I have learned that Richard Hoagland, he of the face on Mars fame, has another startling revelation for us. He is going to announce that one of the moons of Mars is artificial and hollow. This would be, of course, absolute evidence that there is intelligent life beyond Earth.
I would be truly excited about this if this revelation was new. It is not. There has been speculation that the moons of Mars, both tiny and orbiting close to the planet, were artificial.
This from Wikipedia:
This from Wikipedia:
Around 1958, Russian astrophysicist Iosif Samuilovich Shklovosky, studying the secular acceleration of Phobos’ orbital motion suggested a "thin sheet metal" structure for Phobos, a suggestion which led to speculations that Phobos was of artificial origin.
Fred Singer, an advisor to Dwight Eisenhower said:
If the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore martian made. The big 'if' lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them.
The point is simply this. The idea that Phobos is artificial is nothing new. The new spin is that Philip Corso, he of The Day After Roswell fame, is the source for this. Bill Birnes, who co-authored the book with Corso tells me that Corso made no such claims.
Birnes said that he has been all through Corso’s papers and that nothing of the sort appears in them. I’m not sure why Hoagland wants to drag Corso into this, but according to Birnes, the information is in error. On this one, I think I’ll side with Birnes., Phobos
9 comments:
Not to mention the fact that everything in Corso's book is a blatant lie and you are catching right up with things.
Kevin, it seems the good fight of the rational investigator of UFOs, etc., is constantly derailed by the loony tunes who drown out the reasoned response.
After yesterdays absurd reaction to a bunch of balloons I find I'm embarrassed to even represent the phenomenon be taken seriously at all.
John
Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy
http://tinyurl.com/26ptszt
Scroll down to the part where Hoagland's images are claimed to be manipulated and that Hoagland is either the victim of a hoax or else is a hoaxer.
>Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy
>http://tinyurl.com/26ptszt
>Scroll down to the part where >Hoagland's images are claimed to >be manipulated and that Hoagland >is either the victim of a hoax or >else is a hoaxer.
Dang, looks like many of the links on that site no longer work. Shame.
Anyway, Hoagland is no stranger to pseudoscience.
I thought it was proved that the face on Mars was that of the guy who built the Martian canals.
Mariner photos showed Phobos was just a natural moonlet 40 years ago. What's the use of "artificial" claims in subsequent years? To deliberately sink one's credibility?
John:
"...everything in Corso's book is a blatant lie..."
Well, maybe not everything. Friedman seemed receptive to the idea of backengineeering, and he's hardly a wacko like Cooper.
To John
No, the NYC event was NOT 'just balloons'. That is the 'muddying of the waters' media propaganda where they showed a schoolteacher swear it was their schools fault--ooops. And prior to that NEWSCOOP we have the Spanish Celebrations balloons. BUT--if you listen to actual people watching the event you hear them unequivocally say that what they are looking at it not balloons. And that these UFOs will pop in and out of existence.
(haha oh this is cool. Every blog I have commented on in last several wooes has to be passed by the blog owners approval)
I would just like to add that I like you think the Corso book, and the MJ12 stuff IS propaganda also--like the 'balloons' and 'flares' etc
Post a Comment