damn!!! now THATS interesting.

Fascinating material here! Will read it over!


Also -- Mike, just wondering but do you think ET's are visiting Earth now?

If so, do you believe there were grey aliens at Roswell -- in other words, do you believe that there are extraterrestrial biological entities visiting our planet now or sometime in the recent past like at Roswell? What about all of those ET stories by some well known whistleblowers, do believe their stories about encountering Grey aliens or whatever?

The whole debate over Phobos' "unusual" orbit & it being hollow ended in 1969. They at first didn't take into account tidal effects. The density of Phobos is now accurately measured at 1.9 g/cm³ which does not allow for it to be hollow. Not to mention it looks completely natural. This is in the same ranks as the hollow Earth theory I'm afraid, there's no truth behind it but highly imaginative speculation.

The other factor was that, there was no detailed image of Phobos until the Viking mission in the 1970's. It's just a case of there being no observation at the time which lead to false data. Look at the first image you posted. Does that really look like a space station to you? What kind of engineering is that? Who were they hiding it from? Doesn't it strike you that it looks a lot like an asteroid and nothing more?

You're right though, this is all just early 60's wishful thinking.

flag and a star Mike! Glad to see you bring up the Phobos monolith again. I dont think it gets enough coverage or "looking into".

Originally posted by Donoso
Look at the first image you posted. Does that really look like a space station to you? What kind of engineering is that? Who were they hiding it from? Doesn't it strike you that it looks a lot like an asteroid and nothing more?

Agreed! But remember we need to think out of the box. It sure doesn't look like a space station if you measure it against known paradigms and templates. In other words, why should an alien space station look like what we must imagine them to be?

They could very well have been culled out of natural space bodies like big asteroids or small moonlets. It makes sense as there is a ready made structure available, inside of which they could build whatever or however they wanted.

The second advantage of building inside moonlets is the camouflage it would afford them, unlike the huge metallic space stations that we see in sci fi novels like Star Wars which are visible from thousands of miles away!! (If I were an alien, I would feel distinctly uncomfortable there!!)

Third, it makes sense to locate inside moonlets as it provides protection from solar radiation and other hazards in space.

Fourth, it maintains an equitable temperature inside instead of the extremes a conventional space station faces. Amounts to saving a lot of energy.

Lastly, NASA has studied the possibility of doing just this - building a space station inside an asteroid! Makes sense, what?

Cheers!

Great post! Something Orson Scott Card wrote in the "Ender" books comes to mind: The Hegemony space command post was based in/on a captured (alien) "moon" that was named "Eros". Eros, Phobos, Eros, Phobos... Hmm, was Mr. Card on to something???
Star and Flag for teaching me something new for the day!

Glad you like my avatar Mike!

Also, will check that link and thanks for answering some parts of those questions I was asking you about. Just trying to get some idea on where some of you are coming from in regards to ET's in general.

Originally posted by Donoso
The whole debate over Phobos' "unusual" orbit & it being hollow ended in 1969.

It would appear that it is indeed not over, since we are discussing it here. Maybe the debate by scientists was over, but science has very defined boundaries "inside the box." Scientists lose a lot by not going with the ideas or data of their peers.

They at first didn't take into account tidal effects. The density of Phobos is now accurately measured at 1.9 g/cm³ which does not allow for it to be hollow. Not to mention it looks completely natural. This is in the same ranks as the hollow Earth theory I'm afraid, there's no truth behind it but highly imaginative speculation.

I personally believe in the hollow Earth theory and am not alone. In fact there is evidence out there to support it. I do not think Brooks Agnew and the team would waste that much money and time and risk their lives over something speculative and with no evidence.

The other factor was that, there was no detailed image of Phobos until the Viking mission in the 1970's. It's just a case of there being no observation at the time which lead to false data. Look at the first image you posted. Does that really look like a space station to you? What kind of engineering is that? Who were they hiding it from? Doesn't it strike you that it looks a lot like an asteroid and nothing more?

You're right though, this is all just early 60's wishful thinking.

If indeed the moon was hollowed out, would that really change its outside appearance? Maybe it was not hollow at first but with their incredible technology they made it so. Or maybe our readings are wrong in the first place. Until we went there and did physical investigating, I would say it is definitely possible that it is hollow.

I am not saying that I believe it is hollow or that there must be a base there. I just think throwing the idea that it is hollow out is a bad idea.

Originally posted by cbianchi513
Great post! Something Orson Scott Card wrote in the "Ender" books comes to mind: The Hegemony space command post was based in/on a captured (alien) "moon" that was named "Eros". Eros, Phobos, Eros, Phobos... Hmm, was Mr. Card on to something???

Eros, Phobos, Eros....Is there a connection? You bet!! The two weirdest moons in the Solar System do have us puzzled! Take a look at this image of Eros taken by the NEAR probe. Is it a natural feature?


Courtesy: NASA/APL

Now let's see what it probably resembles:

Enlarged...



Considering the shadows and contour, this is what comes up by deduction...


Courtesy: Artvision
By Yves Vaillancourt

And there's more. But later!

Cheers!

Now you've done it again Mike... Here I was just about to hit the rack, and now I'm not going to be able to sleep! Amazing! There is no question in my mind that this latest image, as well as the "deduction" of what it is are accurate. From too much time looking at Google Earth images, I can easily tell that this find is absolutely an artificial structure. Can't wait for more!
I just wonder if this is part of Card's "bugger" base???

I know it's a bit of a leap, but what if the object isn't actually on the surface? The anomaly in this picture also (to me) resembles a ship with its nose pointed down to the right and its engines glowing, perhaps in orbit around the moon.

Originally posted by goosdawg
BTW, your "weird formation" in your OP looks like part of a face peeking out from the surface.

Oh darn!! Not another face, pllleeasse!!

But you're right, goosedawg! It does resemble a half buried face! However, I'll lean more towards it being the ruins of an artificial building partly buried into the thousands of years of accumulated dust.

Cheers!