It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hollow Phobos - Part One (Enterprise Mission)

page: 2
64
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I'm not sure what to make of all this, I'm not really impressed with a website that starts by talking about Star Trek.

While scanning the website quoted in the OP i saw this gem:




The variability of reflected "echoes" (the vertical axis of the above graph) -- compared to that expected "from an ordinary solid space rock" -- is literally off-scale; again, the echo return from the Phobos-ranging spanning over 60 dB in total energy amplitude ... Equivalent to a "sound volume" change-- Of over TEN BILLION TO ONE!!



You are aware that decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, right? And you know what this means? The graph quoted is not the equivalent of TEN BILLION TO ONE!!! Off the scale? what, your made up linear scale you mean?
I don't quite see how the figure of ten billion to one can come from 60dB of any kind of measurement.

I went to the link of:



[Check it out ... at one of the many on-line "dB (decibel) calculators" (ah ... the endless "wonders of the Net" ...).]


and what is that supposed to tell me? The dB readings given don't tell me what unit of dB measurement they were measured in and I'm linked to a site to convert this unknown unit of dB in to Pascals? For what reason? what does that prove? This is not "scientific" as the site suggests, this is bunk.

Apparently this is proof of an artificial moon. Actually, this is proof of ignorance and abusing units of measurement that not everyone knows about.

Please. You wanna know "what NASA have to say about all this"? They're pissing their pants at the stupidity of all this.

I'm sorry if this is harsh but I read through all the Star Trek non-sense, all the not-convincing photos of parallel lines that supposedly prove something but when i got to this bit of BAD SCIENCE I couldn't take it any more.




posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey


ASSUMING the case for artificiality is correct;


it's not, don't worry.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Frakkerface
 


How do you know it isn't? Can you provide proof, or are you just making assumptions?

Please read my last post on this thread...



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dampnickers
 


How do i know? Because the only bit of scientific data given is fudged. It's a good indication.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
It would blow your mind to realize, most everything in the universe is made of atoms which are the least solid things in existence. so nothing you touch is really truly 'solid'.

The revelation I await is for us all to find out that nothing is real, it's all an illusion from our own minds. That each of us had the power all along to live in a world WE wanted, rather than the construct of minds of people who control what we see and how we see it.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
The aspect of the report that I find somewhat difficult to accept is the mention of 'sources', as in we can't name them but people at the ESA have told us that phobos is some kind of ancient space craft. I did read everything, including this paragraph ;



We do NOT accept as "unconditionally valid," information gained SOLELY from "inside" (i.e. official government) sources; our policy is to only accept "inside" information as potentially valid ... if it can be corroborated with independent, physical evidence -- a "planetary image" ... or, "a spacecraft science instrument reading,"


Then why include things you have been told from said unamed sources at all? It just seems to make the whole thing less credible. If you have strong physical evidence and scientific data why bother including the hearsay and rumours?

I accept it's possible that phobos could be hollow /partially hollow or even an artificial sattelite....but would the ESA and our governments be conversing with Richard Hoagland about it first? After all he is (very subtly!) implying that Obama is going to announce this news to the world.



...... (according to our European sources -- backed up by the actual Mars Express data itself, which you will see more of - below) ESA is about to officially ... publicly announce! Possibly -- even before President Obama's up-coming ... suddenly-called ... STILL super-secret "Space Summit"-- Which is scheduled to take place, within a few days, at the Kennedy Space Center -- personally hosted by the President of the United States of America -- in the middle of an on-going shuttle mission


I would love this to be true but I suppose I am jaded from all the reports substantiated by unamed 'insiders' and earth shattering announcements that lie all ways just round the corner. There seems to be alot of this type of thing employed in Hoagland's report. Of course I am willing to eat my tin foil hat if the ESA announce phobos is an ancient artificial structure.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Frakkerface
 


There are multiple links to the data which was made available through the ESA, all those graphs the data, the quoted text, it's all from them.

As far as I can tell nobody is "fudging" any data.

I will admit it's a bit funny with the Star Trek and what not and they are a bit on the "tin foil" side of things with disclosure.

But the data isn't a lie, it's just data. How we interpret that data is what seems to be issue here. According to the science I am reading, they didn't lie or mis-report the facts.

~Keeper



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I don't understand why they would even disclose something like this if it's true. I believe it could be what they suspect, but why tell the sheeple? what's the agenda here? what will it bring? just some questions i'm pondering.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by TexasTea]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I guess we will just have to wait and see what comes of this. I can't see TPTB doing something for the benefit of humanity right now. The ET card could be the next false flag. "Quickly they're different than we are; they believe in peace and love. Kill them all!"



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I guess I have to wait for 2011 and then on to that doozie, 2013...either it all becomes clear or I'll put this ET stuff behind me, just like I did with religion



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
If as my fellow UFO/ET theorists believe that a decades long cover up has been going on, I don't know how anybody could possibly get the idea that any government organization such as the European Space Agency would admit to an ET presence anywhere near our planet. That would sort of kill the cover up, wouldn't it? I seriously do not think our governments want to start getting asked questions now about what they knew and when they knew it if they've said nothing about what they knew for at least more than sixty years.

The only way our governments would admit anything of the sort is if they were forced to. If the ESA improbably admits Phobos is an extraterrestrial construction, something major would have had to have spurred such a revelation. Something of an equally earth shattering nature.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by Frith]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DrHammondStoat
 

I think that the reason any person who is attempting to reveal what he knows may have to indicate that the thoughts were not novel to him. That is, he was told what to look for. If the data is there he can verify his sources value.

Honest reportage should not be considered fudging.

Let me also add an item or three that are truly odd about this 'moon'. If you follow the grooves in Phobos, you'll see that they track the surface. How can an object track the surface of a small, non-magnetic (no reports otherwise) object through regolith tens of meters deep? How can this bosy track into and out of 'craters' without flying into space?

The theory used by NASA to explain these formations is that it's like a windshield effect caused by the 'moon' pounding into debris blown out of Mars. If you can throw an object beyond it's gravity well by a heave, what is the likelihood of an object moving thousands of miles an hour gently caressing the surface like a bulldozer in heat?

If you look at the ESA photos, take a look at the big (Stickney?) 'crater'. It's lip is deformed and appears to lap over the edge of the moon. How does a non-flexible pile of rubble fold over and not disintegrate instead?
It can't. Only a malleable substance could do that. Just what could that material be? It ain't rocks.

There are also serial 'craters'. These strings of identically sized holes on our Moon were to have been the result of volcanic action. They do not believe these to be the result of meteors. Since this flying potato has no volcanic action possible, you too can invent reasoning for this phenomena.

The x-ray by radar is an item that causes in me the greatest belief of artificiality. If the beam's bounce back can only be caused by right angles inside a void within the 'moon'-IT AIN'T A MOON!

If you can make a reasoned argument against these points, do it. I will be checking back.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by largo]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by seanizle
 


Never has Hoagland the Entertainer been anymore evident than on the current Enterprise site. He absolutely gushes with excitement. He has a new lease on it with this latest data and, man, is he playing it for all its worth (and then some). As usual, for a scientifically educated man he ventures into stupidity. The most typical example in this latest craziness is that the body is perhaps of carbon fiber he says at one point and it is coming apart at the seams (it seems).

It is a rock body, as countless spectra have show, very asteroidal in external content. (Wouldn't a carbon fiber body have MUCH less mass than rock? In fact, doesn't the latest mass figures more or less stipulate that it is a rock but hollow? As I've mentioned before I gave up on the last thread on this--and I see that he has now sorta admitted the fact--it has long been known that the body was at least 20% hollow given a rocky outer body. So this new data is not far off, and believe me, of no great surprise to NASA if to the ESA.

All in all, what we are seeing is an approach to the truth about Phobos. And the PTB are not quite ready to drop that bombshell because it is the one that verifies that Phobos is exactly as many of us have known for some time, that Phobos is a hollowed asteroid put in place around Mars.
Once that comes out, many of our mysteries of old and new will gradually fall into place. It is an exciting time, for all of us, and admittedly, Hoagland has his part to play but he has learned to aim to Joe Sixpack and continues to do so. It is a shame, if not his job.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by Aliensun]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


Since ESA will be releasing all of this "later this year" according to Hoagland, all you need to do is wait. I don't think I'd send him any money or buy a book or tape from him until ESA makes the announcement though. I'd also wait to book him for any radio programs or speaking engagements until then. That way everyone will know whether this is just hype to get him on the radio and fill his empty speaking dates.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Ah.. more mysterious sources. Wonderful. Later this year, something will happen and they will have to "keep quiet" about it. Haven't seen this happen before.

We have rocks here on this planet with grooves on them. Caused by glaciers. Why could this not have been part of a moon or planet with glacial activity, and was later blasted out? So, there is no way possible other than it being a spaceship, that grooves can exist on it? Why can't it be partially hollow? Are we saying it's impossible for rocks with hollow spots to exist? It's funny how we know so little about the universe, and yet, when something tickles our fancy, we suddenly know everything.

I'll patiently wait for the "disclosure" on this. Not holding my breath however, or expecting anything extraordinary.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
It's great to see everyones imagination is running wild. I love some of the Stories I read here on ATS. That's what keeps me coming back, day after day.

Phobos is no more a Spaceship that I am Immortal. Phobos is just a Lump of Rock that may have Hollow Cavities. Probably just like every other Celestial Bodie out there..

If you were to use simple logic you'd understand.

Ok, I am sure that there are very advanced civilisations out there, somewhere, right?

So, if they can traverse Time and Space in a Spaceship that can withstand Faster than light Travel, or maybe they can withstand the Huge Effects of Crushing Gravity while going through a Wormhole or Black Hole, You think for one minute, that they, are just going to abandon a Spaceship or a Technically Modified Asteroid near Mars, or Jupiter, or Saturn, or Uranus etc? Nope, I doubt it.

The other thing, People have been seeing UFO's for Eons now. Now I am definately no expert but something tells me that if these UFO's were in fact Alien Craft, then, they have to be one of the most Technically Advanced Craft because not only do they have to get here, to this Planet, but they have to, somehow, survive the rigours of Space..

Now, they get here to this Planet and CRASH! This is what I have problems with in the whole UFO Debate. I just does not make sense to me, that such an advanced race of beings, capable of making a Craft that can bring them millions if not Trillions of miles from somewhere and then they Crash, here, on this Planet?

I still believe that they do Exist, don't get me wrong. I just have a problem with them Crashing or Abandoning Spaceships..

I doesn't make sense to me at all.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TroyB
It would blow your mind to realize, most everything in the universe is made of atoms which are the least solid things in existence. so nothing you touch is really truly 'solid'.

The revelation I await is for us all to find out that nothing is real, it's all an illusion from our own minds. That each of us had the power all along to live in a world WE wanted, rather than the construct of minds of people who control what we see and how we see it.


I eagerly await that day as well. We all already know this, it's just we need to re-find it. The world is truly what we make of it. There are things that are just uncompromisable to the human mind unless you awaken it enough to compensate for everything you are about to unravel.

S&F to the OP though, thanks for bringing this to light. I hope more information is followed up and that we find out much more knowledge on this subject. It will be amazing to find out the true answers... if we ever do.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Please tell me:

Has ANYTHING Hoagland has ever claimed on his website been verified?

All I've ever seen is speculation, which ultimately leads to nothing... except new speculation.

Hoagland needs to keep coming up with new stuff for his gullible audience to lap-up. This Phobos thing is just the latest in a long line of imaginary "discoveries".

If I'm wrong, please show me how, with solid references to back up your claims. I'm more than willing to be proven wrong and learn something.


Edited for typo.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by beReal]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Nassim Haramein doesn't think that the earth is hollow. He believes there is a singularity at the center of all stars and possibly some planets. But if there is a singularity at the center of the Earth it would be very small.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Frakkerface
 


I have to agree. Haven't read the whole thing but the whole dB talk in there is too loose to say the least. I use to be a sound engineer a long time ago and such talk means absolutely nothing. Decibels is way trickier to understand than a simple inches to centimeters conversion or measures for what it matters.

Specially without knowing at which frequency, sound level those pulses are being emitted and over which surface and under what conditions.

And yes decibels are can be represented linearly but actually represent log data. Thus ~60 db it's two people talking and ~120 db is you sticking your ear on the rear end of boing 747 jet at full throttle. Something that it's evidently way higher than the double of the volume of two people talking.

Anyway... for me anything that says "disclosure soon in a tv station near you" nowadays I take as bunk.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join