SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

deFacing Mars

by Phil Plait, Jul 01 2009

Are you an exhausted antiscientist? Has railing against the mainstream science paradigm got you down? Making up "facts" is tough, and it’s tiring CONSTANTLY TYPING IN CAPITAL LETTERS, using different color fonts, and don’t forget all those exclamation points!!! Not to mention comparing scientists to Hitler and Himmler, and yourself to Galileo and Einstein.

And of course, your mind is soft and not used to real work, so you need to take constant breaks.

marsfacepuzzleHave I got the time-waster for you! Head (haha, as you’ll see in a sec) on over to Discovery Channel’s Faces of Mars jigsaw puzzle page! There, staring right back at you, you’ll find three clear indications that transhuman aliens from the future dimensions of light have visited the Red Planet and have left us signposts/warnings/idols/guaranteed-money-makers-if-you-yell-loudly-enough.

You’ll have hours of fun here, but be warned: when you finally put the pieces together, you’ll have an actual coherent picture. Don’t be scared, though. Reality sometimes has a way of creeping into even the best conspiracy theory. So sit back and enjoy it. When you’re done, you’ll be in hoag heaven.

15 Responses to “deFacing Mars”

  1. Hoag Heaven? (((*groan*)))


  2. bigjohn756 says:

    your to fast fore me devil

  3. DataJack says:

    Hoag Heaven – Fantastic.

    See you at TAM!

  4. Er, make that PHIL PLAIT MUST BE STOPPED.

  5. LindaRosa says:

    Seriously, finding ways for quacks and pseudoscience folk to waste time without wasting ours would be a boon to science.

    Unfortunately, most skeptics aren’t activists anyway. I hope Dr. Plait will work on that, too.

  6. Juvenile. This is what I get for searching “skeptic blog?” Also, those usually aren’t pseudoscientists; usually the people you describe are schizophrenic or have other mental disorders. They are not “antiscientists” in the sense of pseudoscientists, just pitiful people. Unless, of course, you are slandering pseudoscientists.

    • Huh? We had no idea! OK, everybody! Take it down – the whole skeptical shebang!

    • You’re not the same purple scissor from the Parapsychology and alternative medicine forums on by any chance? Oh wait, WikiSynergy…

      • Akusai says:

        I’ve been having my own run-ins with WikiSynergy folks for a couple of weeks, and this comes as no surprise: judging the entire SkepticBlog, and indeed the entire skeptical edifice, by a one-off humor post, made for fun, written by one of the most consistently upbeat and positive voices in modern skepticism.



        Also, those usually aren’t pseudoscientists; usually the people you describe are schizophrenic or have other mental disorders.

        Evidence for this amazing supposition, please?

        And anyway, even if someone has a mental disorder, they can still be a pseudoscientist. Schizophrenia may neatly explain one’s pseudoscientific activities, but those activities are still pseudoscientific.

        Unless, of course, you are slandering pseudoscientists.

        “Slander” and “making light of” are not the same thing. “Slander” is also not synonymous with “criticism,” despite what, for example, the British Society of Homeopaths might think.

        So head on back to WikiSynergy and talk about how mean and dogmatic we are, how ignorant, how we craft strawmen and engage in ad hominems and you never do any such thing. Have fun.

  7. Shot_info says:

    I wonder if our bud Purple Scissor and Tarantallegra are one and the same. They share identical phraseology and misspelllings :-)


    • If this is merely a humor post among more serious skepticism, I withdraw the comment. It is simply the first thing I came upon when searching “skeptic blog,” and was quite disappointed. Shot info seems to be concerned with my identity because we are also doing biographies of wikipedia skeptics, and linking the data to real names. Wikipedia has a problem where they are very skeptical, yet pretend not to be, saying that they are neutral.

      • Shot_info says:

        LOL – if you had read the blog you would have seen it for what it was :-) Shot_info isn’t interested in your ID – rather he is just letting the blogosphere know that you have a couple of personalities running around. Of course you can fix Wikipedia but you choose not to, if you don’t like something – you can change it. But don’t skew definitions – just because you don’t like Wikipedia’s lack of sympathetic to your cause, doesn’t make it “very skeptical” no matter how many times you utter it. Your belief in something doesn’t make it so.

  8. kabol says:

    we are also doing biographies of wikipedia skeptics, and linking the data to real names.

    in hopes of accomplishing what?

    if they stated something that you consider biased or erroneous, would it not be better to address their statement(s) instead of just “linking the data to real names” ?

  9. Jeshua says:

    The “Faces of Mars” reminded me of an incident that shocked/amused me several years ago. My brother-in-law, a mutual friend and i were driving down the road one night when our mutual friend looked up and said, “You know they discovered there are pyramids on the moon exactly like the ones in Egypt.”
    We both looked at him, but i could see my brother-in-law wasn’t going to say anything, so i asked him where he heard that. He looked at us as though we were crazy and replied, “It’s common knowledge.” Neither of us could stifle our laughter (partially fueled by beer).
    “Not among anyone i know,” i told him. It was a light moment of fun, but there is a serious side to this story. Our friend is an elementary school teacher. In fact, his parents and two of his brothers are also teachers. Couldn’t help wondering if he actually teaches crap like this to his students. No wonder so many people believe certain fairy tale are true!