Cat out of the bag, almost.....

Jeboa Safari

GarlicBread wrote: »

Had the ESA guy not dodged the question somewhat, the cat could have jumped out of the bag a little. Theres alot of beating around the bush when it comes to mars. On the face value of the arguement its always about 'is there microbes, is there water, is there plant life', but the real burning questions that people wanna ask are 'is there ruins, was there anyone there before, is there anyone there now'.

Why does nasa fix photos? They prob wanna cover their ass from scandal thats why. Or perhaps the US gov has a specific policy regarding its space affairs.

Why would the ESA spokesman dodge the question to protect NASA and the US government? If anything, they'd be racing to be the first space agency to produce evidence of alien life and life on mars, and get there before NASA. And not just the Europeans, theres the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Korean space agencies that would love to beat NASA to the punch. Not to mention the extra funding and publicity space research as a whole would get from finding such information

RoboClam

GarlicBread wrote: »

Trees






Glass tubes







The second face



These are just a few pics from many thousands.

Your "Trees" and "Glass tubes" appear to be the sublimation of CO2, causing the sand to retreat.

http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_007962_2635


And the face? It's what namloc1980 said.

GarlicBread

King Mob wrote: »

A multicellular organism is an organism made up of multiple cells.


So then by "relics" he could have been referring to fossils of microbes or of more complex (yet not intelligent) life?

According to your own transcript:

How is this dodging the question?
Here he is explictily saying what a lot of people are theorising and spending a lot of money trying to research: the there is some form of simple life on Mars, either now or in it's wetter past.


Well kinda shows how up to date you are on real Mars research.
It's fairly well established that there was huge amounts of water on Mars in the past. The other questions are still open and are actively being pursued by real scientists doing actual work.
This is opposed to the cranks who latch on to blurry pictures that confirm their delusion or help sell their books.

Well they touch up photos to make nice press releases to drum up interest in their work.
They don't however doctor photos like you are accusing them of.

And notice how you've yet again ignored questions.
So then why are they altering the images in the first place, if they are also leaving these structures in?

Is it not possible that you are just mistaking natural features for alien structures?

How do you explain the smiley faces?

How do you know that the unofficial community "reversed the doctoring"?
How do you know they didn't just alter it into something they wanted to see?

"Alien relic...microbe or otherwise". To say 'otherwise' means 'other', which means somthing else. To break it down further for you, this means somthing else other than a microbe that is an alien relic. Im sorry if you cant understand that, its a basic breakdown of words from the english langauge. But your right, he could be talking about ancient flying elephant fossils or somthing else as irrelevent. However, considering all the questions about mars that exist, to say an 'alien relic other than a microbe' is certainly a reference to some of those questions.

He didnt say microbes or microbes, he said microbes or otherwise.

Nasa dont fake photos!? LOL

You ever hear of those whistleblowers back in the 2001 disclosure project who were ex-nasa employees? The ones that broke their national security oaths and tesified to the fact nasa have entire compartments that filter all photos before the public gets a hold of them? Go learn if you havent. Thats a different topic tho.

They altered the hi rez version of the face because it would have been so painstakingly obivious it was a damn face upon the official release, when so many people were waiting to see it. They didnt need to alter anything else because focus was on the face and not on all the other anomolies. They dont have the capacity(or audacity) to fake the entire surface as they would be caught out by the other agencies that are also mapping it.

You talk about blurry pictures.....



Does this look like a blurry photo to you? Does it look like somthing that happened by accident?



Does the tube in this photo look blurry to you? Or can you even see the sun light reflecting off it?

GarlicBread

GarlicBread wrote: »

"Alien relic...microbe or otherwise". To say 'otherwise' means 'other', which means somthing else. To break it down further for you, this means somthing else other than a microbe that is an alien relic. Im sorry if you cant understand that, its a basic breakdown of words from the english langauge. But your right, he could be talking about ancient flying elephant fossils or somthing else as irrelevent. However, considering all the questions about mars that exist, to say an 'alien relic other than a microbe' is certainly a reference to some of those questions.

He didnt say microbes or microbes, he said microbes or otherwise.

And "otherwise" probably meant "More complex life forms". Say for example a sort of plankton, which are different and more complex than microbes yet can't build any of the stuff you think is on Mars.
You've already stated that fossils could be "relics". So your point has kinda been undermined entirely.
So it's pretty obvious that he's asking if there's any fossils or other remains of microbes or more complex lifeforms, not about any structures or similar.

GarlicBread wrote: »

Nasa dont fake photos!? LOL

You ever hear of those whistleblowers back in the 2001 disclosure project who were ex-nasa employees? The ones that broke their national security oaths and tesified to the fact nasa have entire compartments that filter all photos before the public gets a hold of them? Go learn if you havent. Thats a different topic tho.

So you just swallow everything you read on the internet then?

GarlicBread wrote: »

They altered the hi rez version of the face because it would have been so painstakingly obivious it was a damn face upon the official release, when so many people were waiting to see it. They didnt need to alter anything else because focus was on the face and not on all the other anomolies.

Is it not possible this isn't the case and that the face is simply a product of paredolia and cranks spreading rumours?

GarlicBread wrote: »

They dont have the capacity(or audacity) to fake the entire surface as they would be caught out by the other agencies that are also mapping it.

Hang on, you just said they have "nasa have entire compartments that filter all photos before the public gets a hold of them".
So how can you claim both this and that they don't have the capacity?

And why haven't any of the other space agencies call them out over the face?

GarlicBread wrote: »

You talk about blurry pictures.....


Does this look like a blurry photo to you? Does it look like somthing that happened by accident?

Does the tube in this photo look blurry to you? Or can you even see the sun light reflecting off it?

Yes. they are both quite blurry. And that little bright spot is clearly not a reflection. Note how there's similar bright spots in the middle right of the image, where the ground smooths out a little.

And I'll take it you've no intention of actually answering those questions then?

GarlicBread

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Why would the ESA spokesman dodge the question to protect NASA and the US government? If anything, they'd be racing to be the first space agency to produce evidence of alien life and life on mars, and get there before NASA.

He didnt quite dodge the question, he answered it indirectly. My opinion would be that its just not somthing they want in the public domain until the time is right. They prob cooperate policy wise on an international level, including all the other space agencies.

GarlicBread

King Mob wrote: »

And I'll take it you've no intention of actually answering those questions then?

What questions? Your throwing them at me faster than i can answer, im only human.

Funny how you didnt try to discredit the disclosure project witnesses, cause you know its true .

You asked me about experts, and i tell you, i am not going through every documentary / lecture etc that i have ever seen just to satisfy your unquenchable thirst to find holes in my arguements. Off the top of my head, Tom Flandern and Richard Hoagland are two of the top dudes, but theres many more. Easy enough to look into if you have an internet connection, just type 'mars' 'documentary' 'cydonia' or other key words and you'll find a rake of people + stuff.

GarlicBread

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. they are both quite blurry. And that little bright spot is clearly not a reflection. Note how there's similar bright spots in the middle right of the image, where the ground smooths out a little.

And I'll take it you've no intention of actually answering those questions then?

I'll take it you have no intention of acknowledging that a giant perfectly T-shaped structure exists on the surface of mars?



For the love of god, you can even see his nostrils:D.

GarlicBread

GarlicBread wrote: »

What questions? Your throwing them at me faster than i can answer, im only human.

The same ones I've been repeating everytime you've ignored them.

So then why are they altering the images in the first place, if they are also leaving these structures in?

Is it not possible that you are just mistaking natural features for alien structures?

How do you explain the smiley faces?

How do you know that the unofficial community "reversed the doctoring"?
How do you know they didn't just alter it into something they wanted to see?

GarlicBread wrote: »

Funny how you didnt try to discredit the disclosure project witnesses, cause you know its true .

Well no I don't believe it's true. I do believe however you swallow everything you are told on the internet.

GarlicBread wrote: »

You asked me about experts, and i tell you, i am not going through every documentary / lecture etc that i have ever seen just to satisfy your unquenchable thirst to find holes in my arguements. Off the top of my head, Tom Flandern and Richard Hoagland are two of the top dudes, but theres many more. Easy enough to look into if you have an internet connection, just type 'mars' 'documentary' 'cydonia' or other key words and you'll find a rake of people + stuff.

I have read up on the theory extensively.
Hoagland is a lying crank, the fact you think he's a top dude of anything says a lot.

GarlicBread wrote: »

I'll take it you have no intention of acknowledging that a giant perfectly T-shaped structure exists on the surface of mars?

Well I didn't say it wasn't there, just that it likely is not artificial. And also it's nether perfect, not T shaped. It looks more like a number 1.

GarlicBread wrote: »

For the love of god, you can even see his nostrils:D.

Yes because whoever altered that image put them there while he was "undoctoring it".

RoboClam

GarlicBread wrote: »

I'll take it you have no intention of acknowledging that a giant perfectly T-shaped structure exists on the surface of mars?



For the love of god, you can even see his nostrils:D.

This mountain looks like a cat, what could this mean?! The cat's out of the bag, almost.....



This clearly looks like a foot. I can only surmise that giant humans walked the earth.

Or, maybe they are just natural formations which we unconciously try to make patterns out of. Pareidolia.

RoboClam

RoboClam wrote: »

Shopped, surely?

RoboClam

King Mob wrote: »

Shopped, surely?

You're dead right. That's what I get for googling "Interesting Mountain Formations". But yeah, the point still stands.

Don't worry there's plenty of real examples




Here's a list of them even:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rock_formations_that_resemble_human_beings

espinolman

And then there is the true colour of mars , whats the real colour minus the filters they use , who knows .

GarlicBread

King Mob wrote: »

The same ones I've been repeating everytime you've ignored them.

So then why are they altering the images in the first place, if they are also leaving these structures in?

Is it not possible that you are just mistaking natural features for alien structures?

How do you explain the smiley faces?

How do you know that the unofficial community "reversed the doctoring"?
How do you know they didn't just alter it into something they wanted to see?


Well no I don't believe it's true. I do believe however you swallow everything you are told on the internet.

I have read up on the theory extensively.
Hoagland is a lying crank, the fact you think he's a top dude of anything says a lot.

I answered that one already i think, because the face was the point of controversy that needed attention. Everything else dosent really matter and its just stupid to attempt to fake alot of the surface as they would be caught out badly eventually by the other agencies that are mapping it aswell.

No, I think it is absolutely impossible that all of these photos and combined opinion amounts to natural features. Tom Flandern, in a video i post above somwhere, did an equation on the face and came to the conclusion that the odds of somthing like that happening naturally were astronomical, a thousand billion or somthing was the sum. A thats just the face.

The smiley faces seem to be large craters with mountains for eyes perhaps? Alot of craters on mars, prob quite a few of them that have cliffs or mountains in certain positions, not that amazing really. It not as if they are on par with the Mona Lisa.

I know the unofficial community reversed the doctoring because i first saw it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM_c4fVduGw&feature=related (skip past the first minute as theres some bible guy talking sh1t, hes not in anyway representitive, lol). I have also seen it referenced in lectures and in other places. If it was not true it would have been discredited by and other people wouldnt still be making references to it in recent years. You cant lie or fake and get away with it on the internet, especially when dealing with such a popular topic with wide reaching appeal. It shows very well how its was undone. IMO look at it at 1:32, nasa might aswell have used tippex.

(Disclosure Project) When a large group of highly specialized people, armed with decades of experience, top lawyers and a mountain of evidence, takes on the US gov and nasa, you can be damn well sure ill believe it. Jiving with the disclosure project isnt just swallowing any old crap, an estimated billion people have seen that conference and they have not been caught out on anything, including the two ex-nasa witnesses, whos stories still stand tall.

Theres been 2 more disclosure project conferences since 2001 with all the same information coming out again and again from different people. This time they were both covered by the mainstream media. Anyone who still ignores this is living in fantasy land.

I take offence to your assertion that i believe anything im told on the webzor. If theres a significant amount of foolproof evidence going for somthing and only irrationality or ignorance going against it, then one must logically assume that there may be somthing to it.

Richard Hoagland may be many things, but he aint no liar. He was a journalist working with nasa a long time ago and he knows more than anyone when they are baking porky pies. Outside of officialdom, hes the top authority on Mars, like him or loath him.

lordstilton

Havn't been keeping up to date with your "top authority on Mars" ...... The image from the HiRISE camera on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, released in April 2007, was so detailed that even Hoagland appears to have abandoned his contention that the whole structure is a face. In the epilogue to his book released the following October, he analyzes instead the details of the face mesa within the MRO frame that he says are "obviously collapsed geometric ruins [with] parallel walls, multiple, 3-D planes, twisted beams, and thin girders."[37]

Trine

What scale are the photos with the "glass tubes"? As far as I recall the "face" is over 2km across, which for me anyway completely dismisses any notion of them being artificially made.

I'm guessing the "tubes" are at least a km across, which again ridicules any notion of them being structures.

BigDuffman

I've always wondered what exactly to people think the "shady US govt." have to gain by not telling us about something that may be of alien origin?!

There's a rock formation up the road from that looks a bout like podge & rodge....hmmmm

GarlicBread

GarlicBread wrote: »

I answered that one already i think, because the face was the point of controversy that needed attention. Everything else dosent really matter and its just stupid to attempt to fake alot of the surface as they would be caught out badly eventually by the other agencies that are mapping it aswell.

But that directly contradicts everything else you say.
You claim that the other photos obviously show what you also say nasa are trying to cover up. They wouldn't even need to fake them, just not release them.
And why don't the other agencies call them out on what you are claiming they did on the HiRes shots of the face?

GarlicBread wrote: »

No, I think it is absolutely impossible that all of these photos and combined opinion amounts to natural features. Tom Flandern, in a video i post above somwhere, did an equation on the face and came to the conclusion that the odds of somthing like that happening naturally were astronomical, a thousand billion or somthing was the sum. A thats just the face.

Well good to know you're closed minded on the matter.
Then how do you explain the examples of faces and stuff right here on earth?
How come these aren't impossible?
Also if you actually understood anything about math and probability you'd know that trying to ascribe a probability to something like that is stupid at best, dishonest at worst.

GarlicBread wrote: »

The smiley faces seem to be large craters with mountains for eyes perhaps? Alot of craters on mars, prob quite a few of them that have cliffs or mountains in certain positions, not that amazing really. It not as if they are on par with the Mona Lisa.

So how can these form naturally?
How does a popular image from the 80's appear on Mars?

Now note everything that you've just said and likely will say in response to the above questions apply exactly the same to your position.

GarlicBread wrote: »

I know the unofficial community reversed the doctoring because i first saw it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM_c4fVduGw&feature=related (skip past the first minute as theres some bible guy talking sh1t, hes not in anyway representitive, lol). I have also seen it referenced in lectures and in other places. If it was not true it would have been discredited by and other people wouldnt still be making references to it in recent years. You cant lie or fake and get away with it on the internet, especially when dealing with such a popular topic with wide reaching appeal. It shows very well how its was undone. IMO look at it at 1:32, nasa might aswell have used tippex.

You can't lie or get away with on the internet? Really?
Is that the only reason you believe this nonsense?

GarlicBread wrote: »

(Disclosure Project) When a large group of highly specialized people, armed with decades of experience, top lawyers and a mountain of evidence, takes on the US gov and nasa, you can be damn well sure ill believe it. Jiving with the disclosure project isnt just swallowing any old crap, an estimated billion people have seen that conference and they have not been caught out on anything, including the two ex-nasa witnesses, whos stories still stand tall.

Theres been 2 more disclosure project conferences since 2001 with all the same information coming out again and again from different people. This time they were both covered by the mainstream media. Anyone who still ignores this is living in fantasy land.

Again, you're just blindly swallowing what they are telling you.
Have you actually looked critically at any of this?

GarlicBread wrote: »

I take offence to your assertion that i believe anything im told on the webzor. If theres a significant amount of foolproof evidence going for somthing and only irrationality or ignorance going against it, then one must logically assume that there may be somthing to it.

I only assert it because that's the only conclusion i can arrive at.

GarlicBread wrote: »

Richard Hoagland may be many things, but he aint no liar. He was a journalist working with nasa a long time ago and he knows more than anyone when they are baking porky pies.

He's a liar. he claimed that he designed the Voyager Plaques. This is a lie.
Oh and practically everything else her claims is either made up or outright lies.
Or do you believe all his "hyper dimensional physics" and that the government is plotting to blow up Jupiter?

GarlicBread wrote: »

Outside of officialdom, hes the top authority on Mars, like him or loath him.

I lol'd so hard.
But yea, outside people who understand science and know what they are talking about, he's the top alright.

iPlop

King Mob wrote: »

I have read up on the theory extensively.
Hoagland is a lying crank, the fact you think he's a top dude of anything says a lot.

Richard Hogland is a nutter he also claimed a few months ago that phobos 2 was a fifteen mile wide spaceship ,just him and no one elsewhat in the world is he smoking

namloc1980

GarlicBread wrote: »

I answered that one already i think, because the face was the point of controversy that needed attention. Everything else dosent really matter and its just stupid to attempt to fake alot of the surface as they would be caught out badly eventually by the other agencies that are mapping it aswell.

No, I think it is absolutely impossible that all of these photos and combined opinion amounts to natural features.

Here is a 3D representation of the "Face on Mars compiled from images taken by the European Space Agency's Mars Express probe currently orbiting Mars:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDBVO2QEYgU

It is clear that this is not a face but a mesa in the the Martian desert. Such mesas are also found on earth and tend to be found in dry arid locations such as deserts for example:



This mesa is in Arizona, USA and is similar in appearance to the "Face on Mars". There are also many more examples that can be seen from a quick google search. So to say that it is absolutely impossible that these Martian features are natural is to take a very bias and close-minded point of view.

GarlicBread wrote: »

Tom Flandern, in a video i post above somwhere, did an equation on the face and came to the conclusion that the odds of somthing like that happening naturally were astronomical, a thousand billion or somthing was the sum. A thats just the face.

The smiley faces seem to be large craters with mountains for eyes perhaps? Alot of craters on mars, prob quite a few of them that have cliffs or mountains in certain positions, not that amazing really. It not as if they are on par with the Mona Lisa.

Tom Flandern also proposed that the civilisation that "built" the "Face on Mars" etc. actually came from a long lost planet between Mars and Jupiter that was destroyed millions of years ago and that the remains of that planet is now the asteroid belt. Unfortunately for this hypothesis it is now understood that the entire asteroid belt has a mass of just 4% of that of our Moon (and our moon is much smaller than Earth or Mars) and would be around this size:

.

The smallest object is Saturn's moon Rhea which has a similar mass as the entire asteroid belt put together. A planet could never form with that little mass with Jupiter next door as it would continually rip it apart with it's massive gravity well. I would take his hypothesis with a massive pinch of salt.

GarlicBread wrote: »

I know the unofficial community reversed the doctoring because i first saw it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM_c4fVduGw&feature=related (skip past the first minute as theres some bible guy talking sh1t, hes not in anyway representitive, lol). I have also seen it referenced in lectures and in other places. If it was not true it would have been discredited by and other people wouldnt still be making references to it in recent years. You cant lie or fake and get away with it on the internet, especially when dealing with such a popular topic with wide reaching appeal. It shows very well how its was undone. IMO look at it at 1:32, nasa might aswell have used tippex.

I just laugh at Hoagland at this stage. He just jumps to conclusions without doing any sort of investigation and he is the King is mis-interpreting images for his own gain. I presume he has alot of books to fill with his non-sense so he must make up stuff on a regular basis to keep up.

GarlicBread wrote: »

(Disclosure Project) When a large group of highly specialized people, armed with decades of experience, top lawyers and a mountain of evidence, takes on the US gov and nasa, you can be damn well sure ill believe it. Jiving with the disclosure project isnt just swallowing any old crap, an estimated billion people have seen that conference and they have not been caught out on anything, including the two ex-nasa witnesses, whos stories still stand tall.

Theres been 2 more disclosure project conferences since 2001 with all the same information coming out again and again from different people. This time they were both covered by the mainstream media. Anyone who still ignores this is living in fantasy land.

One the key witnesses of the Disclosure Project, Karl Wolfe, has been totally discredited primarily because he said he saw images of alien bases on the Moon taken by a NASA space probe in 1965. The problem is that the space probe he refers to didn't go to the Moon until 1966.

GarlicBread wrote: »

I take offence to your assertion that i believe anything im told on the webzor. If theres a significant amount of foolproof evidence going for somthing and only irrationality or ignorance going against it, then one must logically assume that there may be somthing to it.

Richard Hoagland may be many things, but he aint no liar. He was a journalist working with nasa a long time ago and he knows more than anyone when they are baking porky pies. Outside of officialdom, hes the top authority on Mars, like him or loath him.

Hoagland doesn't have a scientific bone in his body. He just makes random stuff up to sell books. His latest one is that Mars' moon Phobos is actually a spaceship

Monty Burnz

GarlicBread wrote: »

I'll take it you have no intention of acknowledging that a giant perfectly T-shaped structure exists on the surface of mars?



For the love of god, you can even see his nostrils:D.

Why does he have a big blob on his cheek? Why is one 'eyebrow' raised above the other Roger Moore style? Why does he have a pointy chin in the middle of his lower lip?

It's a cool image, but if you look at 10,000 hills in various different harsh lighting situations, you're going to find faces, teacups and probably iPhones in there.

Monty Burnz

GarlicBread wrote: »

Tom Flandern, in a video i post above somwhere, did an equation on the face and came to the conclusion that the odds of somthing like that happening naturally were astronomical, a thousand billion or somthing was the sum. A thats just the face.

That was ludicrous, I laughed out loud at that bit of the video. How exactly did they work out the odds I wonder, he never explained. Some thing like this perhaps...

"What are the odds of finding a moustache on Mars?"
"Um, a million to one."
"Ok, multiply that by the odds of finding an eybrow on Mars"
"Um, ok, a billion to one."
"Now throw in an eye..."

GarlicBread wrote: »

I know the unofficial community reversed the doctoring because i first saw it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM_c4fVduGw&feature=related (skip past the first minute as theres some bible guy talking sh1t, hes not in anyway representitive, lol). I have also seen it referenced in lectures and in other places. If it was not true it would have been discredited by and other people wouldnt still be making references to it in recent years. You cant lie or fake and get away with it on the internet, especially when dealing with such a popular topic with wide reaching appeal. It shows very well how its was undone. IMO look at it at 1:32, nasa might aswell have used tippex.

Oh dear. I laughed out loud there too. The amount of misinformation on the planet has mushroomed exponentially with the internet. Nowadays any crank can publish whatever they like, whereas in the past you had to pass some sort of quality control to get something published by professionals, or the wealthy cranks could pay to publish themselves.

espinolman

namloc1980 wrote: »

His latest one is that Mars' moon Phobos is actually a spaceship

It probably is .

RoboClam

espinolman wrote: »

It probably is .

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1012/phoboslimb_marsexpress_big.jpg

Definitely is a spaceship.

espinolman

RoboClam wrote: »

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1012/phoboslimb_marsexpress_big.jpg

Definitely is a spaceship.

Probably millions of years old . The solar system should be littered with junk from eons ago . Unless of course you believe intelligent life is unique and could only come about once through accident and out of all the billions of stars in the galaxy it could only happen on one planet in billions of years .
Which i think would be a ridiculous assumption to make .

namloc1980

espinolman wrote: »

Probably millions of years old . The solar system should be littered with junk from eons ago . Unless of course you believe intelligent life is unique and could only come about once through accident and out of all the billions of stars in the galaxy it could only happen on one planet in billions of years .
Which i think would be a ridiculous assumption to make .

What is your basis for believing that Phobos is actually a spaceship?? I'm sure most rational people believe life is most likely elsewhere in the vast universe. So the only ridiculous assumption being made by anyone is you claiming phobos is a spaceship!

espinolman

Have you looked at the photos on the hoagland website , phobos looks to be artifical .

iPlop

espinolman wrote: »

Have you looked at the photos on the hoagland website , phobos looks to be artifical .

Hogland is a picture doctoring fecker trying to fund his website and books.Tell me this why is it only HE has made these stupid allegations ,no one else ,even the UFO community don't want anything to do with him

digme

hogland is an arrogant self-centred egotistical charlatan parasitical wanker

namloc1980

espinolman wrote: »

Have you looked at the photos on the hoagland website , phobos looks to be artifical .

No it doesn't look artificial. Have you ever seen a spaceship with impact craters? Anyway all will be revealed as the Russians are sending a probe to Phobos this year to land and return a sample to Earth.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

No it doesn't look artificial. Have you ever seen a spaceship with impact craters? Anyway all will be revealed as the Russians are sending a probe to Phobos this year to land and return a sample to Earth.

That's because they disguised the spaceship to look like an asteroid.
Duh, namloc.

Lone Stone

Maybe our ancestors were dumped on earth for being retarded

espinolman

namloc1980 wrote: »

No it doesn't look artificial. Have you ever seen a spaceship with impact craters?

How would you know what an alien spaceship looks like . The aliens may build a spaceship like an asteroid if they were crab shaped with six heads .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

How would you know what an alien spaceship looks like . The aliens may build a spaceship like an asteroid if they were crab shaped with six heads .

Wow, I was taking the piss when I posted this.

So you actually believe that it's an alien ship that looks exactly like an asteroid yet also looks like an alien ship?

iPlop

I what bothers me most about Hogland is when he decides to show everyone what the inside of phobos 2 looks like.He says it's a spaceship and heres what it looks like inside and the man never flew higher than 39,000 feet:rolleyes:

An ancient, ET spaceship!

And Keeper ... if any of this was even half-way correct ... of "an amazing, almost unimaginable treasure-trove of radical new science ... "magical" technologies ... and biological breakthroughs ..." that, all because of Mars Express' now-established confirmation that "Phobos IS significantly hollow ... and therefore, likely artificial"--

Awaits all Humanity ... inside Phobos.

Jesus wept ,he's a plonker

Monty Burnz

Looks like the 'radical technology' inside Phobos is mainly a line of three-wheeled tractors.

namloc1980

Sink The Banana wrote: »

I what bothers me most about Hogland is when he decides to show everyone what the inside of phobos 2 looks like.He says it's a spaceship and heres what it looks like inside and the man never flew higher than 39,000 feet:rolleyes:






Jesus wept ,he's a plonker

Phobos also seems to have a unique gravity field where everything is attracted to the inside shell of the moon or maybe they are wearing velcro boots?

iPlop

namloc1980 wrote: »

Phobos also seems to have a unique gravity field where everything is attracted to the inside shell of the moon or maybe they are wearing velcro boots?

They have nice clothes and lovely robotic ploughs as well ,what a load of shit lads

Happyman42

Will we never learn.... fupping developers!...building their **** and then fecking off when things get hot, ghost pyramids, crazy Metro's and the gubberments covering up for them!

Boo Radley

GarlicBread wrote: »

Very interesting show with Pat Kenny yesterday morning. He had a fella on from the european space agency, David Southwood, they talked about odds and ends of things, including Mars.

(DS: "first thing to do is send robots, then human beings....lets do it right"

Pat: "in terms of the possability of water being on mars, the possability that there might be relics of some alien life form, wheather its a microbe or otherwise...... is that somthing you even bother with?"

DS: "it would be strange if it turned out nothing happened on mars...........why earth and not mars?")

Now, hold your horses there a second while I explain why this is explosive material coming from Pats mouth.

Ever since we started sending probes to Mars there has been scandal after scandal. The early nasa probes showed a giant face on the surface. The claim was rubbished. The later nasa probes showed the face at better resolutions and proved it was really there. Of course nasa took the piss again, doctured many photos and covered it up.

At this stage of the game, in 2011, with all the images available widely on the internet, it has become common knowledge by those in the know and by enthusiests that there is alot of stuff on Mars that is being covered up.

Multiple giant faces carved into the landscape.

Pyrimids(some huge) and other structures that share the same mathamatics as those on earth.

Traces of cities, towns and agriculture.

Glass-like tubing dotted around which is assumed to be some sort of tunnel transport.

And much more,

I dont need to provide links, use google, images of this stuff are all over the place and have been for a long time. Not to mention the countless experts and researchers who have spent a long on the topic.

I would just like to thank Mr.Kenny for posing such an important question. He almost let the cat out of the bag, almost :cool:.

Surely all he meant was a relic in the sense of a fossil/remains of a microbe etc.

Not debating anything about Mars rather your interpretation of what he was "really" trying to say.