These five distinct areas (from Google Mars 4S, 25W) called ‘chaos’ are, on closer inspection, actually a network of thousands upon thousands of channels, so dense that the channels can hardly be seen because all that separates them are small outcrops, often called ‘colles’ (hills) or ‘mensae’ (tables) if they are larger. Chaos areas look like sulci that have been even further furrowed.

 

Fig. 15. The Channels Cerberus Fossae and Athabasca Valles

Fig. 15. The Channels Cerberus Fossae and Athabasca Valles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These channels (from Google Mars 13N, 154E), called fossae and valles, cut straight up and down across a mountain slope, irrespective of the slope (note the -2000m contour in blue outlining a mountain spur), so were quite obviously not created by water or lava flowing downhill. The image ‘Fig. 28. Ribbed Ridges in Cerberus Fossae’, is an enlargement of the area on the left labelled ‘ribbed ridges’, and is a detail of the channels.

The giant sandworm theory proposes that the channels called Cerberus Fossae in the image above, were created by sandworms burrowing underground on a migration route, and that the reason the burrows are exposed as channels in this place, is that the harder substrate rises with the terrain of the spur, and because the bedrock is closer to the surface, the burrows were closer to the surface and their roofs have collapsed, creating these channels in this place only. These channels are presumed to extend for many kilometres underground in both directions, as other channels on Mars can extend in one direction for thousands of kilometres. To this naturalist’s eyes, the giant sandworm theory is a more comprehensive and credible explanation for the creation of Cerberus Fossae than NASA’s explanation of faulting.

All of the examples of channels illustrated above, including all intricately dissected areas of chaos and all the other remnant channels on Mars that I have studied, could conceivably have been created by many giant sandworms over many years. I see no evidence of any history of flowing surface water on Mars, in direct contradiction of NASA’s claim. The visible erosion that has weathered the channels can easily be ascribed to the action of giant sandworms on the soil and eroded by wind and gravity. And there is so much weathering evident that it does suggest that the channels have been used and exposed for many years, many years ago.

 

The number of areas of chaos, labyrinthus, sulci, colles and of mensae, because they are so finely dissected, are evidence that a great many giant sandworms have been burrowing on Mars for a great many years. Many of the channels are so deep that they seem to have been burrowed so often, and the loose soil over the burrows blown away so many times, that the level has dropped, in the case of Vallis Marineris, by over 6 kilometres. This must surely have taken millions of years to achieve.

 

3.3   Sinkholes

The circular, vertical-sided holes in Mars, the so-called ‘possible cave entrances’ on Arsia Mons and elsewhere, often termed cavi (Latin for caves) are best explained as sinkholes into a tunnel system of a greater diameter, immediately below. These holes have been measured at over 200 meters in diameter, indicating that the tunnels that run beneath them must be even larger than that. (See the image labelled ‘Fig. 19. Sinkholes With and Without Bottoms’.)

 

Fig. 16. Catena Showing Sinkholes and Craters

Fig. 16. Catena Showing Sinkholes and Craters

 

This image (from Google Mars 20N, 97W) of a catena (Latin for chain) clearly shows that none of the depressions in this line have an ejecta ridge around them. The other features randomly dotted around this landscape and not in a row, are impact craters and clearly show a raised lip, or ejecta ridge around each one, as would be expected from a meteor impact. The fact that there are catenae that are directly associated with channels indicates very strongly that they are sinkholes into sandworm burrows beneath. (Note that the Sun is shining from the left and these are not mounds).

 

 

There is a major inconsistency in NASA’s explanation of the catenae, or so-called ‘crater chains’, visible on Mars, and how these depressions could possibly be associated with the channels, as they are, if they are made by completely separate processes, ie.; meteors and erosion. It is obvious to this amateur geologist that the catenae are not made by meteors (as they have no ejecta ridge, and, meteors do not fall in a line), and the channels are not made by erosion (as they do not run downhill or show any fluvial features). Instead of being impact craters somehow occurring in a line, the giant sandworm theory neatly and simply explains the catenae as sinkholes into sandworm burrows, without having to dredge up fanciful cosmological, electrical or geological hypotheses.

The catenae even look like lines of sinkholes, and if they are, then the material must have fallen through into a tunnel beneath the surface, as the catenae are in lines. And as the catenae are often associated with channels, the explanation that best fits the evidence is that both the channels and the catenae are artefacts of eroded sandworm burrows. Lately NASA scientists have said that some of the catenae may be sinkholes into underground cavities or lava tubes, but they have not provided a good explanation for how the cavities were created, or why the lava tubes do not run with the slope.

 

Fig. 17. Cave Entrance or Sinkhole

Fig. 17. Cave Entrance or Sinkhole

 

 

There is a series of holes on Arsia Mons on Mars that have been labelled by researchers as cavi or ‘possible cave entrances’. They are vertical shafts, the bottoms of which cannot be seen, and that infra-red heat tests have confirmed have connections to some sort of tunnel system. They look like sinkholes and have been measured at over 200 metres in diameter. They are explained by the giant sandworm theory as sinkholes into slightly wider burrows running immediately beneath.

 

 

 

Fig. 18. Sinkhole in a Forest

Fig. 18. Sinkhole in a Forest
This image (from Google Mars 5S, 118W), through an obfuscating layer, of an over 100 metre wide vertical shaft down into the surface of Mars, was taken from Google Mars, and looks from the detail, as if it is set in a forest of trees. This hole cannot be a meteor crater as there is no ejecta ridge around the rim and no bottom to it. The most logical explanation is that it is a sinkhole into a cavern or into an even larger in diameter giant sandworm burrow running underneath it.

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 19. Sinkholes With and Without Bottoms

Fig. 19. Sinkholes With and Without Bottoms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This conglomerate of images of holes on Arsia Mons shows that they are associated with catenae, indicating that both the depressions with bottoms and the bottomless pits are both sinkholes into a tunnel or chamber of equal size or larger in diameter than the largest of the sinkholes.

 

Fig. 20. Catena on a Ridge

Fig. 20. Catena on a Ridge

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is an image (from Google Mars 9S, 119W) of a dune directly associated with a catena, or line of depressions, running along the top of it, strongly indicating that the dune is hollow and that the depressions are sinkholes into an empty tunnel beneath. This image shows that catenae can also be associated with the dunes of Mars.

 

 

Sinkholes, or cavi and catenae seem to be artifacts of weathering, or erosion by gravity, and this is more likely to occur when the climate and the sand are dry. When sinkholes extend by edge creep, they join up to form open channels. The fact that any of the sinkholes are sometimes associated with channels and with dunes, makes it likely that they are caused by the same agency, and so far, the most logical explanation for the creation of the cavi, the catenae, and most, if not all of the channels on Mars, is biological; the burrowing of giant sandworms.

 

3.4   Ridges

Apart from the channels, the ‘sinuous dunes’, or what are sometimes called ‘inverted channels’ by NASA, and other times ‘dorsa’, (Latin for back) are anomalous ridges running across the Martian landscape, without regard to the slope. NASA explains ‘inverted channels’ as: “these ridges were once the bottoms of river channels that were more resistant to erosion and were left high-standing after erosion wore down the surrounding areas”. This official explanation sounds impossible, is counter-intuitive, and completely unlike anything found on Earth. This cannot happen in my view, as the hard layer at the bottom of the river would extend over the landscape and leave a table rather than a ridge exactly where the river was. Even if the river bottom suddenly formed concrete and set, to explain it as a river still requires it to run with the slope and to show fluvial erosional and depositional features that the ‘inverted channels’ do not. To explain why these channels do not run with the slope, subsequent tectonic activity has to be assumed.

The people who tell us that the top of a ridge running independent of the slope, was once a river bed that has been subsequently subjected to plate tectonics that has tilted the landscape somehow so that each separate channel and ridge in an area would have at some time been flowing downhill, must think that the public are stupid to believe such a concocted scenario. If they did not know what created the ridge in the following image then surely they would say so, or at least say that it must have been some geological process that left a ridge of rock resistant to erosion. Unless they are trying to deceive us, why would NASA make up a story about inverted channels and plate tectonics, when there is no evidence for fluvial weathering or continental drift?

 

Fig. 21. Inverted Channel or Sandworm Burrow

Fig. 21. Inverted Channel or Sandworm Burrow

 

 

The ridge in this image (from Google Mars 23S, 33W) has been labelled as an ‘inverted channel’ by NASA scientists who make the dubious claim that it is an ancient river bed that is resistant to erosion, while the rest of the entire landscape around it eroded away completely to below the river bed that now forms the ridge crest. This ridge runs across the slope, so it could not have once been a river without some tectonic tilting of the entire landscape. The giant sandworm theory holds that this is a burrow that has not collapsed, and proposes three possible reasons.

 

 

 

Fig. 22. Sinuous Ridges Called Dorsa

Fig. 22. Sinuous Ridges Called Dorsa

 

 

 

This image (from Google Mars 55S, 41W) shows the ridges called Auxo Dorsum and Charis Dorsum. Dorsa are sinuous ridges running through the Martian landscape and are explained as ‘inverted channels’ by NASA who propose that the tops of these dune ridges were once the bottoms of river beds. A more believable explanation is that they are giant sandworm burrows that have not collapsed.

 

 

 

 

Fig. 23. Dune Network

Fig. 23. Dune Network

 

 

The ridges in this image (from Google Mars 30N, 65E) cannot be explained as being the accumulation of wind-blown sand alone. I know of no geological process or landscape feature that could have caused dunes to naturally form in this pattern. They intersect at right angles so they cannot be ‘inverted channels’ as these ridges could never have once been a river bed. The best explanation for this network of dune ridges is that they are giant sandworm burrows that have not collapsed.

 

 

The patterning of the dunes in the image above and of many channel systems around Mars are similar, making it highly likely that they were created by the same agency. And as there is no other adequate explanation, the giant sandworm theory is the most likely answer to what created both the ridges and the channels of Mars.

There is no evidence, from what I can see, of any plate tectonics or continental drift on Mars, and in order for all of the sinuous ridges, called dorsa and ‘inverted channels’, to have once been flowing downhill, a very intricate series of tectonic movements has to be hypothesised. The entire plate, or continental shelf would have to be pushed up without breaking so that entire areas drained in different directions, and then to explain the change in direction, another tectonic event must be hypothesised.

This is so contrived an explanation that it must be part of the spin and designed to confuse people and to obfuscate the truth. I find it difficult to believe that any geologist would seriously consider this explanation, especially in the light of the giant sandworm theory. The official explanation seems highly unlikely and it is far more likely that all of these ridge features of Mars are intact giant sandworm burrows.

One reason that the ridges have not collapsed may be that they still contain fossilised sandworms. Another is that the sand immediately around the tunnel was compressed by the expanding sandworms as they moved within their burrows, and because it was compacted it was harder and has not eroded away. A third possible reason for the intact dune ridges might be that giant sandworms, as do earthworms, may have secreted a mucous to ease their way through the soil, and this could be the glue that still holds the sand together around the burrows.

 

3.5   Dunes

Another feature of Mars is what NASA calls ‘dune trains’, which are regular rows of dunes that are supposedly created by wind-blown sand alone. They possibly do have a sand covering, but because of the regularity of the ridges with respect to their length and breadth and curvature, their position within the channels, their orientation perpendicular to the channels, and their orientation in all directions (see Fig. 27.), it is doubtful that a prevailing wind could have created the structure over which the wind-blown sand has deposited. The reason that these dunes are in trains could be that they are a sand covering over the segments of dried out and fossilised giant sandworms.

 

Fig. 24. Dune Ridges or Sandworm Skeletons                Fig. 25. Dune Trains or Fossilised Sandworms

Fig. 24. Dune Ridges or Sandworm Skeletons

Fig. 25. Dune Trains or Fossilised Sandworms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These images show evenly spaced, curvilinear ridges, perpendicular to, and similar in size to the channels within which they run. NASA calls these ‘dune trains’ and propose that they are purely wind-blown sand and presume no underlying structure. The giant sandworm theory proposes that these are dehydrated and fossilised giant sandworms that died in their now eroded burrow, with segments, contracted into ribs that stick up, of dried and hardened skin, so thick and hard that it is resistant to wind erosion.

The ‘dune trains’ in the images above look very similar to a NASA image, reproduced below, of a linear, tubular, ribbed structure with vertical sides many meters high, so this one is obviously not made of sand. I have seen pieces of dry elephant hide in the arid bushveld and I can imagine that segments of giant sandworm skin, in a completely dry environment since they died, might last intact for many years.

 

Fig. 26. Linear Tubular Feature

Fig. 26. Linear Tubular Feature

 

 

This feature of the Martian landscape looks similar to what NASA claim are ‘dune trains’, and yet it has vertical sides of many metres in height, making it certain that this is not a dune made of sand. The claim that this is an artificial construction is totally improbable as a functional transport system and even more improbable as an artwork. A transport system would be straight, and an artwork is unlikely to have cryptic statues encoded into a structure that looks like a bombed, giant sandworm that has contracted in agony. (See Fig. 34.)

 

 

 

Fig. 27. Exposed Giant Sandworm Fossils

 Fig. 27. Exposed Giant Sandworm Fossils

 

 

Labelled as dune trains or dune ridges by NASA, these features (from Google Mars 30N, 36W) may be covered by wind-blown sand, but the structures that form them have the regularity of size, spacing and orientation, to look like giant sandworm segments, now exposed because the loose sand covering of their burrow has blown away over the years.

 

 

 

 

Fig. 28. Ribbed Ridges in Cerberus Fossae

Fig. 28. Ribbed Ridges in Cerberus Fossae

 

 

This image (from Google Mars 10N, 156E) is an enlargement of the left hand side of the image labelled ‘Fig. 15. The Channels Cerberus Fossae and Athabasca Valles’, and shows that Cerberus Fossae and Athabasca Valles are channels that look as if they are ‘sink trenches’ and have sunken into tunnels running beneath. The ‘dune trains’ in the fossae above look as if they are channels that are filled with lines of evenly spaced, curved, ribbed ridges, looking much like the segments of fossilised giant sandworms that died in their burrows, enlarged in the image below.

 

 

Fig. 29. Sandworm Skeletons in their Burrows

 Fig. 29. Sandworm Skeletons in their Burrows

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This image (from Google Mars 10N, 156E) is an enlargement of the right hand side of the previous image, and clearly shows the evenly spaced curved ribs of this structure in Cerberus Fossae, looking like a sandworm that died in its burrow. There is even evidence of a liquid that has spilled out over the landscape from these features indicating that it might be the coelomic fluid of the giant sandworm that leaked out and spread into the sand when it died. The dehydration of the worm would make the segments contract so that the skin forms into the protruding ribs that are visible in the channels. The open channel on the left is a ‘sink trench’ where the entire roof has collapsed in on the burrow beneath, and where no sandworm was buried. If the scale and ruler on Google Mars are accurate, measurements indicate that this sandworm is about one hundred metres wide and over two kilometres long, and, as can be seen in the previous image, is small compared to the giant sandworm that must have created the larger channels.

The dunes in the images above could indeed be made of wind-blown sand, but, because they are so even, not aligned to a wind direction, and perpendicular to the trenches that they are within, it is highly unlikely that they are purely aeolian. It is more likely, due to their size and shape and orientation, that these ‘dune trains’ have formed over the segments of fossilised giant sandworms that died in their now eroded burrows.  The presence of these otherwise anomalous dunes on Mars is good evidence for the giant sandworm theory.

  

3.6   Mesas

Mesas are ‘blocky’ hills with flat tops and occur in many places on Mars. Areas of such mesas have been labelled mensae (Latin for tables) by NASA, presumably because they look like table-tops, and colles (Latin for hills) because they look like hills.

 

Fig. 30. Mensae on Mars

Fig. 30. Mensae on Mars

 

 

 

Labelled as mensae, the blocks of mountain in the terrain in this image (from Google Mars 35N, 70E) have no official or logical geological explanation. (Note that the Sun is shining from the right in this image.) A valid biological explanation is that burrowing giant sandworms have created the interconnected channels and that the blocks of mountain are what are left standing after many years of giant sandworm traffic, and many years of wind erosion.
Fig. 31. Colles on Mars

Fig. 31. Colles on Mars

 

Although colles means hills in Latin, it denotes a fracture in medicine. The name is used on Mars to denote areas where thousands of hills seem to be separated by fracturing, or highly eroded channels. (Note that the Sun is shining from the left hand side in this image.) The giant sandworm theory interprets the landscape in this image (from Google Mars 34S, 173E) as an area where so much sandworm activity has taken place and the burrows are so interconnected that only small hills are left between them, and after years of wind erosion, the channels are not recognizable anymore.

 

 

 

Although the mensae and colles could have been created by extensive burrowing, the mesas in the following image are more regular, and circular and could possibly only have been created by giant sandworms after they had died. In the absence of a logical geological explanation for these regular rings in rows, it could be that they are fossilised giant sandworm segments that fell over when the dead sandworm decayed, but did not decay any further, after the climate on Mars had changed to kill off all biological life, and then dried up, limiting decay.

 

Fig. 32. Regular Raised Rings in Rows

Fig. 32. Regular Raised Rings in Rows

 

 

 

 

It can be clearly seen that these rows of regular mounds sticking up out of the landscape in this image (from Google Mars 16N, 84E) are quite distinct from the impact craters, which are irregular in size, recessed into the landscape, and have an ejecta ridge around the rim. These mounds are not labelled and are not similar to colles or mensae. So far, these round mounds do not have a better explanation than that of fossilised giant sandworm segments.

 

 

The fact that the mounds in the image above are all of a similar size could be that the giant sandworms associated with other sandworms of a similar size. This would be logical if they were cannibals as similar-sized sandworms would be of no threat to each other. This theory is corroborated by other images of what could be similar-sized sandworms together.

The giant sandworm theory proposes that all the mesas of Mars, excluding those of volcanic origin, but including all the areas labelled as mensae or colles, are created by burrowing giant sandworms, followed by many years of weathering by wind.

 

3.7   Back-to-front Rivers

The anomalous ‘back-to-front rivers’ of some Mars researchers are deeper further up the slope, and this is the opposite from erosion gullies found on Earth. When it rains on Earth, the further down the slope the more water has accumulated so the greater the flow and the more erosion there is, and the deeper the gullies that are created. This ends where the slope loses gradient and the velocity of the water slows down enough to deposit the silt in an alluvial fan. This is not evident on Mars. The channels run independent of the slope, and do not show the typical erosional and depositional features of rivers on Earth.

 

Fig. 33. Anomalous Channels

Fig. 33. Anomalous Channels

 

 

 

This image (from Google Mars 19N, 125E) shows two ‘sources’ on higher ground with channels leading to or from them, or both. Anomalously, these channels become shallower further down the slope, which is the opposite of what would be expected if they were created by a fluid. They can, however, be explained by the giant sandworm theory as two giant sandworm dens with runs leading to and from them that are collapsed burrows and now open channels that have eroded down through continual burrowing and weathering of the loose covering material, over many years.

 

 

The so-called back-to-front rivers are otherwise anomalous features of the Martian landscape that are simply explained by the giant sandworm theory as eroded burrows where the roof has collapsed and the eroded material has filled in the channel further down the slope through wind and gravity over many years. It would be stupid to try and convince the public that these channels were created by water as they are shallower further downhill, but this is what NASA seems to be trying to do. It is surprising that geologists are not up in arms about the inconsistencies and the implausibility of NASA’s explanations

 

 

3.8   Glass Tubes

Intriguingly, the so-called ‘glass tubes’ of some Mars researchers are unlikely to be a ‘transport system’ as proposed. There is no logical reason to create a winding tube with randomly sized ribs for any form of transport system. It would be more difficult and more costly to build than a straight tube, and the friction would make it so inefficient that it would not be worthwhile. Other explanations such as ‘carved statues’ do not make any sense at all. Some apparently authoritative Mars researchers make claims that statues can be made out in the features of various NASA images of Mars. The following image of a feature on Mars is unlikely to be a transport system or a statue.

 

Fig. 34. A Bombed Sandworm

Fig. 34. A Bombed Sandworm
This landscape feature of Mars has no logical artificial or geological explanation. From the broken and damaged sections, and the dark streaks on the substrate, this feature looks like a giant sandworm that has been bombed in two places. The two lighter, wider sections could be explained as the animal contracting in agony during its death throes, just as an earthworm would do if it was damaged in two places.

 

Fig. 35. Glass Tubes, Dune Trains, or Sandworm Skeletons

Fig. 35. Glass Tubes, Dune Trains, or Sandworm Skeletons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Researchers who believe these structures are an artificial transport system built by a race of humanoids, call them ‘glass tubes’. NASA has labelled similar looking features as ‘dune trains’. An explanation is that this image shows four or five giant sandworms that died in this channel, as Mars dried up, and all the sandworms of Mars died in their burrows, during a major extinction event, many years ago. The roof of the burrow has, in this case, eroded away, leaving the sandworms exposed. The sandworm in the top right hand side of this image looks as if it has ‘nested ribs’, or another set of smaller ribs within it, as evidence that the giant sandworms were cannibals.

As explained under 3.5. Dunes, it is highly unlikely that the features in the images above are geological or artificial. So far there does not seem to be a better explanation for the so-called ‘glass tubes’ than the biological one of fossilised giant sandworms.

 

 

  1. Giant Sandworm Biology

 

 4.1   Introduction

The observations made about giant sandworm biology are an attempt at interpreting the evidence in the images provided and not at hypothesising about their life cycle or anything else. There are three possible reasons to explain why the sinuous dune ridges have resisted erosion. Firstly there might still be a dead giant sandworm in the burrow, secondly the soil immediately around the burrows might be compacted by the sandworms inside their burrows expanding against the walls and compacting them as they move, and thirdly, as earthworms do, perhaps giant sandworms secreted a mucous to help them slide through the soil, and this is what still bonds the sand together. These factors could conceivably create ridges resistant to erosion.

 

4.2  Size

It is the size of these sandworms that is the biggest stumbling block in the path of the acceptance of the giant sandworm theory by the general populace. They are too big to be believable. Measurements of the channels, the dunes, the caves, and even the skeletons, however, all provide evidence that these creatures achieved sizes of up to an incredible 250 metres wide, and 10 kilometres long. This does seem outrageously large for any single being, but, theoretically, unless one of the limits to growth are reached in any environment, bigger and bigger sandworms would be naturally selected, as the sandworm with the largest mouth would dominate. A genetic selection for gigantism would result if it killed unrelated, smaller sandworms, and then, over the millennia, larger and larger sandworms would evolve in the landscape.

The arguments that the skin would not hold together at that size, and that gravity would restrict sandworm size are untestable as we do not know what the skin was made of or how thick it was, or in fact anything about it. We are merely looking at the images of what exists and interpreting the phenomena to explain the creation of landscape features. And the evidence suggests that flexible, segmented worms 10 kilometres long, existed on Mars, whatever we believe about the conditions on Mars, then or now.

 

Fig. 36. Regular Rows of Mounds

Fig. 36. Regular Rows of Mounds

 

 

 

 

The mounds in this image (from Google Mars 8N, 83E) have no official explanation that I have found. They are clearly not impact craters, many of which can be seen, and the individual mounds are clearly associated with each other into a line. This particular row of mounds measures 250 metres wide and 10 kilometres long, and looks as if it could be a row of fossilised giant sandworm segments.

 

 

 

 

4.3  Survival

Giant sandworms burrow below the surface, in the loose topsoil, as moles and earthworms do on Earth. The burrows just below the surface that are visible can look like dunes, or they have had the loose sand covering collapse and blow away, leaving an open channel. Being below ground would mean that they had excellent protection against the dust storms that would accompany such a sandy and windy place and from any dust clouds that the frequent meteor impacts might throw up into the atmosphere. They would be protected from drying out, from the extremes of heat and cold, and they would be protected from radiation of any kind.

Giant sandworms would spend their life below ground, and so I expect that they would have dens where they bred and reared their young. An image of a back-to-front river labelled ‘Fig. 33. Anomalous Channels’ shows what could be runs from giant sandworm dens under the two ‘sources’ in the bottom right hand side of the image.

The best chance of survival in a harsh environment is below the surface, so it could be that giant sandworms are one of the first species to colonise a planet.

 

4.4  Movement

The more-or-less linear nature of the dunes and channels shows that whatever made them did so as segmented worms commonly do on Earth, by peristalsis, a muscular expansion, streaming of body fluids, and contraction, and not as a snake would do, by winding. This is supported by a lack of evidence in any images of a spine connecting the ribs. Giant sandworms would therefore be much like our earthworm and have segments of elastic skin around a muscular sheath enclosing coelomic fluid which provides a hydrostatic skeleton. They would have to have very flexible segments, and this is supported by the evidence in the image above labelled ‘Fig. 34. A Bombed Sandworm’, where the undamaged sections of the sandworm seem to have contracted in agony, and the segments are much larger in those places.

Evidence for the giant sandworms having a hydrostatic skeleton comes from the ‘spill’ out from the ‘dune train’ in the images labelled Fig. 28. and Fig. 29., where it looks as if a liquid spilled out from these giant sandworms when they died and stained the sand around them.

Earthworms have setae (Latin for bristles) which are tiny hairs that stick out and anchor the expanded end of the worm in their burrow, so that they can stream their body fluids forward and move through the sand. They draw the rear end up against the expanded and anchored front end and force the front end through the soil against the expanded and anchored rear end, a process called peristalsis. The sandworms in the movie ‘Dune’ also have setae, so there is every reason to assume, until we hear otherwise, that this is the method of locomotion of the giant sandworms on Mars as well.

 

4.5  Hunting and Foraging

The evidence of open channels suggests that the giant sandworms did not ingest the soil as do earthworms, rather they forced their way through it, as a mole does. This would mean that they would have to have had a mouth hard and pointed enough to be able to force through the topsoil, but also big enough to kill slightly smaller sandworms, and maybe even eat them. The three-lobed mouth and the ‘crysteeth’ of the sandworms in the movie ‘Dune’ would be perfect. With such a large mouth, it is anomalous that the movie portrays them as eating ‘sand plankton’, especially as they routinely devour spice-harvesting machinery, mistaking them for prey. And, another major contradiction in the portrayal of the sandworms is that they are repelled by water. Water is required for essential biological processes including digestion, absorption and excretion. Liquid water is a prerequisite for life as we know it, so it is only the planets within the so-called ‘goldilocks zone’ (including Mars, Venus and the Moon) that would support life. It is more likely that a real-live giant sandworm would eat anything that moves, including sandworms slightly smaller than itself.

 

Fig. 37. Dune Train with Nested Ribs

Fig. 37. Dune Train with Nested Ribs

 

 

 

 

 

 

This raised ‘dune train’ is within an ‘inverted channel’, with smaller ‘ribs’ regularly included within larger ‘ribs’, similar to the ‘nested ribs’ in the image labelled Fig. 35.  A far more logical explanation for this ‘geological’ feature is that it is biological instead, and that it is the fossilised remains of giant cannibalistic sandworms in their eroded burrows.

 

 

 

 

Fig. 38. Sandworm Cemetery

Fig. 38. Sandworm Cemetery

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is an image (from Google Mars 8N, 84E) of a low-lying area that would have been one of the last remaining moist areas as Mars dried up during an extinction event, and where giant sandworms might have congregated to try and survive the drought. These mounds are explained by the giant sandworm theory as fossilised segments of dehydrated skin lying in rows as the sandworms fell apart after rotting to a certain extent before drying up completely. These mounds in rows look, as cannibalistic sandworms might have done, as if they have positioned themselves evenly spaced apart to reduce the threat of being eaten whilst coping with the stress of dehydration, during the extinction event that changed the climate and killed the giant sandworms of Mars.

 

 

Fig. 39. Ribbed Ridges in Rows

Fig. 39. Ribbed Ridges in Rows
The ribbed ridges in this image (from Google Mars 23S, 33W) have lined up neatly in rows, aligned in one direction, without regard to the contour, on a low-lying flat area, possibly one of the last remaining damp areas as Mars dried up. There is no geological or artificial structure on Earth similar to these rows of ribbed ridges and no geological process that can explain these features. An explanation is the giant sandworm theory which posits these to be fossilised sandworms. This area on Google Mars is covered by an obscuring overlay that obscures the detail. As you scroll into this area, and as the overlay opens up, these ridges can be clearly seen in the underlying image to be enormous worms, looking much like intact giant sandworms, having fossilised before they decayed at all. The ‘respectful’ distance that these ribbed ridges have given each other as they line up, due to some unknown environmental factor, could be an indicator of a biological agency, and if they are indeed giant sandworms, then this could be an indicator of their cannibalism.

The evidence of ‘nested ribs’, and the fact that giant sandworms spaced themselves evenly apart to die, and that similarly-sized giant sandworms would associate with each other, and the fact that there is no evidence of any other animal on Mars, are all evidence for cannibalism in this species. It is highly unlikely that the larger sandworms ate ‘sand plankton’ spoken of in ‘Dune’, or anything small that it would have to process from the soil, because this would presumably not sustain the energy requirement for processing the soil and moving that body weight through the soil. Certainly they would have a guaranteed food supply if they were cannibals. But the species would have to have had an extra food source, because two adults cannot physically produce enough offspring to feed themselves. Perhaps the younger sandworms fed on something else such as algae, or ‘sand plankton’.

The areas that have been extensively burrowed, in a ‘crazed’ sort of patterning, suggest that the sandworm is foraging here, rather than hunting or migrating. It seems as if the sandworms were burrowing where the food source was abundant and the comprehensive grazing pattern would exploit the entire area.

The sheer size of the giant sandworms would argue for cannibalism. To metabolise that body-weight would take a phenomenal amount of energy, and there are after all, all the nutrients a cannibal requires for optimal growth in abundance in their diet.

 

4.6  Migration


The fact that many of the channels are parallel and seem to traverse the landscape for miles in one direction, indicates that the sandworms of Mars were migratory, possibly due to seasonal changes in temperature and moisture related to the orbit of the planet.

 

Fig. 40. Parallel Channels with the Contour

Fig. 40. Parallel Channels with the Contour

 

 

 

 

 

The channels in this image (from Google Mars 30N, 107W), called fossae, run on the contours (marked in blue) of this landscape of Mars. Water collects at the lowest point and does not create parallel channels, and certainly cannot flow with the contour. Note the associated catena, explained as sinkholes into sandworm burrows running beneath them.

 

 

The number of channels called fossae in the image above, and their consistent orientation, could indicate a seasonal migration route between the northern and southern areas of Mars. And, knowing that Mars also spins and wobbles much like Earth, it is logical to assume that biological life will respond to this annual wobble if it can, as it does on Earth, by migrating with the seasons between more favourable climes.

 

4.7  Population

Not only all the channels, variously called: ‘fossae’, ‘sulci’, ‘chasma’, ‘chasmata’, and ‘valles’, but all of the many areas called ‘chaos’, ‘labyrinthus’, and even ‘colles’ and ‘mensa’, are areas where it looks as if a huge amount of sandworm activity has taken place over the years. The channels can be so dense that they hardly look like channels any more. The evidence of the existence of literally millions of channels all over Mars suggests that at some time in the past, Mars was host to millions of giant sandworms. The size and depth of many channels and the obvious erosion, leads this amateur geologist to imagine that this took place over millions of years.

It can be assumed that many more burrows exist underground that cannot be seen, so the estimate of millions of channels is not an exaggeration. The human population is in the billions, and dinosaurs existed on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, so there is good reason to believe that millions of giant sandworms ploughed across Mars for millions of years.

 

 

 

  1. The Moon, Venus and Earth

 

5.1  The Moon

 

The image below is from Google Moon that I published in 2011 in my book Exploring Mystery, showing a giant sandworm burrow around a pyramid, that is, evidence of humanoid habitation as well as giant sandworms on the Moon. And if there was biological life on the Moon then there would have been an atmosphere and a climate to support these colonisations of as well, that are plainly visible, but are also being kept secret from the people of Earth by a cabal of people who are exploiting this knowledge for personal gain.

 

Fig. 41. Rima Hadley on The Moon

Fig. 41. Rima Hadley on The Moon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this image alone (from Google Moon 25N, 3E), there are seven anomalies to the text-book-science we are taught about the Moon, providing evidence that the Moon was inhabited by people in ancient times and is still inhabited today. A well-eroded pyramid, pock-marked with impact craters, nearly one kilometre high, is evidence that a sophisticated civilisation inhabited the Moon in ancient times. And a light flash and an escaping cloud are good evidence for the Moon being currently inhabited. The channel called Rima Hadley, is of even width over hundreds of kilometres, and runs both up and downhill, irrespective of the slope. This eroded channel is very similar to what I believe to be giant sandworm burrows on Mars and is evidence that giant sandworms colonised the Moon at some time in the past as well.

 

Fig. 42. Komarov Crater on The Moon

Fig. 42. Komarov Crater on The Moon

 

 

 

 

The floor of Komarov Crater on the Moon (from Google Moon 24N, 152E) is flat, and yet it is criss-crossed with trenches intersecting at right angles that could not have been created by water or lava flowing downhill, whatever NASA tells us. This network looks similar to the channels on Mars, and provides evidence that a colony of giant sandworms scoured the Moon as well.

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 43. Channel in Karpinskiy Crater

Fig. 43. Channel in Karpinsky Crater

 

 

 

 

 

 

Karpinskiy Crater on the Moon (from Google Moon 71N, 162E) with the -3400m contour shown in blue, indicating that the channel network around the base of the crater runs roughly horizontally. (Note that the Sun is shining from the south.)

 

 

 

The roughly horizontal channel in Karpinsky crater proves that whatever created this channel was not a fluid flowing downhill. It cannot be explained by previous or subsequent tectonic activity either, because it curves and the continental shelf is unlikely to have tilted progressively and then levelled off. And faulting occurs in straighter lines than this so this channel is unlikely to have been created by geological faulting. There is no logical way a meteor can be responsible for this curved channel either. And, the base of a crater is an unlikely place to experience a lightning strike, and certainly not repeated lightning strikes leaving interconnected channels. Even if there was some merit to any other theory, and instances that might explain a few features, the most logical explanation for the creation of the channels on the Moon is the giant sandworm theory.

 

 

5.2   Venus

 

The following image of Venus shows a channel that rises and falls 2000 meters over the 6800 kilometres of its length, ensuring that no-one tries to claim that it was created by water or lava.

 

Fig. 44. Baltis Vallis on Venus

Fig. 44. Baltis Vallis on Venus

 

 

 

 

 

David Talbot of Thunderbolts.info proposes that the 6800 kilometre long channel on Venus in this image, indicated with arrows, called Baltis Vallis, was created by a lightning strike.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The image above of Baltis Vallis, is said by David Talbot, who has extrapolated the ‘electric universe’ theory onto Venus and interpreted a channel across the planet, as a scar created by a lightning strike. The fact that it rises and falls by 2000 metres rules out any fluid as its origin, so, in the absence of a more plausible theory, a lightning strike might seem to be an adequate explanation. The electric universe model further assumes that the channels on Mars were similarly created, and if pushed, proponents might argue that the channels on the Moon and on Earth could also have been caused by lightning strikes.

From a layperson’s perspective, this seems impossible for four or more reasons: firstly, the channels are often sinuous, and electrical scarring would presumably be jagged; secondly, there is no evidence of the ejected material as there is around impact craters; thirdly, an electrical discharge would surely be connected to a high point from where the charge would escape the planet; and fourthly, it is logical that a charge would have shorted out long before a scar 6800 kilometres, or even 2000 kilometres is created. Also, it is inconceivable that lightning could have created all the other interconnected channels these planets, visible on Venus in the image above.

As it is so similar to channels on Mars, Baltis Vallis, and all the other channels on Venus look more like eroded giant sandworm burrows than rivers, electrical scarring, meteor damage, faulting, or anything else. This is good evidence that giant sandworms inhabited Venus as well, particularly as this theory explains the origin of the many other interconnected channels, as can be clearly seen in the image above.

 

 

5.3   Earth

 

Since it is proven that the sea level has risen substantially on Earth over the millennia, as the sea now covers monuments of ancient civilisations off the coasts of many continents around the world, it is possible that the giant tubes and channels that are visible off the coast of California, were also created by giant sandworms when this area was above water. If this species of worm had established itself on Mars, the Moon and on Venus, it is probable that it was a terrestrial animal on Earth at some time in the distant past as well.

 

Fig. 45. Tubes off California

Fig. 45. Tubes off California

 

 

 

 

 

 

This image (from Google Earth 27N, 115W) shows tubes off the coast of California that are similar to the giant sandworm burrows evidenced on Mars, the Moon and Venus, right here on Earth.

 

 

 

 

Fig. 46. Tubes as Ribbed Ridges off California

Fig. 46. Tubes as Ribbed Ridges off California

 

 

 

 

 

A closer view of the tubes off the coast of California where they form rows of ribbed ridges as they do on Mars. This looks much like the ‘dune trains’ on Mars and is evidence of giant sandworms having died and fossilised in their burrows on Earth, many thousands of years ago, at a time when this area was above water.

 

 

 

 

Fig. 47. Trench off Baja Mexico

Fig. 47. Trench off Baja Mexico

 

 

 

 

 

The one kilometre wide trench in this image (from Goole Earth 22N 110W) winds along the sea-floor looking much like Rima Hadley on the Moon. This channel could possibly have been created by giant sandworms when this area of Earth was above water.

 

 

Fig. 48. Atlantic Sea-floor Intricately Burrowed

Fig. 48. Atlantic Sea-floor Intricately Burrowed
This area of the Atlantic sea-floor (from Google Earth 2S, 83W) looks as if it has been extensively burrowed, reminiscent of the damage to wood caused by woodborer, and looking much as if it was burrowed by giant sandworms when this area was above sea-level.

 

 

 

 

 

Google representatives have unsuccessfully tried to dismiss similar channels underwater as “mapping anomalies”. Now they have simply put an obscuring overlay over this area and blurred the detail. Below is an image that I took from Google Earth of this region of the Atlantic Ocean before they obscured the detail. This is a blatant example of obfuscation by Google. They simply do not tell you what they don’t want you to know and I am sure that an enquiry about these particular channels in the images above will get no further either.

 

Fig. 49. Anomalous Channels in the Atlantic Ocean

Fig. 49. Anomalous Channels in the Atlantic Ocean

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West of the Strait of Gibraltar, where Plato said Atlantis could be found, at the bottom of the sea, lies this ‘Atlantic Citadel’, which is a rectangular set of straight channels, each one about one kilometre wide. This image was taken from Google Earth (31N, 25W) in Aug 2010, before Google had been questioned about it, and before a debate had taken off on Internet forums about this construction being evidence of Atlantis. Google’s response was to say that it is a “mapping anomaly” and to obscure the detail so that now it cannot be studied. If you fly to this spot on Google Earth today, you can hardly even notice this feature anymore.

Straight canals are obvious signs of intelligent design and construction. It is quite obvious that the 160 kilometre by 140 kilometre ‘citadel’, shown in the image above, was designed and constructed for a purpose, by an intelligence. And this could indeed have taken place at the time of Atlantis or even earlier, even long before the sea-level rose to cover this area. There is good evidence that technically advanced civilised humanoids have colonised Earth for millions of years. (For more evidence search ‘ooparts’. The London Hammer is particularly convincing evidence for civilized humanoids on Earth 100 million years ago.)

Certainly the construction of straight channels cannot be credited to giant sandworms, unless they were intelligent (which is unlikely without opposable thumbs, being unable to make things or to read and write). Or, and this is where things starts getting really weird, perhaps giant sandworms were steered to create these straight canals, by an ancient race of humanoids. This would mean that at some point in the history of The Earth, the humanoid colonizers domesticated giant sandworms and trained them to burrow wherever they required a channel. It might have been easier to train a sandworm than to create the machinery to dig drainage canals hundreds of meters across, over an area of hundreds of kilometres. This, on first glance, seems to be impossible, but I have not heard a better explanation for the creation of this so-called Atlantic Citadel shown in the image above. There is even evidence that has been uncovered that humanoids domesticated dinosaurs (search the Ica Stones), and that must have been well over 65 million years ago, so this might not be quite so fanciful an explanation after all. If humanoids rode dinosaurs, why not giant sandworms? The movie ‘Dune’ looms ever larger into reality, making it even more likely that Frank Herbert knew something that we are only now starting to find out. It is a bizarre suggestion that humanoids might actually have ridden giant sandworms, but in this realm of science-fact, it would not surprise me to find out that the giant sandworms were also hydrophobic and they ate ‘spice’.

The winding channels in the images on Earth, above, look strikingly similar to those on Mars, the Moon, and on Venus. And, as there are no other more logical explanations for these features, the extensive channelling visible underwater off the coast of California, is enough evidence, until proven otherwise, to assume that giant sandworms colonised Earth at some time in the distant past as well.

Flying back to Mars we see an area of the Hellas Planita pictured below that has been called Quadrata Martis, and where obviously, intelligently-created channels exist in straightish lines similar to the ‘Atlantic Citadel’ pictured above.

Fig. 51. Mars Squares of Channels and Catenae

Fig. 51. Mars Squares of Channels and Catenae

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This image in Hellas Planita of Mars 10 (38,4S, 55,8E) is an area of rectilinear patterns looking like cyclopean walls etched into the surface of Mars, with channels and catenae delineating them. There is even a 25 metre long hill carved as another ‘Face on Mars’ on this plain, with its wry smile aligned to the grid pattern. These are obviously intelligently designed features.

 

Until someone can provide an alternative and more convincing hypothesis for the creation of the channels and catenae in the above image, I propose that, as with the ‘Atlantic Citadel’ on Earth, they were created by burrowing giant sandworms, somehow steered to do so by the humanoid colonisers at the time.

The channels of Mars are such prominent and widespread features of The Red Planet that they can be said to ‘form’ the landscape, so it behooves our civilization to know what created them. And if the same channel systems can be seen on other nearby planets, including Earth, and the evidence points towards giant sandworms, then surely everyone would want to know about it, and this is the biggest news this side of the Sun.

 

 

6.     Conclusion

 

The giant sandworm theory provides a mental exercise in logic because we cannot go there to check. And logically, it would seem, from the evidence that is available, that: NASA is lying to us; the existing theories of channel formation are inadequate; and, from the evidence of Rima Hadley on the Moon, to Vallis Marineris on Mars, to Baltis Vallis on Venus, to the Tubes off California, this part of the Cosmos seems to have been scoured by giant sandworms.

In fact, the giant sandworm theory suggests that the only features of Mars that are not created by the giant sandworms are constructions by humanoids like the pyramids and The Face, and of course, the mountains, volcanos, and impact craters. I am open to hearing evidence to the contrary, but having flown extensively around the grainy images we are given of Mars, I see no evidence of channel formation by any other means other than giant sandworms burrowing, including water, lava, faulting, meteors, or lightning.

For the first time since Giovanni Schiaparelli discovered them in 1877, there exists a comprehensive explanation for the creation of the canals of Mars, and this includes channels on the Moon, on Venus, and on Earth as well, whatever names NASA wish to give them. The theory that giant sandworms carved out many of the channels at some time in the history of these planets is imperative to bring into public debate, as it is indicative of the un-scientific nature of NASA and the deception of the authorities.

And, if it is the case that we have all been conned by an evil cabal of controllers who are hiding their sources of alien technology, and that there is already a human base on Mars, then we all should know about it. Perhaps the exposure of this gigantic feature of the history of our Solar System will wake people up to the fraud, and, perhaps even expose the reasons why giant sandworms have been kept such a big secret for the last 50 years.

The supposed landing on Mars in 1962, and the visuals of a giant ‘mole’ burrowing on Mars from the ‘Ballantine Tape’ 9 are evidence for the giant sandworm theory as well as for the possibility that Frank Herbert knew about the Mars sandworms when he wrote ‘Dune’ published in 1965. My observations are on the evidence contained within the images alone and are not informed by ‘Dune’ or ‘Alternative 3’ in any way, as these movies are more than likely to be obfuscatory by nature. The landscape of Mars is highly eroded and I see no evidence of any recent disturbance that would indicate that giant sandworms might still be extant.

It is hard to understand why, amongst all of the myriad alternative researchers out there, that no-one else has identified this species of worm, so gigantic that it is hard to miss. Perhaps people cannot see the wood for the trees (or the macrobes for the microbes), but I am convinced that there are many humans who do know about the giant sandworms, and that they are simply not telling the public, for some obscure ‘national security’ reason.

The chapter on Mars in Exploring Mystery, published in 2011, presented the giant sandworm theory for scrutiny. It remains the most cohesive and logical theory on the creation of the channels, especially so as it also answers questions about the origin of many other otherwise anomalous features on Mars, including: caves; ridges; dune trains; labyrinths; chaotic areas; hills; mesas; inverted channels; back-to-front rivers; crater chains; and sinkholes, with more feasible explanations than have been put forward to date.

 

 

  7.  References

 

1.  DiPietro, Vincent, and Molenaar, Gregory, 1982 – Unusual Martian Surface Features

2.  Carlotto, Mark, 1997 – The Martian Enigmas – A Closer Look

3.  Hoagland, Richard, 1996 – The Monuments of Mars

4.  McDaniel, Stanley, 1993 – The McDaniel Report

5.  Hancock, Graham, Bauval, Robert, and Grigsby, John, 1998 – The Mars Mystery

6.  http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/694114main_Watkins-2-pia16204_full.jpg

7.  http://bollyn.com/are-there-chinchillas-on-mars-3/

8.  Watkins, Leslie, 1978 – Alternative 3

9.  Anglia TV 1977 Science Report – Alternative 3.  This 50 minute television show was flighted once only on 20 June 1977 as a serious look into the conspiracy that a secret base exists on Mars and that a landing by humans in 1962 witnessed a live animal burrowing just below the surface. The next day, after the station was inundated with calls for more information, it was claimed to be an April fools joke and a hoax. The contract papers have mysteriously been lost and everyone surrounding the affair says that Alternative 3 was ‘fiction based on fact’.

10.  Quadrata Martis from http://gigapan.com/gigapans/149497

The End

 

The updated and edited 2016 version with images of channels on  Europa, Ceres, Phobos, Enceladus, Dione, Tethys, Ariel, Miranda, and Triton,  is downloadable here Canals16h.

Thanks for your consideration and I welcome constructive comments on  Rod Tritton @ gmail . com

The Elongated Skulls Mystery – Does Earth belong to the Cone-heads?

People who know more about anatomy than I do, have said that the many elongated skulls which have been found around the world, are clearly not the results of genetic defects (inherited abnormalities), congenital deformation (birth defects), or inflicted deformity (cranial binding).

elongated cone-head skullThis seems obvious when you consider that the volume of some of these skulls has been found to be twice that of a normal human skull. These elongated skulls are not human by any stretch of the imagination; brain capacity cannot double in that many individuals unless it is a genotype, in other words, a genetic lineage that breeds true. A DNA test should be definitive, as long as we can trust the laboratory to be independent and allow full access to their research.

A certain amount of caution is required during this period before ‘disclosure’, where the official position of ‘science’ is that “there are no such things as aliens”. There is a network of paid propagandists for the powers-that-be who promote this position, and this seven-decade-long effort, since ‘The Battle of Los Angeles’ in 1942, has been called the UFO Cover-up. The reason for this cover-up is to be able to secretly reap the rewards of their liaison with a species of grey who are giving them ‘alien technology’ in return for permission to man an underground base and to continue their experimentation on humanity unhindered. It is in the interests of the powers-that-be to deny the existence of aliens to keep their income stream from this source going for as long as possible. Part of this denial programme is the burial in vaults underground, never to see the light of day, of all the evidence of giants and non-human skulls that they can lay their hands on, and they have a budget of trillions. The powers-that-be buy up every crashed UFO as fast as possible and secret it away for ‘reverse engineering’. Not only do they remove all the evidence under total secrecy, they institute a programme to make people believe that it never happened, and that the people who do believe that it did happen are crackpots.

There is no fossil record of giants nor of elongated skulls having evolved on Earth, so it is more than likely that they are both extraterrestrial. There is an outside chance that a previous civilisation of humans bred giants and elongated skull individuals and that all the evidence of gigantic humanoids and oddly-shaped skulls that has been found around the world is a remnant of a genetic engineering experiment in evolution that died out when David slew Goliath. Whether these oddities are terrestrial or extraterrestrial is certainly one of the first questions to be asked, so by removing the evidence, the powers-that-be hope to avoid embarrassing questions about aliens, UFOs, free-energy, and where they receive their technology.

The UFO Cover-up is, to my mind, the reason that more giant bones and elongated skulls have not surfaced in science, complete with DNA analysis: because it would be found that they are not human. The powers-that-be would have difficulty upholding the lie that aliens do not exist and that we have had no contact with extraterrestrials when humanoid DNA, that is alien to human DNA, is discovered on our planet already. Part of the UFO Cover-up is to discredit all ‘alien research’ and ‘character assassinate’ the researchers. In fact Paul Vigay was a UFO and crop circle researcher who, I believe, was literally assassinated by the powers-that-be because he would not co-operate.

Elongated skulls have been found in countries around the world from as far afield as Egypt, Iraq, Indonesia and South America, indicating that they belonged to a world-wide civilization that could have had something to do with the building of the megalithic monuments in these countries. So many elongated skulls have been found in Peru, famous for the ‘cyclopean’ stonework at Machu Piccu and Sacsayhuaman, that they cannot all be concealed, and many have found their way into museums. Apparently the final resting place of this particular red-headed cone-head, pictured above, is in the Paracas Museum in Peru.

elongated cone-head skullThese elongated skulls are clearly not human. The jawbones are markedly larger and heavier, are shaped differently, and have different muscle attachment protrusions to a normal human jawbone. These skulls must clearly have had a different evolutionary line to that of humans; they cannot belong to the same genotype. It seems, without a fossil record of the evolutionary progression of this species of humanoid on Earth, that these skulls are alien to Earth.

 

The Egyptian god Ptah

 

Many graphics carved on Egyptian temple walls depict so-called gods wearing elaborate headdresses. Having seen many examples of these conical headdresses it was easy to connect the dots between the carvings and the elongated skulls, because the shape is almost identical. And, therefore, because we have the historical and the archaeological evidence, it is very likely that the Egyptian pantheon of gods were flesh-and-blood humanoids with cone-heads.

The particular god with his distinctive conical headdress, in this drawing of an Egyptian temple carving, is holding an ovoid-headed ‘ankh’ and a pterodactyl-headed ‘was rod’. Both of these symbols have a long history of interpretation and misinterpretation. I have my own interpretation that I have explained in Exploring Mystery, and I include the following graphic from page 29 to show these Egyptian symbols, their traditional interpretation and my own interpretation.

was rod ankh and tyet symbol

An explanatation of these glyphs suggests that off-planet beings tamed dinosaurs on Earth at least 60 million years ago. Perhaps this and the many anomalous artefacts, often called ‘ooparts’, that have surfaced that are up to 500 million years old, might one day be seen as evidence for the interpretation that a race of star visitors have been visiting Earth for millions of years, before, during, and after the age of the dinosaurs. The particular race of humanoids with elongated skulls could be hundreds of millions of years old. Our race of earthling humans has only been on Earth for about a quarter of one million years.

And so, the questions remain: Who were this race of cone-heads, where did they come from, are they still watching us, and are they doing so with care or with disdain? Perhaps, it is now through the elite controllers, that these so-called gods continue to callously exploit the resources of Earth, including humans, for their own benefit.

Information about free energy and alien technology cannot be kept hidden forever and soon some credible DNA testing laboratory will produce some results that will rock our world. It might even be a hair sample from this Peruvian skull that will let the cat out of the ‘disclosure’ bag and prove to ‘science’ once and for all that aliens do exist. And perhaps this race of cone-heads have been visiting our planet for longer than humans, or even dinosaurs, have existed on Earth. And, if it came to an argument, that makes this planet more likely to be theirs than ours. Perhaps Earth does belong to the Cone-heads.