NASA's Deceptions...DARK MISSION

Originally posted by airtrax007
reply to post by johnlear

 

I find it interesting that--ghofer--had just signed up to the site yesterday...and now think he is an expert on this subject and novel----can you spell t-----r-----o----ll...

nice talkin to ya john

I don't know how joining this site has any relevance to me being an expert on the subject or the book. They seem unrelated to me. Besides, I said that I haven't even read the book although I assume that what's in it is more of what's on his web site.

Anyway, others here have the same opinions. I've lurked around here for quite a while and find many of the topics interesting but I think it's important to look at both of sides of any theory so I post those links for you people to read. Give them a read... you might find them interesting and maybe we can discuss some of the issues. I have my opnions and you are entitled to your own... it's fine with me.

Greg

Originally posted by ghofer
Is Hoagland on about his hyperdimensional physics theory again? I haven't read the book but most of his claims on his web site are easily refuted. See this article here at bad astronomy.com:
Hoagland claims debunked

I actually feel a bit sorry for the guy. To waste your life on crazy conspiracy theories is quite sad. As an example he accuses NASA of deliberately doctoring photos of the Martian sky to make it look red. But NASA actually describes the issues of color correction in regards to its photos and describes how to correct the colors. It's hardly a coverup or conspiracy:
JPL link on colors of Mars

As compared to other scientist who have theories on Hyperdimensions but have no proof?

It's not all about hyperdimensions, there is more to the book than just that. People were laughing at Al Gore 3 years ago about global warming. So, to make a statement like that with no context to back it up is far worse. I'm just playing a hunch here, but do you watch a lot of Fox News?

I don't think someone who's been working on this book for a long time sharing his experience with everyone who is willing to read or listen. You can not just make a simple statement claiming Hoagland's work is bunk without any proof to refute his claims.

If you actually read his book, he points out that most people how work at NASA have no idea about this cover ups because they are there performing specific task and have every intention of doing good.

Please don't feel sorry for him, I would bet he is doing quite ok.



[edit on 11/20/2007 by TheInfamousOne]

As I've said twice, I haven't read the book, my comments are in regards to his web site.

I don't think Hoagland claims to have invented any type of hyperdimensinal physics theory. He claims that his geometrical analysis of supposed man-made artifacts on Mars proves the relevance of Maxwell's theories. Again here is a specific link to read over:
Analysis of Hoagland's Mars artifact geometries

If you'd like to discuss Maxwell's theories or the others derived from those, I'd be interested to discuss those, however I don't think Hoagland has proven them to be fact. As well physics has progressed a lot from the days of Maxwell and I'd be more inclined to look at the work of the moderm physicists and their work on String Theory for answers.

Greg

P.S. Don't watch Fox


[edit on 21-11-2007 by ghofer]

[edit on 21-11-2007 by ghofer]

[edit on 21-11-2007 by ghofer]

[edit on 21-11-2007 by ghofer]

Originally posted by TheInfamousOne
People were laughing at Al Gore 3 years ago about global warming.

Still are. Most folks who have looked into it beyond what the ordinary media has parroted have found the conclusions to be mightly shaky. That's what happens when you pick and choose what you want to include in your "study." Hoagland is king of taking tiny bits of data like Legos and building a huge, nutty theory out of them. Now that he's running out of steam with the Mars Face stuff, he needs something else to stoke the boiler.

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by TheInfamousOne
People were laughing at Al Gore 3 years ago about global warming.

Still are. Most folks who have looked into it beyond what the ordinary media has parroted have found the conclusions to be mightly shaky. That's what happens when you pick and choose what you want to include in your "study." Hoagland is king of taking tiny bits of data like Legos and building a huge, nutty theory out of them. Now that he's running out of steam with the Mars Face stuff, he needs something else to stoke the boiler.

Maybe the people whom are still laughing are the same people who believed humans in prehistoric days rode dinosaurs to church.

I would have to say that the majority of the population knows Global warming is real, do you? I would like to hear your personal take on Global warming, so please enlighten me.

As for Hoagland taking tiny bits of data and making a huge nutty theory out of them, I would say so does just about every scientist in the world community. That is the great thing about science, it starts with a theory and scientist try to actually make a model of a theory to prove their point. Then they spread their ideas until other scientist find flaws that pushes others to try harder and brings out the best in people to try harder.

I recall someone writing a science fiction book in the 1800's about being able to send letters over seas with technology instead of waiting for pony express and a boat to delivery it. Today it's called a Fax Machine.

The tiny bits of data your are talking about is what we have on hand at the moment thanks to a few key people at the DOD with the option to label everything as classified National Security to keep the general public in the dark (this means you). And I believe (IMO) is the best evidence we have at the moment.

Sir Isaac newton once said "A body in motion will stay in motion in the same direction and at the same speed unless acted upon by a stronger force." Other scholars tried to debunk that idea but failed. Law of Motion

It might seem silly, but other physicist actually tried to debunk it.

The point I am trying to make is that this is all started with research and a theory. Other physicist actually tried to prove him wrong, it might seem silly but true, people also thought he was a nut back then as well. He would actually teach class and talk to himself when no one was there. Maybe he was a bit mad, but on the intelligent side.

Now I am NOT comparing Sir Isaac Newton to Hoagland, but you also made a statement with not context to back up your thoughts.

That's my two cents.



[edit on 11/21/2007 by TheInfamousOne]

Originally posted by TheInfamousOne


As for Hoagland taking tiny bits of data and making a huge nutty theory out of them, I would say so does just about every scientist in the world community.


[edit on 11/21/2007 by TheInfamousOne]

I would have to agree with that completely. That's why there seem to be so many scientist with so many conflicting theories on just about everything. One scientist will say something is good for you, and before you know it some other scientist says it is actually bad. As for the UFO phenomenon and all the theories and stories told by so many whistle blowers, I always look into them no matter what. Then and only then do I make my decision. I have yet to find a theory or explanation that I would agree with 100%. I look at it all as pieces of a larger puzzle.

Originally posted by ATSGUY
"Colored photos from Viking and Pathfinder were doctored to make the Martian sky look red. The first images of Mars actually looked like Arizona with blue skies, but NASA wants us to think that Earth is the only place for life, said Hoagland. "

The reason that Earth has a blue sky is the fact that the earths surface is 70% water. It's our oceans that make our sky look blue. Therefore Mars with no oceans and just red dust, has a red atmosphere.

I hope he's not next going to claim that a great percentage of mars' surface is covered in water? But im sure John Lear could step in and say that without any evidence to back that up.

[edit on 22-11-2007 by DaRAGE]

I never understood why they launched the probes and rovers to areas that clearly would yield nothing. Why not set down along the edge of ice caps? Study the ground and ice at the same time! Microorganisms can lay frozen and dormant in ice for a very long time, this has been proven fact. It makes more sense if the planet did have life along time ago, then perhaps it is locked away in the the frozen ice. Organisms will be hard to find in areas open to the harsh elements IE: Radioactive sun, acid rain etc. In what I mean to that. You will find more life in ice recently melted to water form, then you would just a rock nuked by a microwave for millions of years over and over from our sun. So basically the ground is sterile till you dig deeper below the top soil where the organisms are protected and most likely alive.

reply to post by DaRAGE

NASA has already confirmed that they have found polar ice caps and running water on Mars! Didn't you see it on the news about a year ago.

reply to post by DaRAGE


When there are no dust storms, the sky on Mars is blue.

And you should study a little more about the reasons for the colour of the sky, it has nothing to do with the oceans on Earth.

I don't know why you're all so quick to slam Hoagland -- you've never looked at any 'official' NASA photos and cried 'airbrushed'?! Plus, this book goes into the administrative conspiracy in NASA mainly, yeah, there's the speculation about cropped/manipulated photos too, but I think this guy is truly trying to help propel change in that agency.

A book is a book and when people go on and on about 'trying to sell' something, it's obviously your choice to buy it or not, but my thing is w/ the fact that he's at least bringing a sizable amount of research forward in hopes of more transparency there -- you'd think a forum like this could be for him in spirit at least, otherwise, where's a good book / suggested site(s) for those who don't 'buy' NASA's version of the truth?



[edit on 22-11-2007 by anhinga]

Originally posted by DaRAGE

The reason that Earth has a blue sky is the fact that the earths surface is 70% water. It's our oceans that make our sky look blue. Therefore Mars with no oceans and just red dust, has a red atmosphere.

I hope he's not next going to claim that a great percentage of mars' surface is covered in water? But im sure John Lear could step in and say that without any evidence to back that up.

Thanks for the post DaRAGE. No just a few rivers here and there.

Thanks for the post.




Mars

Originally posted by ArMaP
When there are no dust storms, the sky on Mars is blue.

I've had a good clue about the reason for that ever since I observed a quantity of liquid oxygen - you see it depends on how much of it you happen to be looking through and in liquid form it isnt all that much at all.

Those pics do appear to be way over-corrected/filtered to me. The blue dirt and rocks are telling me the blue colour in the atmosphere is, in reality, far less distinct than that. I'm not doubting that there is *some* oxygen in the martian atmosphere but in the absence of vast amounts of what it takes to produce oxygen and consume the byproducts of things that use it (eg vegetation processing carbon dioxide) there can't be much (if any) life cycle going on there. A field of frozen water is as dry or drier than the most arid desert too so the odds are against anything above microbe status but I can accept that it wasn't necessarily always like that.

Hoaglands sensationalist style professing in his 'greater knowledge than thou' way has me reaching for the biggest salt grains every time so no - I certainly won't be parting with hard-earned cash for his 'offerings'.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

I'm not doubting that there is *some* oxygen in the martian atmosphere but in the absence of vast amounts of what it takes to produce oxygen and consume the byproducts of things that use it (eg vegetation processing carbon dioxide) there can't be much (if any) life cycle going on there.

Thanks for the post Pilgrum. My opinion is that there is a breathable atmosphere on Mars and millions of people live there.

As far as your comment "but in the absence of vast amounts of what it takes to produce oxygen and consume byproducts that use it" I am assuming that your source is NAZA. You might want to get a second source on that. (Or else take double the salt grains you are currently taking for Hoagland.)

Thanks for your post and your input.

[edit on 22-11-2007 by johnlear]

reply to post by johnlear


You posted that image in the same post where you say that there are a few rivers on Mars, does that mean that the image is supposed to show a river?

Or are you just posting that image to make your post more colourful?

www.enterprisemission.com...

Update from RCH concerning how this news is exploding in Russia and ignored by MSM here.

You know....
I have always believed we are not alone in the universe.
However, I also try to reserve judgement about anything until I get as much information as possible. Many times I read some of Mr. Lear's theories and shook my head in dismissal. However, I am now starting to think otherwise. Something is going on here. Entirely too much effort has been and IS going on to discredit anyone who comes forward about this subject matter. I really am starting to wonder what is really going on out there. If data on the moon, mars, and other planets right here in our solar system has been doctored and covered up by NASA to this extent, it really makes me wonder if Anything we think we know and have been told is anywhere close to the truth. Now don't get me wrong I have known for many many years something is not right with what we are told, but I really think there is something to all this moon business. I have always felt a wrongness to everything....like a splinter in your mind that you just cannot figure out. It seems to me that the greatest conspiracy of all is everything around us.

Wow, I can't believe this thread. So many posters huranging a guy about his book, and they haven't given him the courtesy of reading if first.

I have the book, I have read most chapters, and have studied the photos quite extensively. I have never seen this stuff, and someone please let me know if NASA has commented whether they are authentic or not. (No pleading the 5th)

There are many photo's of huge glass domes. There are photos of an area of a busted up robot or android. There is a close up of the head, and I believe that is what was brought back to earth. (I would have stuck that in my back pack.) There are photos of an alien or not earthly, (to me anyway), castle in the sky. It is clearly suspended via a cable/wire/something nine miles up in the moon sky. (Seriously, look up into the sky, and try and estimate where nine miles is, and picture a castle.) There is one pic of a partial dome on the side view of the moon that took me a week to see, but when I did, I went: "Holy...Shnikees, those NASA liers." There is a side view of a tower that I think they said was something like 20 miles high.

Remember, these are just the photos he could get his hands on, imagine what there is, or was to see.

He also has a theme going where he is trying to show the connections where the secret societies are basically behind all of the cover ups. This being one of them. He lays it out there on a who's who.

I've showed some picks to a few of my friends, and they have all been shocked. They had no clue.

I'm not affiliated in any way with the revenues generated by this book, however, my thinking is, buy a copy for your wife or husband, stick it under the tree for Christmas, (or Kwanzza), and read it when they are not looking.

So, even though we spend countless hours at ATS delving into the galactic secrets that the powers-that-be have known for years, studying the most intriguing of photographs and documents not released to the general public or touted in MSM . . because Hoagland discusses it, suddenly it's ridiculous.

Wild claims? That's what we're here for. This is not ABC.com. The wilder the better, and if there is evidence to support claims, shouldn't it be reviewed? I think so.

NASA has gone from no life to some life regarding Mars, and true, the more probes we send over there, the more we can learn over time. But what do we do with dazzlingly-bright moving "stars" in our sky at night; city-sized ships appearing in NASA videos, images of ruins and possibly other activity on the moon which defy conventional explanation; planet-sized somethings moving around the rings of Saturn and other bodies . . . I mean, is any of this list "normal"? But evidence exists for it all, and just because this evidence doesn't fit into our civilized omniscient boxes does not, IMO, disqualify one single thing.

So if Hoagland mentions it, it's absurd. I think a blanket opinion like that is absurd. Sure, he could be a mild nutcase, I don't personally know him, but he could also be spot on with many things. Who on this thread has collected every possible physics/quantum physics variable, added it all up, and now knows what is and is not possible -- period -- in this Universe? When Star Trek first came out, Capt. Kirk and Co. were about the only ones with flip-phones. Now you can get one at the mall.

Consider the evidence and propose an alternate theory, please, angry anti-Hoagland posters, if what he has taught is without acceptability, because I'm still interested until somebody can clear up some of these space anomaly questions.

Originally posted by OptionToChoose
NASA has gone from no life to some life regarding Mars

Isn't that special?

Anyone else notice this? All of the NASA photos of Mars that have come to life lately? Nice post OTC. "Dark Mission" tries to explain it.

Don't shoot the messengers. Posters/ATS members you want disclosure, well, here it is. It's not the end all, but what do you really need?

First it was: "If it's not in main stream media, it's not true." Now: "I haven't seen it on the net, so it's not real."

How about: "A couple of Ex NASA guys wrote a book, and it's quite possiblily true." Try reading it, and making an informed decision.

Do the work, it's rewarding. Kinda.