The Phobos Space Station?

What if Keith Laney shut the site down himself I would not put it past these guys, I mean if anyone has seen Laneys Mars Rat pictures for
example they show he is not the image expert he claims to be.

Here is a link to the page see if you can spot the image expert mistake!

www.keithlaney.net...

If he cant get that right well

reply to post by LiveForever8


In part three, Hoagland says it's easier to get to Phobos than to our own Moon? And Noory immediately agreed, almost Pavlov-like in his eagerness.

That bit throws Hoagland a big sack of uncredibility.

Now, I'm assuming when he says something like that he's talking about planetary gravity wells, and such...and the inherent difficulties of landing and launching from the surface of Mars, or our Moon, compared to the relaitvely insignificant mass of Phobos....

....BUT, "easier"?

He (they) completely ignored the basic fact of the extremely long time needed for a mission to Mars (and Phobos), using conventional rocketry technology. How could he be so deceptive and leave the "easy" impression in people's minds?

reply to post by wmd_2008


"Keith Laney"?

'rats'?!?

Oh, dear....thanks, needed a good laugh!

Until i see proof through some cache that was saved I am gonna keep believing this is all to sell a few books. I bet these guys have money pouring in right now just by reporting this.

So that's what happened!?
I'm an HMF member and was posting on the Phobos thread Keith had started with a new pic of Phobos. It showed those striations better than any previous pics I've seen, and Keith and me had just posted comments on the improbability of the natural explanations. Wikipedia claims they are due to the impact of debris thrown up from the Martian surface, indeed on no less than 12 occasions ! BS or what !
Keith raised the issue of artificiality, I was suggesting the striations were signs of mining activity.
I've only just come across this thread and haven't looked at the videos yet, so i'll be back with comments later.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

"Keith Laney"?

'rats'?!?

Oh, dear....thanks, needed a good laugh!

It's not the Rat part it does look kind of rodent like, its the fact he thinks it missing from the rock in a picture taken from the other side of the rock have a look you will see what I mean.



[edit on 21-3-2010 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Another red flag from those C2C audio clips....the "Space War" in our Solar Sysytem 65,000,000 milions years a go??

Blew up a planet?

Wow. Just wow!

Hoagland likes to spin a yarn, that's for sure.

Are these the images that are causing all the fuss?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Nice close up's now were are the widows and doors to get into this thing

So Bigfoot73 what makes the striations artificial

Picture from 2 other moons in the solar system (Ganymede & Europa)

spaceflightnow.com...

Straitions grooves etc seem to be common

Hoagland is being dishonest with us. It has been known--and he would have known--that since the late 1970s Viking missions that Phobos has a discrepency between its volume and its mass. A protracted, public, discussion of this among scientists more or less finally settled on the hypothesis that it contains many thousands of fissures that are (ice) water filled and thus the explanation. It fit the bill for what they needed to say.

I agree, strongly that Phobos has been artificially manipulated to be where it is, but it is an asteroidal habitat, not some silly idea of a carbon fiber craft.

The key is that NASA belatedly discovered after the release of the Viking Orbiter images that those images revealed the true nature of Phobos but it was too late. The images were already released.

The voids in Phobos and other anomalities have been covered up ever since. Now you know one of the reasons why Malin got his contract with NASA. And why other than the released Viking images few sets of Phobos have every been released except for a few selected shots. In the last few years we have more available pictures of other satellites in the solar system than we have of Phobos.

In my estimation, Hoagland is part of the disinformation network that plagues our interest area.





[edit on 21-3-2010 by Aliensun]

why dont we all just give the man, a chance to prove himself?

give him some time....

[edit on 21-3-2010 by istayaway]

Holy crap,

The death star IS REAL!!!

I've followed Hoagland since the first book and theories on Cydonia.

As most of us do, he has to earn his living. I do not understand why anyone holds that against him. His books and videos are reasonably priced and he provides quite a bit of information absolutely free.

In my opinion, he is as honest as anyone else in this mess of speculation and more scientific than most. He labors a bit when he speaks of the underworld controlling things. So far I have seen no definitive proof of any organization other than banks involved in this set of machinations.

In his interview on C2C, Richard states that he has canceled his appearance at a 'Spook' conference in order to work on these photos. He must have turned down his fees and potentially could have liabilities generated from not appearing as contracted.

He deserves our forbearance since he's doing this work on HIS dime. He apparently had gone without sleep and has crashed subsequent to this deprivation. This guy is excited. He believes this is it. The end of the cover-up.

I'm hoping.

A lot of nonsense really. Laney and Hoagland could easily upload the 'evidence' on any number of sites...Laney's other site and his Living Moon pages would do. Hoagland's site hosts images too

Are we to suppose that the sinister mandarins of NASA have somehow deleted it from all websites and Laney & Hoagy's computers too? If so, my opinion of ET has just taken a battering. These guys have parked a rubble pile in a deteriorating orbit around a dead planet millions of miles from where all the action is. Pretty dumb.

wmd 2008, those pics you link to bear no resemblance whatsoever to Phobos.
The Phobos striations are of uniform width and depth and run parallel . The pic Keith posted on HMF showed groups of them them crossing at right angles to form squares.
How is it that lumps of rock thrown up from Mars by asteroid impacts are supposed to have collided with Phobos to produce such results, twelve times?
On each occasion being of identical size to each other, following so close together they impact leaving no gaps, and must have hit at the same angle. In perfect straight lines.
One or two of the striations does look like there are crater-like shapes along it's length, and there is one very long and sinuous 'crater chain', although it's unfeasibly long and sinuous.
Once is incredible enough, but 12 times?

Mars is barely big enough to capture two asteroids to claim as moons, Deimos and Phobos. Phobos has a huge impact crater which it suffered millions (or billions) of years ago. If the asteroid was hollow it would have disintegrated from such a blow. So no, it is not an artificial satellite. I can't wait for the information the Ruskies will tell us about this piece of rock:

en.wikipedia.org...

I do not trust Hoagland after listening to his interviews.

Originally posted by scubagravy
I have a question which im having trouble locating answers,

How far is Phobos from earth at its closest point while orbiting
Mars??

cool thread.

Phobos orbits Mars at a distance of 3728 miles. An interesting side note, this is the closest that any known moon orbits its parent planet.

Now orbits are elliptical of course, and Mars is even more so than average. Because of this, the distance between Earth and Mars (when they are aligned with the sun) can differ from 35 million to 63 million miles.

The difference between the distance from Earth to Phobos, and Earth to Mars, is inconsequential. I suppose the figure of 35 million miles above answers your question though =)

reply to post by Bigfoot73


Well Keith Laney was wrong about the Mars Rat moving so what are the chances he is wrong about the other assumptions can you give details of the pictures ie dimension in pixels .

The reason I ask LOTS of people on here zoom into pictures to far and lots of straight edges end up being false.

Just look at Hoaglands site or the Pegasus Reasearch Consortium always have to laugh at that one they sound like something from a Man from U.N.C.L.E film you will see prime examples on those sites of to much zoooooommm

[edit on 21-3-2010 by wmd_2008]

I would like to be the first to put it bluntly.

"This is stupid".

It will not pan out and is utter nonsense.

BUT, I love watching stupidity unfold and cheer as each and every "sucker" gets a new chance to "wake up" from this brand of scam.

When this falls flat on its face, I hope a few "star worshipers" get the point.

These crooks need to be investigated and charged for living off of the gullible amongst us.

Yes, yes...you have all the right to say "You don't know that for sure Mr Mask".

But once it all falls apart and "Hoggy-and-friends" take an epic dump on their own credibility by failing to produce anything news worthy- then I stand as correct (or just a soothsayer).

Watch it burn to the ground folks...watch Hog get paid and played on the radio.

Watch him use you for your own gullibility.

Stupidity feeds him.

Don't be his food.

reply to post by wmd_2008

I know nothing of rats on Mars, moving or otherwise. I don't think it possible to extrapolate odds from somebody being wrong about something, nobody's perfect.
Why are you suddenly asking for precise dimensions of everything down to the last pixel? Surely not so you can deploy that grand old debunking chestnut of lack of awareness of the mundane minutiae signifying lack of merit to wider theory ?

Interesting, thanks for posting.

Unfortunately Hoagland = Fraud, and should be treated as such.