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.

 

Phobos NOT artificial (according to ESA)...

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I'm sure most of you are aware of Richard C. Hoagland's claims that Phobos is an artificial E.T. base.

www.enterprisemission.com...

05/15/2010, ESA director Olivier Witasse responded to Mr. Hoagland's claim. Not only did he state that Phobos was quite naturally formed, BUT he continued to deflect just about every controversial claim regarding Phobos.

www.theunexplained.tv...

I must really applaud Howard Hughes during the interview. He really grills this guy from every corner. It's so obvious Mr. Witasse is hiding something. He keeps retracing his own steps, it's annoying really. Nevertheless it's a very interesting show for those who have been following this. The episode prior to "
Edition 35 - ESA's reply to Richard C Hoagland" is one that Hughes interviewed Mr. Hoagland himself.




posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
This I must listen to, hopefully very soon in a few days. Thank you very much for posting the updates/link!

But I will say prior to that this - be prepared for autumn, there are several 'windows'.

P.S. I had a thread about it a while ago...


[edit on 17/5/10 by Cybernet]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Find the acoustics given off by mars then get back to me.

Apologize for the one liner, but it seems people are simply grateful in what they are handed out.

Dont you simply enjoy it scitation.aip.org...



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
The French ESA guy was on the back foot the whole time - EXCELLENT interviewer - he really asked some great questions - especially the fact that the French guy relied on the old 'my English translation is not that good' - and that excuse seemed poor to say the least.

Hoagland 1 ESA 0




posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Isn't Hoagland that foolish nutjob who insists a couple of rocks on the moon is C3PO's head? I listened to him on a few archived Kevin Smith shows....wow, people like him make people like us look bad. Hoagland is one of those people who has never met a conspiracy he didn't like.

While I haven't been on Phobos as I'm sure he has, I would have to say that until some EXTRAORDINARY evidence is presented that I am not going to take what is out there now and jump to the least likely conclusion like so many around here are so quick to do.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Cigar
 


Just listened to #35 and I applaud Mr Witasse for even responding. Of course this is not enough for the conspiracy nuts, nothing ever is.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


So by conspiracy nuts that would cater for about 95% of ATS ...

So why are you here? Why would you hang out with conspiracy nuts?

That sounds hypocritical.

I think the coincidence nuts are the worst BTW



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
So why are you here? Why would you hang out with conspiracy nuts?


Just because a bunch of conspiracy nuts believe a bunch of conspiracy theories, doesn't mean that a few of them might not have some truth to them.

I think the people you have to worry about are the people who dismiss the conspiracy theories WITHOUT hearing both sides of the story.

At least the people who come here to ATS and listen to both sides of the arguments know what is being presented to make the case, so you should respect the fact that they are at least educating themselves about it before they dismiss it, and in my case, I've found that not all of them can be dismissed. A few conspiracy theories have some interesting evidence. But yeah, the majority of them seem pretty "out there", especially the "artificial Phobos" theory, that's probably near the top of the list for being "out there" both figuratively and literally.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Cigar
 


Cigar.....

I agree.....thank you for supporting Mr Hoagland.

Without Mr Hoagland, where would we be?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Oh.....that's right.....

We'd be without this:






posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
at least the ESA guys want to disprove a man who has been disproved so many times. Hoagland is not a very reliable person.

So why is he getting ESA's attention...why do they care about his claims? Who knows Hoagland? a few people who are interested in that kinda stuff...it's not like he's a "high number" in the scientific community


[edit on 18-5-2010 by Rohdan]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by cripmeister
 


So by conspiracy nuts that would cater for about 95% of ATS ...

So why are you here? Why would you hang out with conspiracy nuts?

That sounds hypocritical.

I think the coincidence nuts are the worst BTW


So you're a Creationist too, good for you



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
With all due respect, it seems none if you really get it. Please go and listen also to episode 34 to understand #35. I wish people paid more attention and respect to what Hoagland has to say this time, it' serious. Thanks.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Isn't Hoagland that foolish....



So you're pretending not to know who Hoagland is now?



Just call him a nutjob if you need to.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
A this thread is NOT about Hoagland or however you spell his damned name, so if a little bit of concentration on the subject matter at hand could appear at somepoint, it would be totaly awesome.
Moving on, Im interested to know what basis the ESA have for saying point blank that Phobos is not artificial. So far as I am aware, all that is known at this point is that Phobos has BIG chambers in it, some of which terminate at 90 degree angles .
Surely without further study, surface samples, and other experimentation , an iron clad answer simply cannot be provided? Or are the scientists assuming again?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Interesting interview, and well done to Mr Hughes for breaking the mould of mainstream journalists to cover “fringe” subjects.

What I found seriously interesting is that Witasse continuously denied Phobos being an artificial object, and that it is not “hollow”, but porous.

That’s all well and good, and totally follows the accepted scientific viewpoint, as he should.

However, him confirming those facts does not preclude the possibility that Phobos actually is a natural object, but that it has been modified by hands unknown.

If that is the case, then everything he said as to its natural origins is plausible, and not a lie (more of a diversion from the truth).

That way, if further information as to Phobos’s “modifications” is being planned to be released from ESA, then they can legitimately say that they never lied about their findings, just that they maintained a professional silence until they were in possession of all the facts.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   
If you guys defending RH can't see through him yet, then I pray you find a sense of discernment.



Just call him a nutjob if you need to.


Him = Nutjob.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beamish

However, him confirming those facts does not preclude the possibility that Phobos actually is a natural object, but that it has been modified by hands unknown.

If that is the case, then everything he said as to its natural origins is plausible, and not a lie (more of a diversion from the truth).


Woah great thinking!



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 



Woah great thinking!


Not quite great thinking, more lateral/logical – devil’s advocate, but thanks anyway.

I’m just trying to put myself in the mind-set of a scientific body that has (hypothetically) discovered something irrefutable that flies in the face of accepted knowledge, and how they would release limited information on it without suggesting they have more.

They would have to allow themselves an escape route as to when the information becomes public, otherwise they would make themselves look foolish, or worse, liars.

Also, as to Witasse’s assertion in the interview that he believes Humans are alone, but that he would love to be proven wrong; once again, he could be referring to the known, as in scientifically observed universe – ie., all the information currently available to his agency. He could be saying, obscurely, that they have not, as yet, found signs of extant life.

That little fact does not logically preclude the former existence of an alien civilization on Mars (or elsewhere) – as Phobos’s (alleged) artificiality would suggest.

Words; you’ve got to watch how they’re used, especially by professionals who are morally contracted to stick to known facts.

Then again, I could just be plain wrong.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Now have listened to both parts (unlike a few people who replied it seems), 34 and 35, I have to say it was worth listening. Richard is right on the spot and so is Olivier. This is a big game, which you have to observe from above in order to understand it. It is obvious Witasse had to have a negative stance in the reply towards this, but the interesting part is the way how he formulated his ideas and responses. I don't know how many of you can read energy, but I can tell you that Olivier, as much as i like him, was lying. I don't know if he made it so obvious on purpose or not, but he was lying the whole interview. And i don't blame him, because it is understandable. In that position I would have to go on the show and would have to reply and would have to lie to create a backdoor for the future "in case" the data turns around being the opposite. In my thread i told you about an ESA conference on Phobos taking place in autumn, now that Olivier has mentioned it publicly and the cat's out of the bag, you may want to think what has Richard Hoagland said in #34 about the proccess. There are scheduled revelations. The thing is - you never have a guarantee how big they will be, even if you are told ahead. But as i personally see it, disclosure and contact should happen really soon. And i don't care for people who keep on whining "we have heard that for 50 years", because they don't understand the factor of acclimization which needs to be that long in order to succeed. People won't get used overnight. If you don't want people to freak out, you have to feed them the juice without making it too obvious, period. ESA in September -> Russians in October...sample return mission throughout 2011/2012 -> manned mission -> live tv -> et disclosure. We are heading towards the change and i can tell you that the world won't be the same after 2012. Actually, i can't even access the energy beyond that timepoint, because it is drastically out of this world. Things are moving very fast, so get used to it, or be left behind. You have the internet, so make use of it while you can.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join