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

Originally posted by FireMoon

It is the same with the Russian *retieval* video/film... Unlike the Roswell autopsy the film stock was tested... genuine... the weapons, uniforms and equipment in the film are all totally comensurate with the time period the film claims to be from. Even the secxurity codes on the can match up with the KGB's filing system...

They can fake those too. We are talking about cold war Russian communists here. They kill people simply to shut their mouths like nothing.

I've seen that video. If it was true, why weren't the trees in the vicinity got burnt? Why was there no deep cratering or deep gouges on the ground where the saucer crashed. It is obvious the saucer was planted there. I could go on and on....

But it is your choice to trust and give credibility to bunch of commies....

reply to post by Beachcoma


Nah...that would be Klingons!


reply to post by mikesingh


Is it a tubular structure or a racetrack?

Where's the monolith located on Phobos, in relation to everything else?

In the Russian infrared shot, maybe the docking port for the big honkin' spacecraft is located in the shadows at the Southern(?) end.

Or maybe they just take shuttle crafts back and forth...



It's difficult to understand how some can view these images of such wonderful alien structures, (alien as in; not of this world) and dismiss them in such a blasé, out-of-hand fashion as just big, boring rocks.

Where's their sense of wonder and glory?

They're probably the same type who could stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon and say; "Eh, it's just a big hole in the ground..."

It's always aces musing on your finds, Mike!

Great fun!

Thanks!

Originally posted by FireMoon
You can;t have it both ways .. People ask for a scientist to come out and say... this is what we saw etc etc.. One does so and then it's well it was faked because "they're Russians". a tad insulting i'd say, to just dismiss possible evidence simply because it comes from the Russians?

Nah, I'm dismissing it because it's from Fred Singer. He has a penchant for re-interpreting stuff and will attempt to disprove gravity if someone paid him enough.

This is what Dr Singer has been doing these days:

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[9]

[..]

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]

Certainly inspires confidence in his character, doesn't it?

Track down the original statements and research from the Russians, then I'll reconsider.

Originally posted by goosdawg
They're probably the same type who could stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon and say; "Eh, it's just a big hole in the ground..."

If it's not "just a big hole in the ground"....what is it? Looks like a big hole, sounds like a big hole, quacks like a big hole....must be a "big hole".

I'm serious.....imagine trying to describe The Grand Canyon to someone who has never seen it.....where do you start? I'll start with, "well, ya' see...it's this big hole in the ground....but, really, really, big."

A "sense of glory" does zip for practical purposes......if that was all we needed, we could claim these things as angel droppings....whatever, it's glorious.



[edit on 18-1-2008 by MrPenny]

[edit on 18-1-2008 by MrPenny]

Hmmm...How in the name of Phobos did you know I am a 'disinfo poster' working for the NWO? I better tighten up my counter intelligence unit!


well, NWO, ok..I was thinking mor of the CIA but anyway..

DONT BELIEVE, GUYS..

THERE ARE NO ALIENS.

ITS JUST FUN..

Although Jim Marrs book alien agenda doesnt go into much detail about the actual phobos, it talks alot about the phobos 2 being destroyed by little balls that kinda stick themselves to the satallite and make it malfunction,but this was all learned during a remote viewing session....lol

reply to post by Beachcoma


Beachcoma, thanks for the research! I've never heard of this Fred Singer before. The first time I heard of the Phobos image was at the Enterprisemission.com website, a long time ago. Check this out:

On the 'hollowing out' of Phobos:
"The Russians sent two probes, named "Phobos 1" and "Phobos 2" to Mars in the late 1980's, to study the surface and atmospheric properties of the planet, and the composition of one of its two moons, Phobos. Phobos 1 failed along the way, but Phobos 2 made it all the way to Mars and operated nominally for period of several weeks. Its disappearance has become the stuff of UFO lore, but in the process the spacecraft made numerous valuable observations of both Phobos and Mars. One of the most curious was that Phobos density was found to be extremely anomalous. According to a paper published in the October 19th, 1989 issue of the scientific journal Nature, Phobos had a bizarre density of 1.95 g/cu.cm ("19.5" anyone?), meaning it was almost 1/3 hollow! Since both Martian "Moons" are actually captured asteroids (and therefore consistent with the Tidal Model), this finding is extraordinary. There is virtually no way that a solid object like Phobos can be "hollowed out" in this manner naturally, leaving a really big question -- just who hollowed it out ... and why?"
Source: www.enterprisemission.com...

With a quick search at their site, I couldn't find the article I read originally where Hoagland did his version of the 'play-by-play', but this quote tells the story in short form. I'm sure Hoagland would answer an email query, he did years ago when these issues all first got my attention. He's got a ton of photos from both NASA and the Russian Probes, perhaps he has data on the source of the story too?

Also, I found a website that hosts: "The Complete Phobos 2 VSK Image Data Set" here:
www.planetary.org...

There are several images that seem to show this wierd 'UFO' type thing. Here is one:

Here is another, taken by Phobos 2, of Jupiter and Mars. They are the two dots, the blob is something else (Unidentified) or an image artifact.
You have to look at this zoomed in to even see the planets pictured.

Here is an obvious image artifact, from the same camera on Phobos 2:

And here is an image with both the obvious imaging artifact, AND the anamoly:

Notice how one of the imaging problem 'lines' disrupts the 'anamoly' where it intersects? It's very strange, and tends to suggest the 'anamoly' was a physical object in the image.

Also strange is how the 'obvious' imaging problems are represented by horizontal (as seen by the viewer) lines, where as the 'anamoly' turns up consistently vertical (as seen by the viewer), and at appoximately 90 degrees from the imaging problem 'lines'.

Anyway, just some more data, it never hurts
And lots more questions. I'm really caught up with another project right now, but I thought I'd at least provide a link to some more data from the probe for everyone to speculate on. Thoughts?

Originally posted by mikesingh

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...

Can you please point to when and where Dr. Singer said this? The article quoted does not cite its sources. One can easily attribute anything to anyone; dropping a name does not make it true.

reply to post by MrPenny


True, the Grand Canyon is a big hole in the ground, but it's more than just a big hole in the ground.

To attempt to describe it, by one who's been there to one who's not, mere words do not suffice.

Even the "thousand words" photos convey fall woefully short.

When evaluating images of the far off and exotic, should our interpretation only lie within the realm of the starkly pragmatic?

Phobos a big rock may be, but to poets and dreamers, it's much more than just that.

Therein lies the wonder, and the glory.

Originally posted by goosdawg
When evaluating images of the far off and exotic, should our interpretation only lie within the realm of the starkly pragmatic?

Yes, it should....otherwise, the final interpretations become as myriad as the individuals interpreting it. Then, there will never be a consensus.....only fantastic musings on what they "could" be. Of course, that would demolish the reasons for forums such as this. We wouldn't want that.

reply to post by Beachcoma


Hey Beach! Here’s something that may interest you…



And this is the written version here..

www.informantnews.com...

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


WFA, that was an amazing post! And thanks for that link.

I was always under the impression that there was just one image of that 'UFO', the first and last sent by Phobos II. I wonder why these other images with this anomaly have not been discussed anywhere?

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Can you please point to when and where Dr. Singer said this? The article quoted does not cite its sources. One can easily attribute anything to anyone; dropping a name does not make it true.

No SC, I don't think that's quite correct. It is not only Dr Singer, but a host of others who made similar conclusions. I wonder if you've gone through the entire article mentioned with a link in my opening post?

Cheers!



[edit on 18-1-2008 by mikesingh]

reply to post by mikesingh


Holy crap! It's Brother Cavil!!

That's quite fascinating. So was the cigar on the Red Planet or in orbit, casting a shadow?

reply to post by MrPenny


But there can be no "final" interpretation, because we'll never have all the answers.

Just more questions.

If we reject the desire to probe and consider the fantastic and "out-there," we'll never discover the true limits of our "reality."

"Non-fiction" is not all there is.

What was once scoffed at as "ridiculous" and "magic" is now commonplace.

What "magic" today will be common tomorrow?

reply to post by mikesingh


Thanks Mike! If you ever need a hand doing an independent sweep for data, just let me know! That's what I love about ATS, you never know who will find corroborating evidence that's new, and you never know who's got a gem (of information) hidden away in their archives

Thanks Mike. Always good work. I am looking forward to some better materials for you to chomp on soon. Until then you and others are honing your skills well. Interesting visual points here.

For those lurking cynics, some of us already have direct evidence that other civilizations exist. We are looking for more in the public record so you can know what we do. Yet due to the fact even a cynic cannot prove their own experiences, I do not waste time defending any more unless equally good investigative is cited or demonstrated. We can always use intelligent help.

I don't care if cynics or a sloppy skeptics don't believe this is important work using a magnifying glass on crumbs. Usually the table is swept clean of more meaty photos and visual evidence and especially physical evidence by managing entities like NASA, USAF and the dark operatives within and without. This is all we have now to work with. People like Mike keep them on their toes.

These are interesting visual tidbits, but I am looking forward to better images and video soon. Things are heating up, and new material will undoubtedly show up, and from many credible sources.

Until then, these visual studies not only keep us practiced, but might compile many cases that later corroborative data will maybe emerge on.

Keep up the good work!


ZG

[edit on 1/18/2008 by ZeroGhost]

Originally posted by mikesingh
No SC, I don't think that's quite correct. It is not only Dr Singer, but a host of others who made similar conclusions. I wonder if you've gone through the entire article mentioned with a link in my opening post?

You've ineptly dodged the question. The only person that matters in this is Dr. Singer, since you are using him as proof that Phobos is an alien spaceship. So please, I ask you again, where did Dr. Singer make these claims?

And just because other people say the same thing, doesn't make it true.

Slighty off topic but still on a similar theme....Pushing Ice by Alastair Reynolds is about Janus, moon of Saturn moves out of orbit.

It uses the theme that a moon is just a shell for an observation base.

Always interested in how ideas flow.

Originally posted by goosdawg
But there can be no "final" interpretation, because we'll never have all the answers.

I agree....but fortunately, the statement doesn't eliminate the probability of getting some of the answers. Allowing the search for the answers to go all willy-nilly drags out the process and sends serious people in pointless directions.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
You've ineptly dodged the question. The only person that matters in this is Dr. Singer, since you are using him as proof that Phobos is an alien spaceship. So please, I ask you again, where did Dr. Singer make these claims?

And just because other people say the same thing, doesn't make it true.

SaviorComplex, I too would like to know what prompted Dr. Singer's claims, HOWEVER, to be fair, Mike only asked the question: Is Phobos an Alien Spaceship? He didn't proclaim that it was one.

Further, we're using photos (mostly in the Infra-Red if my info is correct) taken by the Soviet Space Probe 'Phobos 2' as the evidence to be evaluated. That evidence does not stand or fall necessarily on claims Dr. Singer may have made.

I still think Dr. Singer's testimony is important, but it's not the main source of evidence in this case. That data comes from Soviet Russia, and their space program.

If I'm understanding your statement incorrectly, you have my apologies. Just wanted to make sure it was clear that this case is not based on speculation or claims alone...