Hollow Phobos - Part One (Enterprise Mission)

Awesome stuff. That radar is really a kicker too - show me a natural material causing readings like that..

What's so hard to grasp about a moon perhaps being artificial? It's not impossible.


edit for silly ''' key

[edit on 7/4/10 by GhostR1der]

Originally posted by thomas_
"And my I ask what on what his doppler is based on?"

Nothing wrong in asking questions but you do need to read the source material. It's based on the radio emissions back to Earth. The changes in the Doppler signature demonstrates that mascons exist within this 'moonlet', along with apparent voids.

"Because sound in space is a no go, light waves wouldn't make much sense , and radio waves which are basically electro magnetic waves could and probably would react differently when "shocking" with materials with properties that we may not know or understand yet."

The Doppler measurement is a passive one and there is no "shocking" involved.

'How can be so sure that the Phobos is hollow when he doesn't really know the true composition of it's interior and fully understands who such composite works and behaves in space?

What if it's interior is composed of a material that changes electro magnetic waves in way that we don't know yet?'

Your speculation is not sensible in believing that the composition of Phobos is beyond our ken. If it were it would argue more strongly that it IS not of natural manufacture and that it IS artificial.

"I would say that basing your argument over reflectance data from a material composition that you don't really know about or fully understand in it's context is way too much of guess work in my opinion.

anyway... I'll try to read the whole thing tomorrow."

Normally commentary and opinions are best made after one is familiar with the material. Stating that you don't know the material invalidates your entire post.

Originally posted by TheDon
As a Star Trek fan I had to go search for the episode that I believe RCH was reffering too.


Enjoy.

So true! Classic episode right there... However, I think a better thing to reference for the idea of the thread would be the episode of 'Stargate: Atlantis' entitled 'The Ark'.

Right after the intro, the moon is shown.

Enjoy

Pseudo-science meets Star Trek. Great performance by the entertainer Hoagland ...

I am from the Hidden Mission Forum.
Some of you know me from way back to now.
Our forum was hammered and reduced to ...unable to reload...
This event:
Hoagland supposedly warned Keith of Keithlaney.net
NOT TO POST ENHANCED IMAGES of Phobos
or he would suffer consequences from the PTB
was the inference.
He then posted on his Farcebook site that we were destroyed,
again inferring that the forum collapse was due to the PTB
sending Laney and all of us there a message.

Well guess what? I am not destroyed.
I am here to kick butt.

Go to Hoagland's site on his Phobos mumbo jumbo
and it is full of images titled:
Enhanced this-n-that.........

First a couple of quotes from this thread:
Dr Hammond Stoat:
"....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. ..."

Bingo. So Hoagland has an ESA Mole.
Do you all believe that tripe?
Who da Mole? Is the Mole a double agent?
LOL

We can call the ESA Mole....The H-Mole. H is for Hoagland

FCL sez
".....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..."

The only thing coming apart at the seams
are all the people's brains that swallow this garbage.
Carbon fiber my back side since I guess
I cannot even say A double S here.

OK
here is a summary of my thoughts as posted at HM forum by me,
in my thread:
RCH and TEM Phobos Pavlovian Slobberitis
Vianova sez:
Certainly not all,
but much of Hoagland's stuff is nonsense,
so as far as "research" he is into...like "Crystal Towers"
and Mars desert ocean "boats"
and mile high glass domes on the moon...
shouldn't stimulate attacks [on forums],
on the contrary,
it is a vector of amusement for NASA and the DoD.
So who is the comedian...and who writes that BS?
lol
Seriously, it is almost as funny as Zip's [Cydonia Institute] Annunaki Rabbit at Cydonia.
It is:
Entertainment and media whoring to make money.
Nothing wrong with that, just take one look at CNN, FOX or Oprah and Nancy Grace.
The Iapetus stuff is a spinoff of AC Clark, and I do not doubt that Saturn is part of an intergalactic Star Gate,
as well as positions of other planets in specific conjunction to open that.
That was my sense immediately just from the mathematics work I did.
If it is true, those aliens could care less about us,
they have far more important venues to manage.
I will not elaborate on that right now.
Look at Buzz Aldrin's crap about that monolith.
NASA allowed him to promote that garbage, because they really don't care about it.
If you look at the image, and scroll down there is another smaller "monolith" ...
very similar right there.
Look, NASA and DoD knows that there is a huge number of people on the net that can "enhance" Phobos images,
and find a multitude possibilities in fuzzy images.
There are monoliths all over Mars.
Most are probably geologic, some may be artificial.
OK, say the monolith on Phobos is an artificiality.
So the F what?.
Like anybody here is going to be surprised,
and certainly the Vatican is ready to say that Jesus Christ himself was on Mars.
The global population would be slightly disoriented for about a month,
then they would go back to work on surviving the PTB prison planet
and the global ecologic holocaust, and impending pharmaceutical corporation pandemics.
Anderson Cooper 360 would have a CNN special for a month,
then there will be an EQ or tsunami or dirty bomb somewhere that kills 200,000 people, and then nobody gives a frak about an alien monolith on Phobos anymore as that is drowned out in:
Distraction Du Jour Media Whore TV.
Catastrophe Du Jour.
Buzz Aldrin my ass.
Relic Ancient Alien bases,..... so what else is new.
the universe is full of ancient civilizations.
Continued next post

reply to post by Frakkerface


lol, good point! Let me look more into this, i'll post a thread about my findings

The Hoagland ESA Mole....The H-Mole....
Vianova sez

Relic Ancient Alien bases,..... so what else is new? the universe is full of ancient civilizations. Old hat, been there ...done that. You want to make contact...get compassion psychic...the benevolent aliens communicate on that wavelength.

Why would Hoagland's recent Phobos garbage be any different than other forms of his flaming landfill?
Let's start with Hoagland's Crystal Towers.
Does anybody really think that Hoagland is stupid enough
to even believe that there were
"Crystal Towers" there in that crater image turned upside down?
No way,
he will play out any manipulation to garner Pavlovian slobberites at TEM
and on the net who can't add 2 +3,
and he could sell the square root of Zero to them.

Here is a recomposite of the original debunk I performed
back at the famous Hidden Mission Forum.



Ancient civilizations are everywhere throughout the universe.
Relic Civilizations may be millions...and even billions of years old.
Contemporaneous civilizations no doubt exist as well.
Evidence of those ancient ones are extremely unlikely to be found anywhere,
just look at crumbling Egyptian pyramids
and Sumerian ziggurats just a few thousand years old.
But that does not mean that the evidence cannot be found.
I think we are educated enough here after all these years to know that ancient civilization or ancient alien ... contact...intervention...usage of this solar system...
is a no brainer, and that this will be no surprise or big deal once Disclosure is released.
If Phobos is artificial, then Deimos should be as well IMO.

We were dumped on here at Hidden Mission Forum by RCH,
with his mumbo jumbo grandstanding
that Keith's "enhancement imaging" of Phobos is what took this forum down.
Yet if you go to Hoagland's ...Phobos paper Part 1.... it is FULL of enhanced Phobos images, and I don't see his site taken down,

so there are two options here:
1. Hoagland is a common grandstanding media whore like Nancy Grace and full of fairy tales
meant to stimulate Pavlovian slobber amongst a Chain of Fools.....

2. If Keith's site was taken down due to "enhanced images"
then Hoagland is part of the PTB plan and part of a long standing hoax, and he had prior knowledge of the takedown.

3.Phobos is most likely a natural object,
but Phobos may also indeed be artificial,
and the ....
"....1/3 hollow interior implied by contact with "....ESA inside source..."
doesn't mean #e or shinola.

Hoagland's "inside source" at ESA
sounds like a Bill Ryan Project Serpo pyramid of BS.
Like ESA cannot or does not keep tabs on employees that feed information to the Hoagland Express.
Maybe ESA feeds the BS to his plate on purpose.

Now here is cherry on the hollow chocolate cake at Hoagy's site:

....geometric chambers ... ---------> distributed tetrahedrally

Soooo
how do you post images at this forum???
Only an external link spot for clicky click?
hmmmmmmmmmm

OK

Hoagland has an ESA Mole... an informant... An anonymous Bag Head

The H-Mole

Who is Hoagy's H-Mole?

next thing you know,
he will have Russian female agents named Semenova
working the white sheets at ESA for insider information
to feed directly to the Hoagland express,
in this Sci Fi B Movie.

Is the H-Mole a ...double agent?
Does he/she exist?

What about meteor impacts on Phobos causing sublimation vectors
for interior slow release of water ice deposits?
Maybe it is a captured comet?
What....?
Comets don't have some "...hollow interior..." as they vent...

So what if Phobos is an alien craft?
BFD.
Ancient civilization is on Mars, or at least alien intervention.
Hoagland knows how to make money.

This is the caliber of his entourage from TEM:
quotes from his farcebook site:

Richard we know you are working feverishly to get the Phobos paper out there, but can you at least let us know that you are still ok and not stuffed inside a lead lined trunk somewhere in a basement celler of Area51.

Blue Brother Richard C2C Hoagland must be waiting for Easter as a ritualistic date on which to counter with his Masonic Egyptian mythology about Phobos.

Quote RCH:

....geometric chambers ... ---------> distributed tetrahedrally

reply to post by largo Well, I think its problematic to rule out ejecta when we have never observed such an event, nor even found any orbiting residue to study. We just dont know how it behaves. As far as I remember, the entire theory hangs on a rock found on Earth that purportedly comes from Mars.
Regarding Phobos' orbit, we dont know how it would interact with a huge cloud of variously sized ejecta or what effect millions of years of meteor impacts would do to the trajectory of such a relatively small body.
I'm no expert tho. My main point is that we have very little data. If we are going to attempt to form a complete hypothesis from it, then what I put forward is no wilder than the artificial structure idea. It just isn't the case that because Phobos is not like any previously known asteroids, it must be artificial.
I hope it is mind! Its just that Hoagland's approach reminds me very much of that common branch of pseudo-science (which shall remain nameless for fear of derailment) which starts with a belief & then cherry picks data that can be interpreted to support the belief. Since we know so little, I prefer to just acknowledge that Phobos is a puzzle & hope that we can get a probe to land on it soon.

reply to post by GhostR1der

show me a natural material causing readings like that.

Thing is, radar reflectivity isn't determined solely by material composition but also by shape. Is it so surprising that experimental technology deployed in an alien environment should yield a surprising result? Should we immediately jump to the wildest conclusion?
If you were in a foreign city & woke up with a couple of strange looking bites on your body, would you assume it was evidence of vampires, or an insect that you'd never encountered before? Phobos clearly is something we haven't encountered before, but just what cannot be deduced from so little evidence.

reply to post by largo

Originally posted by largo in reply to thomas_
Your speculation is not sensible in believing that the composition of Phobos is beyond our ken. If it were it would argue more strongly that it IS not of natural manufacture and that it IS artificial.

No, that would only be true if it were the case that there are no suprising things left to find in nature. Nor is it the case that, because something is anomalous, it is artificial. If I sort through a basket of apples & find something that isn't an apple, that in no way indicates that it is an orange, or, more to the point, an apple pie. It is an anomaly that bears further inspection.

What if RCH was at one time really just trying to sell books and make money. But now that the NASA budget is going to be slashed by BO they are in dire need of much more than mere water on Mars or possible evidence of microscopic life.

How many huge BLACK PROJECTS did the NASA budget finance? I say it was where 3/4 of the money actually went, and the ones keeping the secret of the crashed saucers were heavily funded by that budget which is now being drastically slashed.

So now they (NASA) are in need of some real verifiable X Files to come to light to once again get the taxpaying public interested in "space exploration."

What better way than to release info about something that is most likely artificial like Phobos being hollow or even our own moon. Remember how it rang for hours after the spacecraft was sent crashing into the surface?

RCH may actually be the catalyst to let something like this come to light. Then they can say "Oh shucks, you caught us." "Yes we think there is a good chance Phobos is artificial."

So RCH could now be a paid information analyst for NASA...Now wouldn't that be something.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by skepticantiseptic]

reply to post by Bunken Drum


In fact we regularly observe volcanic releases both in atmospheres and into relative vacuums. The moons of Saturn and Jupiter with the Earthly displays give plenty of data about what we can expect from 'normal' eruptions.
The mass of 1.072 X 10 to the 16th Kg being lofted into an orbit in one fell swoop (which is what you proposed) in an elastic molten state requires energies and manipulations which a Stage II civilization would find daunting.
This would be akin to a glass blower using much of the world's beaches to do a spec job.
The striations are not explainable. No one has come up with a reasonable means for these formations to become existent due to natural means.
No one has explained the orbit.
ESA is mystified.

Why on a site promoting conspiracy and alien contact is there so much resistance to thinking this 'moonlet ' is artificial? Shouldn't this list of reasons be a perfectly good set of causes to plant a rover (very slow speed) with a drill to attempt to resolve this mystery?

I happen to think highly of most of RCH's work. He and Skipper are the two best at digging up and outing NASA's skullduggery. The mindless venting about a guy trying to make a living from these investigations gall me. If he was starving would it make anymore believable his allegations?

It seems as if personal vendetta, petty one-up-manship and infighting due to jealousy permeates much of what I see as purported criticisms. These also appear to be invalid in many cases due to poorly conceived conclusions. Sometimes they have a stench of lunacy and other times disappointments caused by a failure of RCH to single-handedly force disclosure.

I generally prefer a discourse for I know I am an ignorant person with much more to learn in my remaining years. I have learned that my feelings are a poor way to determine the truth from data. It's a rigorous application of logic applied to that data and filtered through past knowledge that gets me to the next step. I deliberately act in a naive way so that I can achieve a better grasp of what is real. I let stew my observations till they have matured some.

Many people devote themselves to transmitting their opinions as truths. Wending my way through the haze of deliberate and sometimes heart-felt deceptions have made me conclude that some are worthy of my long term attentions. RCH has made the cut for me.

I began reading about the Face on Mars when it was first seen. I read the mathematical papers concerning the improbability of it being a natural formation. Then I read some chucklehead's comments about the falsity of concluding it's artificial because the PTBs told them so. Cheez!

When Waldheim wrote of these 'moonlets' as being artificial, I read the first paperback edition. How freaking cool was that! Now the FACTS indicate that he may have been on to something. How cool is this!

For you who blindly say nay, I hope your lives give you joy and many surprises. I think this jack-in-the-box may be a treatment for your overt skepticism. Just rotate the handle.

reply to post by largoWe have not observed a super-volcano blast a huge amount of ejecta through an atmosphere, nor have we collected any such volcanic material in orbit to study.

energies and manipulations which a Stage II civilization would find daunting

Perhaps so, but we have no idea how much force volcanos on other planets may be able to release. Worth noting that Olympus Mons is the largest volcano in the known solar system also. Anyway, I didn't post this hypothesis because I believe it, but merely to show that we needn't jump to wild conclusions. We need more data.
I haven't criticised RCH personally, just his methodology in this instance. Phobos is mysterious. That doesn't mean its artificial & to say it is on the flimsiest evidence is unscientific. All we can currently say is that it might be, but then again, there are some very bizarre things on Earth that look artificial but aren't.
Which do you think is most likely to produce a budget to physically explore Phobos: "Its got striations & caverns, so it must be artificial." or "Its got some previously unknown features which we need to explore if we are to understand them."? The latter is a scientific approach; the former is likely to get anything related to it tarred with the nutjob brush & steered well clear of by career scientists. All RCH need do to be credible is maintain scepticism, because I'll bet my TFH that 1 thing ESA will not be doing this year is claiming Phobos is artificial based on the evidence we've seen so far.

largo sez

Why on a site promoting conspiracy and alien contact
is there so much resistance
to thinking this 'moonlet ' is artificial?

Resistance....?
how about .... maybe people are trying a common sense analysis
of a simple moon that is likely an asteroid or captured comet.

If you look at my posts you will see that I state that:
Ancient Alien civilizations are everywhere in this ancient universe.
I think that this is a given,
and in that framework,
Phobos being artificial is no big deal.
IF it is artificial,
of which anything Hoagland is presenting proves absolutely nothing,
niente, nichts und nein, NOT,
then where and why is it artificial...?
What business did aliens have in a snickerdoodle of a moon
over Mars?

So my "resistance" about Phobos certainly does not come from a standpoint of being a skeptic,
on the contrary,
life exists on Mars in some form, as well as Europa,
even possibly Enceladus.

Secondly why would Phobos ...if artificial...be alien,
as in aliens not from this solar system,
when if there ever was an advanced civilization on Mars
as in Cydonia for example,
those inhabitants could have engineered that moon interior.
Lot's of if's and and but's all there I realize.

Phobos still has a far greater chance of being a natural object
than an artificial space station,
and nothing that Hoagland has presented has really changed that
other than media manipulation of gullible people
with the infamous inside source at ESA
as carte blanche for him to expound and pontificate.

Look at Hoagland;s track record closely,
and you see a litany of hocus bogus anomalies
twisted into artificiality.

Crystal Towers on the moon,
the Martian Boat in the Mars desert that was an ancient ocean,
exposed geologic strata called ancient ruins,
mile high glass BS on the moon,
the Iapetus Death Star,
the Cabeus crater sub surface alien base,
and now
the "...tetrahedral interior..." of Phobos,
it goes on and on.
In the mix he gets a couple of singles to first base when at bat,
and then uses that to declare a home run on everything else.

Phobos may be artificial, and if ESA knows this,
and is using the H-Mole --- the Hoagland info source
to feed Hoagland info,
then RCH is just part of the whole ESA game as an ESA stooge.

I for one do not think Phobos is artificial,
and not due to "resistance"
or an ax to grind,
but because there is absolutely just scant evidence
that is completely manipulated by Hoagland
in the form of a secret "...inside source..." at ESA
the H- Mole.

Come on people.
Think about it.
Hoagland likely invents the H- Mole all handy dandy
complete with affiliated ESA data
fed to Hoagland like Phobos under Glass with vintage Annunaki wine
such that
the data potential is attributed to this mystery mofobungo at ESA
and Hoagland remains clean of actually being the true progenitor
of the whole spiel.
He points directly at ESA...

Hoagland has appointed himself the Ambassador of Disclosure,
and he is cashing in on sensationalism.

It would be far more important to find ancient civilization on Mars
than an alien base on Phobos.
If aliens used this solar sytem ...or use...this solar system
for a distinct repetitive purpose,
then there are likely lots of relic OR currently operating alien bases.
Mars would not be an exclusive in that regard.

If Phobos is artificial .....it has a really big doorway to the interior
so you won't have to "drill"
as one poster here desired.
Just find the door,
and watch the H-Mole go knocking for Hoagland.

reply to post by LiveForever8


I think the lines look a lot like THIS

So maybe the lines are not proof of craftmanship, but i can't account for the empty chambers though.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


The right angle explaination is obtainable from real world radar analysis here on earth. We get the same result with right angles. Without physically or spiritually visiting Phobos and seeing it, we're mostly stuck at speculation on available data.

The only thing I can think of which is normally right angles and or cube shaped in nature is a mineral like flourite or a pyriteof some sort. So the inside could possibly be giant pyrite crystal cluster held in orbit artificially, with unexplainable stirations?

reply to post by GhostR1der Yeah, the right angle aspect is very interesting. Maybe it is crystaline. Maybe its concrete! My point is that from a small amount of data, its not reasonable to assume the wildest possibility. I was mainly speaking to the 60dB difference in signal return.
I also dont see why we should assume that an odd orbit means its artificially held that way. Its a relatively small object, compared to other moons. We dont know if it is a captured object, from where, or what it has been hit by in the meantime.

reply to post by GhostR1der


I was lead to believe from the information provided on this thread, that the chambers within Phobos were right angled in thier termination points... Is that inferance incorrect?
We are pretty used to geometricaly sympathetic growth of minerals, with cones, and right angled forms being totaly normal and within our grasp as natural. But naturaly occuring right angled CHAMBERS are not, and for that reason I would like some clarification. And please, dont accuse me of not reading the thread. I have. Im having trouble understanding what is meant by the over technical twaddle in it thats all.

I didn't notice anything earth shattering.....I see no proof that Phobos is an artificial satellite (I'm not saying it's not possible). Sure seemed like a big buildup for nothing, I'm not anymore wiser from Hoaglands big expose'