It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Phobos II last image

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 04:00 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by internos

Good debunk, only a few mistakes I will point out.

The white line that is claimed to be a UFO only appears in the infrared pictures, not in any of the blue or clear high-res photos, when the op claimed they were in all the photos. I imagine it was a typo.

Thank you for your post:
Actually, in the OP it has ben stated that the channel in question is the infrared one: here's a quote from the op:

Originally posted by internos
As you can see, the images are divided into channels:
Channel 1 (blue)
Channel 2 (clear, high-res)
Channel 3 (infrared)
If we take a look to the full sequence of the images caught by the probe on infrared channel, then we'd realize that there's an issue (it could be bad data transmission, but i don't know the details about the payload):
all in all, the glitch can be spotted on every single image.
Here's the full sequence from the infrared channel (the one in question: )

It has been mentioned not just one, but TWO times, that the channel in question was the IR one: but perhaps it wasn't clear enough?

The line appears consistently in the same X coordinate position in all of the infrared pictures, but the Y does drift somewhat, along with the length changing numerous times, once going all the way across from bottom to top.

Additional observations I thought should be mentioned.

Three of the photos have lines going across from left to right in the infrared series, two of them have multiple lines. This is consistent with a camera distortion problem, most likely due to the transmission, but if there were problems with the transmission, then why does it only show up in the infrared.

Maybe because the data coming from the three channels were used to be transmitted using thee different devices, independent one with another? Wouldn't make sense to use three different transmission devices in order to transmit data from three different channels? Would maybe work better to mix them alltogether using some shaker then split them once the data reached their destination? And if yes, then why, in your opinion?

In two series, the infrared photos are missing. I wonder why, is there any explanation?

This is a good remark, but it's incomplete: the photos were taken apart about 1 min 5/10/15 secs, alternating the channels:
blue (1), clear (2), infrared (3) in different sequences, the full sequence would be:
unknown-3 (NOTE: while according to the webpage would be [unknown]-3, according to the Excel spreadsheet containing the image metadata that you can download here
that is.
Yes, in two "series" the images from IR channel are missing, and in one the image from the clear one was missing:
I don't know the why and have no clue what this is supposed to have to do with the hoax, but I'll offer some possible explanations, them all could we wrong:

1) The photos from the channels in question have been lost.
2) The photos from the channels in question were never taken.
3) The photos from the channels in question don't exist, but they have been even used by Ted Stryk in order to elaborate the processed versions of them.
4) The photos are being kept hidden because Phobos II actually caught on camera an alien spacecraft with the ability to shift from being visible only to the IR channel to being visible only to the clear one: plus, we have an alien spacecraft that stuck in the very same position, regardless the probe's camera was pointing towards JUPITER, MARS or PHOBOS: just doing dome up&down movement so, for fun, but always sticking in the same position relatively to the craft.
5) Else

You decide which one of the four above is the most likely (or less CRAZY explanation)

When you look at the series, or at least this series of pictures, it seem pretty obvious that you are probably looking at a problem with the camera, although the little thick line isn't something that tends to be typical of camera distortion problems. I don't have much experience with camera distortion problems like this, but it seems unusual.
Does anyone have any examples that show similar types of photo anomalies?

The white pixels are (by coincidence or not, you decide) following EXACTLY the telemetry scan lines orientation, you know, horizontal and vertical...: it's not a problem of knowing about "camera distortion": it's about knowing what might have happened during the transmission of the data, because THAT is what matters in these cases: you have a device catching the image, and other ones that have to transmit the data taken from the camera: PLUS, other devices not directly connected with the two that might have been the cause of the issue . If the issue is in the device "B" then it's useless to try to find out whether device "A" works or doesn't: because there's no reason to believe it doesn't work. Unless by "camera" we'd mean even all the external apparatus, regardless they are connected to it or not, ok?
It's known as "dropped scans", "missing data", or "transmission flow": you can call it even "Donald Duck" if you like it, it won't change the point.

For example, there are devices (like some types of antenna) that may disturb some type of scanning devices, like scan mirrors but not only: some of the devices affected by the disturb reset and restart, some other ones loose their sync, then they restart, resync and then you might get some very strange effects, some scan lines "slide towards some direction (for example, towards the right):
that being said, does THIS make sense now?

Here is the problem with these pictures.

Why would someone pass a photo to Marina Popovich, and tell her it is proof of ET presence in space, if it is so obvious of a hoax? The original picture was supposedly sneaked out, and not intentionally released. It looks like someone played a hoax on her, why?

Marina Popovich is an aviation legend, up there with Amelia Earhart and Chuck Yeager. What would be the motivation? I don't see a lot of money coming to the people who created this hoax.

The next question then becomes, how do we know these photos are authentic, and have not been tampered with?

Which is the real hoax, the original photo, or this set released later?

Where is the proof to back these photos up?

There is no proof enough for those who ignore the facts, as well there’s none so blind as those who will not see.
Marina Popovich, BTW?
Let's take a look to what has to say about her Linda Corriveau, the author of this WAX SCULPTURE

that miss Popovich tried to pass off as some extraterrestrial pilot recovered in Roswell (read the full story):
ah, of course claiming to have received it from someoneone else.

The report stated that in 1991 two photographs purporting to show the remains of an extraterrestrial pilot recovered at Roswell had been circulating in the international UFO community in the form of highly degraded photocopies of photocopies. The text described how “the alien photo was first revealed to the world during the second ”Dialogue with the Universe“ International UFO Conference, organized by Michael Hessemann in Munich in June of 1990. There, Marina Popovich, one of Russias leading ufologists released the photograph, claiming to have received it from Professor Felix Zigel, who in turn had obtained it from a Canadian source.

See also:
In Praise of Strange, Strange World
Bloody Soviet Close Encounter
The Strange Case of Phobos-2
O Marciano que usava Zíper

[edit on 23-3-2010 by internos]

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:47 PM
reply to post by internos

It's this statement that threw me off.

all in all, the glitch can be spotted on every single image.

It is very easy to make a copy of a digital image, and the chances are that they were all stored on the same media. Maybe there weren't several copies? But that seems unlikely.

I could think of numerous other reasons why some pictures were lost. They might have been corrupted on the storage device, or when transferred. Which could very well mean that these photos tell us nothing. Why do only the IR images have problems.

Chances are that the same light sensor was used for all three photos. The software chooses what data is to be displayed, or transmitted for each picture.

It seems highly unreasonable that they would use separate transmitters for each photo, that wouldn't make any sense.

Like it or not, it is suspicious.

Normally when you see a problem with this type of picture, several lines go across the area, as in your example, these phenomenon look considerably different than typical distortion.

Well, it is clear, there are many hoaxers. The problem then becomes a question of who is the real hoaxer.

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by internos

Forgive me, I am fairly new to this site, although I am well versed in the topic, and I have just a few questions to ask regarding the moon Phobos and the "ufo" image.

First of all, I couldn't begin to guess why you make such an issue out of an image that anyone could see was an artifact. To me the real issue is WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO THE PHOBOS II? or WHY WOULD A SATELLITE LIKE PHOBOS HAVE THE HEAT (INFRARED) SIGNATURE IT HAD? ThOSE would have been the better topics.

The picture in question, the supposed last image taken before the Phobos II fell silent, was supposed to be of 8 seconds exposure and one of a series of 37 total images taken (this info gathered from your post). However, the site you eluded to with all the images taken is a few images short, then, and none of them are of 8 second duration. So this "ufo" image fits in where? There must be some images missing. This further info also makes me think there are images missing:

Reports by the Soviets at the time the incident took place clearly mention an "unidentified object" and an "inexplicable" or "elliptical shadow" on Mars. I've seen the image in your post of the moon Phobos' shadow on the surface of Mars, and I've seen another image. There is no way such an image could fool Soviet and European scientists (since it was somewhat of a joint effort).

Also, Dr. John Becklake of England's Science Museum, during a live European tv broadcast, at that time, described an "anomaly" that was between the spacecraft and Mars, because the Martian surface could be seen below it, and also stated that it was seen by optical and infrared cameras. I've looked at all the images in your post and there are no images showing an anomaly in both infrared and optical images.

So what's up? There is obviously data missing. We obviously have not been shown all the images.

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in