by Gary D. Goodwin and Raymond
Ward
from
TheMilleniumGroup Website
An
answer to
Glen Deen’s critical review of ’The
Four Horsemen’ Article
Our recent article on Phobos and the objects now in orbit above the
earth, seems to have caused quite a stir. Through a lengthy
discussion in that article, we attempted to help our readers
understand the strains upon the scientific method, among many other
things. We emphasized that our resources are limited. We pointed out
what we had found... and in thus doing so, presented a challenge to
any and everyone to dispute those findings. To date, only one
reasonable critique of the article has been presented to us in a
rational form. That critique is the article written by Glen Deen,
posted on these same pages. We shall here counter with our own
findings. We thank Glen for his brilliant mind, sincerity, and
openness in sharing his own findings with us. This is the way
rational people, searching for answers, go about attempting to find
those answers.
I (Gary D. Goodwin) recently received a rash of emails from a
congressional candidate from, I believe Chicago, with his own agenda
of trying to expose NASA’s ongoing hiding of public information. In
these emails he included carbon copies to Tom VanFlandern for his
opinion concerning the articles. Mr. VanFlandern "poopooed" the
article in short haste. This is not, what to many, would consider
appropriate behavior by a so-called professional. He called me a
"conspiracy nut" and accused us of "perpetuating an Internet hoax".
If Mr. VanFlandern was in the same room with me, I can guarantee he
wouldn’t have said those words. And if he would have, he would have
found his rear end soon flat on the floor. Rational deserves
rational - and respect gets respect. This tactic has been used on us
and others like Velikovsky since day one. This is not to say that we
are anywhere near the same league as Velikovsky, it rather goes to
show that the pride of most scientists prohibit ever the discovery
of reality or truth, at all costs or at any level. The answer to the
question of whether or not Phobos is missing is simple and I will
present the answer at the end of this article.
Now on to Glen’s article. In the first few paragraphs of Glen’s
article, he states that he photographed Deimos on August 20th, 2001.
He compares the photograph he took with a "Guide 7" chart of the
same time period. We post both of these images here side by side for
you to see. This finding is inconclusive at best. First of all, the
images of what he calls "star 1" and "Deimos" are not distinct and
could obviously be anomalies. We point out several other areas where
these anomalies can be seen on his image (denoted by black circles).
The next problem with the image is that the ratio of distances from
the center of the area where Mars is expected to be and to several
other points, as compared to the Guide 7 chart, varies. These
distances should be very close, if not right on. However only the
ratio of distances from center of Mars to the 11.6 star (0.609
inches), and the ratio of what he calls Deimos to the center of Mars
(.625) is close enough to call similar. However one ratio is totally
out of the ballpark, throwing the question of the validity of the
entire photo into jeopardy.
The ratio of what Glen calls "star 1" to
the center of Mars is .825, making the photo entirely null. If "star
1" is not a star, and not the same star in both images, then it is
an anomaly, supporting the idea that all of the spots close to the
planet are light anomalies. Is there a name or designation for "star
1"? It is not given, therefore we must assume to this point that it
is in fact an anomaly.
This brings up another important point. The ability of amateurs to
image the moons Phobos and Deimos when they are so close to the
brightness of Mars. We might take a clue from a previous viewing of
Phobos and Deimos by another amateur. That amateur was Asaph Hall,
the documented discoverer of the moons of Mars. Now you would think
that Don Bruns of Stellar Products would have known the following
tidbit when he presented his Mars photo as evidence. What Asaph
Hall, an astronomer of only about a year when he discovered the
moons, did was to rotate the planet just out of view of the
telescope, moving it around the field of view to eventually see the
moons. By the way - that was over a hundred and thirty years ago!.
Why is it soooo difficult to get decent images in the year 2002????
Asaph Hall was quite the man. He was a carpenter by trade prior to
"deciding" to go into astronomy. He had worked with his father who
was a clock maker - a good background for celestial mechanics!
Perhaps a good eye and good common sense goes further than some
think!
Glen’s second argument is related to images he posts, stating that
the shadow of Phobos is seen across the face of Mars. These images
are so poor that it is difficult to distinguish shadow from surface
feature from whatever (please judge for yourself). But the deeper
problem with Glen’s argument here, is that he states that these are
shadows of Phobos, but then points out several anomalies of shadows
that he cannot explain. He states that it does not rule out the
possibility that MSSS faked the images, but he doesn’t think so
simply because they have apparently included images that are
mysterious and unexplained! In fact the shadows that he believes are
Phobos, we believe are in fact surface features, and or the shadows
of those surface features. In the images that Glen has chosen to
show Phobos’ shadow, there are obvious surface features that are
found in all of the images that are virtually similar to what he
states are from above the surface. The answer to this argument
therefore is inconclusive, not definitive in the least.
And let us please remember when we are all here speaking of shadows
- we are still not observing, seeing, nor visualizing the actual
moons orbiting the planet!
Let me remind you that these criticisms and our answers to them are
leveled in the name of honesty and in good nature. Glen has done
some excellent work and his goal is the same as ours. I compliment
him on his hard work.
Glen gives the findings of the shadows as proof that Phobos and
Deimos are still in orbit around Mars, yet in the next breath
condemns MSSS for censoring data. In fact the data they censor, and
we believe that in fact they did censor data, comes from the period
of 76P’s encounter with Mars. Glen is rightly implying or stating
that they are attempting to hide something. Could that something be
the fact that there was some destruction or interaction between Mars
and 76P? Why else delete the information? Hiding and lying about
Mars is nothing new. Please read our past article
Mars and July 2000 -- Knowledge Denied by
Marshall Masters. If you think that distorting the truth
about Mars is beyond such pros as Malin, after you read this article
you may change your mind!
Glen calls the absence of certain data
"methodical". He speculates that the spacecraft was aimed at the
area of space where they would expect to see the comet. In fact they
have aimed the spacecraft at other objects prior to and after the
mission of mapping the surface of Mars. He is 100% correct in
assuming that this is a good possibility. Remember MSSS is the
contract agency and individuals that have so vigorously fought
against the idea of
the Cydonia face. When the complaint was lodged
about them with holding data and images, they began flooding the
Internet with literally hundreds of thousands of images of Mars.
Interesting the limited number of photos concerning the surrounding Cydonia area!
Glen points out that we state that comet 76P (comet West-Kohoutek-Ikemura) was never recovered after
June of 2000 and he rightly further points out that it was never
recovered or seen after March of 1994. This is very true, but it’s
very interesting that there is such a distinct data dropout at MSSS
for that period. Like they were looking themselves for it! He also
points out that we made a mistake in saying that there was a dust
storm on Mars in 2000. He is right also about this. The dust storm
was actually in 2001. We apologize for that mistake.
Glenn also refers to a previous article he wrote where he sites Malin’s documentation of Phobos shadows. On the MSSS page they
state:
"The shadow of the Martian moon, Phobos, has been captured in many
recent wide angle camera views of the red planet obtained by the
Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC). Designed to
monitor changes in weather and surface conditions, the wide angle
cameras are also proving to be a good way to spot the frequent solar
eclipses caused by the passage of Phobos between Mars and the Sun."
They present two sets of images to show their point. We will start
with the second set of images:
We rebut with the following images
posted below. These are chart displays from "Starry Night", an
astronomy software program, showing the positions of Mars and
Phobos
over Mars at the exact times printed on the above images. The view
is as if you were standing on the sun.
Phobos, without exception, in
every image, is too far off the limb of Mars to cause its shadow to
fall upon Mars.
Perhaps the program is wrong? This should be reproduced with other
programs to substantiate it. However what could be wrong here?
Again... we are always open to respectful criticism.
MSSS has also posted, on the same page, three other shadow images.
These other three images however do not have times or dates written
upon the images. Therefore there is really no way of knowing the
exact positions of Mars and Phobos in relation to the sun. The page
is found
HERE.
The following quote can be found
HERE concerning our own planet
earth solar eclipse:
"It is quite remarkable that a total
solar eclipses even occur at all. They are possible because the
Sun and the Moon appear from Earth to be about the same size in
the sky. The Sun, whose diameter is 400 times that of the Moon,
happens to be about 400 times as far away from the Earth. This
condition permits the Moon to just barely cover up the Sun. In
fact, if the Moon’s diameter (2,160 miles) were just 140 miles
less, it would not be large enough to ever completely cover the
Sun -- a total solar eclipse could never happen anywhere on
Earth!"
The Earth orbits the Sun at 93,500,000
miles (1 Astronomical Unit or 1 A.U.). Mars orbit varies
considerably more than the Earth’s orbit, it is said to be more
elliptical. Mars’ distance from the Sun varies from 128 million
miles (1.37 A.U.) To 154 million miles (1.65 A.U.). If we say that
at 1 A.U. (the distance of the Earth from the Sun), the Sun’s
radiation is a value of 100%, at Mars’ closest point that radiation
drops to 53% and at its farthest point from the Sun, the Sun’s
radiation drops to 37%! Total radiation decreases with the square of
the distance.
During a solar eclipse here on the Earth, the moon (as stated above)
covers the Sun almost perfectly. When Phobos passes in front of the
Sun on Mars, it does not cover the full disk of the Sun. The
diameter of the Sun at 1 A.U. is 864,000 miles. The Earth’s Moon has
a diameter of 2,162 miles. However because it is nearly 400 times
closer to the Earth, it completely blocks the disk of the Sun.
At 1 A.U. The Sun is 30 arc-minutes. At the closest distance of Mars
(1.37 A.U.), The Sun is 21.9 arc-minutes. At the farthest distance
from the Sun (1.65 A.U.), The Sun is 18.3 arc-minutes. At 238,000
miles (average distance of Moon to Earth) the diameter of the Moon
is 2162 miles and, remember, covers the solar disk nearly perfectly.
Therefore for the disk of the Moon to cover the Solar disk at the
distance of Mars:
2162 X 21.9/30 = 2162 X .73 = 1578
miles in diameter (closest point of Mars to Sun)
and
2162 X 18.3/30 = 2162 X .61 = 1319 miles in diameter (farthest
point of Mars to Sun)
Therefore:
238,000 (Earth to Moon)/1578 (diameter at Mars distance) =
15.78miles in diameter @ 2380miles (closest)
and
238,000/1319 = 13.19miles in diameter@ 2380miles (farthest)
But Phobos is 3,750 miles from Mars surface. Therefore:
3750/2380 X 15.78 = 24.93 miles needed to cover the solar disk
at Mars when Mars is closest!
and
3750/2380 X 13.19 = 20.84 miles needed to cover the solar disk
at Mars when Mars is farthest!
Phobos is only 10 miles in diameter! It
would have to be at the very least 20.84 miles in diameter to cause
a solar eclipse! And when Mars is farthest from the sun, Phobos
would have to be 24.93 miles in diameter.
If you were to look up from the surface of Mars and you were able to
see Phobos passing in front of the solar disk, the following would
apply:
r12 to r22
= area
Radius of Phobos squared to the radius
of the Sun squared = 52/10.52 = 25/110.25 =
.23 or that is to say:
phobos covers 23% of the solar disk
at farthest distance or 1.65 A.U.. Or 16% at the closest
distance which is 1.37 A.U..
So with this common sense simple
approach, with the solar radiation between only 37 and 53%, and
considering the small size of Phobos at the far distance to the sun,
the shadow of Phobos would be next to impossible to image.
In addition to these calculations, we found interesting the dates of
the postings of the MSSS shadow images. In August and September of
1998 MSSS claims to have imaged Phobos with the MGS. These images
were posted shortly there after. Our first image of at least one of
the objects that appears to have settled in above the Earth was seen
close to the moon around Christmas of that same year 1998. But
what’s more interesting is the fact that MSSS posted the "shadow"
images on November 1st, 1999. This was only three months after the
total solar eclipse where it was rumored that Phobos might have been
seen. Our reports are found in the Solar section. Maybe purely
coincidence? There are no accidents.
So the simple answer to the question - Does this prove that Phobos
and Deimos are still in orbit around Mars? We must say that the data
is insufficient. The photographic imaging is inconclusive at best,
that is only our opinion. The shadow images are just that - shadows
- not the real thing, not images of the moon itself. The images Glen
presents are also far from conclusive. His photo of what he claims
to be Deimos is so full of artifact that it couldn’t possibly
suggest the placement of Phobos in orbit around Mars. Glen’s photo
and the Photo of Don Bruns of Stellar Products are both distorted by
the overwhelming glare of Mars. When they both could’ve taken a
lesson from the discoverer of the two moons, Asaph Hall, and rotated
the telescope slightly away from the glare, to truly catch their
images.
As to the shadow images Glen produces - alternate explanations are
that the shadows are surface structures and features, or they could
be clouds above the surface that Mars is known to have, thus making
them unseen under certain types of filters. MSSS’ shadow images are
suspect due to the fact that the source has a history of concealing
and distorting information. Again, the shadow images are NOT of the
moons themselves. And further, our simple calculations show that it
is nearly impossible for Phobos to cast a shadow on the surface of
Mars. In addition the three presented images by MSSS were taken at
times when Phobos, if still there, could not have possibly cast a
shadow on the surface. The relative small size of Phobos leaves the
shadow explanation wanting. Perhaps there’s an alternative
explanation for the shadow, besides artifact, structure, or
clouds... maybe there’s a third body orbiting Mars, maybe another
moon (said with tongue in cheek!)?
VanFlandern raised the question with the congressional candidate, if
any explanation would really satisfy us. His attitude again was
sarcastic in asking the question. But the answer to the question, is
of course we would accept reasonable proof. That happens to be the
milestone of the scientific method. But what we have been presented
with is not reasonable proof. So what would it take? How about an
image from that famous telescope the Hubble? It would take 5
minutes. That’s all! Just do it!
What about a reliable image or two from
an amateur that actually shows the moons, or even just one of the
moons in orbit around Mars? The remarkable thing about this entire
issue? Only one single person has come forth to dispute our findings
with anything close to a decent argument. ONLY ONE! Where’s the
opposition? I can only assume that it means that we are correct in
our findings.
Many do not hold the story of Noah and the world wide flood as a
real event. We do. There is more and more mounting evidence coming
forth everyday that the deluge actually was a world event. When Noah
started building the Ark on dry ground, he was harassed and
criticized as being a "nut". And now modern prophets are stating
that the people of the Earth today are more evil than the people in
the days of Noah.
"And God saw that the wickedness of
man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and
it grieved him at his heart.
And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from
the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping
thing, and the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have
made them."
So are we doomsayers? If it pleases
certain individuals to call us names - yes we are saying that there
is a threat. There is a threat that is impending due to the
iniquities of mankind. We encourage all to prepare themselves and
their families.
However, what is terrifying about the posting and reception of the
Four Horsemen article and this issue, is that the most important and
the most poignant aspect of this story is being eclipsed (forgive
the pun) by whether or not Phobos and Deimos are missing! The
primary point of the article was whether or not there is an actual
army of invaders in skies above the Earth. We repeatedly pointed out
numerous sources of images showing unnatural bodies in orbit above
the Earth. We gave proof that the governments of the world appear to
be aware of such existence. And the governments are either in
cahoots with them or they are tremendously fearful of them and have
tried to destroy them.
I was astonished to recently see a new alcohol commercial depicting
invaders falling from the sky with parachutes! Large ugly
gorilla-like creatures hauling off women and stealing booze from the
actors.
The entire commercial can be down loaded at:
http://www.mikeshardlemonade.com
The commercial was in production at the time we posted our article
and findings.
Then in this past Saturday’s newspaper was an article touting the
Bush Administration’s newest feature in their war on terror (yes
their war on terror), is something called the "Bat Cave", located on
the corner of Intelligence Way and Cryptological Court! The reported
states, "no, I’m not making this up!" Tom Ridge our new Homeland
security leader showed off the new command center last week (read
HERE). Then
the article says something truly remarkable, if a little tongue in
cheek (or maybe not) -
"Is there any explanation other than
inertia to account for the United States maintaining 47,000
troops in Japan, despite the lack of any threat there except
perhaps from EXTRATERRESTRIALS, yet refusing to provide a few
thousand troops to keep the swamp drained in Afghanistan?"
How convenient in time to establish a
Homeland Security office. Is it merely to protect the U.S. from
terrestrial terrorists? Don’t underestimate the unconscious
understanding and forethought ability of the human mind. It is
possible.
Finally, Glen questions the usage of the Symbology of the name
The
Four Horsemen of The Apocalypse. His definitions are interesting,
however I titled the article thus simply referring to four current
threats to the safety of mankind, and primarily the threat of a
possible army of invaders in the skies above us. So more to the
point in this rebuttal, I have named it The King of Assyria. In the
prophecies of Isaiah, Isaiah uses the historical fact that Assyria
destroyed Israel and hauled off its people into captivity to express
to the people of our day what we face. Assyria was beyond brutal to
the Israelis.
The details of the atrocities I will
leave out here. Many have thought the prophecy refers to the
Russians or to the Chinese. The fact of the matter is that neither
of these nations have the least of the power to overcome the US as
is foretold by Isaiah. This army comes from the far ends of Heaven,
is mighty, and inhuman in description.
The real question has little to do with Phobos but rather is ---
are
the invaders already here?
|