Hollow Phobos, and it was not captured by Mars! Scientists says

page: 7
90
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I don't know about Phobos but there's tons of info. saying our moon is a hollow artificial moon.


Earth Insider Research Report


An Introduction to The Hollow Earth

Introduction to THE HOLLOW EARTH INSIDER VOLUME 3 #5
Statement of Purpose

Hollow Moon?
A Look at The Polar Mystery
home



Hollow Moon?
or
From Where The Bells Toll by Dennis Crenshaw



Another piece of evidence pointing towards the theory that all heavenly bodies are hollow is that, as you would expect with a hollow sphere, both the Earth and our moon are known to "ring like a bell" when hit with a shock wave.

In "Moongate: Suppressed findings of The US Space Program" (1982), Nuclear Engineer and researcher/writer William L. Brian II presents evidence proving that the moon, as any hollow sphere would, "rings" when hit by asteroids or heavy space junk. And that's not all. According to Dr. Brian, "the evidence provided by Apollo seismic experiments also points to the conclusion that the moon is hollow and relatively rigid." (1)
He also reports:

"It is not commonly known that the Earth displays the same bell-like ringing or reverberations as the moon. Since the Earth is 81.56 times more massive than the moon, it takes a much larger explosion or shock wave to generate this effect.
"Joseph Goodavage referenced such occurrences in his book, "Astrology: The Space Age Science". He mentioned that the ringing effect was recorded during the May 22, 1960 Chilean earthquake. This was supposedly the most violent earthquake that had been recorded since the establishment of official world records in 1881. Goodavage provided a description of the effect which was given at the 1961 World Earthquake Conference, held at Helsinki, Finland.
The description stated that the shock was so severe that the "entire planet rang like a bell". The ringing continued for a considerable length of time in a regular series of slow impulses which were recorded at various independent seismic stations. Goodavage also noted that the planet rang again as a result of the Anchorage, Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964. It seems hard to believe that scientists were so appalled in finding that the moon rang like a bell. After all, the Earth displays the same characteristic". (2)


Proof that the "ringing" of the moon is common knowledge in the scientific and NASA communities is presented in communications between Mission Control and the men aboard the Apollo 17 moon mission on December 29, 1972.

"LUNAR MODULE PILOT (LMP): Was there any indication on the seismometers on the impact about the time I saw a light flash on the surface? CAPCOM: Stand by. We'll check on that.
LMP: A UFO perhaps, don't worry about it. It could have been one of the other flashes of light
CAPCOM: Jack, just some words from the back room for you. There may have been an impact at the time you called, but . So it would mask any other impact." (3)


Research/Writer Don Wilson presents other well-documented evidence supporting the Hollow Moon Theory.

"The moon has only 60% of the density of Earth. The improbable fact that an equal amount of earth material seemed to weigh almost twice as much as moon matter mystified everyone. Why the difference? The actual answer, some scientists felt, pointed to the possibility that part or all of the moon's interior was hollow!" (4)

Then there's a report in the July 1962 issue of Astronautics by Dr. Gordon McDonald, a leading scientist at the Nation Aeronautics and Space Administration in which he states that "according to an analysis of the moon's motion, it appears that the moon is hollow: if the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is less dense than the outer parts. Indeed, it would seem that the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere.’" (5)

In 1959 eminent scientist Professor Iosif Shklovsky put forth his findings in relation to the "moons" circling Mars. "After carefully weighing up the evidence he concludes that they are both hollow" (6)

While some "orthodox" scientists will quietly admit that some earthly bodies are probably hollow, they steadfastly refuse to accept the fact that ALL planets and moons are NATURALLY hollow and hurry to add they must be "artificial" satellites.

For instance:
"The moon seems to be a comparatively light world in contrast with the planet Earth. The fact that the moon is only about 60% as dense as our planet has led scientists to two theories: that the moon is without an iron core, and/or, that it is partially hollow.
"Data and computations – among them, Dr. McDonald's motion studies, – point to the conclusion that our moon is internally hollow to a great extent.
Since most scientists claim there is no natural explanation for such peculiar phenomenon (because satellite worlds are not naturally hollow), the inevitable conclusion indicates that the moon is artificially hollow." (7)

Once again, the "establishment" scientists are trying to "fit" the facts to their "sacred cow" theory. In no way will they "buck" the system and admit the obvious. The facts, once again, support the theory laid out by Gardner and Reed all heavenly bodies are hollow.




(1) "Moongate: Suppressed findings of the US Space Program". William L. Brian II. Portland, OR: Future Research Publishing Co. 1982. (page 126). (2) Ibid. (page 126-127).
(3) "Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon. Donald K. Wilson. New York, NY: Dell Publishing Co. 1975. (page 60).
(4) Ibid. (page 71).
(5) Ibid. (page 73).
(6) Ibid. (page 82).
(7) Ibid. (page 89).



Return to The HollowEarth Launch Menu






Use the Immortal Tools, You are There
onelight.com...





[edit on 28-7-2010 by Sargoth]




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Sargoth
 
Hiya Sargoth, been a while


A lot of people love the idea of a hollow Moon. It's an old idea that goes back to at least Jules Verne. Early sci-fi had the interior populated by insectoid critters. They were often more advanced than us yet unemotional. Naturally, modern Moon mythology has gotten way more complex.

We've got secret USAF bases, secret alien bases, ancient secret alien bases and strip-mining going on out there. Throw in Lear's crazy BS about Greys harvesting human souls with their soul catcher device and it's a mental-health festival up there. Lot's of crazy stories...

As you'll guess, I think it's a natural Moon as per the textbooks. Every other planet has Moons, they're a natural feature of the birth of solar systems as we understand it. In that light, why does our Moon have to be a hollow spacecraft that's been towed over and put in place. What did they do to the original moon? etc etc.



I don't know about Phobos but there's tons of info. saying our moon is a hollow artificial moon.


You could always ask your friend, Drunvalo. Let's face it, he's been in so many spaceships and been to so many galaxies. He must be the 'go to guy' on a subject like this. Let's hustle up an email address and ask ol' Melchy



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


That's just the beginning. Wait for the September Phobos conference by ESA which takes place in Rome!



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cybernet
reply to post by Arken
 


That's just the beginning. Wait for the September Phobos conference by ESA which takes place in Rome!


Thanks mate! We see and listen...



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I've been hearing that the folks over at ESA have revised their findings about Phobos. Apparently they originaly said it was about 1/3 hollow... now they say it's almost 50% hollow.

Did a quick search and came up with this.


...voids making up 25%-45% in Phobos's interior.


Source

The rest of the article seems like they are really grasping at straws and just coming up with anything they can to explain away the mysterys, but of course it's presented in a way that makes you think the mysterey has been solved. ... not true. ...Phobos is looking more alien all the time.




posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Do people ever read the sourced article?


We conclude that the interior of Phobos likely contains large voids. When applied to various hypotheses bearing on the origin of Phobos, these results are inconsistent with the proposition that Phobos is a captured asteroid.


'Contains large voids' doesn't mean hollow. They're scientists...if they meant 'hollow' they'd say hollow.

Phobos has been identified as a sort of 'rubble pile' since around the 50s. IIRC it was the Russians who first identified it as such. At the same time, the mythology of a 'spaceship Phobos' was born. It's there in the early UFO lore of the 1950s.

When they dispute one of the theories that Phobos might be a 'captured asteroid,' they aren't suggesting it's an ET manufactured object dragged into position by tugboat alien tech.

As a 'rubble pile,' it could have come into existence by accretion. This means a certain amount of matter in diverse, but small, masses has been drawn together by planetary mechanics and gravity. Its decaying orbit and low mass lend support to the theory. The material could have come from meteorite debris or leftovers from the birth of Mars.


I totally disagree with most of the above.

The scientists use the term "void" to indicate that some parts of Phobos are not of the material of its outer surface which is more or less rock. Those voids could be water ice filled. The trouble is how water or any substance far lighter in mass than the rock got trapped inside. The ratio is quite huge. Water-filled fissures would have to command much of the interior to match the mass-versus-dimensions ratio work. If completely empty voids, the area could be much smaller. However, void certainly can mean hollow and they would have too smart to claim that outright.

The Soviets were not the first ones to discover that its mass was too light for its dimensions, it was our Vikings in the mid to late 1970s. The early soviet concept of them being hollow was totally false because that determination was made with the assumption that the moons Phobos and Deimos were shiny, metalic spheres. There is no relationship between Shklovskii's prediction and the facts of the matter.

It is totally untrue that Phobos has been determined at any time to be a rubble pile . That is merely one theory, and it fails some basic conditions for that theory to be viable. The problem is, as the ESA scientists have brought out for all to see, is that Phobos is really even more of a mystery than it was assumed.

Phobos and Deimos are best identified from their exterior compositions with D-class asteroids on the outer edge of the asteroidal belt. How they got around Mars is another mystery in that Mars lacks sufficient gravity to capture one, let alone two of the same type of asteroids from the other side of the asteroid belt.

The evidence is clear. The close, almost perfectly circular orbits of both moons, the compositions, the voids, the area from which the asteroids had to have come from, and the inability of Mars to attract such bodies to its gravity well all speak that they are placed in their positions, perhaps as habitats millions of years ago.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Did a quick scan of this thread and am surprised nobody has posted a link to Richard C. Hoagland's analysis of phobos. If it was and I missed it, sorry, but he certainly give a lot of data.

Part 1
www.enterprisemission.com...

Part 2
www.enterprisemission.com...

It's the usual Hoagland take on things. At the very least there are lots of great photos.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw
 


Thanks a lot for your news.
Last week I find the Press release from The Phobos Convention in Rome.
The results and the new theory about new data are very, very impressive!

This is the UPDATE!
They find "Phillosilicates"on Phobos surface!


"This is very intriguing as it implies the interaction of silicate materials with liquid water on the parent body prior to incorporation into Phobos. Alternatively phyllosilicates may have formed in situ, but this would mean that Phobos required sufficient internal heating to enable liquid water to remain stable. More detailed mapping, in-situ measurements from a lander, or sample return would ideally help to settle this issue unambiguously,"


Take a look....
www.marstoday.com...



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Anyone know if there is anything out in there indicating that Mars was part of a binary planet mini-system between Earth and Jupiter?

If Mars itself at some point was the little sister in binary, and the asteroid belt is largely compromised of what is left of the big sister, this would potentially explain how Mars has two pieces of the asteroid belt in orbit. Mars didn't capture them, so much as retained them.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamRoy08
This is very intresting and my whole thoughts of Mars is that they were a civilization before and also visited earth and our ancients but some disaster happened and they lost all their water and nature... the artificial moon would just help to say civilization existed there before maybe even house the last remaining martians... it would be very exciting to have NASA to send someone to investigate or a probe designed to land and enter the hollow moon...


How funny you mention that! I recently took a trip to Santa Catalina Island, and my friend and I spoke to these 2 guys, one of whom worked for NASA at the JPL headquarters. (The other guy was just a big sci-fi fan - loved Firefly, etc.) I asked the NASA guy about my conspiracy theory stuff, which he thought was quite foolish "No, there are no UFOs flying around our atmosphere" (I still don't believe him - China is a great example) "There were no missions after Apollo 17" (in reference to the Apollo 20 mission) but then when I asked him about Phobos (he got really excited, and said he should pay me for being his "straightman" and bringing up Mars' moon) he told me he IS in fact writing a paper on how to effectively land on Phobos and use it as a base to explore mars with robots! They want to "drill" down into Phobos and build a station inside of it to protect our astronauts from the radiation, and that being INSIDE of Phobos would protect them from said radiation. I asked him why on earth would he rather land on Phobos, when in fact Mars is the cool place with all the artifacts. He said that it takes so much fuel to land on Mars, and they would not be able to blast of the surface of Mars to get back, but that by having a space station on Phobos, they can send more robots down to the surface of Mars. The amount of fuel required to lift off of Phobos is MUCH less than the amount required to blast off of Mars because of it's gravity.

Made sense to me. What do you think?



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Hey, if The Bugs can use Phobos as a base why can't we?

(reference to Ender's Game).

Not a bad idea. Separating the interplanetary ships from the exploratory equipment might cost more up front seemingly, but likely costs way less in the long run.

The shipments between Earth and Mars (and other) coming from stations outside the atmosphere, and then more local "freighters" or wire transports taking it down to the surface.

I like it.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Explain how Phobos looks the same as this - RUBBLE pile

It doesn't.

In fact, it doesn't even come close.

RE: a few posts up someone speculated about impact craters punching right through Phobos... I recall somewhere seeing another ATS member state that the craters appear similar to dents in a metal can. Does anyone else agree (as I do) that the poster had it about right? In terms of the physical similitude of the two objects - Phobos, and a dented (ovoid) tin can covered in dust?

Perhaps it is so ancient that at some point it was abandoned, being whacked and dented as the aeons passed, then some other race (maybe even a human faction) came along and reactivated it - which is why the Russian probe got clobbered at the critical moment before it could come right up close and personal to Phobos?

PS - the Eros structures are even more convincing than the Phobos monolith...



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw
 


Amazing info from that source JaguarPaw..!

I agree that they might be grasping at straws, but the following extract may also be interpreted as a wonderfully subtle hint from our Italian friends....


"We detected for the first time a type of mineral called phyllosilicates on the surface of Phobos, particularly in the areas northeast of Stickney, its largest impact crater," said co-author Dr Marco Giuranna, from the Italian National Institute for Astrophysics in Rome.

These phyllosilicate rocks are thought to form in the presence of water, and have been found previously on Mars.

"This is very intriguing as it implies the interaction of silicate materials with liquid water on the parent body prior to incorporation into Phobos," said Dr Giuranna.

"Alternatively, phyllosilicates may have formed in situ, but this would mean that Phobos required sufficient internal heating to enable liquid water to remain stable."




Hmm.. Sufficient internal heating... By J'ove Watson, I think we've got it!



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Califemme
 


Hmm. So if this NASA guy's coming up with this idea now, and we all agree it's a good idea, then what's the odds that an advanced civilisation would've missed the trick? Dunno about you but I had a "Well, duh..." kind of moment in regards to the NASA guy's stance on the whole thing.

Sorry for hammering this thread folks, but this stuff fires up my inspiration-o-meter..!

Ender's Game seems to be chock-full of 'interesting' coincidences re: space colonisation etc. I haven't even read it yet and already I know of two such coinkydinks. The 'Phobos connection', and those hella-massive ship-like thingies which appear to have been caught by the SOHO team flitting around the sun earlier this year. Note to self - must read "Ender's Game"...



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Kandinsky, other facts which indicate the moon may not be our original natural moon, are that it's too big, most other moons are much smaller in relation to it's parent planet. It's orbit is too circular, most natural moon's orbits are more eliptical. Our original 2 smaller moons were destroyed by Atlantis using 1 to destroy Lemuria 25K yrs. ago and the last 1 to destroy Ionia (the Greeks) but accidently destroyed Atlantis instead. Sheldan Nidle's books "You Are Becoming A Galactic Human" and "Your First Contact" is the source for this info. According to his sources Pluto, Chiron, and Ceres are escaped moons of Neptune. There was a smaller inner most planet called Vulcan that was destroyed about 25 yrs. ago. The asteroid belt was a planet called Maldek by some and was destroyed by the Galactic Federation about a million yrs. ago. Our present moon was constructed as a battle station by the Reptilians. All the craters are not from asteroids but many are from bomb and weapons fire. Originally there were 4 habitable water worlds Venus, Earth, Mars, and Maldek. The others were decimated by the war between the Federation and tthe Reptilians. I would love to hear your comments.



Evidence for the destrruction of earth's original moons.
googlesightseeing.com...

Here's some of his updates.
www.paoweb.com...

www.paoweb.com...
edit on 28-5-2011 by Sargoth because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-5-2011 by Sargoth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Sorry if anyone else has thought of this already........

If the density is low and these moons have voids or empty parts would it not make sence that if an ancient martian race wanted to mine an asteroid or other body it would make sence to bring it or a part of it back into orbit for minining and return of the material to the surface rather than keep returning to where it was originally located ?

These moons could have had minerals or similar simply not abundant or native to Mars itself.

Best Regards,

Kevin



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
[img]http://montrealradioguy.files.wordpress.com...[/img]


[img]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[/img]


[img]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[/img]

edit on 7-12-2012 by TRUELIES11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by Kandinsky
 



Ok. Not a "unique hole", but probably dozens of huge voids.
But:
These Large voids are incoherents with the proposition that Phobos is a captured asteroid.

Now, how Phobos has arrived in the gravitational field of MARS?




He literally JUST said:




As a 'rubble pile,' it could have come into existence by accretion. This means a certain amount of matter in diverse, but small, masses has been drawn together by planetary mechanics and gravity. Its decaying orbit and low mass lend support to the theory. The material could have come from meteorite debris or leftovers from the birth of Mars.


Damn dude, hoping for ET a little bit?



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Can we please stop resurrecting very old threads? Especially as the new Phobos thread is right here on the same page.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Clearly it's a space-dragon egg,

when our sun goes supernova, the egg will hatch and space-dragon will rule the universe!

Phobos must be continually praised, in this thread, to avoid the wrath of space-dragon.
edit on 9-12-2012 by cartesia because: yes





new topics
 
90
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join