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.


Strange objects on Phobos

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 07:47 AM
Sorry if its an old topic but I could'nt find anything by searching.

Does anyone know anything about the tall reflective shapes on Phobos?
On the 8th pic is the tallest one, it appears to have three sides and is reflective.
On the bottom of pic 11 there seems to be a bright dot that casts a shadow onto pic 12.
Also on pic 11 there a few cone shapes on the edge of a crater.

Here's the link
I would be interested on any comments as to the origin of the objects because they look out of place to me.


posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 08:07 AM
good find!

sorry, i cannot answer what they are, but they definitley seem too tall to be naturally occuring. and so nicely rounded.

i wonder


posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 08:34 AM
They sort of look like Obelisks. When I saw the object you were talking about in the 8th and 11th picture, it reminded me of the Washington Monument.

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 09:04 AM
Good find i searched and read alot after reading this and found this...

Its exactly what you have found and is very interesting!

This is what Lan Fleming a NASA imaging specialist said about the anomaly.

Lan looked at it and upon further examination and study concluded as did I, that this was a physical anomaly on the surface of Phobos.

The website goes on and shows a 3d mock up showing the monolith in 3d and comparing it with nasas image.

The author goes on to question wether its a monolith or a pyramid using the physics of shadows and the sun to determine if it is actually that high or if its a pyramid shaped rock whose shadow dipped into a depression and thereby elongating it's shadow.

But whatever it is it could not have been caused by erosion as there is no weather on phobos and it could not have been caused by a remnant of the Stickney Crater impact as such a large mass would have escaped.

Theres also a baby monolith which is exactly in line with the bigger monolith.

Check it out hope this has helped a little although i would like to know if there has been some official talk about this anomaly.

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 09:09 AM

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 09:11 AM
At first glance I didn't think anything of it, but the more I think about it the stranger it seems. It certainly seems to be quite upright, which is not in keeping with the surrounding area. Could it be attached to something buried benneath the surface, part of a larger object/artefact?

Theres also a baby monolith which is exactly in line with the bigger monolith.

If you have 2 points, lets say, A (Big Monolith) and B (Little Monolith), and you join the 2 together by drawing a line between them, by some quirk in geometry, you get a straight line. Not sure that actually counts as being IN line.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by Koka]

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 09:26 AM
Good point koka i just realised that anything on that picture or any of the others could draw a line and have a stright line between A and B.
Hope that makes sense

It is a very strange object whatever it is and if you look at all the other images there are alot of "baby monoliths" at least no one can say it was caused by weather so what is it there must be some explanation somewhere?

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 09:50 AM
Thanks for the link markjaxson.
I'd thought about weather as an explanation (lightning and deep sand) but that meens it had to have some sort of weather in the first place, I think not.
And on pic 11 theres at least 2 cones on the wall of the crater.
Were they there before the metor stuck or did they appear after?

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 11:09 AM
If they were there before the meteor struck they must be buried quite deep in the ground and must be made of something really durable.

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 11:34 AM
Haven't the russians lost abvout a half dozen probes over the years, some of them to phobos?(I remember something about an object near phobos miles long seen before they lost contact with a probe)

Anyways, I could be debris from one odf the lost probes. Phobos is small(something with 20miles wide, right?). That object couldn't be THAT big.

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 11:48 AM
Okay, I'm sure some of you have seen my replies. I'm sure y'all think I'm a big dooty-head, wet blanket, unbeliever. I am not. I just think we are easily jumping to conclusions. Here we go......

Phobos is barely a moon at all. It's schmalllll... teeny-weeny. The pics presented here need to be looked at in relation to it's surroundings. Phobos, as a small ball has an irregular shape. That object purported to be an obelisk, to me is a longish rock that is sticking up out of what would be the side of the Phobosian (new word invention alert.) Combined with the angle of the sun you get the long shadow. It's a big rock, really.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by Der Kapitan]

[edit on 18-8-2004 by Der Kapitan]

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 11:52 AM
It looks like a rock, probably that got displaced by another impacting object. As far as an oblisk?? I can't see it, but it doesn't mean someone else can't.

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 12:38 PM
I don't see an obelisk either. It's hard to get a feel for size on that, but is seems sorta stout for an obelisk, plus it's rounded.

Now, what we can tell by comparing shadows is that the object in pic 8 is about 7 times taller than the wall of the crater to the left of it. However, considering that we're looking at a common sized crater on a very small body, it's hard to imagine the crater being too deep, nor the object next to it being too tall by that system of comparison. On earth, an object 7 times as big as a noticeable crater might be miles high. On Phobos though- I don't know, because we don't have a good frame of reference.

For all I know, I might not be able to park my pickup in that crater, and that would make the object next to it about 30 feet tall. A very impressive boulder, but still just a boulder.

One thing interests me... that boulder is really shiney by comparison with the rest of the landscape. I wonder what it's made of. I can certainly see why some people imagine it as being made of steel, glass, or some other modern material. Even I am open to the idea just for by that observation- I just don't consider it the "starting point" for consideration.
For some reason, science tends to start with really mundane explanations and work gradually towards newer and more radical theories from there if absolutely necessary. It seems boring, but so far it has been at least a marginally functional system- it got us this far.

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 12:38 PM
The light, as you can see, is at a very askew angle in this picture. So the long shadow does not mean the object is tall at all. Looks like a rock deposit. Yes there is erosion on Phobos, too, due to temperature changes. So something has chipped.

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Aelita
The light, as you can see, is at a very askew angle in this picture. So the long shadow does not mean the object is tall at all.

that is exactly what i was going to say. i bet it's just some sort of ejecta from a crater, maybe not even necessarily from Phobos. the gravity is next to nil, so i would think such a relatively (comapred to the moon itself) object would escape.

EDIT: just realized my quotes were messy.

[edit on 8/19/2004 by cmdrkeenkid]

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 02:39 PM
I did'nt mean it was tall as in 100s of metres, I ment in respect to the rest of the landscape.
I thought about impact debris but you would expect to see more pieces laying around and laying flat.
On pic 15 at the bottom right corner there's three near the crater and on two of them you can see that the tops are angled.
And there a lot more reflective than anything else.
They still look out of place to me.

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 02:55 PM
Interesting I cant tell if its made by aliens or just a plain old rock. I bet NASA will study it IF its that intruiging. Nice Find

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 08:19 AM
Just found this on the "mysterious" dissapearances of the phobos space probe.

This is for Soulforge

On March 31, 1989 Headlines dispatched by the Moscow correspondents of the European News Agency (EFE) stated: "Phobos 2 Captured Strange Photos of Mars Before Losing Contact With It's Base." Vremya revealed yesterday that the space probe Phobos II, which was orbiting above Mars when Soviet scientists lost contact with it on Monday, had photographed an UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT on the Martian surface seconds before losing contact." Scientists described the UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT as a thin ellipse 20 KILOMETERS LONG! It was further stated that the photos could not be an illusion because it was captured by 2 different color cameras as well as cameras taking infrared shots.

And this

It has long been rumored that Mars and its moon Phobos are alien colonies. The surface of Mars is covered with strange shapes/buildings that do not appear to be natural such as the pyramids, square buildings, runways, etc. One structure shows the face of a man with a helmet looking into space. It can be seen at the National Space Science Data Center, Viking photo with catalog number 76-A-593/17384 Titled "HEAD" . Another photo is 070-A-13. There are now eleven Viking photographs (and growing) of this obviously intelligently constructed monument on the surface of Mars. The "HEAD" and other artificial features such as the pyramids were combined by electrical engineer and imaging specialist Vincent DiPietro and a Lockheed computer scientist. The composite images seemed to show that the features on the surface of Mars had been artificially sculpted... Just maybe, WE ARE NOT ALONE!


Seems to make sense, i still would like to know if theres a plausible explanation for this phobos monolith.
Also the top(roof) of the monolith is supposed to be on an angle like a slanted roof.

Whatever it is must have occured after the meteorite struck or else like (someone mentioned here) it would have been covered in dust or whatever the planet is made of.
I just find it really odd that its just so out of place, it might turn out to be just a boulder but it would be good if someone could prove its just a boulder.

[edit on 19-8-2004 by markjaxson]

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:00 AM
What is it about these pics that makes it so hard for some of you all to believe that these are ANYTHING but boulders? I really don't see any evidence that they are monoliths, obelisks, Chevy Novas? What up?

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 04:21 PM
Looks nothing like a boulder to me.
More conical IMHO.
And as I said in my other posts it looks out of place.

<<   2 >>

log in