Keep in mind, this is just a speculative essay on my part. I claim none of this as fact, it's just sort of a "thinking out loud" type essay written in the hopes of getting others to think about this and possibly form their own opinions on the subject.
Humans are fascinated with the tiny red planet of Mars. Signs of our fascination with this sphere are ancient in nature and date back to earliest written histories. Egypts ancient culture is full of reverence for the red planet, in fact in one ancient Egyptian dialect the word "Cairo" actually means "Mars". The Roman Empire was also full of reverence for Mars and evidence of it is everywhere. Mars was the Roman God of War, and temples to Mars were found everywhere. Mars was so important to them that he was second only to Jupiter, their main God. All Romans believed themselves, in fact, to be descendents of Mars. It is obvious that Mars has had a big impact on us as humans. But why? Many answers could be given to this question, some more based in fact than others.
One simple answer could be the distance between our two planets. Mars being relatively close to us and visible in our night sky might have something to do with this (Venus also shares this distinction). Also, the similarities between our two planets might have something to do with it. In recent years the biggest fascination with Mars could stem from the fact that if we are likely to find life on any other planet in our solar system, Mars is the most likely candidate. In fact, some scholars on the topic feel that we already have evidence of life on Mars. Microscopic organisms and bacteria though they may be, life none the less. Some also feel that we have seen evidence of "sea" life remains on Mars, including shell fragments and fossils of sea creatures long gone. Some of these same scholars believe that just below the surface of Mars lies water. Water in the form of glaciers, but water all the same. Some of these people also happen to believe that some of these organisms could still be alive in the frozen waters of Mars, or at least lying dormant in a way that life could be reintroduced to them (like Sea Monkies! Just add warm water!)
Mars is a tiny planet with a very small core, and thereby has very little mass with which to create gravity. This makes it very hard for Mars to hold on to it's atmosphere. Many scientists believe that Mars at one time had oceans that could have supported life. With this life you have to have an energy source and some believe this source came from plant life. Most people are in agreement that if there was life on Mars it most likely wasn't more intelligent than a shark, or other similar sea creature. Sir Charles Schults touches on a lot of these theories in his book "A Fossil hunters guide to Mars" which is a fascinating book, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the possiblities of discovery on Mars. Here is a link to some VERY convincing photos of shell evidence photographed by the Rovers on Mars' surface. Photos (photos found on Sir Charles Shults website). Sir Charles has a lot of very convincing evidence of shells and fossils that have been photographed by Nasa (including some sea urchin type fossils) and he is baffled by the fact that Nasa will not properly study them and release the information of the findings. But, you know what they say, NASA actually stands for "Never a straight answer" and they are very tight lipped about the findings on Mars. Why do I post the link to the photos? The answer is simple. I want to at least start this essay off by establishing at least a POSSIBILITY of life on Mars, and I wanted to start with evidence from one of the more scientific (read: level headed) researchers in the field, I don't want to lose anyone right off the bat.
Now, in stark contrast to Sir Charles Shults you have researchers such as Richard Hoagland and John Lear. These two guys have set forth some Earth shattering (or Mars shattering) theories in the past couple of decades that have rocked the scientific world. Some people are quick to write both of these guys off as quacks, but let's take a second to look at the credentials of these two men.
John Lear: John Lear, now retired from flying, amassed over 19,000 hours of flight time, and has flown in over 100 different types of airplanes in 60 different countries around the world. He flew both commercially and in missions worldwide for the CIA. John Lear is the only pilot to hold every airman certificate issued by the FAA, and has held many world records. He is also the son of Lear Jet inventor, Bill Lear.
Richard C. Hoagland: Richard C. Hoagland is a former space science museum curator; a former NASA consultant, and during the historic Apollo Missions to the Moon, was science advisor to Walter Cronkite and CBS News.
The views put forth by these two men are controversial, at best. They are under constant attack for their views, but they still continue with their work and have put forth some of the most fascinating theories in the past couple of decades not only about Mars but about situations surrounding our own Moon and the field of Ufology. Most people will agree with someone like Sir Charles Shults before they begin to even consider the works of Hoagland and Lear, but for the sake of this essay I want to introduce both sides of the story. I want to try to paint a complete picture as to the fascination we hold with Mars. Are the theories of Hoagland and Lear just conspiracy theories thrown out to spread mis-information? The question I ask, especially in the case of Mr. Lear is this: What would he have to gain from this? In fact, Mr. Lear has lost at least two high level high paying jobs because of his views (one was with Lockheed, and was a job he wanted very badly) and has lost the respect of some of his peers. Why would anyone in his position do this? Whether you believe these men or not, their views are fascinating and worth a look. Try to listen with an open mind to what these men have to say, but take everything with a grain of salt. I personally feel the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the road, somewhere between Shults and Hoagland, but I am fascinated with this topic. Some would even say obsessed. Since I was a small child I have wanted to find evidence of life or past civilizations that exist somewhere other than Earth and the theories of these men help fuel that passion for exploration.
These men tell a different story than Sir Charles Shults. Hoagland, especially, belives that life on Mars has been much more complex than single-celled organisms or fish. He believes that a civilized and advanced race of beings has inhabited Mars at one time, and could possibly even still live there hidden away under ground, or in "bunkers" of some sort. He belives that there is a much bigger reason that we are fascinated by Mars. Possibly because we are related in some way to the one time inhabitants of the red planet. Are they descended from us, or is it the other way around? In Hoagland's mind, when you look at Earth you see what Mars could once have been, and when you look at Mars you see what Earth could one day become. He feels that there is a much larger tie between our two worlds, and Egypt plays a large role in uncovering that tie. In fact, the region of Mars Hoagland is most noted for is the "Cydonia" region. You know, the place where the "Face on Mars" was discovered. But, what most people don't know is that "structures" are said to exist near Cydonia, structures that look like pyramids. Are they glacial run-off that has caused symetrical erosion, or does Hoagland have a point. That is up to you to decide.
I mention John Lear in this article because he and Hoagland work together frequently and speak on similar topics together. Lear's work does not so much deal with Mars as it does with UFO and alien technology in general, as well as some ties to alien existence on our own Moon. John Lear focuses more on how these civilizations could travel from one place to another, and his information is frequently used by people like Hoagland as a basis for their theories. John Lear's theories on space travel and colonization of other heavenly bodies is fascinating, but highly controversial. Most people would not have mentioned both of these men in a paper on Mars, but I find their work to be very supportive of one another, and they are contemporaries. Also, they are both very controversial and cutting edge and they are bringing out new theories and forcing people to think about this topic. These two men represent the "how" and "why" sides of the coin in the world of Ufology and alien research.
There are so may theories and pieces of evidence floating around that we as observers must use discretion when choosing to "Trust" any one piece of evidence. The one thing we must always remember is this: No one knows. And, if they do...they aint talking. So, take this for what it's worth. These are theories. Possible explanations. And, let's face it...that's part of being human. Trying to find answers to the unexplained, and using our powers of imagination to explore new theories. It's what makes us who we are.
Rather than spend more time writing on this topic, I am going to let Hoagland and Lear speak for themselves. I am going to post links to videos and photos that represent their theories so that you can see for yourself, and hear what they have to say. Please keep in mind that any link posted to a youtube video might (and usually does) contain foul language, especially in the "comments" section. So, if you are offended by this or you happen to be at work while you are reading this, you should probably use your best judgement. I can take no responsibility for what content these links contain.
I want to add this, almost as an aside to the previous written material. Recently Sir Charles Shults and Richard Hoagland were on a very popular late night radio show together, and they discussed their ideas on air. Sir Charles is strictly science based and Richard Hoagland uses a lot of wild theories to explain his positions. When confronted with some of the evidence, even Sir Charles admitted that it was puzzling and interesting and very much worth a closer look. These two men also agreed on a lot more things than I thought they would, such as the water situation on mars, the fact that NASA is hiding evidence about life on the planet, and the fact that a cover up exists in the upper levels of NASA management, as well as the fact that the building blocks of life are the same no matter where you are in the universe because the laws of chemistry and physics remain constant. We have to remember, NASA is not the private enterprise they would like you to believe they are, they are indeed a government agency. Both men also disagreed on some things, but the major points they seemed to agree on, particularly the idea of life. And, that is the key to this essay. The area that Hoagland and Sir Charles seem to part ways on is the idea that an advanced intelligent civilization was/is settled on Mars and built structures to mark their presence.
Not all of these links are of Hoagland and Lear's evidence, but all are relevant:
This should be enough to keep everyone busy for a while. Both guys have different view points, and focus on different things. The reason I tend to intertwine them and mention them together is this: Hoagland makes claims about life on other planets and Lear supports this and gives his opinions on how they could have gotten there. Lear doesn't focus on Mars, he focuses more on the mechanics of space travel and the vehicles that could be used. If life (intelligent) existed on Mars at one time, then it had to get there and it had to have a way home. These two men are contemporaries and their theories intertwine in so many ways, it's hard to mention one without the other (for me).
Again, I claim no belief in any one of these theories nor am I advertising them as fact. They are just fascinating for me, and make me think about life outside of our blue sphere. And, that is fun for me...the creative exploration of things unknown.
Your mileage may vary.
