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.

 

Restricted areas in our solar system?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 03:16 AM
link   
The moon Phobos around Mars is a very peculiar object. It is in the solar system the closest to its parent planet. Phobos is orbiting only at 6000km (~3700mi) from Mars...

What happened 15 years ago around Mars to a Russian probe remains today a mystery... Back in 1989, the Russians had sent a probe around Mars, or more precisely around its inner moon Phobos, and unexpectedly lost contact with it. The intrigue in it is that the probe had sent back some photos of a very unusual object...

Here is a link to the story, with cool links.
Here is another one.

It is really disturbing to think about all the mysteries around Mars itself and around Phobos... It has been speculated that Phobos would be an unnatural moon, used by aliens as a base in our star system, or maybe even Mars itself. There are a lot of stories about alleged buildings on Mars (the Cydonia pyramids and face). But that picture sent back by the Phobos 2 probe is really interesting: it shows what is likely a solid object, and a picture even shows a shadow, potentially that object's shadow, on the surface of Mars. It is also a very huge object: 2km x 20km (that is 1.25mi x 12.5mi).

And this opens the debate: was the probe shot down or somehow disabled by a UFO? If so, why? The answer is possibly that the aliens are really using Phobos and/or Mars as a base, and that they simply didn't want to be uncovered... The probe Phobos 1 also failed... But more recently, we also sent three probes to Mars, and one of them is today still missing...

Beagle 2, the British probe, is still (and will never be) responding, and we don't know why... Did it crash? Or did it land properly but is unable to communicate? We don't know. The link to Phobos 2 is not direct, but we must know that obviously we have been trying to determine what happened. This article gives more details. We should have been able to picture the area where Beagle 2 was supposed to land, and thus we should have more details... But so far I've seen nothing.

Keeping in mind what happened to Phobos 1, which also failed, what happened to Phobos 2, what happened to Beagle 2, all the controversies about aliens using Phobos or Mars itself as a base, all the controversies about those supposed artificial structures, both on Mars and on Phobos also, the fact that Phobos is speculated to be hollow and artificial, the fact that we know now that Mars had liquid water in a distant past, it wouldn't be that crazy to think that some aliens are/were using Mars and/or Phobos as bases...

Even our own Moon has been (is still!) subject to some speculation about alien presence, and even astronauts have declared that had seen things, that they were never alone... Some people even think that we were warned off the moon (by aliens, that is).

Anyway until further evidence it is impossible to state anything conclusive, but it is very interesting and intriguing. There are some coincidences that are at least strange... Would we be adventuring in some forbidden places?



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 05:07 AM
link   
If you were to congecture and think outside the box you have some valid questions. However I think the difficulties in reaching and attaining orbit @ Mars is difficult in itself and there lies the answers. Like not converting metric to decimal for a correct orbit



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Good article Spooky,

I remember reading something about those probes trying to land on mars moons but lost contact with it and the last image they saw was a "Long thin" shape heading for it.

Its really interesting and i never thought about any theories regarding beagle 2 up till now, i just thought they lost signal from either crashing/faulty part etc but they dont even know if it had landed or not the details are very thin.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Thanks mark.

As usually, things get interesting in ufology (and other subjects) when you look at things as a whole, and I really didn't think about it before today... The fact is that that story about the two Phobos russian probes was already well known to me, but the coincidence having Beagle 2 lost as well just sprung!

Maybe I'm far fetched, but...



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Is there anyway to check out the path of all the probes that has gone to mars?

Both the american rovers successfully got to mars.

The beagle and the russian probe did not.

If we could find out if the beagle and russian probe had similar paths then this would be a good start, im sure all of them could not have took up similar paths towards mars or around mars?

Just something to consider.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I have read that beagle 2 is actually functional. When it landed in green vegitation, they covered it with a crash. I believe I've seen a picture that is supposed to have been the beagle 2's last sent and it showed green.

I have also seen a video that supposedly shows humans landing on mars in 1969 on board a UFO.

I don't know if these are true, but I do think that much is being hidden from the public.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Well, actually I don't think it is the path itself that should be looked for, but the destination. The two russian probes were sent to examine Phobos itself, and not Mars, but the three latter probes sent to Mars were sent to different locations on the planet.

Assuming (this is a "work hypothesis") that there is an alien presence on Mars, it may not be simply everywhere. I think it is even more obvious, because we would have known by now. So, maybe simply the two US rovers are on a "desert spot", while Beagle 2 was sent to some place too sensitive... It would be also assuming that chance did play a role, or maybe that the US did know about the places to sent theirs, so that they disturb no one, and didn't tell the British that their spot was not a good place to land...

There is more info (well, "more" "info"...) on Beagle 2 on the official Beagle 2 website.
There is more info as well on the two US rovers on the JPL / Nasa website dedicated to them.

On the other hand, I don't think the path to Mars and/or Phobos would be important to check out, because the planets Earth and Mars were not really in the same position when those launches took place.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
I have read that beagle 2 is actually functional. When it landed in green vegitation, they covered it with a crash. I believe I've seen a picture that is supposed to have been the beagle 2's last sent and it showed green.

I have also seen a video that supposedly shows humans landing on mars in 1969 on board a UFO.

I don't know if these are true, but I do think that much is being hidden from the public.


godservant, do you have any links to that? It would be interesting to see, though honestly I doubt that there would be green vegetation on Mars... Now that video you mention, I've seen it, (no links for now, sorry), and I honestly have great doubts about its veracity...

It is likely that not everything is public, ok, but I am really not sure that we are actually sending men on Mars since the late 60's!! That video is IMO most likely a hoax.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I think the original article is somewhat diminished by all the links and information in there titled "author unknown."

Generally this means someone's speculating and pulling information out of their hats instead of basing it on real situations. As someone pointed out, it's hard enough to get the craft to Mars -- or anywhere else. And the technology of the time wasn't as well developed as it is today.

As to the "humans on Mars video" it has been debunked here a number of times. It's a particularly bad video from a British production and the actors can be seen today, walking around and quite alive and unharmed. Some of them even managed to have careers after the movie came out.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Hey Spooky-

Phobos may not be the only area of this type. I'm re-reading Alien Agenda by Jim Marrs (JFK) There is a photo in it of some object that was transmitted by one of those Russian probes that was lost. Plus, Marrs talks about these hand-grenade size objects orbiting the Earth that apparently are there to enforce a "quarantine zone" around the Earth. We are supposedly not returning to the Moon because of some sub-lunar occupants that do not want us there. Just a little more fuel for thought.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Why would they want us humans coming to destroy there territories when we are doing such a great job here. Actually they don't want us destroying Earth either they have to many studies going on here.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 10:16 AM
link   
This is going to get a little more technical for most of you but many will find it interesting.

Let's go back to the theory of the universe and how time began. I recently had to write a paper "translating" Stephen Hawking's paper here. Although some of his logic doesn't hold up (don't worry, the part about the universe having a beginning does), there's one interesting bit I'd like to share. I quote from my paper (which is clearer):



Further theories were raised and subsequently disproved. Through this scientific dialogue it was found that General Relativity, Einsteins theory of gravity, predicted that singularities would occur whenever more than a certain amount of mass was present. This prediction was specifically applicable to singularities caused by a star collapsing upon itself, known as black holes. It was soon mathematically shown that black holes modeled our expanding universe. The idea is that the expansion of the universe is analogous to a star collapsing upon itself in reverse and therefore originated from a singularity. By theorems derived from General Relativity, once a sufficient amount of matter existed (in the universe) it could be mathematically proven that time and space had a beginning.

As we look out into the universe we are actually looking back into time. This is because light does not travel instantly but in light years, the number of years it takes light to travel at 186,000 miles per second from one point to another. So, what we are able to observe, in the past, is called our Past Light Cone. The concept of a past light cone is used to strongly hint that the universe had a beginning.

....

To find proof that the universe had a beginning we must turn again to the omnipresent background radiation found in 1965. Because something must be emitting this radiation it follows that the universe is surrounded entirely by matter. In fact, scientists have determined that the universe is surrounded by ionized hydrogen. If a person outside the universe were to look inside they only would see a cloudy surface. In this sense the universe is opaque. Because there is enough matter to make the universe opaque it mathematically follows that there is sufficient matter to cause a singularity. Since the past light cone represents all events in the past, the Big Bang happened in our past.


So basically Hawking's thesis is that because we "see" (receive microwave radiation, really) a bunch of ionized hydrogen surrounding us, the universe must therefore be surrounded. This constitutes enough mass to cause a singularity, and therfore our universe had a beginning.

But this doesn't follow logically. We could be surrounded in a hydrogen globe with a "mere" diameter of huge number of (billions) light years. The fact is we don't know if the hydrogen stands at the "end" (beginning, really) of the universe.

What are the implications if it's not? Simple. It's an external "curtain" blocking us from seeing further out. A visually restricted area, if you will. Did nature make it or sentients? Who knows.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   
does that mean the hole universe is inside a sphere made of ionized hydrogen?




top topics



 
0

log in

join