Can we have a serious discussion about this (Phobos incident).

Ok nice answers so far. But can we have engineering type comments. Theres likely thick windows in the front and somewhere else in the ship. Also engines must be huge and not rocket based. Photon propulsion with fusion reactor?

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth2

I don't think something that advanced would need windows or engines.
Time is different to others. Perhaps someone blew them like a dandelion 100 million years ago and it too them 5 minutes so far to get here.

Do the microorganisms that live inside of jellyfish need to see out of them through windows? Do these microorganisms think about what kind of fuel the 'thing' is using?

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein


Ofcourse theres engines. How do you move. Also real aliens wouldnt be hanging year after year near Mars. Its flown by somekinda humanoid species.

And theres always windows incase technology fails (if cameras shut off you want to look out).

Theres likely a huge thrust engine in the back and possibly gravity rejection systems in the bottom so it wont crash in planets or moons. Theres also likely hangars for smaller ships and docking systems for ships that dont enter it.

It might even have legs that come out so it can land on a planet unless its a space based only ship that never lands.

originally posted by: SpaceBoyOnEarth2
a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein


Ofcourse theres engines. How do you move. Also real aliens wouldnt be hanging year after year near Mars. Its flown by somekinda humanoid species.

And theres always windows incase technology fails (if cameras shut off you want to look out).

Theres likely a huge thrust engine in the back and possibly gravity rejection systems in the bottom so it wont crash in planets or moons. Theres also likely hangars for smaller ships and docking systems for ships that dont enter it.

It might even have legs that come out so it can land on a planet unless its a space based only ship that never lands.

I think landing such a monstrous ship would be beyond its likely design capabilities, especially depending on the planet's gravity among other variables.

As for construction, it's one of the reasons it was debunked previously. Even though it is "needle" shaped that point is huge so much so that you couldn't properly apply man-hours to its potential to build it that huge. 3-D printing or some other material manipulation is needed. One reason a lot of these theoretically huge ships are based out on hollowed-out planetoid and while big windows would be nice, certainly a nice 20K web camera on the "tip" would be better suited for interstellar travel. After all, Safelite isn't everywhere.

I thought of the huge mass to land would be a problem too.
But 3d printing is a good idea.

Since that ship existed in 1980s, it was likely built with very tough materials and its moved with its superior power capability and engine thrust.

Nowdays I believe they are a bit smarter and easier built.

3d metal sheet printers on a small planet or moon and then taken to orbit if its a big ship and built over a superstructure. All living quarters and non superstructure units are in modules and put in place. Engines and weapons are brought separately.

People build a city block. Huge. Do it in a smaller scale and you have this ship. Like a aircraft carrier but space version.

I mean someone built it, the picture shows it. The fact that the gubbament isnt on TV saying its real with some news reporter media head, doesnt mean it isnt real.


a reply to: putnam6

originally posted by: SpaceBoyOnEarth2
I thought of the huge mass to land would be a problem too.
But 3d printing is a good idea.

Since that ship existed in 1980s, it was likely built with very tough materials and its moved with its superior power capability and engine thrust.

Nowdays I believe they are a bit smarter and easier built.

3d metal sheet printers on a small planet or moon and then taken to orbit if its a big ship and built over a superstructure. All living quarters and non superstructure units are in modules and put in place. Engines and weapons are brought separately.

People build a city block. Huge. Do it in a smaller scale and you have this ship. Like a aircraft carrier but space version.

I mean someone built it, the picture shows it. The fact that the gubbament isnt on TV saying its real with some news reporter media head, doesnt mean it isnt real.


a reply to: putnam6

I hear you, my friend, Im a believer just I also usually check to see if and what ATS had to say about most topics especially ones from such a long time ago. My beliefs on this have nothing to do with "media or the gubbmint" it's been debunked rather convincingly even without some of the images, it was a fairly extensive review and the ATS consensus at the time was it was bogus. So far haven't seen anything to suggest differently.

here is some pertinent info form the OP in the original thread.

and almost all the other UFOs based websites.

Both reports are characterized by some hight level of ignorance: there is NO WAY to even guess the size of some object caught on camera on some 3d environment and depicted on some 2d image: every guess would be arbitrary and based on everything but logical basis: this is what has happened with the image in question, only a triangulation could allow us to estabilish the size of the object.

But the point is that it was NOT an actual object.
Many years after, i finally got the chance to access the Complete Phobos 2 VSK Image Data Set : you can find it here.

archive.md...

As you can see, the images are divided into channels:
Channel 1 (blue)
Channel 2 (clear, high-res)
Channel 3 (infrared)

A couple of problems with the Phobos 2 cigar shaped UFO.

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: ):

You actually just proved its real.
The white line is at different positions near phobos. Its not a one frame error. Reason why its so bright is, its likely of some reflective material so its the same colour. Its also circling Phobos which is a very small moon so its size changes.

The lines under it are just compression or similar artifacts in the pic I posted. Also the other image with the shadow on the surface changes its place and is not a 1 frame error like people try to debunk since there were several frames of it too and the big black object following the probe was moving, this is what the cosmonaut herself said. I think she knows whats a line error and whats a huge object. I actually wonder why people want to debunk. The government does nothing but lie so if it says this is a frame error, usually just by looking what the opposite is, however ludicrous it seems, is usually the truth.

Theres also a lot of other evidence. If you study ufos you should know. There are hundreds of cigar shaped ufo object eyewitnesses.

The whole image gallery actually shows there is a huge object at different areas near Phobos moving. That camera seems to create ghosting lines under objects. Just look at Phobos, theres a grey thick line under it. Just like under the whiteline spaceship. How is Phobos real but not the actual spaceship.
People psychologically cant accept there is a space ship so their mind simply cant handle it.
Also when you engineer a spaceship like this, its likely of similar surface texture everywhere, and since its like a tube, its the same size.

The camera sees the black space as black, and since this is so shiny, its simply white, not enough resolution on camera to see otherwise. Ofcourse a perfect spaceship like this is seen as a white line.

Only someone with engineering imagination and technological understanding of cameras in general can see when combining with the shadow moving on the surface of Mars following the object, and then sudden contact loss to the probe, looks like case closed 100% to me. Soviet Union also didn't send a phobos 3 probe, they stopped. They knew they better stop, they were getting too close to something that even they were scared.



a reply to: putnam6

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth2

No worries but no it doesn't prove there is a 15-mile long space ship orbiting Mars in 1989 when it is only pictured in the 3rd infrared channel where is it on the other channels that were pictured less than 2 minutes apart? no 15 mile anything. Cause its a glitch in the infrared channel,

Unless now we are going to theorize cloaking devices for 15 mile long UFO orbiting Phobos

Actually now when you mention it, the ship might not be white or steel colored, that would actually be stupid. It could have a material on it that does not reflect much anything. The light wavelengths it reflects might be swallowed by the ship. Just like if you put a certain IR wavelength filter on a camera, you can block certain light wavelengths.
This is why its only picked by certain IR wavelength photographs that were taken.

If you can build a ship like that, you can likely camouflage it too.

Good point actually from you had to de-debunk.
a reply to: putnam6

Is humanity split in 2? We pick cans from street to buy some candy bars and they fly space ships?

originally posted by: SpaceBoyOnEarth2
Actually now when you mention it, the ship might not be white or steel colored, that would actually be stupid. It could have a material on it that does not reflect much anything. The light wavelengths it reflects might be swallowed by the ship. Just like if you put a certain IR wavelength filter on a camera, you can block certain light wavelengths.
This is why its only picked by certain IR wavelength photographs that were taken.

If you can build a ship like that, you can likely camouflage it too.

Good point actually from you had to de-debunk.
a reply to: putnam6

Is humanity split in 2? We pick cans from street to buy some candy bars and they fly space ships?

Now there is an interesting posit, is humanity split, an earthbound unenlightened vs a spacefaring race with hyper-intelligence, logic, and reasoning. So far separated we are but distant cousins with basically the same genetics but manipulated and enhanced beyond our current imaginations. Culturally and environmentally opposites, we would look like primitives at best. Pretty sure they would look at us like cows. This isn't a foreign idea here on ATS.

The ship is 'real' only if had the capability to detect the orientation of the probe's camera and turn itself into perfect alignment of the scan lines -- not even a slight angular twist. Also, since it appears horizontal in some frames and vertical in others, it would need to know exactly when the camera was scanning, so it wouldn't be caught mid-turn, askew to the camera's scan lines. Is that the proposed theory?

The original image was NOT snuck out of Russia by a cosmonaut, BTW, but by a cosmonaut's former wife, Marina Popovich, a well-known Russian UFO expert of galactic-scale imagination and descriptive creativity.

a reply to: putnam6

" Pretty sure they would look at us like cows. "

Not a bad idea, it would help explain the torrent of smelly brown male bovine stuff that's been spewed on this thread.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth2

"The cosmonauts themselves are on a video showing pictures with the shadow, and its moving on the surface and cant be a 1 frame error."

Share the link, please. If it's Marina Popovich, she was never a cosmonaut.

I heard a theory about these probes construction and launch sanitation.

Someone theorized that a rat or insect got inside of the probe prior to launch.

Obviously, it died, and froze in space, over the timeframe of the mission.

As electronics in the probe turned back on and powered up to take photos of Phobos and prepare for the next parts of the mission, the heat of the electronics thawed out some of the corpse, and the thawing carcass liquids began to short out the electronics.

Thus, dead probe.

I completely agree that the image everyone shows of the light streak is probably a camera artifact.

What gets me is the final three images show the martian surface with a shadow, when it should n;t be pointing a camera at it, and the shadow is huge...

Link to page with images - scroll to ~ middle of the page

While the image is similar to others showing the shadow of phobos on the surface, what spikes my curiousity (pardon the pun, rover!) is that the resolution of the image should really show a much smaller shadow with more planet surface area showing, but it's about the same size as other images by later probes with much higher resolution.

This seems to imply (to me) that the phobos-2 craft was much closer to the surface when it took and then sent back the images?

Thanks for this thread!
Of course, I fully expect to be shown I'm wrong, but hey...

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth2

the moon is something ridiculous like 20 , lies above the surface of mars and you can see it in rover pics all the time.


there has to be debris from impacts into the small moon and some of that is in orbit let alone what Mars its self captured into the low orbit the moons is in.


more than likely some sort of space debris hit the satellite and the shadow on the bound beforehand is in IR so its not a normal shadow and if it were a rocket it would look hot and not in shadow. i might be wrong about the IR part but i don't think i am


if it was a missile of some type it would look like a warhead or impactor and not some rock. what if the satellite move quickly out of the way? the martians would have given them self away


and why arent they shooting down all the satellites around mars and rovers all over get blown up? in fact we see the exact opposite

rovers work YEARS past what they were made to last, solar panels COVERED in sand and than the next day looking like it went into a car wash with a picture snapped that looks like a guy in a fireman's type mask cleaning it off.

if there is any higher form of life on mars its just going to be us.


i don't think if you study the early space programs of NASA and the military and of Russia. Its almost like the so called space race was so the two countries could split the cost and still get to the moon.

the moon is the best position for a missile base, low gravity and the missiles was fall into the earth gravity well not fight its way out, so its hard to believe the militaries of the world(China,Russia,US and MAYBE India) all have the ability to go to the moon and have forever but don't take the high ground????

that is a big ask.

they could get rockets up into low earth orbit and construct them in orbit and the last flight is 2.fuel and finally the people taking the ride.


no way we are not on the moon and i give it a 75% chance we are on mars.


once we had a base on the moon getting to the other areas in our solar system get allot easier, nuclear propulsion is doable as there is no one to kill with the fall out, or something like Orion as in space nukes don't have shock waves just energy so we could use them to get out far.



if we can get to mars we can get to the moon.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth2

In space you can arguably build a ship or structure any shape you want, gravity is not so much of a factor there but when moving it has to have structural rigidity to be able to retain its shape as during manoeuvres the centrifugal force generated would otherwise tear apart or deform such a structure but you know a light enough structure would not need to be all that strong so even an inflatable structure would work in some applications.

there are several reason's why such a shape would be desirable, moving with one end forward and one aft would create a more ablative resistant shape so micro impacts over a long duration would cause far less structural damage overall and more redundant systems would survive.

Spinning such an object around it's centre point would create two areas of centrifugally simulated gravity on both ends.

Since at least the 1800's though similar objects have been reported in the sky's of earth often launching smaller craft, sometimes saucer or orb in shape from within them, some were reported as transparent and the witness able to see the orb's within them.

What is it?, I have no idea.

One thing is certain in the years following the fall of the Soviet union more classified material than the US has ever shared with anyone was released and that included on this subject.

Remember though the DEBUNKERS on this site are very seldom equal to the experts whom had the opinion that this WAS an UFO, they just like to beat there own drum and feel important BUT they are very useful at debunking genuine crap when it comes along BUT this object is NOT that.

It also photographed what may have been structures on or beneath the Martian surface before it was knocked out.


But as for a strong cylindrical shape, we make them all the time down here, submarines, aeroplane fuselage etc right down to the humble pipe under the ground, even without internal support a basic tube is a surprisingly strong shape and a hollow bag filled with gas in space would be surprisingly light, rigid and able to be moved faster and with less force than a solid metallic object of the same size, an alien race may even adopt the pufferfish technique of making it look like they had bigger and better craft by inflating them.

I am pretty certain it has even been used in TV science fiction, I recall an old Original series Star Trek episode were they were facing off against some enemy ships, three to one and to scare the enemy they deployed two inflatable replicas of the enterprise one on each side but I can't find that episode when I do a search for it and don't recall the name of the episode (hmm maybe one of those Mandela affect things eh! ha).

Some more videos for fun (I make no claims about these the first one seems too good to be true).

Now what about Soviet abduction files?.

Another one that may or may not be real (definitely too good to be true in my opinion and the theatrical shock scene of the tiny helicopter flying over a massive frozen wreck puts the top hat on this one for me but still worth sharing).


Some of these can and will be debunked, in fact I have just made my opinion clear I do not believe two of them but that does not mean ignore them.


My opinion the Russian probe incident is one of the most credible incidence in UFOlogy, I think that there is a definite cover up.

But what did it meet, aliens?, remnants of a martial civilization defending themselves? or something else that is still unexplained that I have no idea.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

scitechdaily.com...


A tech similar to this, some alternate fuel for replication other than cells?

a reply to: putnam6

Im curious as to the 3D printing capabilities in the vacuum of space or an alternate environment where temps and pressures can be modulated with precision. 🤔

Depending on the atmosphere of production location/planet/planetoid it may be vastly more efficient to produce materials just outside the planet/planetoid. Perhaps raw materials sourced then and to production apparatus' in orbit. a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth2