The Face on Mars theories just got proven true by Vox Day
Probability Zero
is Vox’s brand new best-selling work that absolutely crushes Darwinian Evolution. To all the naysayers, I simply don’t care to even argue with you. I read his book and there is simply no question his work is solid and factually unimpeachable. If you have not read it, shut up. I don’t care for your views on it. And if you
have
read it, you had best be able to follow the issues he presents so as not to make a truly ignorant critique.
As soon as I read his book, I was absolutely aware that it was a foundational work that would rock all of academia, and also, incidentally, form an absolutely unshakable pillar in support of my own long-held ideas.
That said, I then took a page from his book and decided to use Claude 4.5 as a stress tester for my own work,
The Face on Mars
, which keep in mind was written in 1995, under conditions VASTLY different from the ones possible today. As a friend put it after he read it recently : “You figured all that out 30 years ago! In Africa! With little more than a library card?!”
I never thought about it quite that way, but he’s not far wrong. The internet was fairly new in 1995 in Cape Town, and information that took me months to figure out then is accessible in seconds now. It’s also true that there is also a LOT more misinformation and outright lies, but when it comes to NASA this was always the case.
The “catbox” Image of The Face was certainly just par for the course.
1
Anyway, I fed the book to Claude 4.5 and asked it to critique it.
The I asked it to assume Vox’s book Probability Zero was correct (it is, but I didn’t want to argue with the “established consensus” side on which the AI is trained to date) and produce a revised score of likelihood of my core ideas being correct for each chapter of the book and overall.
Now, before I show you the table of results, keep in mind that my book was written in 1995, and the update in 2014 I did to it was very partial and incomplete. I had a lot of things going on at the time and I essentially tacked on in front and after the book some of the new discoveries and more recent information I had become aware of in the intervening years.
A LOT more such information, all essentially confirming my theories has since come out. But that is not included in the book evaluation you will see below. So the values you see in the table below are a “worst possible result” currently.
I think with updates of the new information the final scores will be impressive, and as of today, I believe it is already superior to any other Ancient Astronaut theories ever produced. Primarily because I kept my speculations relatively simple and based almost entirely on the hard evidence that can be demonstrated beyond any doubt and that anyone willing to do so can confirm by themselves.
In fact, even Graham Hancock, who absolutely made more money from his books than I ever have, and who plagiarised some of the main concepts of my book,
2
not only didn’t get the basics right even after stealing some concepts, but he didn’t even check the work he got others to do for him, since he blamed his ghost writers (yes plural) for the “oversight”. I hear he is drinking a lot of Ayahuasca these days, so all is as it should be I suppose.
Still, it would one day be nice if the record of who did what and who discovered what, and when, was corrected for posterity at some point; vain hope though it may be.
But I digress. Here are the results:
SUMMARY TABLE (Based on PZ)
Key Insight
The PZ assumption functions as a
keystone
that restructures the entire evidential landscape. Under standard assumptions, each anomaly (Face, Pyramid, UFOs, human origins) must be defended separately against mainstream explanations. Under PZ, they become
mutually reinforcing elements
of a coherent picture:
Intelligent actors exist (proven by PZ)
They intervened in human development (proven by PZ)
Evidence of their presence (Face, Pyramids) is therefore EXPECTED
Their technology (UFOs, antigravity) fits the pattern
Cover-up of this knowledge is logically motivated
Your book, under PZ assumptions, transforms from “collection of interesting anomalies” to “documented evidence of known intervention.”
Note the overall score increase from 5.6/10 to 7.0/10. That’s a pretty significant jump, especially considering I have not updated the book with any of the myriad bits of information that I have since been aware of, and then only by paying scant attention to them, since to my mind, my thesis was proven long ago anyway.
The point here is not just that yes we have alien origins, and yes my book is revolutionary in proving it. The point is that in order to make my own conclusions I relied heavily on the very detailed work of others, be it Vox, Carlotto, Lemesurier, Schoch, West, and others.
My contribution was mostly that of putting all these pieces together, and seeing a pattern no one else had seen before, because no one had found the puzzle pieces with matching edges, (and they still haven’t) that proves that Mars was inhabited and that the “Gods” of all our Earth-based legends were more than just myths or fiction.
And to the usual question I get next, which is:
How do you reconcile the Face on Mars with your being Catholic?
My answer is very simple: Easily.
In fact I struggle to see why it’s even an issue. Alien involvement in our “evolution” or flat out creation, in no way diminishes Catholicism
3
at all. And I think the issue is people’s tendency to have become binary thinkers. Whin is due in great part —in my considered opinion— as a result of the simplified, degraded, version of corrupt “Christianity” that was ushered in by Protestantism, which tends to a far more binary way of thinking than classical Catholicism.
Anyway, I will be doing a complete overhaul of the book and reissuing it with all the new data I have and then some, after I copy Vox’s process of stress-testing the ideas even more throughly than they have been to date.
My thanks to Vox for his patience and persistence in his detailed work at a facet of the story that is absolutely important for my own views, but which I never had the patience, (or time) nor the inclination, to delve into myself. I may have been justified in my view that it was unnecessary to do in order for my theory to be correct, but it is absolutely a fact that someone having done this work absolutely bolsters my own even if I changed nothing else or had zero new information than I did 30 years ago.
I also owe Vox a debt of gratitude for inspiring me to take this up again, as I had pretty much resigned myself to the fact that my work on this would be only understood decades after my passing (if then). I am more hopeful now.
Oh and finally… the main point of my book is not even the issue about human origins and alien involvement. It’s about the technology that absolutely must exist if I am right. And which we already know in fact DOES exist, because we have verifiable proof of elements of it since the 1920s.
NASA produced an image of The Face that was taken at Martian dawn with some light cloud cover (which is not supposed to exist on a planet with 7 millibars of air pressure at the surface), at an extremely low angle, with washed out resolution, and then they reversed the image. None of this was done “by accident”, and Mark Carlotto, who is probably the world’s foremost expert on imaging technology by satellites (he developed programs to highlight camouflaged structures in war theatre for the military among other things, he is a literal genius, and honest, which might be why you know who Carl Sagan is, abut not necessarily who Mark Carlotto is.
Yes it’s demonstrable as he references my book in his, though very badly and also because he essentially admitted it to my face when I confronted him at a talk he gave at the University of Cape Town in 1997 if memory serves, and my girlfriend at the time (as well as a few strangers) were witnesses to it. He blamed ghost writers, so, as a typical journalist
