The Phobos Space Station?

Originally posted by yodagod

find it concerning when Americans talk about developing something that doesn't belong to them.

Oh man, that's only half the pie. Americans talking about developing something that doesn't belong to them isn't the only concern, it's "Americans talking about developing things on possibly inhabited planets that don't belong to them.

www.esa.int...

Above is the best of the images I found on the ESA site. Of course, they have a few thousand more that we will never see.

While dramatic, and the resolution is HD, it is not much more generally detailed than my NASA CD set of the Viking images of Mars and Phobos.

Evidently, the "noise" Hoagland mentioned has been cleared from the images I saw on the site.

I will obliquely agree with Hoagland about Phobos. It IS the key to proving that Mars once had a vibrant civilization. Strangely, he should have made that connect a couple of decades ago given his penchant for those sort of things. But I have no doubt that there is a timetable to be followed. The up-coming Grunt will probably be the tipping point.

hopefully it will be the tiping point im sick of all the lies they keep telling us because its for are best intrest are best intrest is knowing what the hell is out there and if there guna play nice!

Whats left of his website can be found here

web.archive.org...*/keithlaney.net...

[edit on 21-3-2010 by colt122]

reply to post by wmd_2008

Are these the images that are causing all the fuss? www.huffingtonpost.com...

Yes and no. They are the images, but not the enhanced images.

The images of Europa etc, are cracks in the icy surface, which have been filled with liquid up-welling from beneath. Are you saying you think there is an ocean
of liquid water beneath the striations on Phobos then?

reply to post by Aliensun

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...

I'm confused by this part of your post.

How is R.H. being dishonest with us, when the hypothesis (which isn't even a theory), is according to you 'more or less' of an hypothesis?

If someone takes a different view from a half arsed hypothesis, does that make them dishonest? Of course it doesn't.

Where has he been dishonest?

reply to post by Kandinsky


Assuming there is a monumental on going cover up, you can be sure it's not just involving NASA's 'mandarins' all over this announcement.

I'm so frustrated that I don't have the money or means of doing my own exploration. I hope the Russians land their probe at this place:

montrealradioguy.files.wordpress.com...

So let me postulate this. Is this anomaly opposite from where the big meteor created the huge impact? The same phenomena has been seen on Mercury where something big hit the planet and caused a bilateral tremor that caused the opposite side to shatter and create an uplifting of the surface.
Anyone have any information?

Live good to see you back at the stuff I think you do best.
This is where your obvious talents IMO are well nurtured.
SnF for you, this is a great story and I have a giant interest
in Phobos. It keeps you away from the subjects that cause
me to want to verbally rip your lungs out too. So that can only be a good thing.

Buzz Aldrin there is a monolith on the Moon. God put it there.

Great stuff excellent thread.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Are these the images that are causing all the fuss? www.huffingtonpost.com...

Yes and no. They are the images, but not the enhanced images.

The images of Europa etc, are cracks in the icy surface, which have been filled with liquid up-welling from beneath. Are you saying you think there is an ocean
of liquid water beneath the striations on Phobos then?

No someone claimed striations on Phobos were artificial what I was pointing out striations are common and seen on other moons in the solar system.

I have been following on Richard C.Hoagland's work for some time now both on C2C and his website, and I've come to the conclusion that Richard is an honest man that lets his imagination run wild when he wishes. He doesn't make up things, he works with facts, and gives his opinion on it.

They're usually quite outrageous claims, but only a fool takes it as facts.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by FermiFlux]

Originally posted by yodagod

Originally posted by LiveForever8
Thanks for the replies everyone

Former astronaut Buzz Aldrin spoke about the future of space exploration and said the public would be interested in a monolith on Phobos, one of the two small moons that revolve around Mars.

I've not seen this clip before, I find it concerning when Americans talk about developing something that doesn't belong to them.

erm... you find it concerning? What unlike the way the 'developed' America itself that wasn't theirs ?

Hey, at least there's no one on it this time

reply to post by FermiFlux

Starred in agreement... I think Hoagland genuinely believes his theories, even though his conclusions sometimes are definitely a reach

Here's hoping his conclusions here are at least somewhat credible

Hey guys, I too can't always get behind Hoagland but from time to time he makes alot of sense. Why couldn't there be a ship or some kind of station in phobos?

Im not saying Im going to choose to just blindly believe that it is something other than a giant space rock but I have to admit the idea seems almost plausible to me...you know, one of those "it's so crazy it might just work" type of scenarios.

I for one really hope this thing turns out to be something other than a space rock. However I wont be surprised if thats all it is.

These are the images that I could find in ESA's site.

As for his "enhanced" images, I think he could upload them anywhere, if he was that interested in it, there are many free file sharing services available today, this isn't 1992.

And another page about it on ESA's site.

[edit on 21/3/2010 by ArMaP]

Why waist resources landing a probe on the Mars asteroid Phobos while you can land on Mars? Why not land on Olympus Mons instead? It's a big enough target and may hold more information. Just saying.
The Monolith thing is interesting but it is just a geological phenomena of a great impact.

His idea of proving this will be what he always does - taking NASA photos and misinterpreting shadows as domes, and craters as bases.

Probably add some JPEG compression artifacts in for fun and claim these to be ET craft emerging from the moon.

reply to post by Kratos40

Why waist resources landing a probe on the Mars asteroid Phobos while you can land on Mars?

So we can study the origins of Phobos and determine from rock composition and age to see if its similar to rocks on the Martian surface.

reply to post by noisemedia

Hoagland but from time to time he makes alot of sense.

Name one occasion he has made any sense. He uses NASA photos to try and prove domes exist on the Moon, then claims NASA is unreliable. So why use what he claims to be unreliable photos? As if NASA would be stupid enough to release photos of a dome or space station, if they were covering it up. And ironically Hoagland is the only guy to notice it out of tens of thousands of people who study these photos.

Why couldn't there be a ship or some kind of station in phobos?

And anywhere and everywhere could apply. The question isn't why couldnt there be a ship, it's IS there a ship there?

[edit on 21-3-2010 by john124]

As soon as enough people decide he's bunk on one claim, he moves on to another to grab the attention of different people.