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 20^th, 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?