Call 1-800-257-2672 for more information!

Copyright 2003, Stewart C. Best, All Rights Reserved

Dateline: February 10, 2003

Strategies for the finding of alien intelligence need to be expanded considerably, says Dr. Allen Tough, a leading SETI proponent, as stated in his report entitled "How to Achieve Contact: Five Promising Strategies".  He offered five basic strategies that could lead to alien or extraterrestrial contact. One of these strategies is for SETI to expand into the search for artificiality and intelligently designed structures or artifacts on other planets discovered via satellite photography. Dr. Tough stated:

"Five of these strategies are especially promising. Because a highly advanced civilization can readily send intelligent probes to monitor our society and telecommunications, we should  (1) pursue a variety of means for searching the solar system and Earth for physical evidence of an alien object or its effects;  (2) issue invitations asking ETI to have a dialogue with humankind; and (3) become sufficiently prepared for contact, thus encouraging ETI to respond.  For evidence from many light-years away, the most promising strategies are (4) a search for astroengineering projects and their by-products and (5) radio and optical SETI. The bulk of this paper is devoted to these five promising strategies."

If we zero in on (1) Dr. Tough then says:

"A search for physical evidence could focus on the solar system or on Earth. And it could focus on phenomena that are normally studied by mainstream science or on stranger anomalous phenomena. These two distinctions enable us to cluster the various search approaches into four categories.

 (a) Within the solar system, search for unassailable evidence of an alien object.   This object might be a probe or spacecraft, for instance, or its discarded parts. Such a search might focus on the Moon, the asteroid belt, or the Lagrange equilibrium points (Freitas and Valdes, 1980). Alternatively, the alien object might be a building, a monument, or some other artificial structure.   Indeed, an alien intelligence may have deliberately left an artifact for us to discover at some special landmark in the solar system, such as the highest point on Mars or the deepest canyon on Venus, or in some carefully chosen spot that we will explore someday because of our scientific curiosity or our appreciation of beauty. Or equipment might have been stored below the surface of some body (perhaps in natural cracks or passages) to protect it from damage by cosmic radiation and micrometeorites."

"Baugher (1985, p. 155) has even suggested that an alien probe might, on one of the geologically dead moons in the solar system, "construct a vault filled with information and artifacts.... The vault could contain a description of the civilization that sent the probe, as well as a set of instructions for the initiation of contact."

Another quote of importance is from “Intelligent Life in the Universe” written by Dr. Carl Sagan and I.S. Shklovskii which was published in 1966. This quote is from page 461:


Dr. Sagan and Mr. Shklovskii, back in 1966, thought it might be possible that there could be secret bases in the Solar System. They suggested we might find such a base on the backside of the moon, placed there to avoid the prying eyes of the human race. In the alternative, bases placed there by certain elite members of the human race to avoid detection of their clandestine operations are possible even if improbable. There is a great amount of evidence that suggests that Tithonia was built in such a way as to camouflage it, that is, to hide it from prying eyes.

But the questions then become (1)  would the scientific community accept the evidence presented, or  (2) would they, and the people of the world, reject it because of primal fear of the unknown? The Brookings Report suggested that religionists, especially Christians, along with scientists and engineers would have difficulty accepting proof of artificiality - which suggests that they would reject it if there was any way they could do so.

Dr. McDaniel makes a statement that might explain, at least in part, why NASA and their related contractors are so totally against independent researchers, and attempts to silence them via ridicule and mocking, or via “scientific analysis” which is nothing more than blatant attempts to silence what NASA is so vigorously attempting to hide:

“In 1960, a report titled “Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs” was delivered to the Chairman of NASA’s Committee on Long-Range Studies. The report was prepared under contract to NASA by the Brookings Institution, Washington D.C. The report outlines the need to investigate the possible social consequences of an extraterrestrial discovery and to consider whether such a discovery should BE KEPT FROM THE PUBLIC IN ORDER TO AVOID POLITICAL CHANGE AND A POSSIBLE “DEVASTATING” EFFECT ON SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES - DUE TO THE DISCOVERY THAT MANY OF THEIR OWN MOST CHERISHED THEORIES COULD BE AT RISK.” (Caps added for emphasis.)

The Brookings Report is well worth a read. We quote from several pertinent parts:

“The recent publicity given to efforts to detect extraterrestrial messages via radio telescope has popularized-and legitimized - speculations about the impact of such a discovery on human values. It is conceivable that there is semi-intelligent life in some part of our solar system or highly intelligent life which is not technologically oriented, and many cosmologists and astronomers think it very likely that there is intelligent life in other solar systems. While face-to-face meetings with it will not occur within the next 20 years (unless its technology is more advanced than ours, qualifying it to visit earth), ARTIFACTS LEFT AT SOME POINT IN TIME BY THESE LIFE FORMS MIGHT POSSIBLY BE DISCOVERED THROUGH OUR SPACE ACTIVITIES ON THE MOON, MARS OR VENUS...


The Fundamentalist (and anti-science) sects are growing apace around the world and, as missionary enterprises, may have schools and a good deal of literature attached to them. One of the important things is that, where they are active, they appeal to the illiterate and semiliterate (including, as missions, the preachers as well as the congregation) and can pile up a very influential following in terms of numbers. FOR THEM, THE DISCOVERY OF OTHER LIFE - RATHER THAN ANY OTHER SPACE PRODUCT - WOULD BE ELECTRIFYING…

It has been speculated that of all groups, SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS MIGHT BE THE MOST DEVASTATED by the discovery of relatively superior creatures…”

Aside from the obvious bias against Christianity (comprised evidently of illiterates and semi-literate folks who would not understand anything and panic), the Brookings Report probably reflects the inner thinking of NASA, and thus   any evidence discovered by them would be immediately suppressed, and any evidence found by independent sources would have to be discredited by NASA through the mainstream media by any methods available. This would of course include ridicule, mocking and possible personal attack to destroy the messenger. The truth, of course, would not be relevant – the agenda of deception and suppression of such evidence becomes paramount and the only guiding principle.

Richard Hoagland and other Martian investigators have run into a solid wall of resistance with the SETI teams even though they have provided far more evidence of artificiality than all of the SETI efforts to date. Yet no interest appears to be forthcoming from either government or private scientific SETI   groups to investigate these anomalies with high resolution cameras. Can the NASA/JPL/MSSS matrix be trusted to rephotograph Tithonia or Cydonia without Congressional oversight, and without a select committee of qualified experts looking over their shoulder to be sure nothing is "altered"?

Yet another quote of interest is from The McDaniel Report, written some time ago by Dr. Charles McDaniel, Professor Emeritus and Former Chairman, Department of Philosophy, Sonoma State University. He has some very harsh words for NASA and Dr. Malin:

“When forwarded inquiries from constituents by United States Senators and Representatives, NASA has provided answers which may appear plausible to the uninformed, but which cannot withstand even the slightest logical scrutiny. Among the various misleading assurances given by NASA are those having to do with NASA’s policy for Mars Observer Camera data release. On the first mission to Mars in seventeen years, with growing public interest in the artificiality hypothesis and NASA’s vigorous resistance to that hypothesis, NASA made a radical change in the way photographic data from the spacecraft would be handled. Unlike previous missions, there was to be no conveyance of camera data to the public as soon as it was received and converted into viewable images (what is often called “live” transmission). INSTEAD, IMAGES FROM THE MARS OBSERVER CAMERA WOULD BE UNDER THE CONTROL OF A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS AFTER ACQUISITION.” (caps and bolding added for emphasis.)

"This same private contractor has been given sole authority to determine, not only what images would be released and when, but even what objects would be photographed by the high resolution camera. That contractor, Dr. Michael Malin, IS AN OUTSPOKEN OPPONENT OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF POSSIBLE ARTIFICIALITY. (Dr. McDaniel is speaking of the FACE ON MARS.) Dr. Malin’s arguments against the hypothesis of possible artificiality have been uniformly fallacious.   Thus the interests of the American public in relation to Mars Observer Camera data were effectively turned over to the prejudiced decisions of a private individual.” - Dr. MacDaniel.


The definition of artificial according to Random House is this: “1. Made by human skill; produced by man (opposed to natural)." We could then say, because man is an intelligent creature that the definition is: MADE BY INTELLIGENT SKILL, PRODUCED BY INTELLIGENCE  (AS OPPOSED TO NATURAL FORMATIONS). The definition of artifact  is also interesting: “any object made by man, something made by skill” or any object made by intelligence, something made with skill.

A large number of books and articles have been written attempting to prove intelligent design at Cydonia,  “Pyramids On Mars", written by Vladimir Avinsky was published in Soviet Life, "The Case For The Face", by Stanley V. McDaniel,  and then of course Richard Hoagland’s book "THE MONUMENTS OF MARS: A CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER”,  and many more, all of which go to great lengths to prove that the Face On Mars was in fact artificial, the product of forced engineering, of alien intelligence. However, Tithonia is totally different than the Face On Mars.

  1. The Face On Mars scale is huge, 2.5 kilometers long, and 1 kilometer wide, and about 400 meters high.   It is composed of a group of mounded, natural material, which NASA writes off as simply a small group of hills and ridges that, by their arrangement only APPEARS to look like a face – that light and shadow are playing tricks on us. They state that in reality it is a “natural” anomalous object  that just happens to sit by itself in the middle of a flat plain, and just so happens to have the same scale and shape of a face. However, the location of this object, in the middle of a flat plain, obvious "sculptured" look of the hairline, and the correct proportions to a humanoid face all raise serious questions. Then there is the pyramid cluster and the mathematics presented by Hoagland. The scale of the Face has raised questions in some minds. However, when compared to earth drawings found scattered over the planet, such as the NAZCA LINES in Peru,  it is not at all impossible that a symbol of such size could be built by entities unknown for religious purposes or other reasons.
  1. Tithonia has no such problems within it, because the structures at Tithonia are very clearly architectural.  That is, they display all of the signs of forced engineering, straight and parallel lines, flat walls, flat roofs, openings where one might expect to find them, and pathways leading into the structures. Their scale is totally consistent with other features in the cluster, with structures ranging from 150 feet tall to over 240 feet tall – but all of them easily identified with EARTH SCALE. Further, there are many structures, not just one, two or three! The combinations of many structures, all of which display the above criteria,  forge the claim of incontrovertible evidence!

One of the chief arguments raised by Hoagland and others is the arrangement of the face – that is, it is symmetrical – with two eyes, a nose, mouth, forehead, chin, and rounded hairline. When cut in half, both sides appear to be somewhat balanced. In other words, it has a humanoid face appearance, and while the left is slightly different from the right, the odds are that nature could not produce such a symmetrical shape. There is no question whatever that the Face is a very strange and unusual formation of mounded material and very possibly molded into that shape. However it does have features that COULD BE “natural”. And thus that argument will never end. Tithonia, on the other hand, has nothing to do with hills or ridges and light and shadow playing tricks on the eyes – because the structures at Tithonia display all of the criteria used in architectural engineering – and none of the parameters used are missing in these structures.

These differences are important – because while one is attempting to show that the natural flow of the Face, admittedly mounded and molded,   and could well be engineeered, it does display many features that could be natural! However,  it is also possible it is not engineered at all!  This is the quagmire of Cydonia – for one can attempt to FORCE a natural object into an engineered object by argument. It is nearly impossible to FORCE AN ENGINEERED OBJECT into a NATURAL OBJECT, for engineered architecture has unmistakable signs to it, and these attributes, these criteria, are used by intelligence agencies every day of the week to determine if an enemy country is building a new complex, a missile complex, factory, roadway, or whatever. How do they do it? By using the criteria that SEPARATES natural objects from engineered!!

Tithonia is the first time in recorded history that we have absolute proof of ENGINEERING on another planet, and that engineering is clearly unmistakable, for it fulfills all of the criteria used to identify something as artificial. If the criteria or parameters used on Earth to establish an enemy fortification are accepted here, why are they not acceptable on Mars? Not only do we have one object that defies all attempts to classify it as natural, we have many structures at Tithonia, all grouped into clusters – and that grouping also displays intelligence, for the buildings all conform to the identical scale and forge a well- defined community, with roadways, pathways, flat areas for walking as well as signs of tunneling or excavation.

 Clearly Tithonia is radically different from anything ever found on Mars to date. So blatant, and so obvious, it is virtually unbelievable (which is precisely why the charges of fraud, manipulation of photographs, or airbrushing in structures, etc. were leveled when RedStar introduced Tithonia in November). It is this blatant and obvious difference from Cydonia that causes people to reject it. They say, “If these buildings are  there, and are so clearly visible, they would have been found before”.  New things that were right in front of people are "discovered" every day. Mars is no exception. RedStar makes no claims to "discovery". RedStar merely investigated the site and makes the claims of artificiality based on that investigation.

We will investigate only one structure in this segment - the large rectangular structure that sits to the west of the city cluster within the city wall. This structure is one of the most obvious to everyone - and it also contains a multitude of parallel lines, flat walls, flat roof, 90-degree corners and 90-degree edges. It contains a centered object on top of its roof, and the long protrusion in front of the main structure is perfectly parallel to and joins perfectly with the main structure. All of these items are items of artificiality, and prove intelligent design. As Jeff Rense said on the Jeff Rense Program, "You've got it Stewart...this is the most intriguing Martian anomaly I have seen to date. Only one of the right angles or parallel angles of the many you have demonstrated has to be real, and we would have what certainly appears to be genuine artificiality. Your discovery seems to eclipse the Face On Mars and the more I look, the more I begin to see. Talk about anomalies...Tithonia is the most intriguing yet." You can hear the Jeff Rense Program and interview with Stewart Best at:

wpe7A.jpg (163658 bytes)


We have many more than ONE SET of parallel lines in this structure alone, let alone the hexagons, the step pyramids, and the others that are clearly engineered. Extraordinary claims, it is said, require extraordinary proof. We will attempt to show you how the architectural design of these structures matches those found on earth, how they fulfill all criteria for intelligent design, and therefore must be classified as artificial;  and this is especially true of the large building we simply call the MINING OR MANUFACTURING BUILDING.


One of the important considerations in determination of artificiality is the land flow that surrounds the artifact in question. The main features to be considered are:

1. Is the artifact or object in question totally anomalous to the surrounding terrain and flow of the terrain?

2. How does the object position itself in relationship to the surrounding flow of the terrain? That is, does it align itself with the flow (evidence of a natural object of some type) or does it juxtapose itself at angles inconsistent with the natural flow and ebb of the land in question?

3. Does the artifact or object in question have the same characteristics as those found nearby that can be identified as natural?

4. If the artifact is anomalous to everything in the area, and the angle at which it sits into the terrain is not aligned with  the normal ebb and flow, then we must investigate the artifact itself. Does it display the required characteristics of an engineered structure?

These are crucial points in the determination of artificiality - and the object/artifact must display anomalous placement, anomalous shape, and it must terminate the natural ebb and flow of the terrain. The large rectangular building in question displays the characteristics required for closer examination:

wpe7B.jpg (285632 bytes)

It interrupts abruptly the normal flow and angle of the rolling or terraced land - as it is not only cut into the terrain itself, but sits at an almost perfect 90-degree angle to the flow of the terrain, even though the building is damaged. The terrain is rolling, and as we look from the left and follow to the right, we see it rises slightly,  levels off and then there is a dramatic shift in the "terracing" immediately to the left of the structure - it goes from straight to circular, drops abruptly, and then disappears behind the structure itself. The structure's western wall is actually placed into the hill - which shows clear engineering intent and intelligent design. Why would nature suddenly terminate its even flow, place a perfectly rectangular structure 90-degrees to that flow, and then dig it into the side of the hill?

What is important here is the 90-degree placement of this structure to the terrain, and its obvious placement below terrain level, which might   be because of prevailing winds at the site - but whatever the reason, this structure totally fulfills the critera for intelligent design by its placement alone. It is totally anomalous in many ways:

1. As stated it sits at a 90-degree angle to the flow of the terrain.

2. The structure is carved into the side hill on the west side, but the roof line is perfectly flat and straight, and is parallel on both sides, front to back.

3. The interruption of the flow of the land in and of itself might not prove artificial design, but the structure's shape, with perfectly flat walls, 90-degree corners, perfect 90-degree edges up and down where the adjoining walls meet along the entire roof line,  are totally anomalous to the surrounding flow of the land or any objects anywhere around it.


When dealing with architectural design for engineered structures, we are looking for repeated patterns - that is, a repetition of parallel lines and repeated angles at the corners and where walls and roofs join. We should see straight edges, and consistency in overall design.

1) The vertical lines at the corners of the walls are perfectly parallel or we could say "square" or "plumb". Nature does not provide   us with "plumb line" parallel edges that are parallel from top to bottom, and offer 90-degree straight edges up and down - and equal spacing from foundation to the roof. However,  any architect or engineer would understand that, and design a structure like it.

2) We are also looking for 90-degree (three way) at the corners where the roof line meets the walls - and this should be repeated four times, which obviously it is in this  rectangular structure.

3) The walls should then be a near perfect square or rectangle, flat and smooth - just as any engineered building is. These patterns repeat themselves in engineered structures.

The first things we will look at are the vertical corners of the front or "face" of the building.  Notice that the west edge and the east edge form perfectly parallel lines, and these parallels meet other to make edges which have 90-degree corners, going straight up in total alignment (for vertical, and stright accross for horizonatal alignment - when was the last time you saw that in nature?

wpe7C.jpg (310609 bytes)

The second thing to notice is that where the walls meet the roof line, we have perfect 90-degree angles in two directions.  This is not natural;   it is FORCED DESIGN, FORCED ARCHITECTURE, FORCED ENGINEERING. But there is much more here as well - notice that the face wall is perfectly flat and has what appears to be several large but damaged windows or openings of some type and one of them is a perfect rectangle within the rectangle of the face wall (South wall, as we are looking North in orientation). Is all of this just natural coincidence? If so, why does this not appear on earth?

Now if  we look at the top of the face wall, and we draw a horizontal line across the top and one along the bottom we have another parallel line situation - and the face itself forms a perfect rectangle, close to being perfectly square. All told now, we have two sets of parallel lines, with four corners, three edges, and all are 90-degree angle!! Was all of this expertly done by nature?


As you look at the front face wall, you will notice a large rectangular object on the front face, that gives the appearance of a large opening, such as a window, or a large solar collector ( actually there are three of them if one examines this structure closely under enhanced conditions).  The important feature here is that this large object is engineered into the wall itself, for it is perfectly parallel with vertical and horizontal wall lines. This object has two sets of parallel lines that match the other wall lines, as well as 90-degree corners -  another proof of intelligent architectural design. Does nature provide us with rectangles within rectangles, with perfect alignment to the main structure?


The next wall we will  look at is the wall facing to the east, or the right side to us as we look at the photograph. This wall is likewise perfectly flat, rises vertical and is "plumb". It is the same height at the front as it is in the back. The foundation line and the roof line (although the roof is perhaps slightly arched or we are seeing sun flare), are perfectly parallel - they form, with the back wall and the front wall another perfect rectangle - clearly another sign of intelligent design.


wpe88.jpg (101099 bytes)

Thus far we have two flat walls, all lines parallel, a multitude of 90-degree angles, straight edgelines and perfect rectangles formed by both walls. Are we really to believe this is a natural structure or a  rock formation of some type?


The next feature that confirms intelligent design is the roof itself. Since when does nature provide a roof structure that ii the exact same size as   the rising walls? That is,  flat or slightly arched, but clearly connected to the main structure itself?

wpe89.jpg (135063 bytes)


As shown, the roof lines front to back on each side of the building form another set of parallel lines - perfectly aligned and square, just as the building itself is perfectly plumb - even if in ruins. All of these parallel lines and 90-degree angles refute any attempt to place them in a "natural" category.


Centered on top of the roof is an object that is slightly curved but runs parallel to the roof line on both sides, east and west. These lines are perfectly aligned to the wall lines - again forming many parallel lines.

wpe83.jpg (75451 bytes)



wpe82.jpg (93325 bytes)



There is a large protrusion that comes out from the main structure going south. This protrusion is engineered into the main building and is a part of it. The protrusion is perfectly parallel with the roof lines, west and east wall lines and the foundation lines. This protrusion is perfectly flat and runs straight and true right to the end, and the end of this protrusion forms two sets of parallel lines as well, forming a near perfect square or rectangle. This is additional confirmation of architectural engineering; a feat nature does not provide. This protrusion has suffered damage and appears to be breaking up in some parts - but the evidence is incontrovertible that it is engineered and is part of the main building structure.

wpe85.jpg (252059 bytes)



The long protrusion appears to have two "buttresses" - and you can see the tops of them on the flat floor of the protrusion - they then drop off and disappear into the shadows. One of them, and possibly both of them, have tunnels through them as we can see a pathway or roadway leading into the front one - and see it coming out of the other side. Buttresses are a sure sign of engineering, for it is the only way to strengthen such a long thin protrusion - and if this is indeed a mining facility of some type, it may be where the waste goes.

wpe86.jpg (115052 bytes)


What is astounding here is that the two buttresses are parallel with each other, and also parallel to the protrusion itself!! All of these parallel lines prohibit any interpretation of "natural anomaly". It is beyond all chance that this structure is some rock formation that just happened as freak of nature.


If we look at the full view of this structure, the hexagon structure beside it,  and the statue, we will notice a pathway that splits up and divides itself, with one part going through a large archway, the other curving around and then splitting up to enter the hexagon structure, the rest going into the "buttresses" and around the protrusion itself. Does nature provide us with roadways or pathways? How much evidence is required?


When one combines these elements - the straight and parallel verticals, horizontals, the 90-degree corners and edges, the flat walls, the roof and centered object on the roof,  and we couple all of this to the long protrusion which displays the identical parallel lines as the main building, the flat surface on the top, and how it meshes with the foundation of the other structure, we have no choice.   This is engineered, this is artificial; it was built by intelligence. If we take all of this, and then we see how this structure sits in relationship to the ebb and flow of the terrain right beside it, and we find that it totally and abruptly terminates this flow by sitting at 90-degrees to it, we are then placed into a position of either denial or acceptance of the simple facts.  This is intelligently designed, cut right into the hillside, and the terracing beside it proves it. Now when you consider this, and then take into account the pathways, how can anyone dispute artificiality? It is an insult to mankinds logic, and our built-in ability to discern,  to have someone claim this is all just "natural".

wpe87.jpg (95689 bytes)

In Part Two, we will offer even  more proof of incontrovertible intelligent design, for we will examine a structure that is difficult to build correctly, and requires a high degree of technical knowledge and ability to construct. It fulfills all criteria for intelligent design and a full knowledge of architecture. Stay tuned for more explosive documentation. WE ARE NOT ALONE!







Hit Counter