Oh how time flies.

So many things he said that were so wrong then, and even more wrong now…

“So if the person and their luggage, life support, and consumption” is accounted for, he said, “ultimately it could drop below $100,000.” A trip to Mars on ITS would take about 80 days. […] Musk wants the trips to Mars to be yearly, if not more frequently, and to start colonization in 2022

I mean the 2016 SpaceX money slide called “Next Steps” promised investors that Mars travel would be all done and dusted by 2024, 30 day rides at $100K.

Why are we even still here on earth?

In 2017 he doubled down on the pitch.

SpaceX’s previous plan called for landing its first transport ship on Mars in 2022. The timeline Musk gave today was similar; two cargo landers would land on Mars in 2022, with four vehicles launching in 2024. Two of those 2024 ships would be crewed, meaning, in Musk’s timeline, humans could walk on Mars in just seven years.

“That’s not a typo,” he said.

Not a typo he said, meaning Elon Musk wanted everyone to know his entire reputation should be based on him putting a man on Mars by 2024.

You may also remember 2013 when he laid out these numbers:

Musk envisages a colony with 80,000 people on the red planet.

Of course that didn’t sound preposterous enough, so a couple years later he was puffing even harder.

Musk says a sustainable colony of 1 million people could be established in about 40 to 100 years.

His sudden escalation from 80,000 to 1 million colonists seems to follow a pattern common in financial bubbles. When initial ambitious claims fail to materialize, even more extreme promises are made to maintain attention and investment. This mirrors tactics seen in other ventures where missing deadlines leads to even grander future predictions rather than realistic reassessment.

What’s driving all this nonsense? A misunderstanding about regulations.

…recognize Mars as a free planet and that no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities. Accordingly, Disputes will be settled through self-governing principles, established in good faith, at the time of Martian settlement.

It’s hard to believe Musk actually gets away with statements of this nature.

“It should probably be easier to remove a law than create one,” said Musk. “I think that’s probably good, because laws have infinite life unless they’re taken away.”

Apparently that’s not how anything actually works. It’s so dumb as to be painful to think about. Laws are the opposite to what is described, because they are:

• Amended and modified through legislative processes
• Interpreted and reinterpreted through court decisions
• Superseded by newer laws
• Limited or expanded in scope through regulatory implementation
• Rendered obsolete by changing circumstances
• Preempted by higher authorities (e.g., federal law over state law)
• Struck down as unconstitutional
• Sunsetted or automatically expired based on built-in provisions

Making laws “easier to remove than create” and Mars being free from “Earth-based government” authority suggest an attempt to frame space exploration in terms of escaping public oversight rather than serving public interests… but I’m not a lawyer.

I do know however that NASA safely landed two drones on Mars (Spirit and Opportunity) in January 2004 and this guy can’t even get one ship there by 2024 to declare his caliphate of Martian law.

Not a typo.

Public NASA missions succeeded 20 years ago using technology far less advanced than what’s available today. Yet even with modern advantages, basic milestones of private Mars exploration remain unmet and far away. This suggests the core challenges aren’t primarily technical but rather stem from the fundamental mismatch of grifters, between public relations promises and physical/economic realities.

NASA’s successful missions, built on careful scientific research and public accountability, stand in stark contrast to the extremely wasteful, bombastic but undelivered private sector promises.

More to the point, he sucks at delivering on his most basic promises that are only a couple or few years into the future. Why does anyone think he could deliver something even further away and more sophisticated?

Even worse, “free planet” rhetoric reveals the fundamental contradiction behind the fraud. Claiming independence from Earth governance hides how these private space ventures remain heavily dependent on public sector research, funding, and infrastructure. Such extremist anti-government political framing of space exploration often obscures its reliance on collective public investment and institutional knowledge.

Perhaps it’s time for accountability in private space ventures, reviewing how public resources and attention get directed based on false promises and fantasy schemes rather than demonstrated capabilities. The real damage isn’t just wasted resources, it’s a targeted erosion of public trust and diversion away from actual scientific progress to publicity-driven fantasies.

The Mars colony promises really are a reflection of other ventures like the Hyperloop and Tesla’s self-driving capabilities.

• Hyperloop (2013): LA to SF in 35 minutes by 2020, tickets under $30
• Full Self-Driving (2016): Coast-to-coast autonomous drive by 2017
• Mars Colony (2016): First humans by 2022, million-person colony in 40 years

This totally unhinged snake-oil salesman nonsense has actually harmed legitimate technology development by creating unrealistic public expectations, diverting resources from methodical scientific approaches, undermining trust, promoting a false narrative about private sector efficiency.

The pattern is consistent: announce extremely aggressive timelines, miss them completely, then make even grander promises rather than acknowledge the original overreach. The timeline above should be particularly damning in how it shows escalation rather than learning.

In the aftermath of the Las Vegas Cybertruck incident and the death of decorated Green Beret Matt Livelsberger (stationed in Germany, on approved leave), Elon Musk’s social media response reveals a calculated break in his established pattern of behavior. While his posts mocking the deceased service member align with his typical attacks on critics, his conspicuous silence on technical aspects suggests deeper implications.

A Documented Pattern of “Alien Technology” Claims

For years, Musk has strategically and repeatedly deployed “alien technology” claims to generate attention and shape high-profile narratives around Tesla and SpaceX.

As far back as 2016 we see Tweets like this one:

Space X and Tesla entrepreneur Elon Musk has stoked the fires of conspiracy theories by saying he has “not ruled out” the idea that a UFO caused a Space X rocket to explode. [An “alien hunter” allegedly replied] “Just lucky the aliens destroyed it, before it started WWIII.”

Then in Dec 2017 he infamously tweeted about Air Force Base launching a SpaceX rocket:

Nuclear alien UFO from North Korea.

On a 2019 Q4 earnings call he announced:

Speaking about Tesla’s next-level powertrain, Musk says, “… [it’s] mind blowing I think. Yes. Coming out later this year, end of the year probably, that’s our goal. Get powertrain up [by] end of the year and then it’s going to be like — this is like alien technology, it’s insane…. Tesla is all about hardcore engineering.”

There was nothing notable that followed that claim, other than Tesla stock price jumping for fake news.

Then in July 2020, he tweeted:

Aliens built the pyramids obv

Most significantly, in May 2021, he made an extraordinary claim connecting SpaceX and Tesla capabilities in an allegedly now-deleted tweet that suggests consciousness of potential regulatory violations:

With SpaceX thruster option, Tesla Roadster will be able to do 0-60 mph in 1.1 seconds. Alien technology works!

This was followed up in September 2021:

I’m not saying there are UFOs … but there are UFOs

This pattern continued through 2024. In November, he declared on social media:

SpaceX is alien-level technology.

Then, in an eerily similar message to Livelsberger’s final communications, Musk was quoted in December 2024:

…his ambition to send crews to Mars as soon as 2028 would result in “alien-level technology that is crushingly better than competitors,” along with making an oblique reference to averting a war against China.

That comment is just too similar to Livelsberger’s own communication right before his suicide to be coincidental. Was the Green Beret under the impression he was helping Musk (and Trump) by bringing attention to the threat from “alien-level technology”? His communication also asked everyone to rally around these two. Consider this when observing a clear shift from Musk’s years of cavalier “alien technology” claims to his sudden, uncharacteristic silence on technical aspects after Livelsberger gave his own life to draw attention to Musk’s statements.

That 2028 timeline claim by Musk also is notable, given his long habit of breaking promises and failing to deliver. In 2016, Musk barked loudly about being on Mars by 2018:

…you should pay attention to the April 27, [2016] announcement from Elon Musk, the founder and CEO of SpaceX, that he intends to launch his first unmanned Mars mission in just two years and will beat NASA’s goal of putting astronauts on the surface in the 2030s by up to a decade.

We see now he hasn’t been beating NASA’s timeline at all. He’s only lowered standards to the point where anything goes. Systematically dismantling safety regulations by privatizing aerospace has caused a series of catastrophic unaccountable explosions and dangerous quality failures. Levelsberger blowing up Tesla/SpaceX tech after talking about alien-like gravitic propulsion… was tragically on brand.

The Counternarrative: Deliberate Contradiction

Simultaneous to alien tech promotion, Musk maintains a contradictory stance. In March 2021, he tweeted about a lack of UFO evidence, posting a chart with exponential camera resolution improvement over time next to alien picture resolution remaining flat:

Strongest argument against aliens

At the Milken Institute Global Conference in May 2024, he stated:

I’ve not seen any evidence of aliens. And SpaceX, with the Starlink constellation, has roughly 6,000 satellites, and not once have we had to maneuver around a UFO… Never. So I’m like, okay, I don’t see any evidence of aliens.

Tellingly, just months before the Vegas incident, in October 2024, Musk explicitly connected alien technology claims to classified programs, raising serious questions about his use of government-restricted information to promote his companies:

“The split second I see any evidence of aliens, I will immediately post that on the X platform,” he told [disgraced ex-Fox News host Tucker Carlson]. “It will probably be our number one post of all time.” […] “Well, unidentified flying objects are one thing,” he said, “but there are always a bunch of classified programs that are underway.”

A Pattern of “Permanent Improvisation”

This deliberate contradiction follows what German political scientist Karl Dietrich Bracher termed “permanent improvisation” – a state where those in power maintain control not through law and order, but through constant chaos and contradiction. Musk’s approach mirrors this strategy perfectly:

• Claims are presented as jokes when challenged
• Promises shift without accountability
• Technical capabilities are both extraordinary and nonexistent
• Classified information is both hinted at and denied

A long record of unaccountability has earned him recognition as the most prolific liar in the history of American business – a characterization supported by the documented patterns of contradictory statements and unfulfilled claims.

The Vegas Incident: A Critical Break in Pattern

What makes the Las Vegas incident significant is Musk’s departure from this established pattern. While he’s posted repeatedly about the event, he’s carefully avoided any mention of the technical claims – an unprecedented restraint for someone who typically responds within hours to any discussion of advanced technology.

This selective silence becomes more notable considering:

1. The incident occurred near both Tesla and SpaceX facilities in Nevada
2. The claims touch directly on advanced technology Musk regularly discusses
3. The event involved a Tesla vehicle used to make a statement about advanced technology

National Security Implications

Three critical factors suggest why Musk’s typical “permanent improvisation” strategy has been suspended:

• His access to classified aerospace technology through government contracts may have finally crossed a regulatory line
• His pattern of hinting at classified capabilities in social media may have triggered increased scrutiny
• Active national security investigations may be constraining public discussion of technical capabilities

As investigations continue, Musk’s selective silence may prove as significant as any evidence that emerges. The incident demands focused attention on:

• Mental health support for service members
• Better control of classified technology access
• Corporate responsibility in public communications
• National security implications of private sector technology claims

The Vegas incident raises vital questions about the intersection of technology, mental health, and national security. Musk’s unprecedented break from his “permanent improvisation” strategy suggests authorities may be finally confronting the dangers from his reckless mixing of classified aerospace capabilities with consumer product marketing; how he has contributed not only to artificial inflation of stock price but also to radicalization of a highly decorated Green Beret to commit suicide.

It’s important to remember that a social media empire founder was under investigation for using tech to intentionally violate women’s rights at Harvard (illegally scrape their personal data to intimidate and shame them) when he left and relaunched these harmful practices into the commercial success known as Facebook.

Fast-forward to today and it seems not much has changed. Facebook is curating protection of men accused of abusing women, deleting criticism of them, under a “back to our roots” policy.

Meta’s HR team is deleting internal employee criticism of new board member, UFC president and CEO Dana White, at the same time that CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced to the world that Meta will “get back to our roots around free expression,” 404 Media has learned. Some employee posts questioning why criticism of White is being deleted are also being deleted. […] Several posts critical of White were deleted by Meta’s “Internal Community Relations team” as violating a set of rules called the “Community Engagement Expectations,” which govern internal employee communications.

Get it? Free expression means license for abuse of power in the most toxic paradigm, where misogyny will be curated and its criticism censored.

…private Facebook groups are “cesspits” of racism, misogyny, doxing, slut-shaming and fat-shaming.

That sounds very similar to the very origin concept of the founder, and thus shouldn’t surprise anyone.

Notably I deleted my Facebook account in 2009, as I warned openly here in 2011, because its privacy-violating abusive roots clearly were aligned with and driven by Russian operatives and money.

[Facebook] misogynist pages had headlines that read “Violently Raping Your Friend Just for Laughs” and “Kicking Your Girlfriend in the Fanny because she won’t make you a Sandwich.” Other pages included images of women being abused. Some pages had been on the site for a couple of years, even after users complained about them…

Misogynistic censorship today being called a “root” value of protecting expression is just deeper evidence for analysis of this relationship.

When Dana White slapped his wife, it just once again drew nationwide attention. It’s time to stop tolerating the abuse.

And yet…

…UFC President Dana White expressed remorse for a video blog posted April 1 in which he uttered misogynistic and anti-gay slurs (see here) and said he “never intended to hurt the gay community.”

See that? What about intentions to hurt women? He seems to have obviously left that part out of an apology en route to being recruited onto the board of Facebook.