It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mars Moon Phobos Thought to be Artificial Satilite Circa 1960 And Again in 1963 (Nasa)

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Back in the 1960's it seems a few important people said things that are just not said anymore, what they thought the evidence showed.


March 1960 - The Martian moon Phobos, generally accepted as a celestial body, actually may be an artificial satellite launched long ago by an advanced Martian race, according to Dr. S. Fred Singer, special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments. No mention was made of the other Mars moon, Deimos.
In 1963, Raymond H. Wilson Jr., Chief of Applied Mathematics at NASA, joined Shklovsky and Dr. Singer in their Martian conclusions. He stated that "Phobos might be a colossal base orbiting Mars." He also stated that NASA itself was considering the possibility, and was planning for special probes that would answer the question.
rense.com...

A Russian Dr. also looked at calculations the US Naval Observatory did and determined that the moon was being slowed be electromagnetic drag more than was possible if the moon was solid.


Dr Iosif Shklovsky based his conclusion on calculations that had been done by the U.S. Naval Observatory (rumored in the 1980s to have been the home of the elusive MJ-12 group). Shklovsky stated Phobos was being "slowed by electromagnetic drag and tidal friction more than was possible was an actual solid moon."


European Space Agency found that Phobos likely to contain large voids too.


One reason to suspect that Phobos is not a captured asteroid is its density. Analysis of Mars Express radio science data gave new information about the mass of Phobos based on the gravitational attraction it exerts on the spacecraft. The team concluded that Phobos is likely to contain large voids, which makes it less likely to be a captured asteroid. Its composition and structural strength seem to be inconsistent with the capture scenario.
sci.esa.int...

And the Monolith is a very odd and unique feature on the moon's surface.
The single rock made Buzz Aldrin make an odd statement.


"When people find out about that they are going to say, 'Who put that there? Who put that there?'"

These are the words of Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon, in 2009. He was talking about a peculiar and solitary large rock, a monolith, that sits on the surface of the Martian moon Phobos.
www.bbc.com...


Mars has a monolith too. And in my opinion looks "cooler" than the Phobos Monolith.




,
edit on 9-1-2018 by seasonal because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

In the early 1960's Phobos might have been imaged by one of the early Corona Satellites.
In Singers opinion they may have used some kind of crude photo interpretation algorithm to pull as much detail as they could.
The Cuban missile site imagery from 1962 showed trees with very straight trunks in high contrast.
Of course the public did not know much about camera imagery at that time so would not have been familiar with the artifacts until March 17, 1967.
edit on 9-1-2018 by Cauliflower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Why would they assume that it's an artificial satellite? Wouldn't it be less of a stretch to hypothesise that it is indeed a moon that contains a vast subterranean network?

I feel like there's information missing here....

edit on 9-1-2018 by Kalixi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Kalixi

Agreed, if I were a NASA math wiz I would lean toward stating that the moon was not completely solid and perhaps has many voids.
It seemed to me to be a Roswell type news release. Although as far as I can tell there was not a big "walk the statement back campaign" like Roswell.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Occam's Razor would suggest both are just moons, but what about that monolith? That looks very interesting. Is it yet another "trick of light and shadow"? On the dual image posted, I sure see it on #2, but I'm not comprehending the first image at all. What are we looking at here?
edit on 1/9/2018 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 07:36 PM
link   


Shklovsky stated Phobos was being "slowed by electromagnetic drag and tidal friction more than was possible was an actual solid moon."


Excuse my ignorance; but does this suggest that there is some electricity running? (ie machines) What would be throwing out electromagnetic energy??



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I like the mars monolith, very cool.




posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I have never seen that monolith picture.

That is interesting.

Or, is it like the face.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Phobosphobia: An irrational fear of the Martian moon Phobos.
Presumably inhabited by clowns.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Not much to add to the OP but very cool stuff.

My issue with the whole thing of space exploration is what seems to the agenda of heel dragging to get anything done.. We have gone backwards to so extent if the statements about the 1969 Apollo 11 mission are correct in that we "have forgotten how to go to the moon", I mean really who the f#ck makes this stuff up?...


"IF" we did go to the moon then why the hell was the operation not built upon and by know who knows where we could have been.

Obviously major questions have been raised about our own moon and there was the decades old Russian reports that stated categorical it was hollow, (Look at the Vasin and Shchbakov report from 1970)..

If it is the case our own moon is of questionable origin then it is logical to ask about the origin of Phobos.

Personally at this juncture as a citizen of earth I simply want the BS and disinfo gone and honest and clear answers (don't we all!!!!), it is fairly obvious that Mars has a good number of possible sights of interest, we have copious amounts of what are classed as flying objects in our atmosphere doing things that are stated as beyond our capability yet as per f#cking normal the official stance is "nothing to see here"..


NASA "Never a straight answer"



RA



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 08:03 PM
link   
This could have been an interesting story to read and look into more closely but as you are using Rense as your source I'm going to have to pass on this one.

Thank you for all the trouble you went to as far as posting this anyway.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingForABetterLife

Rats



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: seasonal

I like the mars monolith, very cool.



Agreed, "they" should have put the same one on Phobos.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kalixi



Shklovsky stated Phobos was being "slowed by electromagnetic drag and tidal friction more than was possible was an actual solid moon."


Excuse my ignorance; but does this suggest that there is some electricity running? (ie machines) What would be throwing out electromagnetic energy??


Another non-smarty pants here. I think it would be Mars magnetic field or remnants of it slowing the moon.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Maybe it is a normal moon...but someone dropped a couple of high-tech tunneling machines on the surface and hollowed it out as a refuge in case of Planetary threat to the Planet herself....like our Earth moon has been worked on.
edit on 9-1-2018 by one4all because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

When wondering if Phobos is a "artificial" satellite of Mars, one should most likely take pause and ask themselves some questions of common sense.

First, what does one mean by "artificial"? Does one mean an object that is completely built by an intelligence? Or does one mean something naturally made that has been modified by an intelligence?

Let's look at Phobos:



Okay, just looking at Phobos, I have a very hard time buying that it was something completely artificial that was constructed.

Look at how it's completely covered in material and the impact craters.

In order for some "artificial" object to become completely covered with material like that, it would need to of gathered dust from space for a long time....a VERY long time....as in about the same time as the solar system formed, say at least 4 billion years or so.....oh, and of course it would have needed to of been built about the same time that Mars formed.....yyyeeeeeahhhhh......sorry. Ain't buying that.

Impact craters: Nah, sorry. Not buying that either. Getting hit with large objects at orbital speeds......would have blow some flimsy artificial station to hell and back.

 


Okay....so what about "artificial" as in: "they towed in an asteroid and hollowed it out, made a station out of it."

Ah! Now that is an interesting idea! We've thought along the same lines, except that we know it's a LOT cheaper to lift materials up from Earth and build something than it is to go all the way out to the asteroid belt and tow something into orbit, then hollow it out.

Mars might be closer to the belt, but that still would have been a huge project for any Martian Civilization. Much easier to simply build stations in orbit from materials lifted up, at least at first.

But okay, let's say they did that: Where is the gravity?

What I mean is: you hollow out an asteroid, then spin it so you have artificial gravity on the inside. Free fall is great, so is micro gravity. But you're going to want whatever your normal gravity is for living conditions inside a hollowed out station.

Phobos doesn't spin like that. In fact, it's tidally locked. If it had been spun up to induce artificial gravity, you also would have it far enough away from your planet so it doesn't become tidally locked again (have to waste a lot of energy spinning it back up, or maintaining that spin).

Which brings us to the other question: how close it is to Mars. Phobos is so close to Mars that it orbits it in 8 hours. And it's getting closer and closer to Mars. In about 50 million years it will go BOOM.

If you bothered to tow an asteroid all the way from the asteroid belt to make a station, you would not put it so close to your planet to where it's going to end up spiraling inward and get tidally locked.

However, I will tell you what can do that: A asteroid that happened to pass close enough to Mars to be captured by it and become one of it's moons.

 


But what about the weird things in the other photos?

Well.......while I don't buy into the whole Martian Civilization idea, I will say maybe they did have one that at some point visited their moon and left stuff there. Maybe you're seeing probes or landed spacecraft.

Personally I don't buy that either. If Mars ever did developed life in the past, I don't think it was around long enough to become intelligent before Mars began dying.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   
OK, but what about that monolith? Is it a "trick of light and shadow" or what?



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

could be.

Or it could be an actual Martian EVA backpack left there for all I know.

Without higher resolution images it's impossible to tell.

Of course nothing wrong with imagining "What if?", that's always cool.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Do you think the public gets grainy pics because the space agency puts low resolution cameras on board or is the res knocked down for public consumption?



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal


A lot of the probes have been launched decades ago , during that time the technology has impoved so a lot of the camera's might have less quality then your mobile phone cam does.



edit on 9-1-2018 by TheGreazel because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join