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.

 

Phobos II

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Were would we be in this world without you armchair critics

Thank you for maintaining a balance




posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Millions
a reply to: JimOberg

Come on - this isn't an academic website. What kind of 'research' are you expecting? Lighten up a bit. If its research you want, maybe you should try some astronomy journals.


If you're gonna beat the old drum on NASA lying and astronauts faking, you owe some better evidence than anonymous internet ravings.



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Village Idiot
a reply to: JimOberg

Were would we be in this world without you armchair critics

Thank you for maintaining a balance


The chair I sat in was in the front row of Mission Control, Houston, where have you parked YOUR butt ?



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Phobos I was hell. Argh!




posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Equipment failure, however, is not unusual - nearly as many missions fail as succeed.


Unless you're NASA, then you can repeatedly land vehicles on the moon perfectly.
(Before you then forget how to do so.)




posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: Peeple

Aside from quoting a few UFO websites, how much real research did you do on this old story?


I was watching 5h30m Alien Files on the Tube. Does that count? And reading real websites on the moony. That's the first link I provided "Phobos facts".



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Jim, a bit of positive feedback would be appreciated given your expertise.

I've found the thread a great read. I love learning stuff. If Peeple needs some of the information updating please post it on this thread. Explain the unexplained.

My kind regards to you and Peeple,

bally



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: Peeple

Aside from quoting a few UFO websites, how much real research did you do on this old story?


I was watching 5h30m Alien Files on the Tube. Does that count?


Well, no, not really. Did those videos include these?






And reading real websites on the moony. That's the first link I provided "Phobos facts".


Did the real websites include this one:

www.planetary.org...

Or this?

apod.nasa.gov...

showing the shadow of Phobos on the Martian surface?

or this one debunking the story?

podcast.sjrdesign.net...

I'd like to see the alleged Phobos 2 image properly identified so we can look at it independently, very few alien/ufo pages seem to want to give you that information.



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 05:39 AM
link   
what bothers me is this mystery has existed for a very long time and yet we just sent another rover to mars to try and find evidence of its death. something we pretty much already know and the knowledge will do nothing to further mans reach into space. we were able to land on an asteroid so it shouldnt be impossible and maybe we can finally get some answers. my faith in NASA is practically non existent these days and i was a huge NASA groupie as a kid even going to space camp but i have zero confidence in their future without major restructuring. also would be nice if we werent wasting money on a new missile defense system which we and the russians figured out long ago was completely useless against a nuclear attack unless HAARP can do what some people theorize and pick out the warheads in space. otherwise that money imo would be far better spent on scientific endeavors in space
edit on 20-1-2019 by TheScale because: brain fart



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: LABTECH767

LOL, the grooves on Phobos have a much more simple natural explanation:

news.brown.edu...

Future missions will hopefully answer the question of low density. Martian Moons Exploration is scheduled to be launched in 2024, land on Phobos and collect samples.


Do you really buy that crap. First of all how much force in the form of pressure would it require to create those grooves?, we would of course need a surface sample of the moonlet to know for certain but it look's pretty solid on it's outside.
How strong or rather in this case WEAK is the gravitation of this asteroid/moonlet?
How hard and large would these ROLLING rock's have to be.

The So called explanation you have proffered is actually someones BEST GUESS and to be quite frank it is a rubbish guess.

To make those linear track's it would require a considerable downward pressure over the full ROLL of these rolling rock's why not simply elliptical or tear drop shaped craters then were the rock would have hit the asteroid/moonlet and then rolled a little way before bouncing back off leaving a scar in the shape of an ellipse or tear drop?, the answer is simply really it did not because it was not rolling rock's.
And if it WAS rolling rock's then how many rock's would have to hit the surface doing exactly the same thing - don't you think that is beyond rational probability.



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

It is fundamentally obvious that Phobos DID take an absolutely massive impact at some point.

Those cracks could just be aftermath scarring, unevenly distributed, because of a lack of subsurface uniformity.

The surface of Phobos, cold, likely hard.

If the outer frozen top layer of Phobos had insulated the inner core of Phobos, and heat was retained there... That massive impact would fracture the top most layer, layers below would elastically resist that brittle fracturing.

This would give us the exact appearance we DO observe.
No need for rolling balls. You can build a model, based on the ideas I put forth, and it will work, and provide this appearance.

When you fracture a candied apple, does the apple fracture or just the candy?



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Archivalist

That is correct, if it were a fast moving target that had to be stopped maybe that is the evidence of such, or in fact it could even be along with Deimos the remnant's of a previously larger moon of Mars and that could also explain the ruin of one half of mars just as adequately as the Theia theory, if so then Phobos and Deimos are actually the two only large remaining fragment's of a once far larger orbiting body of mars, mars is a bit closer to the asteroid belt than we are, it is also further out in the solar system and look at the impact scars on our own moon, our's is a larger planet than mars and more able to absorb such impact's and our moon has acted like a shield on occasion preventing some very large impacts from hitting the earth directly though there has probably in the past been significant splash debris from lunar impact's hitting our planet.

Mars is much smaller and would have been far less able to absorb such damage, it's moon if it had a larger one would likely have been smaller as well but given the orbits of Deimos and Phobos it would also have been closer to mars when this hypothetical disaster occurred.

The reason we don't see a ring of debris is because such ring's are short lived, even the rings' of Saturn may be less than a hundred million years old and will vanish as if they had never been within just a few hundred million or less years, we were lucky enough to be around at one of the few times in our solar system's history when such ring's were visible around any of our planets.

Now if we go with the far out but still cool idea that it may be a result of artificiality and I do believe there is a very good chance it is then that crater may be indicative of several potential forces and in impact is only one of them.

Still there are weirder thing's in our solar system.

That crater does not in any way explain the striation's on it's surface either.

Now as for rolling rock's we do have evidence of them on the moon were craters are left in often linear fashion but in those cases the craters get closer together than end usually in a larger tear drop shaped crater or were the lunar terrain has risen sufficiently for the close passing object that grazed it's surface to actually leave a sizable scar or impact crater.

Phobos gravity is I believe too weak I believe, it is a matter of relative velocity, density and the attraction between the two object's Phobos and whatever would have left these mark's and there are a hell of a lot of them on it's surface.

Of course if it was a fragment of a larger body and over time it drifted through a ring of other rocky remnant's from that larger moon then it does become more plausible as there would have been a hell of a lot of potential for such impact's and grazers as it passed through the debris ring that may once have circled mars.



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: MissSmartypants

It looks like the Phobos monolith is just a bolder. The best monolith is on Mars. The Mars monolith is probable just a rock too, but it looks much more like an artificial monolith.



The Phobos monolith is a large rock on the surface of Mars's moon Phobos. It is a boulder about 85 m (279 ft) across and 90 m (300 ft) tall. A monolith is a geological feature consisting of a single massive piece of rock. Monoliths also occur naturally on Earth, but it has been suggested that the Phobos monolith may be a piece of impact ejecta. The monolith is a bright object near Stickney crater, described as a "building sized" boulder, which casts a prominent shadow.

Phobos monolith




The Mars monolith is a rectangular object (possibly a boulder) discovered on the surface of Mars. It is located near the bottom of a cliff, from which it likely fell. The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter took pictures of it from orbit, roughly 180 miles (300 km) away. It is estimated to measure about 5 meters wide.

Mars monolith









Phobos monolith looks vaguely pyramid shaped, I reckon. Especially covered in thousands of years of dust.

That Mars monolith looks incredibly artificial though. A standing rectangular slab! Have there ever been closer photos taken/ released?

Looks like the slab probably has something very important carved into it.

Probably explaining how they settled Mars and terraformed it into a paradise. Before nuclear war destroyed it.




posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

As for artificiality on Mars I am for one still a believer that the Cydonia structures are ancient constructed artifacts including the face.

That aside for general mars strangeness here is one of my favorite pages when I just feel like looking,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
My personal favorite is the tenth image down (not counting sideways just down), the large brown one that seem's to show what for all the world appears to be a ruined city that has been bombed to oblivion and back, roads and intersections just like looking at the ruin's of a city that has had it's building's blow to pieces.
The usual claim is one of those Swamp Gas claim's and that is that these roads are actually martian dust devil's yeah right.
The other usual swamp gas claim is that the longer roads such as this (an old video but a good'n) are simply photo stitching artifacts as if NASA could not clean up there own errors.

I have also seen a much sharper image of one of these roads but that video was one of those that appear and then disappeared again, in that video a much sharper view of the road was shown with what appeared to be a central barricade or perhaps a monorail like track along it's center dividing the road into two sides.
Usually what you will hear again and again is the same debunker's acting like lying fool's saying why then do later images not show these features yet as you probably know it is easier today than ever before for someone, even a real time program to obscure such and it is a matter of fact that any such high resolution images would simply be classified and the public would never be allowed to see them so we have to make do with what we can find and get our hand's on, older is sometime's better.



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   
The crater can explain the striations. That was the whole point of my post. You can keep the cotton in your ears if you want.

I have no obligation to prove anything to you.

But if you don't think impacts can cause cracks, a Google image search and 5 minutes of time can show you this is normal.

Surface cracks can happen from an impact, and look exactly like the surface of Phobos. Yes. This is true. Go look at crater images. It's not magic. Excess force that breaks surface tension of a semi-solid large object can make cracks at the surface level, that do not extend through and through.



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Village Idiot
a reply to: JimOberg

Were would we be in this world without you armchair critics

Thank you for maintaining a balance


The chair I sat in was in the front row of Mission Control, Houston, where have you parked YOUR butt ?


The Devil used to have a chair up in Heaven too.. So your question is a straw man.



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: peacefulpete

As for artificiality on Mars I am for one still a believer that the Cydonia structures are ancient constructed artifacts including the face.

That aside for general mars strangeness here is one of my favorite pages when I just feel like looking,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
My personal favorite is the tenth image down (not counting sideways just down), the large brown one that seem's to show what for all the world appears to be a ruined city that has been bombed to oblivion and back, roads and intersections just like looking at the ruin's of a city that has had it's building's blow to pieces.
The usual claim is one of those Swamp Gas claim's and that is that these roads are actually martian dust devil's yeah right.
The other usual swamp gas claim is that the longer roads such as this (an old video but a good'n) are simply photo stitching artifacts as if NASA could not clean up there own errors.

I have also seen a much sharper image of one of these roads but that video was one of those that appear and then disappeared again, in that video a much sharper view of the road was shown with what appeared to be a central barricade or perhaps a monorail like track along it's center dividing the road into two sides.
Usually what you will hear again and again is the same debunker's acting like lying fool's saying why then do later images not show these features yet as you probably know it is easier today than ever before for someone, even a real time program to obscure such and it is a matter of fact that any such high resolution images would simply be classified and the public would never be allowed to see them so we have to make do with what we can find and get our hand's on, older is sometime's better.


Thanks, awesome post.

Those "roads" are pretty convincing, since nature don't make straight lines.


Can you re-post your link though because I think you accidentally copy-pasted the address of this webpage right here, lol.



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete




Those "roads" are pretty convincing, since nature don't make straight lines.


Can you expand on that.

Nature doesn't make straight lines?

before you do you may want open Google and type in straight lines in nature.

Go to images

Help me out, Am I hallucinating or are all the images fake and photo-shopped showing straight lines in nature?



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete




Those "roads" are pretty convincing, since nature don't make straight lines.


Can you expand on that.

Nature doesn't make straight lines?

before you do you may want open Google and type in straight lines in nature.

Go to images

Help me out, Am I hallucinating or are all the images fake and photo-shopped showing straight lines in nature?



Ok, here's a Google image search of "straight lines in nature," on this link:

www.google.com... =0.9

Google's first image is a palm leaf... with straight lines, but in a circular, outspreading pattern.

Next images are bamboo stalks (not really straight), then sand dunes (which are a stretch to call straight lines, lol).

None of Google's examples resemble a straight road cutting across the landscape, like in the above Mars photos. (Which was obviously what we were talking about.)

Did you have any examples of nature photos, that you found especially compelling? Especially, examples that resemble straight roads cutting across a landscape?




posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete




Did you have any examples of nature photos, that you found especially compelling? Especially, examples that resemble straight roads cutting across a landscape?


Yes


you just supplied them.

Instead of looking at 2 photos try looking at more

Just scroll a little down the page and you get straight splits in rocks that cross over each other like intersections.




None of Google's examples resemble a straight road cutting across the landscape, like in the above Mars photos. (Which was obviously what we were talking about.)


The mars video with pics?

To me those straight lines in those images on the video look like image stitching.



you made a very specific statement that has something to do with what you were discussing but you made it very general and said nature doesn't create straight lines Not that nature cannot make straight lines across a landscape.

However, how does a rock rolling down a hill of sand or snow in a straight path not create a straight line in the material its passing through or over?

Straight lines are all over and created by natural events




top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join