Latest / Lost Civilizations: Ancient Aliens & Forgotten History / Is NASA Hiding the Truth? The Face on Mars and the Exploded Planet Mystery

Transcript

Is NASA Hiding the Truth? The Face on Mars and the Exploded Planet Mystery · Lost Civilizations: Ancient Aliens & Forgotten History

0:21
Hello and welcome back.
0:22
Today we are going to talk about something
0:24
special.
0:25
We are going to talk about Mars, about
0:27
a face that looks against the sky, about
0:30
pyramids, about glass, about traces of machinery, and
0:34
about a planet that disappeared for millions of
0:37
years ago.
0:38
We are going to talk about the astronomer
0:40
Thomas von Flandern, the man that says that
0:43
NASA is lying, that Mars is an old
0:47
moon, and the humanity origins from an exploded
0:52
water world.
0:54
In order to do so, I have created
0:58
a virtual edition of Thomas von Flandern.
1:00
The problem is, with this interview here, is
1:03
that Thomas von Flandern died in 2009, so
1:07
in order to hear his evidence, in order
1:11
to his predictions, and his conflict with the
1:14
establishment, I have created this person.
1:17
It's a virtual Thomas von Flandern, and everything
1:20
he says is based on me.
1:24
But this is going to be a good
1:27
edition, so find a good chair.
1:28
This is going to be a long road,
1:32
a long journey to Mars, and perhaps back
1:35
again.
1:40
Thomas von Flandern is not nobody.
1:42
He was an astronomer, and he was not
1:45
some person with self-taught education with a
1:50
binocular in the backyard.
1:51
He worked for the United States Naval Observatory,
1:55
one of the world's most respected astronomical institutions.
1:59
He was an expert in space mechanics, especially
2:03
in measuring time with astronomical methods.
2:08
He won prizes, he was respected, and he
2:11
was mainstream.
2:13
But then he started looking at pictures from
2:16
Mars.
2:17
In order to understand why Thomas von Flandern's
2:20
history is so fascinating and controversial, we have
2:23
to go back to 1976 with a picture.
2:28
It was taken by the Viking 1 Explorer,
2:32
and it was taken about an area on
2:34
Mars called Cydonia.
2:35
In the middle of that picture there was
2:38
a hill that in the dimming afternoon light
2:46
looked like a human face.
2:50
The majority said, this is only light and
2:54
shadows, random.
2:56
Thomas von Flandern said, let's research this, and
3:00
so he did for the rest of his
3:02
life.
3:02
But before we get to the face, we
3:08
need to spend a few minutes in order
3:11
to understand who Thomas von Flandern was, because
3:14
this is important.
3:16
He was not a crank.
3:17
He was not a lunatic.
3:19
He was a well-educated astronomer who refused
3:22
to close his eyes for something he could
3:24
not explain.
3:27
I was born in 1940 in Cleveland, Ohio.
3:31
I was always interested in the space, in
3:35
the sky.
3:37
I read physics and astronomy at Xavier University
3:41
and later on Yale.
3:43
My PhD was about astronometry, about measuring stars'
3:48
position with extreme position.
3:50
I was good at it.
3:52
I was headhunted to the Naval Observatory, where
3:55
I was one of the unsung heroes in
4:00
the official almanac regarding space.
4:04
For years, Thomas von Flandern was one of
4:07
the unsung heroes.
4:09
He helped in mapping the Moon for the
4:12
Apollo missions.
4:14
He developed methods in order to predict planetary
4:17
orbits with unseen position.
4:21
His colleagues respected him.
4:25
But when I started to ask questions, for
4:28
instance, how comes that our models of the
4:31
solar system's age does not match the observations?
4:36
There was always small differences, and nobody could
4:40
explain the asteroid belt in a convincing manner.
4:44
There were thousands of small pieces between Mars
4:47
and Jupiter.
4:48
The standard explanation was that there was a
4:51
planet that never formed.
4:53
It gave no meaning for me.
4:58
The explanation that the asteroid belt is a
5:02
planet that never formed is actually still the
5:04
most widespread explanation of today.
5:09
A planet is created in a dish of
5:13
dust and gas around a young star.
5:16
The materials are grouping together, and the gravity
5:22
of Jupiter prohibits that the material could create
5:31
a full planet.
5:33
Or, should I say, this is what you
5:36
read in school.
5:38
Von Flandern rejected that.
5:42
There is too much material.
5:45
This can only be left over.
5:48
And the composition is wrong.
5:51
If there was a planet that never was
5:53
fully developed, we should expect a mix of
6:00
different kinds of stones.
6:02
But the asteroids are very different.
6:05
Some are with iron.
6:07
Some are with stone.
6:08
Some are with carbon dioxide.
6:11
It looks like the remains of something that
6:14
was finished and then was smashed.
6:20
And it's here...
6:23
And it's actually here that in this so
6:25
-called exploding planet hypothesis comes in.
6:31
The idea is not new.
6:32
It was actually proposed already in the 18th
6:36
century.
6:40
The hypothesis problem was named Pateron after Greek
6:47
mythology where Pateron was the son of the
6:51
sun god that lost control over the sun
6:56
god and then was killed by Zeus.
7:02
Von Flandern relived the idea and gave it
7:05
scientific value.
7:13
So let's take a deep dive into Von
7:16
Flandern's, should we say, main theory.
7:21
He meant that for about 3.2 million
7:24
years ago, there was a big planet between
7:27
Mars and Jupiter, and that planet exploded.
7:30
That planet, let's call it Pateron or whatever
7:33
you like, was about the size of the
7:36
Earth or perhaps a little less.
7:39
Mars was not originally a planet.
7:42
Mars was the moon for exactly this planet.
7:48
Imagine a solar system with an additional planet.
7:52
It lies between Mars and Jupiter.
7:55
It has perhaps two moons.
7:57
One is Mars.
7:59
The other one is gone for a long
8:02
time ago.
8:04
But then it explodes.
8:06
What happened?
8:12
Von Flandern had a list of about two
8:16
dozen evidences of these explosions.
8:19
I will go through the most important ones.
8:23
The first evidence is perhaps the most important
8:28
one and that is that Mars has two
8:36
faces.
8:40
Mars is like two planets set together.
8:44
One half, the south, is covered by craters.
8:49
It's old.
8:50
It's haggard.
8:52
The other half, the north, is flat like
8:57
a pancake.
8:58
It is the flattest surface in the entire
9:02
solar system.
9:04
Perhaps, except for these areas that are covered
9:08
by ice, the Earth's cost on that side
9:14
is only about one kilometer thick.
9:16
On the crater side, it's more than 20
9:19
kilometers thick.
9:22
Imagine a tennis ball where one half is
9:26
squashed by a giant hammer and the other
9:30
side is entirely slippery.
9:35
This is Mars.
9:36
The standard explanation is a gigantic meteor coming
9:41
for a long time ago, perhaps from a
9:48
planet about the size of Pluto, created this
9:52
big perilous basin on the northern half.
9:56
That is called the giant impact hypothesis.
10:00
Von Flandern rejects that.
10:05
An impact will leave a crater, not an
10:10
entirely flat northern hemisphere.
10:14
And that will not explain why the other
10:17
side is extremely cratered.
10:19
No.
10:21
This looks like something that was hit by
10:23
an explosion from one side.
10:26
Imagine a moon that is close to an
10:29
exploding planet.
10:31
The shockwave hammered on one side blows away
10:35
the atmosphere, moves the Earth crust together, and
10:40
the other side is untouched.
10:43
Then we have the polar shift.
10:49
And that is that Mars has tilted dramatically.
10:58
The next evidence is about the polar shift,
11:02
about how Mars has tipped dramatically.
11:08
Planetarian geologists, mainstream scientists, etc., who does not
11:13
believe in exploding planets, found evidence for that
11:20
Mars' rotation axis changed up to 90 degrees.
11:26
And it happened instantly.
11:28
There was no pulse between.
11:33
It was a jump.
11:34
It was exactly what you would expect if
11:37
a giant explosion on one side of the
11:42
planet was tipping the tilt.
11:48
Just like setting an additional weight on a
11:55
spinning top, it will fall instantly.
11:58
To set this in perspective, if Earth is
12:03
tipping 90 degrees, then the North Pole suddenly
12:07
will be about equator, and New York will
12:10
have midnight sun in winter and polar night
12:14
in summer.
12:15
That would be catastrophic.
12:19
The third evidence is the atmosphere where we
12:23
have CN 129.
12:25
And that is one of von Flandern's, should
12:28
we say, favorite evidences.
12:31
And that is also one of the hardest
12:34
to explain in nature.
12:45
The atmosphere of Mars contains an unusual high
12:50
concentration of CN 129.
12:53
This is an isotope that is created by
12:57
nuclear fission.
12:59
So, when heavy atoms like in uranium react,
13:08
that happens in atomic reactors, in atomic bombs,
13:12
and in supernovas.
13:14
But there was no supernova nearby.
13:18
The only explanation is a giant explosion.
13:22
Perhaps naturally, perhaps artificial.
13:24
But the fact is that it has released
13:28
an enormous amount of fission products.
13:32
And Mars has more CN 129 than somewhere
13:37
else in the entire solar system.
13:42
NASA has a different explanation.
13:45
They say that CN 129 can be created
13:49
over time by cosmic radiation that hits the
13:53
atmosphere of Mars and then builds up in
14:00
the atmosphere.
14:01
But von Flandern rejects this.
14:09
The amounts are too big.
14:15
The distribution is wrong.
14:17
This is not cosmic background radiation.
14:21
This is a fingerprint of an explosion.
14:26
The fourth one is the atmosphere of Mars.
14:29
It's thin, basically.
14:32
Today, Mars has an atmosphere that is about
14:34
1% of the Earth.
14:36
It's almost a vacuum.
14:39
But there is solid evidence that it was
14:42
once a lot thicker.
14:44
That we have river dales, we have minerals
14:47
that only creates in water, and so on.
14:56
What happened to the atmosphere?
14:58
The standard explanation is that the solar wind
15:00
has blown it away for millions of years.
15:04
But this takes times, much times.
15:07
Our calculations show that the atmosphere disappeared way
15:13
too fast.
15:14
It looks like it blew out.
15:16
An explosion that more or less took the
15:20
atmosphere of the planet.
15:21
Just like when a balloon is exploding.
15:29
The fifth and last evidence that I will
15:31
cover in this podcast is the
15:34
March orbit.
15:45
This will be a little technical.
15:47
But Flandern pointed out that the orbit of
15:51
March is not what it should be if
15:54
the planet always has been orbiting the Sun.
16:00
March's eccentricity, actually how oval its orbit is,
16:08
is higher than you would expect from an
16:11
old planet.
16:13
There are small uncertainties in its orbit.
16:17
It's exactly what you would expect to see
16:19
if an object was thrown from another orbit.
16:23
In this case, an orbit of an exploding
16:27
planet.
16:29
So, if we sum it up, von Flandern
16:32
thought that March was a moon, the exploding
16:35
planet that might was Patern, and that explosion
16:40
happened 3.2 million years ago.
16:44
And then something happened with March, a polar
16:47
shift, an atmospheric crash, and then the surface
16:55
of March was divided by two.
16:58
But there's more, much more.
17:03
And now we are close to the main
17:07
critics in von Flandern's theory.
17:10
Because if there was a civilization on the
17:12
exploding planet, or March itself, then they would
17:18
have left traces.
17:19
Von Flandern says yes, and the most, what
17:25
are we calling it, the most famous trace
17:27
is the face on March.
17:30
The face on March has always had bad
17:35
press.
17:37
It was called a joke, an object illusion,
17:41
a result of low picture quality.
17:44
But let me read up what von Flandern
17:47
said himself.
17:50
In 1976, when the Viking orbiter sent home
17:57
pictures, there was a picture from the Cydania.
18:01
In the middle of nowhere, there was a
18:04
hilltop with two eyes, a nose and a
18:06
mouth.
18:07
That is not extraordinary.
18:10
That is not a perfect face, but it
18:13
is a face.
18:16
I thought, hmm, let's do a test.
18:22
And this is important.
18:25
Von Flandern was not convinced in 1976.
18:29
He was skeptic.
18:30
He actually proposed two tests to measure if
18:36
it was artificial or not.
18:40
I said, if something has built it to
18:43
look like a human face, they would have
18:46
built it upright.
18:49
But the Viking explore picture is different.
18:57
And furthermore, they would have placed the face
19:02
close to equator, so it could be seen
19:06
from all directions.
19:08
But Cydonia is about 41 degrees north.
19:13
That is random, but I initially fought against
19:21
the artificial origin.
19:26
So Von Flandern was not a naive believer.
19:30
He was a scientific person.
19:32
He was a science man.
19:34
So he used his own test, and then
19:36
something happens.
19:38
In 1996, Von Flandern was in a radio
19:42
show and talking about the exploding planet hypothesis.
19:47
A listener wrote an email, and that email
19:49
changed everything.
19:52
The listeners wrote, if you are right about
19:56
an explosion from 3.2 million years ago,
20:00
and if there was a pole shift on
20:02
Mars at that time, then the face must
20:06
be built before the pole shift.
20:09
So, where was it then?
20:12
That was a genial question.
20:17
I took my Mars globus, found the old
20:21
pole position, some normal geologist has mapped, and
20:28
I moved the distance from the old pole
20:31
to Cydonia.
20:32
That was 90.1 degrees.
20:36
That was exactly equator.
20:41
Think about it.
20:43
If Mars was tilting 90 degrees, then equator
20:47
will move.
20:48
Cydonia was on the old equator, and when
20:52
Von Flandern draw the old equator in the
20:56
picture, then the face was suddenly upright, reaching
21:01
2 degrees.
21:05
So, with my ion 2 test, I have
21:08
used to argument against our physical origin, now
21:12
the turning.
21:14
If the face was built before the catastrophe,
21:17
it will be upright according to the old
21:20
equator, and it was an equator.
21:24
Both criteria was fulfilled.
21:26
The odds against this was about 1000 against
21:31
1.
21:35
Von Flanders was shaken.
21:38
He realized that he could no longer stand
21:40
passive, so he changed his view.
21:45
He was now convinced that the face could
21:47
be artificial, but he was also a scientific
21:50
person.
21:51
He knew that you could not conclude something
21:54
from just one picture that was also blurry.
21:58
You have to do assumptions.
22:00
So he did a priori assumptions.
22:08
And this is an important scientific, should we
22:14
say, lesson.
22:17
Von Flandern used something he called a priori
22:20
principle.
22:20
So listen carefully, because that is the key
22:23
for his entire argumentation.
22:30
In science, you separate between a posteriori, what
22:35
you see after, and a priori, what you
22:39
predict before it happens.
22:42
If you see a pattern after that, you
22:44
cannot trust it.
22:47
Random things happens all the time.
22:49
But if you predict something before you see
22:52
it, and then it goes as you predicted,
22:56
then you have an evidence.
23:01
So, Von Flandern used, what are you calling
23:04
it, card game illustration.
23:06
Imagine that you have 13 cards in bridge,
23:11
and you get them all in, I don't
23:13
know, spa.
23:17
So you got the entire color.
23:21
You think, mind, this is unlikely.
23:27
The odds are 635 billions against one.
23:33
But this is actually against a certain set
23:40
of cards, on 13 cards is unlikely.
23:43
The thing is that if you're only using
23:49
spa, then we have put in some kind
23:52
of meaning.
23:58
I did use the Danish word spa for
24:04
spades.
24:06
I did mean spades, sorry for that.
24:09
But let's go on.
24:14
If you go to the table, and on
24:17
the table says, I predict that I get
24:20
all 13 spades, and then it happens, then
24:24
you can be sure that something is cheating.
24:28
This is a prairie, that is evidence.
24:32
So, in 1997, when the Mars Global Survey
24:37
Explorer was sending new pictures of the phase,
24:42
von Flandern and his colleagues in SPSR, Society
24:46
for Planetary CGI Research, a list of a
24:50
priori predictions.
24:53
If the phase was artificial, meaning that it
24:58
was built to look like a human phase,
25:01
what will you expect to see in high
25:03
definition?
25:07
We predicted four things.
25:13
We predicted four things.
25:16
One, an eyebrow about the eye, an iris
25:20
made inside the eye, nostrils at the end
25:24
of the nose, and lips were separated, not
25:27
just a line.
25:29
Each of these features has to be in
25:31
the correct size, the correct shape, the correct
25:33
position, and the correct orientation.
25:36
And they must not appear anywhere else in
25:40
the hill.
25:41
Otherwise, one could simply pick out random features
25:45
that happens to resemble something.
25:50
It's important to understand just how specific these
25:54
predictions were.
25:55
They did not say maybe it looks like
25:58
something.
25:59
They said a high resolution, we will see
26:03
a curved eyebrow about in the left eye
26:07
socket, a circle inside the eye socket, two
26:11
small circles at the tip of the nose,
26:13
and a horizontal two-part structure at the
26:16
mouth.
26:18
We calculated the odds for each detail and
26:22
then we combined them.
26:23
The odds for these four details will occur
26:27
randomly.
26:28
In exactly the right position is 1,000
26:33
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
26:34
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
26:38
,000,000,000
26:47
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
26:51
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
26:53
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
26:59
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
26:59
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
26:59
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
26:59
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
27:00
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
27:00
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
27:00
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
27:00
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
27:00
,000, Then came the new image in 1998.
27:07
Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia and the
27:10
image was sent back to Earth.
27:15
We were excited and nervous.
27:19
The image was taken under very poor conditions.
27:22
the spacecraft was not about the face it
27:26
was far to the west so we saw
27:30
it from an oblique angle almost in profile
27:34
the light was also poor the Sun was
27:38
coming from below it's like you're holding a
27:41
flashlight under your chin that is the worst
27:45
possible lightning for seeing a face despite that
27:51
front lantern saw something about the left eye
27:57
socket there was a triangular formation exactly where
28:02
an eyebrow should be inside the eye socket
28:05
there was a circular formation an iris and
28:09
the end of the nose there were two
28:10
circular formations nostrils and the mouth considers us
28:15
to gibberish lips all four predictions were fulfilled
28:20
front lantern was convinced he later wrote that
28:25
the natural origin was ruled out with odds
28:28
of 1,000 trillion trillion to one he
28:33
even said that the artificial was proven beyond
28:37
any reasonable doubt but then something strange happens
28:40
with the image was released to the press
28:42
it looks nothing like the image front lantern
28:45
has seen and that is one of the
28:51
most controversial parts of front lantern theory when
28:55
NASA and the jet propulsory laboratory called JPL
28:59
released the official image to the news media
29:03
it looks completely different what front lantern calls
29:07
the real image with eyebrow iris nostrils was
29:11
never shown in the newspapers instead a blurred
29:14
smidge image was shown that looks like a
29:18
pile of rocks it was manipulation not necessarily
29:23
a conspiracy but people who thought that they
29:27
were doing the right thing the image has
29:29
been run through a high-pass filter in
29:32
Photoshop then a low-pass filter and then
29:35
the average between the two each filter remove
29:39
details together they remove almost all information the
29:44
resource was an image that was useless front
29:52
lantern was site the Adobe Photoshop's definition of
29:58
a high-pass filter it retains the edge
30:01
detail where there are a sharp color transition
30:05
and suppress the rest of the image in
30:07
other words it enhanced the outlines and remove
30:11
the soft gradients needed to see a face
30:14
why did they do it JPL's public information
30:20
office wanted to kill the story the astronomer
30:24
Michael Marlin who was the responsible of the
30:27
camera has been publicly said that he personally
30:31
felt offended at having taken the image he
30:36
called it a blow to the integrity of
30:39
science and waste of public funds they didn't
30:43
want the public to get the wrong idea
30:47
so from front and claims that JPL staff
30:51
choose to the manipulated image special special especially
30:57
because it would make the story disappears this
31:01
will kill the story they are lit they
31:04
allegedly said and it did I will give
31:11
them the benefit of the doubt they thought
31:15
that they were going to do the right
31:17
thing but God save us from people who
31:20
think that they're doing the right thing for
31:22
us science is about showing data not protecting
31:26
the public from wrong ideas critic argues that
31:33
von Flanders is all in simple interpreting this
31:37
they point out that JPL image processing by
31:41
standard procedure to enhance contrast in spacecraft imagery
31:45
not something malicious and that is the real
31:50
image from Flanders refers to has also been
31:54
processed just differently the face wasn't the only
32:01
thing in his lectures from Flanders and represented
32:05
a wide range of images showing other formations
32:08
that he believed was unnatural let's go through
32:11
one of the most striking first we have
32:15
the pyramid structures in the Cydonia region near
32:21
the face there is a group of pyramid
32:22
like objects we call them the city complex
32:26
some are four sides some are five they
32:30
have sharp edges not rounded like natural mountains
32:35
and they are arranged in a pattern that
32:38
is not random one of these objects is
32:43
called DNM pyramid from Flanders shows in an
32:47
image that on the backside of this pyramid
32:51
has a formation that distinctly resemble an entrance
32:55
I won't speculate too much but when we
33:02
one day get ground truth when we can
33:07
go there this is one of the first
33:09
places I would investigate then we have triangle
33:15
triangles everywhere from Flanders compared March to moon
33:20
on the moon there is a crater called
33:22
a cura crater this is a slightly triangular
33:26
and one of the best example of an
33:28
natural triangle in the solar system apart from
33:32
Earth and Mars on Mars we have hundreds
33:37
of triangles that are far more perfect than
33:41
the cura some are elevated plateaus shaped like
33:46
triangles others are mist triangles six levels deep
33:52
all sharing the same apex and almost always
33:57
there is a crater at the apex it's
34:00
a pattern that repeats too often to be
34:03
random and if we go on one of
34:12
the strangest phenomenon on Mars is the glass
34:15
like streaks and tubes across the planet you
34:18
see long parallel white streaks on the surface
34:22
but where the surface is broken in cracks
34:25
and frictions you can see what lies beneath
34:30
there are tubular objects that are transparent you
34:34
can see through them they reflect like glass
34:38
and metal in the shows
34:48
from Flanders shows image of these tubes crossing
34:52
on each other in networks sometimes in right
34:55
angles sometimes in woven across patterns he argued
34:59
that this is very difficult for natural processes
35:02
to create things like that and then we
35:05
have vehicle tracks there are many places on
35:12
Mars where you can see long straight tracks
35:15
the standard explanation is just devil tracks small
35:20
tornadoes that leave streaks but at higher resolution
35:25
you can see the details in the tracks
35:27
almost fret like marks like from tracked vehicles
35:32
and the tracks has a strange tendency to
35:35
pass tar gently around craters they just barely
35:41
goes around them but they will does not
35:45
do that then we have vegetations one of
35:52
the most striking images from Flanders presented in
35:55
his shows it looks like a tree seen
35:58
from about a central trunk with bracing structures
36:01
casting shadows this object may be 200 meters
36:08
across and 80 meters tall it casts shadows
36:13
so it stands about the ground the original
36:18
explanation was crystal growth but crystals don't cast
36:24
shadows like that it looks like a tree
36:26
Arthur F.
36:27
Clegg the famous science fictions writer saw this
36:33
image and said that he was 95%
36:36
certain that there's been extensive vegetation or something
36:40
equal in Mars so what does the scientist
36:49
says to this so now we enter the
36:53
cold scientific reality because of Flanders theories however
36:57
fascinating have been made with strong criticism first
37:03
of all pareidolia the brain see faces everywhere
37:08
this is one of the most common explanations
37:11
the human brain is extremely good to recognize
37:15
faces but this also means that we see
37:18
faces where there are none in clouds mountains
37:21
even in electrical outlets the skeptic says from
37:27
Flanders evidence is a classic case of pareidolia
37:37
pareidolia is not explanation in a priori predictions
37:42
you cannot see an iris if there is
37:45
none you cannot see nostrils if they don't
37:49
exist we predicted these details and they were
37:52
there this is not pareidolia this is data
38:00
another criticism is from Flanders himself that he
38:06
manipulated these images he used fuselage shops to
38:10
adjust lightning and perspective exactly what he accused
38:15
JPL of doing the difference is that the
38:19
JPL version was called manipulation while from Flanders
38:23
was called reconstructions the skeptic says from Flanders
38:27
created a double standard when he had just
38:30
contrast lightning and perspective it's necessary to see
38:34
the truth when NASA is doing it it's
38:38
manipulation the truth is both versions are preceded
38:42
sorry are processed images the raw spacecraft data
38:48
is just meaningless shades of gray everyone has
38:53
to process them the perspective is intent we
38:59
use global adjustments lightning angle perspective to create
39:04
what a human eye would see JPL uses
39:08
filter that is actually remove details it's not
39:11
the same then we have the exploded planet
39:16
where they say that physics does not work
39:19
that way this is perhaps the most serious
39:23
criticism planets do not explode to destroy a
39:28
planet at the size of the earth that
39:29
would require an astronomical amount of energy literally
39:34
it would be comparable to a supernova and
39:38
there is no evidence for a nearby supernova
39:41
3.2 million years ago physicists would say
39:45
something like that from Flanders exploding planet hypothesis
39:49
is a massive physical problem first what causes
39:53
the planet to explode there is no known
39:56
mechanism second if it exploded the fragments would
40:01
be not gather in the asteroid belt they
40:04
will be shattered across the entire solar system
40:07
third March would have been completely destroyed it
40:13
if it was too close to such an
40:15
explosions it would not survive as an intact
40:17
planet the mechanism could be natural for instance
40:26
a chain reaction in the planet core or
40:30
the physical if there was an advanced civilization
40:33
we don't know but we do know that
40:37
there are craters in the asteroid belt voids
40:40
where the materials are missing this is exactly
40:43
what you would expect after an explosion and
40:50
then the dating does not match from Flanders
40:53
has dated the explosion to 3.2 million
40:56
years ago using what he called purely astronomical
40:59
dating method but other researchers has examined the
41:03
same data and has found it much younger
41:05
or much older ages mainstream science would say
41:11
there is no consensus that everything dramatically happened
41:15
3.2 million years ago in the solar
41:18
system the March pole shift can be dated
41:21
very differently times depending on the method used
41:25
some say 10 million years ago some say
41:28
100 million years ago from Flanders choose a
41:32
number that fits his theory that is not
41:36
correct we used multiple independent methods all pointed
41:41
to 3.2 million years ago and it
41:44
matches the Lucy fossil on earth it's too
41:47
perfect to be a coincidence then we
41:57
have the conflict with relativity Flanders also held
42:03
a controversial view on physics he argued that
42:07
gravity must act instantly not limited by the
42:11
speed of light this directly contradict Einstein's theory
42:15
of reality which has been confirmed in countless
42:19
experiments mainstream science just like Steve Calleb would
42:26
say something like from Flanders misunderstood relativity he
42:32
believed that gravity must act instantly to maintain
42:35
stable orbit but it doesn't it's propagate at
42:39
the speed of the light the GPS system
42:41
which he himself used as evidence actually depends
42:45
on relative realistic corrections his argument is based
42:50
on outdated understanding of the physics I have
42:56
great respect for Einstein but data is data
43:00
there are anomalies in mercury orbit that relativity
43:05
does not explicitly explains it's simply saving that
43:09
we should keep the door open for other
43:12
possibilities now we move into from Flanders the
43:21
part of from Flanders theory that felt most
43:24
like science fiction if there was a civilization
43:28
that built the face who are they and
43:31
why would they do it we believe that
43:37
the parent planet the one that exploded was
43:40
a water world meteorized from the asteroid belt
43:44
show signs of having been in contact with
43:48
water some of them is basically clay that
43:52
required liquid water over a long period so
43:56
the planet was likely habitable perhaps even a
44:02
water world like the film interstellar from Flanders
44:10
imagines that this civilization knew that a catastrophic
44:16
was coming perhaps they have advanced technology enough
44:21
to predict the planet destructions and they choose
44:25
to build something that could survive who built
44:31
the face on Mars think we know our
44:34
own exploration of the moon might look in
44:38
thousands or 10,000 years we have scientific
44:43
basis tourist attractions maybe even amusement parks when
44:49
you orbit the moon you will look down
44:52
and see large structures built to seen from
44:55
above this is exactly what Cydonia looks like
44:59
a theme park, a museum, a monument from
45:05
Flanders pointed out that the face looks human
45:08
not alien not insect like not animal hominid
45:12
face and the thing 3.2 million years
45:17
ago is exactly when Lucy lives in Africa
45:21
the oldest secure hominid fossil as far as
45:26
we know our human lineage began around that
45:30
time the same time that the civilization on
45:34
Mars ended is that a coincidence?
45:44
From Flanders suggested that survivors from the exploding
45:47
planet may have reached Earth that we humans
45:52
are descendants of the civilizations that we are
45:55
the Martians in a literal sentence.
46:01
There's an ironic twist in H.G. Wells'
46:05
War of the Worlds.
46:07
In the book the Martians came to Earth
46:10
to conquer us but maybe the truth is
46:13
that we are the Martians we came here
46:16
from Mars or a parent planet and forgot
46:20
everything until now.
46:25
And this is the point where we have
46:26
to go a step back there is no
46:28
genetic evidence that humans come from Mars our
46:32
DNA is unequally terrestrial we share genes with
46:39
the apes with the yeast with the fruit
46:42
lines if we came from Mars our DNA
46:44
would be fundamental different it isn't but from
46:48
Flanders is not a geneticist he is an
46:52
astronomer he looked for landscape not molecules.
46:59
So the legacy what happened to Flanders?
47:03
From Flanders died in 2009 at the age
47:06
of 69 in his later years he became
47:09
increasingly marginalized by the scientific establishment his papers
47:14
was rejected his theory was ridiculed but he
47:18
did not back down I don't care what
47:24
people say about me I don't care if
47:27
they laugh I have seen the data I
47:30
have calculated the odds I know what I
47:32
saw in 50 years in 100 years they
47:36
will realize that I was right.
47:41
The question is will they?
47:45
So far the answer is no.
47:47
None of the core claims have been confirmed
47:51
by later Mars missions.
47:53
The phase newer image from the Mars reconnaissance
47:57
orbiter shows an eroded hill not a phase.
48:01
The pyramids likely natural missions the glass tubes
48:06
probably optical effects as particular reflections from a
48:10
smooth mineral surface but from Flanders left a
48:16
legacy not necessarily scientific but cultural.
48:19
He helped popularizing the idea that the Mars
48:22
might hold signs of intelligence.
48:26
He inspired amateurs UFO enthusiasts and skeptics of
48:32
institutional authority and maybe just maybe there was
48:36
something healthy in that.
48:43
As of 2026 we have sent more missions
48:48
to Mars than ever before.
48:50
The perseverance rover is collecting rock samples Chinese
48:54
and European spacecraft orbiting the planet and SpaceX
48:57
talks about sending humans within a decade.
49:02
None have found evidence for von Flandern theories
49:06
but they have found something else.
49:08
Mars once have liquid water rivers lakes maybe
49:12
oceans organic molecules the building blocks of life
49:16
has been detected and methane has been found
49:19
in the atmosphere.
49:21
No phase but the questions of life is
49:24
more open than ever.
49:30
If they find microbial life bacteria people will
49:36
say see von Flandern was wrong but microbes
49:40
are the beginning they are the microbes then
49:44
there was probably something larger and if there
49:47
was something larger then my phase may not
49:51
been so crazy after all.
49:55
Von Flandern has had a way of turning
49:58
everything into around even the counter evidence became
50:04
support that was both his strengths and his
50:07
weakness.
50:09
So where does it leave us?
50:12
On one hand a skilled astronomer that asked
50:16
bold questions made predictions and changed consequences and
50:21
the other hand someone who crossed the line
50:23
between hypothesis and conviction who saw patterns others
50:28
could not see and who frosted his own
50:31
interpretation more than the broader scientific community.
50:36
And the community says almost unanimously there is
50:42
no phase there is no pyramids there is
50:44
no exploding planet but science has been wrong
50:47
before.
50:49
Continental drift was rejected for decades.
50:52
Methyl impact that once was dismissed as the
50:56
cause of the dinosaur extinctions.
50:58
Sometimes stubborn thinkers is right.
51:02
Will von Flandern be one of them?
51:05
We don't know but we know for certain
51:08
that until we stand on March until we
51:11
dig into the Cydonia until we test this
51:14
formation directly until then let's keep the door
51:18
open.
51:22
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth but
51:26
most of the time he will pick up
51:28
himself and continue.
51:31
That was Winston Churchill.
51:33
Don't get up too quickly look at the
51:35
image think for yourself.
51:41
Thank you for listening.