Phobos May Be Alien Space Base: White House adviser!!

Phobos, photographed by the Mars Express High Resolution
Stereo Camera (HRSC).
Courtesy: The Register

Was Phobos some kind of an 'outpost' of Mars made by an ET civilization, maybe hundreds of thousands of years ago? Or is it still so?

What with all the weird, unexplained anomalies on Mars and Phobos, there could be some element of credibility to this, though it’s pure conjecture so far.

Whilst browsing Rense, this is what I found. Though this is of the 60s vintage, it shows the thinking in the White House in the days of yore. But it could be the thinking today too! Who knows?

The Martian moon Phobos, generally accepted as a celestial body, actually may be an artificial satellite launched long ago by an advanced Martian race, according to Dr. S. Fred Singer, special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments. No mention was made of the other Mars moon, Deimos.

Dr. Singer backed a claim first made by the Soviet astrophysicist Shklovsky. The Russian scientist's announcement that Phobos was a hollow, artificial satellite, proving the existence of a Martian civilization, set off heated arguments among astronomers. Shklovsky based his decision on a long study of Phobos' peculiar orbit, which other astronomers have noted. The Russian claim has calculations and those of earlier astronomers prove Phobos cannot possibly be an ordinary moon.

In 1963, Raymond H. Wilson Jr., Chief of Applied Mathematics at NASA, joined Shklovsky and Dr. Singer in their Martian conclusions. He stated that "Phobos might be a colossal base orbiting Mars."
www.rense.com...

Now have a look at some of these images of Phobos. What do you think?


A monolith on Phobos. Is it artificial?
Courtesy: Palermo Project
Aliensurgeon

Here’s a weird formation on Phobos taken by Mars Global Surveyor. Do you notice it toward the upper left?


MOC image 50103 subframe near Stickney crater.
Courtesy: MSSS

I have zoomed in sharpened and reduced picture noise some…


Weird formation on Phobos.. Can this
be the remains of an artificial structure?


And now the Canadian Space Agency is set to lead a mission to Phobos named Phobos Reconnaissance and International Mars Exploration (“PRIME”). The PRIME science team has tentatively selected the monolith area as the target landing site! (Well, I wish NASA takes a leaf out of this and selects target landing sites near some of those numerous anomalies on Mars!)

Why Phobos?



Phobos – An alien docking station? This infrared photograph
was the last taken by the Russian probe, Phobos II
before it lost contact (Destroyed?)
Courtesy: ufos-aliens

Does anyone have any more info on the anomalies on Phobos? It does seem to be a strange moon. Could it actually be an alien space base?

Cheers!


Ref:
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...
www.rense.com...
www.spaceref.com...
www.theregister.co.uk...
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

damn!!! now THATS interesting.

Fascinating material here! Will read it over!


Also -- Mike, just wondering but do you think ET's are visiting Earth now?

If so, do you believe there were grey aliens at Roswell -- in other words, do you believe that there are extraterrestrial biological entities visiting our planet now or sometime in the recent past like at Roswell? What about all of those ET stories by some well known whistleblowers, do believe their stories about encountering Grey aliens or whatever?

thats damn interesting,very good work,im still reading over it. the monolith photo has got to be the best, it looks like somekind of communication device maybe, good whatever it is.






ive always wondered what this picture is about, is the large circular object phobos?

The whole debate over Phobos' "unusual" orbit & it being hollow ended in 1969. They at first didn't take into account tidal effects. The density of Phobos is now accurately measured at 1.9 g/cm³ which does not allow for it to be hollow. Not to mention it looks completely natural. This is in the same ranks as the hollow Earth theory I'm afraid, there's no truth behind it but highly imaginative speculation.

The other factor was that, there was no detailed image of Phobos until the Viking mission in the 1970's. It's just a case of there being no observation at the time which lead to false data. Look at the first image you posted. Does that really look like a space station to you? What kind of engineering is that? Who were they hiding it from? Doesn't it strike you that it looks a lot like an asteroid and nothing more?

You're right though, this is all just early 60's wishful thinking.

flag and a star Mike! Glad to see you bring up the Phobos monolith again. I dont think it gets enough coverage or "looking into".

Originally posted by Donoso
Look at the first image you posted. Does that really look like a space station to you? What kind of engineering is that? Who were they hiding it from? Doesn't it strike you that it looks a lot like an asteroid and nothing more?

Agreed! But remember we need to think out of the box. It sure doesn't look like a space station if you measure it against known paradigms and templates. In other words, why should an alien space station look like what we must imagine them to be?

They could very well have been culled out of natural space bodies like big asteroids or small moonlets. It makes sense as there is a ready made structure available, inside of which they could build whatever or however they wanted.

The second advantage of building inside moonlets is the camouflage it would afford them, unlike the huge metallic space stations that we see in sci fi novels like Star Wars which are visible from thousands of miles away!! (If I were an alien, I would feel distinctly uncomfortable there!!)

Third, it makes sense to locate inside moonlets as it provides protection from solar radiation and other hazards in space.

Fourth, it maintains an equitable temperature inside instead of the extremes a conventional space station faces. Amounts to saving a lot of energy.

Lastly, NASA has studied the possibility of doing just this - building a space station inside an asteroid! Makes sense, what?

Cheers!

Great post! Something Orson Scott Card wrote in the "Ender" books comes to mind: The Hegemony space command post was based in/on a captured (alien) "moon" that was named "Eros". Eros, Phobos, Eros, Phobos... Hmm, was Mr. Card on to something???
Star and Flag for teaching me something new for the day!

reply to post by Palasheea


Palasheea, at the outset, I must say your avatar rocks!! Wow!

Heck! You've brought up a lot of questions!! OK, I need to say that I firmly believe that there are countless extraterrestrial civilizations in this huge universe. I also think that some of them are millions or even billions of years more technologically advanced than we are. Some probably graduating to Type 3 civilizations and beyond even BEFORE the birth of our Solar System! After all, the universe is close to 20 billion years old.

But I suggest you have a peek at this thread of mine which I posted in 2006 which may answer your question about what I think of all this...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also read Michio Kaku's Civilisation Types in the universe. We haven't even reached half of Type I as yet!!

Cheers!

Glad you like my avatar Mike!

Also, will check that link and thanks for answering some parts of those questions I was asking you about. Just trying to get some idea on where some of you are coming from in regards to ET's in general.

Originally posted by Donoso
The whole debate over Phobos' "unusual" orbit & it being hollow ended in 1969.

It would appear that it is indeed not over, since we are discussing it here. Maybe the debate by scientists was over, but science has very defined boundaries "inside the box." Scientists lose a lot by not going with the ideas or data of their peers.

They at first didn't take into account tidal effects. The density of Phobos is now accurately measured at 1.9 g/cm³ which does not allow for it to be hollow. Not to mention it looks completely natural. This is in the same ranks as the hollow Earth theory I'm afraid, there's no truth behind it but highly imaginative speculation.

I personally believe in the hollow Earth theory and am not alone. In fact there is evidence out there to support it. I do not think Brooks Agnew and the team would waste that much money and time and risk their lives over something speculative and with no evidence.

The other factor was that, there was no detailed image of Phobos until the Viking mission in the 1970's. It's just a case of there being no observation at the time which lead to false data. Look at the first image you posted. Does that really look like a space station to you? What kind of engineering is that? Who were they hiding it from? Doesn't it strike you that it looks a lot like an asteroid and nothing more?

You're right though, this is all just early 60's wishful thinking.

If indeed the moon was hollowed out, would that really change its outside appearance? Maybe it was not hollow at first but with their incredible technology they made it so. Or maybe our readings are wrong in the first place. Until we went there and did physical investigating, I would say it is definitely possible that it is hollow.

I am not saying that I believe it is hollow or that there must be a base there. I just think throwing the idea that it is hollow out is a bad idea.

Originally posted by Donoso
Does that really look like a space station to you? What kind of engineering is that?

Yes in fact it does look remarkably like a space station to me.
It's called planetary engineering, a.k.a. 'terraforming', it's not a new concept. In addition to reforming the surface of other planets, NASA has also suggested building directly into the material available in space (asteroids, moons, and planets), in various proposals througout the years.

Also, you should research the Subterrenne (sp?), a tunneling device used for underground bases (some claim) and digging tunnels through mountains for roadways. There is purportedly a version of this machine that injects liquid lithium at the drill bit tip, effectively melting through solid rock. I haven't researched any of this in years, so pardon the lack of sourcing. A google search will give you the relevant data.

Also, to further demonstrate the 'oldness' of the idea, Richard Hoagland (think of him what you will) also has a theory about Saturn's moon Iepatus being artificial. Here is a comparison image he made:


The first part of the (7parts I think to date) paper is here:
www.enterprisemission.com...

I'm not saying I believe it straight away without doing the investigation myself (which I haven't done and don't have time for, other projects have my attention), but I'm not willing to deny the possibility either, especially when both Phobos and Iepatus show such strange characteristics when compared with every other satellite body in our solar system.

Also, when I thought of this on my own, years ago, I was such a dork that I went Asteroid Home Hunting online, and if it were possible, I would build my home in 106 Dione (not to be confused with the moon of Saturn):
en.wikipedia.org...

LOL at past personal fantasy, but with NASA'a financial resources speculation at least is prudent, and with say the resources of a theoretical type 3 civilization, it could certainly be done. Heck, if folks like Freemon Dyson are proposing the possibility of Dyson Spheres, an artificial moon or satellite would pale in comparison to such a project. But many physicists think it's possible...

Originally posted by cbianchi513
Great post! Something Orson Scott Card wrote in the "Ender" books comes to mind: The Hegemony space command post was based in/on a captured (alien) "moon" that was named "Eros". Eros, Phobos, Eros, Phobos... Hmm, was Mr. Card on to something???

Eros, Phobos, Eros....Is there a connection? You bet!! The two weirdest moons in the Solar System do have us puzzled! Take a look at this image of Eros taken by the NEAR probe. Is it a natural feature?


Courtesy: NASA/APL

Now let's see what it probably resembles:

Enlarged...



Considering the shadows and contour, this is what comes up by deduction...


Courtesy: Artvision
By Yves Vaillancourt

And there's more. But later!

Cheers!

Now you've done it again Mike... Here I was just about to hit the rack, and now I'm not going to be able to sleep! Amazing! There is no question in my mind that this latest image, as well as the "deduction" of what it is are accurate. From too much time looking at Google Earth images, I can easily tell that this find is absolutely an artificial structure. Can't wait for more!
I just wonder if this is part of Card's "bugger" base???

I know it's a bit of a leap, but what if the object isn't actually on the surface? The anomaly in this picture also (to me) resembles a ship with its nose pointed down to the right and its engines glowing, perhaps in orbit around the moon.

reply to post by mikesingh


I'd be wary of Phobos, there has been much conjecture as to not just what but who
we would find there:

infocom.elsewhere.org...

(sorry, had to do it.)

On a serious note, that pic of Eros I've never seen before
great stuff!

reply to post by Comma8Comma1


The bottom photo, i have been searching for for ages online. I saw an interview with a Russian female scinetist about that very picture, she held a copy in her hand as she spoke.

It was during that brief period after the wall came down and many Russians thought freedom meant being able to talk about such subjects in public and on camera.


[edit on 17-1-2008 by FireMoon]

reply to post by mikesingh


That thing looks like a piece of machinery to me. A big backhoe scoop shovel. There are even score marks on the surface to the right of the shovel appendage.

Great work Mike!

Break out your 3D glasses and go here: ESA | Mars Express for a stereo pic, some Hi-Res Tiffs, and some pics from different orientations.

I haven't found the docking port for that honkin' big ship yet, but it's got to be there somewhere!

BTW, your "weird formation" in your OP looks like part of a face peeking out from the surface.

Originally posted by goosdawg
BTW, your "weird formation" in your OP looks like part of a face peeking out from the surface.

Oh darn!! Not another face, pllleeasse!!

But you're right, goosedawg! It does resemble a half buried face! However, I'll lean more towards it being the ruins of an artificial building partly buried into the thousands of years of accumulated dust.

Cheers!