This is a world Exclusive with Richard C Hoagland where he has information that more thansuggests Europes Space Agency has, and is set to publicly confirm, information proving the Mars moonPhobos is NOT a natural structure!
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Across the UK, across continental North America and around the world on the internet, by webcast and by podcast. | |
| My name is Howard Hughes and this is The Unexplained. | |
| Thank you for returning to the show. | |
| Thank you very much for the great feedback on the last show, which was all about the Phoenix lights. | |
| We will return to that topic, of course, and bring you many, many others here on The Unexplained. | |
| Thank you for the donations, too, that have come in. | |
| If you'd like to make a donation to this show, it's vital to the work that we do here that you perhaps consider doing that because we are independent media. | |
| The mainstream big corporations don't do shows like this, and they never will. | |
| So the only way to keep shows going like this is to support them. | |
| If you'd like to make a donation, go to the website, www.theunexplained.tv, and the PayPal link is right there on the front page. | |
| And whatever you feel you're able to give would be great. | |
| If you're not able to give anything or you'd rather not, that's okay. | |
| Enjoy the show. | |
| But if you'd like to make a donation, thank you very much. | |
| And if you have made a donation already, and I know many of you have, thank you. | |
| Thank you for the emails too. | |
| If you want to get in touch with the show, you can do that via the front page. | |
| And if you need to, you can contact me directly at unexplainedh at yahoo.co.uk. | |
| But whatever you do, please register a hit on the website. | |
| This show is potentially the biggest one we've ever done. | |
| This is the reason. | |
| I'm about to bring you some information that has not been brought to you on any other show anywhere in the world. | |
| This is an exclusive. | |
| Richard C. Hoagland, American Space Expert, is about to present to you some research which, unusually, could be about to get official confirmation in the form of an official announcement. | |
| If that official announcement, perhaps in Europe, happens, it will change our perception of everything that we know. | |
| That's a really heavy statement, isn't it? | |
| And I wouldn't say that other than advisedly. | |
| If this stuff is correct, then it proves we are not, or certainly we haven't been in the past, alone. | |
| But also, everything that we understood about what is out there, and I'm pointing actually out into the night sky as I record this now, what we understood about what is out there is not actually what is out there. | |
| That our paradigms, the things that we believe, need to be radically changed because something that is floating around Mars, a moon called Phobos, is not just a hunk of rock. | |
| It's so much more than that. | |
| But the exciting part of this is the potential for this to be officially confirmed this year. | |
| Just imagine turning on the news. | |
| Now, you know that I've done news as a professional for years. | |
| It's my meat and drink. | |
| It's been my entire life. | |
| What I wouldn't give to be on duty on a radio news desk and actually reading the news on the day that this is formally and officially announced. | |
| That, I think, would probably be the biggest gig of all. | |
| And I've done some of the big announcements in my time, but boy, this would be epoch-making, wouldn't it? | |
| I'm using a lot of superlatives here, but I think maybe potentially they're valuable here, just this once. | |
| The reason I've been away for about four weeks, which is slightly longer than normal, is to do with my ongoing shoulder injury, which continues to provide me with a lot of pain. | |
| I've tried many different therapies and sometimes have not entirely had the best support. | |
| I have met some wonderful medical people, but I've also had some less than fantastic advice. | |
| And so like a lot of people in this country, I've had to try to find my own way on diminishing resources to do it. | |
| In other words, I've had to try and find money to pay for some of the treatments that I've had. | |
| But it's been a terrible, terrible worry. | |
| It's taken up four months of my life now where I haven't been able to do all of the things that I would want to do, like work or drive further than my local supermarket. | |
| It really has been a drag. | |
| But enough of that. | |
| And thank you for your messages of support through this time. | |
| Let's get on to this amazing topic now. | |
| Richard C. Hoagland in the U.S. has chosen us here at The Unexplained to tell you about this research, his findings, as they're put together about the moon of Mars called Phobos. | |
| Let's get him on. | |
| Richard, thank you for doing this with us. | |
| You're welcome. | |
| Nice to have you on again, Richard. | |
| I know it's been a very busy time for you. | |
| Probably an understatement, yeah. | |
| Well, yes, there was a little, little issue, and we won't dwell on it for too long, but friends of mine were telling me that you were on Facebook, which you are, and then you were off Facebook, and then you were back on Facebook. | |
| What happened? | |
| I have no idea. | |
| An editor friend of mine set up the account, oh, maybe a year ago, and I started using it and talking to people, and then suddenly in the middle of answering somebody's question, I was cut off, and I couldn't do anything, could not reach anyone, could not get any redress of grievance, of explanation for six months. | |
| And then one day I went and looked at it, and lo and behold, everything that was there was there, and I was back on. | |
| And I have been using it very effectively now in what we call the Phobos campaign, which is our current area of interest. | |
| I think it's a great tool for you, and I was surprised that you were removed from there. | |
| I can't think why they would want to do that. | |
| But I see you have thousands and thousands of people who check back in with you on Facebook. | |
| And if you want to get messages out there, it seems to be very much the way to do it now. | |
| So Phobos is the thing we are talking about. | |
| Of course, I've heard of Phobos, and there's always been a certain, I think you've even been part of this, a certain mystique about Phobos. | |
| But now it seems that there is very definitely a reason for that mystique, yeah? | |
| Well, yeah, this reason, because Phobos, which is the inner little tiny, tiny, tiny moon of Mars, it's less than 20 miles across, is artificial. | |
| It's a spaceship, an ancient, battered, An ancient battered spaceship. | |
| Now you know that the European Space Agency has photographs and radar and tracking data to prove it, and they're sitting on the story because they probably have no idea how to tell the world what they found. | |
| That's what excites me about this, because this, unusually for a space story, is not happening at NASA. | |
| It's not happening at JPL in the States. | |
| This is all to do with the European Space Agency, which doesn't get that much publicity here in Europe. | |
| And I don't think people really understand it at all in the UK. | |
| This is something that you say they have known about. | |
| They have been collating and amassing data about it. | |
| And you think, interestingly, maybe uniquely, they're about to make some kind of announcement. | |
| Well, we have inside sources. | |
| We have been talking with certain people through intermediaries who actually speak Italian. | |
| In the Italian arm of ESA, which is devoted to the experiment on a couple of their spacecraft called the Marsis radar, which stands, the M stands for Mars. | |
| And it basically is an echo sounder. | |
| It sends out a radio wave and then listens for the echo like any radar. | |
| And the Mars Express spacecraft, which was put into orbit around Mars by ESA back in 2003, it's now 2010, so you can see it's been there a long time, seven years, or more or less. | |
| They have been pummeling Mars with these radar pulses every time the spacecraft comes within a certain distance, because the Mars Express is not in a circular orbit, it's in a very elliptical orbit, takes it out to something like 30,000 miles and within maybe a couple of hundred miles. | |
| And within a couple of hundred miles, they are within a range to use the radar and examine the subsurface of Mars. | |
| And they've been creating archives showing the subsurface geology, layers of ice, crater morphology, Brescia lenses in craters, usually things related to geology. | |
| Well, in the last several years, they've also, as they have flown past the little tiny inner moon of Mars called Phobos, they have readjusted the radars so that they don't blow out their circuits and their integrated, you know, transistorized computer chips. | |
| And they have been able to get radar scans from Phobos as they pass relatively close by. | |
| In fact, in March, they passed within something like 67 kilometers of this little, little tiny moon. | |
| That's basically three diameters away. | |
| Well, in space terms, that's amazing to get so close to something, is that we don't normally do that. | |
| Well, it has to do here with the way the celestial mechanics work. | |
| You're in a spacecraft that's in a polar orbit. | |
| The little moon is in an equatorial orbit, which means they're meeting roughly at 90 degrees. | |
| Phobos is around 4,000 miles from the surface of Mars. | |
| And as I said, the spacecraft goes between a couple hundred and thirty thousand, so it passes down across the orbit of Phobos in such a way that depending upon the phasing, which has to do with the orbits of both the spacecraft and the little moon, there are times when you can get really, really, really close. | |
| And so what ESA has been doing periodically over the last several years, as the celestial mechanics work to bring these two orbits into phase with each other, they have been using these serendipitous passes to get some really extraordinary data. | |
| And the bottom line of all that data, which is sitting in so many graduate students' computers now all over Europe, because ESA, as you know, is a European Space Agency. | |
| It's got member countries from almost every nation in Europe. | |
| There is information in these computers, and they're talking about it in the halls and at lunch and seminars among themselves, that the data is now really convincingly proving that Phobos is not a natural asteroid captured by Mars. | |
| It wasn't an object that naturally formed in Mars orbit billions of years ago. | |
| The data is telling them that it, in fact, is an ancient, very battered spaceship that was placed in orbit around Mars, God knows when, and probably like its companion, Deimos, which is the even tinier little moon further out from Mars, was put there by somebody or persons unknown, and that, of course, is going to be the extraordinary mystery story as we go forward on this entire tale. | |
| I should say so, very much so. | |
| But look, this is astonishing stuff. | |
| And as I said at the top of this show, if this turns out to be so, and if we get to hear about it in the public domain from official sources, this changes our knowledge of everything, really. | |
| It is the most important thing. | |
| It's not a problem. | |
| We've been building toward this for a long while. | |
| As you know, I and my colleagues of the Enterprise Mission, which is here in the States, particularly one named Mike Berra, who is my co-author on our New York Times bestseller, Dark Mission, The Secret History of NASA, we've been looking at the serious facts surrounding the idea that not only NASA, | |
| but other space agencies around the world have known for some time that there are objects in the solar system that are artificial, that there are artificial ruins down on various planets like Mars, like the moon, and they haven't figured out a way to tell the world. | |
| And we found many, many years ago a document in NASA's archives called the Brookings Report, which was done right after NASA was formed back in 1958. | |
| A government report done with a whole bunch of creme de la creme scholars and thinkers and intellectuals in the late 50s looking at the prospects for what would happen to the world, to society, if the space agencies were to go out there in space and discover artifacts of some kind of extraterrestrial intelligence. | |
| And the bottom line of this report, which was a recommendation to NASA, was you can't tell anybody because it will destroy society. | |
| It was that dire. | |
| It was that stark. | |
| This was in 1960 that the New York Times published the conclusion of this report, which is if you tell anybody that there's ancient ET ruins in the solar system, you will wind up destroying civilization. | |
| Now, that may sound in the first decade of the 21st century as a bit over the top, but you have to remember the thinking that was going on in the 50s in terms of the Cold War, in terms of domestic American politics, which was the whole McCarthy era thing, looking for communists under every bed, the duck and cover, the paranoia of confronting the Soviet Union with thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. | |
| Well, the theory then was that the world was a very, very unstable place, and anything that could destabilize that veneer of stability had to be avoided like the plague. | |
| And I guess that's why they've done this for 50 years. | |
| But look, here is the thing that fascinates me most about this. | |
| You've just said that this information, because Ether is this great honeycomb, it involves countries, including Britain and many countries throughout Europe, all part of this. | |
| All these graduate students who have this information, you say, sitting on their hard drives. | |
| Now, there was once a very famous person who said the only way to keep a secret is not to tell anybody. | |
| You're saying that there are lots of people who are custodians of this secret and they haven't told anybody? | |
| Well, the problem is, they told someone and that someone just blew them off as being kind of nuts or exaggerating or whatever, whatever. | |
| Marshall McLuhan said many decades ago, and you remember, of course, who Marshall McLuhan was, he was the very famous Canadian film and television critic who wrote, he was basically a philosopher. | |
| He wrote a number of studies and books regarding media and their impact on culture and society and civilization and all that. | |
| And one of his most famous lines is, the medium is the message. | |
| Well, another one of his aphorisms is that great secrets don't require security. | |
| They are protected by the very incredulity of their listeners. | |
| In other words, if I come up to you on the street and I tell you that Phobos, the inner moon of Mars, is artificial, unless you have some background in this subject, unless you have some expertise, or unless you've, let's say, read a certain website, you're going to dismiss that information as completely kooky and out of bounds and not worthy of following up. | |
| And if this is done again and again and again, the story simply stops. | |
| It stops dead in the water. | |
| But these aren't people who've just heard a story in a bar, though. | |
| These are people who have qualifications, who have brains. | |
| These are not all people who would be disbelieved, surely. | |
| Well, but we have to look at the entire social scenario here. | |
| What we have at the moment is an amalgam of many different nations in Europe speaking different languages with different philosophies, different approaches, different economic systems. | |
| And they've come together under this umbrella called the European Space Agency, and they send spacecraft out into the solar system looking at various things. | |
| They don't have a manned space program. | |
| They have an unmanned space program, by and large. | |
| Although they have put some astronauts on American and Russian spacecraft and the space station. | |
| But by and large, ESA's activities are confined to unmanned robotic probes, right? | |
| Okay. | |
| So when these probes send back information, that information, because it is multinational, has to go to different investigators, scientists, engineers, grad students covering a multitude of countries all over Europe in order for the project to be successful. | |
| So the fact that all this information is out there and a lot of people realize what it's telling them, but no news organization in Europe has yet picked up on this tells me that if one of these people were to be so imprudent as to, you know, let's say talk out of turn in a bar late one night, no one would believe this person because the story is just too unbelievable. | |
| And if some news person did overhear the hypothetical ESA engineer, a scientist in a bar talking about stuff he shouldn't be talking about, and they were to call ESA formally and ask them, is this true, ESA would say, of course not. | |
| End of story. | |
| But you're saying that ESA will eventually have to confirm this. | |
| They couldn't possibly in those circumstances say it's not true because, like a politician, having then denied the thing, they couldn't confirm it, could they? | |
| That would put them in a terribly invidious position. | |
| All they have to say is comment. | |
| All they have to say is that, and depending upon the aggressiveness of the news organization, whether they follow up or don't follow up, in other words, a lot of news organizations, as you know from your personal experience, are these days are very lazy. | |
| And there isn't the incentive to really pursue a story that does not want to be born if you can just wait and eventually it's going to fall out of the tree and land in your lap. | |
| Well, we agree on that. | |
| Nobody wants to do any leg work anymore, any footwork. | |
| But the difficulty about this story is that it is so outlandish. | |
| It is so out there that the final hurdle may just simply be the fact that people think that it couldn't be true. | |
| So how can we run a story like that? | |
| Because in all our experience, such things are just science fiction. | |
| They could never be fact, could they? | |
| Absolutely. | |
| You've got precedent working against you because, you know, how many times has the boy cried wolf? | |
| How many, if you go to the web, you know, look at the internet as it exists around the world today, you will find the most extraordinary, strangest, bizarre websites claiming everything under the sun. | |
| And in that melange of noise, against that background of nonsense, the fact that there is in fact real data supporting the real scientific evidence now that the inner moon of Mars is not natural, that somebody built it a long, long time ago, and it has been battered and bashed by meteors so it looks natural. | |
| It looks like it's a degraded normal object in the solar system. | |
| Finding that needle in that haystack for most journalists today is just too much trouble. | |
| They really are incredibly lazy. | |
| But I have to say, Richard, if you will not. | |
| Sure. | |
| Richard, I have to say that if I was to phone ESA tonight, assuming that there was someone there to take my call, which there probably wouldn't be at this time, but tomorrow morning they probably talked to me. | |
| And I put some of this to them and they said to me, no comment. | |
| Well, as a journalist, my training would say, well, no comment. | |
| Usually in the UK, when somebody says no comment, have you been philandering, sir, no comment? | |
| That's usually a confirmation, isn't it? | |
| Okay, there's another level to this. | |
| Depending upon who you get to go on the record, they could always say it's nonsense, and then if it got bucked up high enough and they ultimately have to admit that it's not, they'll simply claim that the underling did not know because he did not have a need to know. | |
| It's not in the loop. | |
| Right. | |
| Okay, I see. | |
| So we have onions, we have layers of protection. | |
| You know, what was it that Neil Armstrong said at the White House on the 25th anniversary of landing on the moon? | |
| At the close of his remarks, he turned to the president, who at that time was President Clinton, and he turned to some of the students who had been brought in to be part of the audience. | |
| And he said that there are wonders beyond belief, meaning on the moon, and that there are truths protective levels, which one day will be removed. | |
| Meaning that if you can get through the labyrinth of the lies and distortions and the non-truths, at the end of that road, there is in fact the real data and the real solar system. | |
| And what's out there is out there, and it will be up to future generations, from his perspective, I guess, to find it because the current generation is not going to be allowed to find it. | |
| Truth has protective layers. | |
| Well, ESA appears to have opened the door by publishing all of this data. | |
| What's so interesting is that we're not just dealing with rumors that they have found something. | |
| We have the data. | |
| And any non-ESA engineer, radar specialist, imaging expert can look at this data and make a qualified technical scientific judgment apart from the politics of the European Space Agency. | |
| And we've had many of them now since we posted this paper on EnterpriseMission.com. | |
| And the overwhelming consensus when people look at this data is, oh my God, Phobos is an ancient spaceship. | |
| So I think the clock is ticking. | |
| And I think that when you make those phone calls, you're probably going to, if you get high enough, you're probably going to find someone who ultimately knows what's going on and who realizes that they can't continue to dissemble or basically lie, and they will have to give you a no comment, which of course means we're right. | |
| Give me a percentage probability that this year this story will go legit. | |
| Hmm. | |
| That's such a hard thing to call because. | |
| I know it is. | |
| But what do you think? | |
| Well, I would say it's better than 50-50. | |
| Okay. | |
| The reason I'm saying that is because of an old thing, an old friend said to me many years ago before he died and put in print and put in film and put up in, you know, 40-foot-high letters, you know, a la the Hollywood sign. | |
| He actually did an entire movie about this. | |
| And it was called 2010, The Year We Make Contact. | |
| It was Arthur C. Clark. | |
| Arthur C. Clark. | |
| C. Clark. | |
| And I believe that Arthur was one of the in-crowd and that the Brookings plan, I mean, if you really think the civilization is going to fall apart if you make extraterrestrials known in polite society, if you read the rest of Brookings, | |
| which as I said was published back in 1958, it was completed and given to the president, President Eisenhower at that point, who then passed it on to President Kennedy, who then turned it over to the U.S. Congress, who then published it. | |
| And in that document, that's how we got hold of it, in that document in 1960-61, because that's roughly the timeframe when the Brookings report became public, it also strongly recommends a program of public education and social, I don't want to say reorientation, but basically a mechanism to get over the fears to what we call over here preparedness, yeah? | |
| Yes, that would be a good term. | |
| And what they did was they basically state in Brookings that in order to counteract the terrible potential downside of revealing that the human race is not alone, there needs to be this vast media-wide educational process that goes on for decades, which basically puts them in the picture, that gives them freedom to mentally and emotionally experience the idea that the human race is not alone without freaking out. | |
| And that, of course, is major film media, television, etc., etc. | |
| So what have we seen, Howard, over the last, what is it, 40, 50 years? | |
| We have seen an extraordinary parade of films and television shows and television series and remakes of classic films, all with the theme that the human race is not alone. | |
| And I can name for you, you know, many of them that everybody, of course, now talks about as household words, from Star Wars to Star Trek, from 2001 to all of the other films that are classics in this genre. | |
| And the bottom line is that people have been bit by bit desensitized to the idea that the human race is alone. | |
| Well, you think of my generation, Richard, and even here in the UK where we've got all these American shows and we have some of our own, some of the first words I remember hearing as a kid were Danger Will Robinson. | |
| You know, I have been prepared since I was a tiny duck for this. | |
| So nobody wants it to happen more than I do. | |
| I have to say, I am somewhat skeptical that the United States and the huge powers that are there and the things that they may have known for so long would allow the Europeans to be the conduit for this. | |
| Why would they do that? | |
| Well, it obviously has to be part of the plan because the Europeans have the only spacecraft that's capable of making these closed passes repeatedly every five months down past Phobos. | |
| Remember, Phobos is in an equatorial orbit. | |
| In fact, it's almost exactly in the plane of Mars equator. | |
| Circular orbit, it's almost exactly circular. | |
| So how does one get a captured asteroid in a circular orbit? | |
| It doesn't work, okay? | |
| And Deimos is the same. | |
| Deimos is about 10,000 miles further out, and it's also in a circular orbit, also in the plane of Mars equator, and it's a little tiny thing, you know, maybe 15, 12 miles, something like that in diameter. | |
| So if these two things are ancient spacecraft, then the Mars Express spacecraft, which is the European Space Agency's emissary, is in a polar orbit at 90 degrees to the orbital planes of these two little moons, and it goes down past them roughly every five months. | |
| There is a period of time, a window of a few weeks' duration, where Mars Express will pass repeatedly closer and closer and closer and then farther and farther and farther away from Phobos. | |
| It really can't get to Deimos because the orbit is not correct, so it doesn't ever do a flyby closely of Deimos. | |
| But Phobos, yes. | |
| And so it looks to me as if ESSA was designated as part of a general someday we will pull the trigger on this plan to gather data on Phobos because it's the only spacecraft in an orbit which can at the moment. | |
| Now, if what we believe from the data is so, and you're telling me that people are getting in touch with me to say, Richard, this has to be so because the data says so, there's more, far more to this than meets the eye. | |
| Not only is it anomalous in shape, it's got a funny orbit, it's got weird magnetic fields around it, but there's something inside, too. | |
| Well, it appears to be hollow. | |
| Okay. | |
| Or it appears to be one-third hollow. | |
| Back in 1989, when the Russians first sent a mission to Mars dedicated to surveying Phobos, I mean, we have been, and the Russians have been to Mars now dozens and dozens of times. | |
| We've sent an accumulation of maybe something like 30 spacecraft between the two nations to Mars. | |
| And don't hold me to that number because it's only a ballpark number. | |
| Most of the Russian missions, the Soviet missions, have failed. | |
| Most of the American missions have failed. | |
| But in 1989, even though it was a daunting technical challenge, the Soviet Union mounted a sophisticated mission to go to Phobos. | |
| It was called, what was called Phobos. | |
| That was the name of the mission. | |
| And they set two spacecraft, a prime and a backup. | |
| They lost one because of computer programming errors. | |
| The second spacecraft made it into Mars orbit successfully in the spring of 1989, lasted for a few weeks, and then as it approached Phobos for a rendezvous to begin to do a very, very complicated and exhaustive scan and analysis and probing with all kinds of electronic means, including radar, the Russians lost their Phobos probe. | |
| And a bizarre story appeared, you know, moving around the world first by means of blogs. | |
| Well, in those days, they weren't really called blogs. | |
| They were, you know, the internet was very primitive back in those days. | |
| It didn't exist by and large. | |
| So what you had was people holding conferences, people publishing newsletters, putting out this cover story, which was fostered by an actual Russian cosmonaut, I believe her name was Marina Popovich, going around to various conferences, mainly UFO conferences, and saying to the world that the Russian spacecraft had been shot down by aliens. | |
| Well, there's no better way to guarantee that the mainstream media, including the BBC, never go within a light year of the story to have a cosmonaut running around the world claiming that their spacecraft has been shot down by aliens circling Mars. | |
| I seem to remember the story, but I think it appeared in our lighter tabloid press in the UK, so you know how much credibility that has. | |
| Yeah, well, that was damage control. | |
| Because it is now clear from the ASA data that the Russians, the Soviets, back in 1989, got the first proof that Phobos is, in fact, artificial. | |
| And the entire story, the subsequent story about how they lost it and what happened to it, et cetera, et cetera, was a cover story designed to get the mainstream press ever, never, ever to ask anything about Phobos. | |
| Well, it seems to have worked until now. | |
| Do you believe that that probe, that explorer up there, for want of a better word, was shot down or somehow disabled by something that didn't want whatever is there discovered? | |
| No. | |
| No. | |
| And the reason I know that is because Tom Van Flandern, the late Dr. Thomas Van Flandern, my colleague and friend who died very tragically a few months ago, did an actual paper on the data that Popovich and company had provided in so-called proof of the shoot-down model. | |
| And it turns out that the object that they claim was an alien spaceship that had shot down the Phobos mission from the Soviets was in fact as dark as the Phobos moon itself. | |
| Phobos and Deimos are very peculiar in another way. | |
| They're incredibly black. | |
| They are among the darkest, most non-reflective objects in the solar system, Howard. | |
| They reflect less than 4 or 3% of sunlight falling on them. | |
| They are darker than coal. | |
| Okay, here comes a very silly question, and it may be, or it may be a brilliant question. | |
| I'm not sure which, but here it comes. | |
| Are they that dark so they won't be noticed? | |
| That's a good question. | |
| A really good question. | |
| They are incredibly dark, and they are so dark that they would make a lump of coal sitting beside them look bright by comparison. | |
| So that would mean that if at some stage something or somebody was using them, they could do it pretty well unnoticed. | |
| Well, we're talking a scale of technology that people these days can't really normally encompass because it's so big. | |
| Remember, we're talking about a 20-mile-sized spacecraft. | |
| Ancient, battered, bombarded by meteors. | |
| It's incredibly old. | |
| It looks to be millions upon millions upon millions of years old, judging from the imagery, but it is battered and a derelict nonetheless. | |
| And as they said a moment ago, it's incredibly dark. | |
| Now, darkness implies carbon In the solar system, where we are finding other dark objects, they are also what they call carbonicious. | |
| They are rich in carbon or carbon-absorbing compounds, and that's what makes them dark. | |
| And that's a building block of life, isn't it? | |
| It's one of the building blocks of life as well. | |
| There appears to be some real problems in ascertaining the composition of these objects. | |
| Astronomers have been trying, first from Earth, which is very difficult because they're so tiny and so dim, and they're so dark, and they're so close to Mars that Mars basically swamps the signal in the telescope, so you can't really isolate the signatures of the two moons against Mars. | |
| So to do that, you've got to go there. | |
| You've got to send a spacecraft, which is what we started doing, we meaning the human race, back in the 60s and 70s with the Russians and with the Americans. | |
| And yet all those missions also have come up with very ambiguous results for the composition of Phobos and Deimos. | |
| And so this latest set of efforts are trying with much better instrumentation, spectrographs, et cetera, et cetera, to scan from really close range the surface and to probe it underneath with electronics to see what they're made of. | |
| And the results are more and more unusual, which again is part of the database that is in the S archives tonight, which basically is telling them these things are artificial. | |
| If this was an episode of Star Trek, there would be, as you say, a third of this thing is empty inside. | |
| There's some kind of cavernous thing in there. | |
| Well, if it was an episode of Star Trek, there would be something lying dormant within that waiting to be worked on. | |
| Let's not go too far down the road of science fiction because that only serves the model up to a certain point. | |
| Nice thought, though, isn't it? | |
| The point is, in 1989, the Russians confirmed by means of their measurements that Phobos was about one-third hollow. | |
| And they published this data in the most prestigious scientific journal on the planet called Nature, edited right out of London, right next to you there. | |
| Yes, I know it. | |
| Then the story fell away. | |
| Like no one seemed to understand the implications of a natural object that is one-third hollow. | |
| That can't be. | |
| You can't form a natural object that's one-third hollow. | |
| You can try. | |
| You can do all kinds of arm waving. | |
| You can write equations. | |
| You can do hydrodynamics of how bodies form in the early solar system. | |
| But bottom line is an object that's formed that way does not stay that way. | |
| Why? | |
| Because we have something called gravitational creep. | |
| It's kind of like what happens with glaciers, where on the short term, you know, ice appears to be a very solid, very strong substance, but under long term, it flows, it sags, it creeps, it's plastic, it does not stay in its one configuration. | |
| It will flow to fill a cavity if there is a cavity under gravity. | |
| Well, even under the light gravity of Phobos, if this thing had been made of separate objects over time, they would have been welded down into one object, and there would be no hollow spaces left inside. | |
| And yet, according to the ESA spacecraft now, Mars Express, 21 years after the Russians, their latest published data in the journal, I believe, Geophysical Letters, I believe that's where they published, | |
| in the last month from their 2008 flyby and their radar probings from Mars Express of Phobos, the European Space Agency has published that Phobos is one-third hollow. | |
| That raises enormous questions even just by itself. | |
| However, the icing on the cake, the absolute piece of information which tells us that Phobos is not natural but is artificial, comes from the radar. | |
| Because the radar scans, which were made, as I said, when Mars Express flew down past Phobos as close as 67 kilometers, which is, you know, spitting distance, they got measurements, radar measurements, radar imagery, 3D imagery, that allows them to see objects now inside Phobos as small as about 14 feet. | |
| That's pretty small on a moon that's 20 miles across. | |
| Think of it as an interior CAT scan or X-ray, except it's by means of radio waves. | |
| And then with a computer, you turn the radio reflections into an image. | |
| You know, an XYZ plot, that kind of thing. | |
| It's on those X-ray images which our source has been looking at, our ESA source, on his computer screens in Rome as part of the radar team, which says that not only is Phobos one-third hollow, but that the one-third hollowness comes with interior geometry. | |
| They're seeing rooms. | |
| They're seeing walls. | |
| They're seeing floors. | |
| They're seeing bulkheads. | |
| They're seeing artificial structure. | |
| And these structures and shapes within don't correlate to what's without. | |
| In other words, they don't match the kind of damage, the kind of pummeling that the surface has had. | |
| Well, yes and no. | |
| That's a very perceptive question, because if you look at the closest imagery, which is up on the EnterpriseMission.com website in the two-part paper, For the World Is Hollow and I Am Touch the Sky, and it's called Phobos. | |
| Just click on the banners at the top, even though the banners are blank at the moment. | |
| There's a slug line underneath saying how Phobos is the key to a real space solid revolution. | |
| If you click on that, it will take you to the papers until I can change the banners. | |
| That data is telling us that these things were made. | |
| And when you look at the imagery, there is still enough geometry visible on The surface, despite the meteor damage, the stunning rectilinear geometry that looks almost like someone had designed this like a fresco. | |
| In the close-ups, you see these multiple right-angle patterns on the surface that are obviously indicative of underlying structural detail being exposed by micrometeorite abrasion. | |
| As the surface is being worn away by micrometeorites, you're seeing interior structural detail, bulkheads and beams and plumbing and all the rest of what you would need to make a spaceship that big. | |
| And that is being revealed in the imagery. | |
| So we can see the geometry on the images. | |
| It's matching more or less the geometry seen on the interior of the radar, which we have not yet seen. | |
| They have not released the actual images. | |
| What they have done, however, is they have put an actual radar plot up on the ESA website devoted to the Phobos encounters, which we have put, of course, in our papers on Enterprise. | |
| And I guess you have put it on your website. | |
| And that radar plot, if you're any kind of an electronics engineer or a radar guy, and you look at that plot, that tells you, that one plot alone tells the trained engineer, oh my God, those radar signals are not coming back from the inside of a natural object. | |
| So this is one great big cosmic smoking gun. | |
| The only problem is that it's so big, and the reason I think S has put the data out there is because they want to get caught. | |
| They want some reporter to ask them on the record because it's time, but they're not going to release the story unless someone asks. | |
| All right, say somebody asks, say we get a confirmation, say it gets out there this year, which we'd all, well, I would like to happen, you would like to happen. | |
| I think most people probably would rather like to happen, you know, in their soul. | |
| What are we to do with this information? | |
| What do we do then? | |
| How do we go about our business knowing that? | |
| What difference does it make to our lives? | |
| There are three ESA meetings that are coming up that are going to determine the trajectory, pun intended, of where this goes and how it impacts all the rest of us. | |
| The first meeting is in June, which is a meeting of all of the ESA investigators. | |
| And I don't know whether it's going to be in Europe or in Rome. | |
| I know it's one of those two places, but I can't remember off the top of my head where this meeting is going to take place. | |
| The next meeting, which is specifically about the Phobos encounters, will be in September. | |
| And that will be held, I believe, in Amsterdam. | |
| The third meeting, which relates specifically to what will happen next, obviously if you have an ancient, you know, 20-mile-sized spacecraft, you've got to go look at it, and you've got to go inside. | |
| You've got to bring back samples. | |
| You've got to bring back pieces for the home crowd to analyze in incredibly sophisticated laboratories here on Earth. | |
| Well, I would have thought so we need to get Bruce Willis up there pretty quickly, don't we? | |
| No, you don't need Bruce. | |
| No, no. | |
| What you need is a good robot. | |
| And lo and behold, there is a good robot on its way within the next few months to Phobos. | |
| It's called the Phobos Grunt Mission. | |
| It is being run by IKI, which is a subset of the Russian Academy of Sciences out of Russia. | |
| It is the Russian Space Agency's next unmanned mission to Phobos, which is loaded for Bayer, as we say here in the United States. | |
| It carries all kinds of incredible goodies in the way of instrumentation to really get a handle on what this thing is, including its artificial aspects. | |
| And it is being sent to Mars, to Phobos next year to arrive in 2012 by the Russians. | |
| And the third meeting in the three that's coming up to talk about the Mars Express data on Phobos is going to be held at the Russian Space Institute in Moscow in October to specifically plan how the ESA results impact the Phobos grunt upcoming mission. | |
| Where does this leave NASA? | |
| Out in the cold. | |
| Because NASA has a spacecraft in orbit, yes, it's called Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, but it is orbiting Mars within a couple of hundred miles of the surface and gets nowhere near Phobos. | |
| In fact, it can't even get photographs that are as good as Mars Express because it doesn't get anywhere near Phobos. | |
| So basically, the only way this game is going to be run now is between the Europeans and the Russians. | |
| And you're seriously telling me that America's going to be— Well, what can they do about it? | |
| If ESA, and I said, we know this data is spread across so many countries and so many grad students because they're the ones that have to do the work. | |
| When you take a radar scan of an artificial body in space from a spacecraft, so many things have to be integrated to make that possible. | |
| From the engineering of the spacecraft itself, to its trajectory, to its power requirements, to getting the data, to getting the data home, to analyzing the data, to writing papers. | |
| So many people are in the loop on this that it is a secret that is just waiting to be born. | |
| And it does not involve NASA or the Americans. | |
| Now, that's only in the first round. | |
| Because the Russians are going to be going with their unmanned mission called Phobos Grunt in 2011, arriving in 2012, and they have the instrumentation unequivocally to not only confirm everything I've said about Phobos being artificial right now, but they have the capability because they build it into their mission to bring a sample home. | |
| They will have the capability of returning actual Phobos stuff, including maybe, you know, computer chips. | |
| Wow. | |
| So the science really has only just started. | |
| This is just beginning. | |
| It's begun. | |
| Now, where do the Americans come in? | |
| Well, exactly, where do they come in? | |
| It's really simple. | |
| Because the Americans, we, us guys, with NASA, is the only team that can field a human mission to Phobos within a reasonable time frame. | |
| Richard, do you believe that our ancestors, and we've talked about our ancestors, whoever they might have been, are behind this? | |
| Perhaps we left that there. | |
| Well, that's one of the scenarios. | |
| That's one of the models. | |
| I have been saying for a long time. | |
| That the Martians were our great-great-great-great-grandmothers. | |
| This will allow us to prove it. | |
| And the way you prove it, you simply find DNA. | |
| You do a DNA match and bingo, there you are. | |
| All right? | |
| And in a 20-mile-sized spaceship, I will bet somewhere deep inside in the bowels of this thing, you're going to find bodies. | |
| You're certainly going to find residue from which you can get DNA, even if you don't find any bodies. | |
| Think of it as an exploration of the Titanic on a Titanic scale. | |
| Remember how Ballard, Dr. Ballard from Woods Hole, went down with the various RSVs, deep sea submergence vehicles and explored the Titanic by remote control. | |
| In fact, even running the robots inside the Titanic, inside the main ballroom, inside the purser's office, inside the radio room. | |
| Yeah, we saw it all. | |
| Well, if this happens on a interplanetary scale, it's the greatest show we've ever seen. | |
| It's incredible because keep in mind, exploring Phobos and exploring the Titanic are very, very, very similar. | |
| Why? | |
| Because with the Titanic, you had a huge ocean liner lying on the bottom of the ocean in an ocean, in water. | |
| If you create a robot with neutral buoyancy with little propellers, you can move around with lights and cameras and other instruments inside Titanic, just like you can move around in almost zero gravity a suitably equipped spacecraft inside Phobos to do exactly the same kind of exploration, | |
| including live television to the surface, which will then be relayed from the surface spacecraft all the way back to Earth, put on every channel so that you can literally watch the exploration of this artificial moon, this spacecraft, in real time as initially the robots and eventually the human explorers explore this on global television. | |
| Great. | |
| We'll see it all in HD, which is marvelous. | |
| But when we've got so many problems down here, where Britain is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, certainly if the election campaign and the campaigning statements are anything to be believed by, the amount that we've had to borrow to bail out the banks, the state of everything, the poverty in places like Africa, there are going to be people who say, what on earth, or what in heaven's name, are we doing something like this for when we've got problems down here? | |
| Okay, so it may be something that's artificial. | |
| It may have been left there a long time ago. | |
| Right now, shouldn't we be doing stuff down here? | |
| Well, this is doing stuff down here. | |
| Look, when anybody creates a mission into space, the money is never spent in space. | |
| The money is spent down here. | |
| The money employs metallurgists, chemists, and physicists and rocket engineers, electronic specialists. | |
| And those people, of course, all have lives. | |
| They have families. | |
| They have car payments. | |
| They have mortgages. | |
| They have kids in college. | |
| So they're spending their money that they get from the space agency in dry cleaning, in restaurants, in car repairs, in college tuition. | |
| It's called the economic multiplier effect. | |
| So what comes around the circle goes around the circle and everybody benefits ultimately. | |
| I see what you're saying. | |
| It goes around the circle and it's multiplied. | |
| If you know anything about Economics 101, it's called the economic multiplier. | |
| And for the Apollo program, which is a major program that I've been interested in, of course, from NASA, which went to the moon 40-some years ago, we've now had almost a half-century to look at the data from Apollo and what it did to the economy. | |
| It turns out that over a generation from these studies, and these are absolutely top-notch blue-ribbon academic studies, so we can't really doubt the bottom line. | |
| We can doubt maybe the actual number, but you've moved the number back and forth of SMIDG, and it's still the same number. | |
| It's still the same order of magnitude. | |
| They have estimated from their calculations based on looking at economic indicators all across the American economy that from Apollo, basically we got the 21st century in economics and electronics. | |
| In other words, for every dollar spent in Apollo over a generation, which is 20 years, this study concluded that the American economy had made $20 in gross national product for a multiplier effect of 20 to 1. | |
| Howard, if I gave you money and I said, okay, I want you to go and I want you to spend $100 over here, and in a few years, you're going to make 20 times, you're going to make $2,000 off of the $100 you spent, wouldn't you think that was a wise thing to do? | |
| When can I come? | |
| Absolutely, yeah. | |
| Exactly. | |
| Well, that's what space does. | |
| Space, because of all federal monies, of all government spending, spending on space requires something called research and development. | |
| And economists worldwide agree that 95% of economic growth all over the planet, I don't care whether you're in Thailand or Bangladesh or Mexico or the United States or the great, you know, Great Britain, 95% of economic growth is based on technological innovation. | |
| If you spend money on technological innovation, you make everybody much, much richer. | |
| I agree with you. | |
| You know that there are people who won't, but I agree with you on this one. | |
| Now, here's a question that I don't think. | |
| There's a corollary, though. | |
| Tell me. | |
| That's spent on just going someplace. | |
| Those numbers reflect not to what you find, but just to get there. | |
| But just the process, yeah. | |
| Just a process, yes. | |
| Now we have to add the factor in how much is an ancient extraterrestrial library computer worth on the open market on Earth today. | |
| And what did they know? | |
| And what is in that computer. | |
| So when you begin to factor these things into the equation. | |
| We have to do it. | |
| We have to do it. | |
| There's no way that the United States or Great Britain or Russia or France or Germany or Italy or any nation on the Earth can afford not to be part of this gold rush because it's going to make everybody incredibly wealthy. | |
| Now, Richard, I want this to happen for you because of the amount of time, blood, sweat, and tears that you've put into all of this over so long. | |
| You've dedicated yourself to it, and I've seen evidence of that when you gave that presentation that I was lucky enough to be at in Liverpool at the back end of last year. | |
| What happens if something stops this going as public as you would like it to? | |
| Where does it put you? | |
| Well, I don't know. | |
| I'm not even part of the equation. | |
| Well, you are, aren't you? | |
| Because you're a conduit. | |
| You're a channel for this story. | |
| So you are part of it. | |
| One of many. | |
| And I'm part of it, too. | |
| We're all part of it. | |
| Reporters will actually start calling Issa and bugging the hell out of them, and they won't ultimately be able to ignore it. | |
| They won't have to make some kind of a response. | |
| And if they're stupid enough to say no comment, then bingo, we've got them. | |
| Okay. | |
| Well, all we can do about that one is wait, isn't it? | |
| And make phone calls. | |
| Make phone calls and leave her the snowball and hope it rolls down the mountainside. | |
| All right, let me wrap up one point that I don't think you quite got, because you asked earlier what the role of the Americans were in this. | |
| Go on then. | |
| All right. | |
| It's very clear that the Europeans are in the Kepbird seat. | |
| They're in the driver's seat. | |
| At what point they release this information formally. | |
| And again, I think they're really waiting to be asked. | |
| That's kind of the way this thing seems to be working. | |
| The next step will be the big meeting in Moscow in October where the relevance of the Phobos data acquired by the Europeans to the Russian mission becomes incredibly important. | |
| Have you noticed our astronaut, the second man to walk on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, wandering around television in the last few days, clutching his Phobos model? | |
| But he's talked about Phobos before, hasn't he? | |
| Yes, he started talking about it last summer during the 40th anniversary of Apollo. | |
| And everybody couldn't understand why. | |
| And then guess what he said? | |
| He said, there's a monolith on Phobos. | |
| And everybody's going to wonder who built it. | |
| He is trying to tell people, again, without telling them, that this is a reality. | |
| And the reason he's doing that is because he is trying to get interest in an American mission, a human mission, not back to the moon, but actually to Phobos. | |
| Do you know, Howard, that it is easier in terms of celestial mechanics and rocket engineering to get to Phobos than any other place in the solar system, including the surface of our own moon? | |
| And it was Buzz who said, was it Buzz? | |
| You tell me that that would be a great place to go. | |
| Because he did say that would be a great place for a mission. | |
| What are you thinking about going elsewhere for when that's there? | |
| Well, see, he's not telling everybody what it's made of, why it's important. | |
| He's just using it as, or ostensibly, as a stepping stone to going to Mars, to sending a human expedition to the surface of Mars. | |
| Do you think he knows all about this? | |
| Of course. | |
| I know he knows. | |
| And you know how I know he knows? | |
| How does he know it? | |
| Inside baseball, the Europeans, the guy that we've been discussing this with, the radar guy, sent two grad students who are in the loop, in the picture, very trusted. | |
| They hand-carried the data of the ESA scans of Phobos to President Obama's space summit in Washington three days ago, four days ago, whenever it was, last Thursday, expecting to meet with both representatives from the President, representatives from NASA, and Buzz Aldrin to put them in the picture as to what the Europeans have found. | |
| And they were not allowed to participate in the meetings. | |
| Why do we think that might be? | |
| Well, first of all, that's pretty shocking. | |
| Well, it's appalling, but there's got to be a real reason. | |
| Why? | |
| At several levels, it's appalling. | |
| It's appalling at an institutional graciousness level, you know, ASA, NASA, etc. | |
| It's even more appalling at a human level because what it means is that the administration and Buzz Aldrin did not want to look at European data showing them that Phobos is artificial before a certain point. | |
| Okay, now what do we call that little game in Washington? | |
| It's called plausible denyability. | |
| In other words, what they were saying to the Europeans was, no, no, no, you can't show us this in private. | |
| You have to make this public, and then we will respond. | |
| This is a chess game, then. | |
| This is a chess game. | |
| It's a chess game. | |
| Exactly. | |
| And the players and what's at stake are everything. | |
| Because here's an interesting thing to consider. | |
| I'm not up enough on space law to know whether this scenario is in fact correct. | |
| But let's just run it out and see if anybody in the European community who of course listened to your show know the details better than I do. | |
| Back in 1967, most of the major nations, United States, Soviet Union, the Europeans, etc., South America, Brazil, Chile, whatever, they all signed Something called the Outer Space Treaty, which basically precludes commercial or private enterprise development of the resources of outer space. | |
| It also precludes nations from claiming national territory on other celestial objects. | |
| Like, for instance, we said, I go to the moon in 69 and claim the moon for the United States as the 51st state, right? | |
| We basically went there on behalf of all mankind, and that's what the plaque on the lunar module that was read over national television, global television, says. | |
| However, the treaty only applies, as far as my understanding goes, only applies to natural celestial objects. | |
| If the Russians, in sending the Phobos grunt probe to Phobos in 2011, are able to bring back, I don't know, let's say a piece of a computer part from Phobos, right? | |
| And they bring it back in 2012. | |
| Oh, my God, they can have it and do whatever they want with it. | |
| Not only do they have it, but do they then have the legal right of salvage of an ancient spacecraft because they have retrieved a piece of it. | |
| Nobody on Earth owns it, and it's up for grabs. | |
| It's not a natural celestial object. | |
| It's an artificial construct. | |
| It's an ancient derelict spacecraft, but they own it because they salvaged it first. | |
| That's a dimension to this story that is going to be mind-blowing if it comes about, isn't it? | |
| Oh, well, it's up to you to help make it come about, Howard. | |
| I'm not doing this because you and I are just friends. | |
| You're a damn good journalist. | |
| I expect you to do your part and to make this a cause celeb. | |
| This is the breakpoint. | |
| This is the breakthrough. | |
| This is where disclosure finally happens. | |
| What are you going to do next with your website about this? | |
| You've got two parts of the story up there as we record these words. | |
| Is there more to come? | |
| There's more to come. | |
| And we are working on the more to come. | |
| We will publish it as soon as we have Critical Mass. | |
| Oh, boy. | |
| It's good to talk to you again, Richard. | |
| And it's always interesting when I do. | |
| That's why I love having you on these shows. | |
| Richard Hoagland, thank you very much. | |
| Thanks, Howard. | |
| Well, in the 12 years or so, maybe 13 years that I've been talking with Richard C. Hoagland on the radio in different places and online, I think that is the most amazing conversation that I've had with him. | |
| And I do hope you enjoyed it. | |
| And I hope it's made you think. | |
| Please give me your feedback on that or anything else to do with The Unexplained. | |
| Go to the website, www.theunexplained.tv, where you will also find a link to Richard Hoagland's site, enterprisemission.com. | |
| Let me know what you think about anything to do with my show and how it might be improved and some ideas. | |
| I know you have them for future guests. | |
| And if you'd like to make a donation, of course, you can do that through the website too. | |
| This show functions, survives, develops, and grows on feedback. | |
| We need your support. | |
| We need your feedback. | |
| Please keep it coming. | |
| And thank you very much for your nice messages. | |
| I wish you well in everything you're doing as we move into springtime in the northern hemisphere. | |
| My name is Howard Hughes. | |
| Thank you to Adam Cornwell at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool for getting this show out to you. | |
| Thank you to Martin for the theme tune. | |
| And as ever, thank you to you for listening to The Unexplained. |