PDA

View Full Version : Mars' largest moon Phobos hollow?


erthiz
06-04-2010, 11:02 PM
Hey guys

I was just reading about Nibiru when i stumbled upon something pretty interesting regarding Phobos,the largest of Mars' moons.


"In the late 1950s and 1960s, the unusual orbital characteristics of Phobos led to speculations that it might be hollow.

Around 1958, Russian astrophysicist Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky, studying the secular acceleration of Phobos' orbital motion, suggested a "thin sheet metal" structure for Phobos, a suggestion which led to speculations that Phobos was of artificial origin.

Shklovsky based his analysis on estimates of the upper Martian atmosphere's density, and deduced that for the weak braking effect to be able to account for the secular acceleration, Phobos had to be very light — one calculation yielded a hollow iron sphere 16 km across but less than 6 cm thick."

Fred Singer, then science advisor to U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, came out in support of Shklovsky's theory, stating:

[Phobos'] purpose would probably be to sweep up radiation in Mars' atmosphere, so that Martians could safely operate around their planet.
My conclusion there is, and here I back Shklovsky, that if the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore martian made. The big 'if' lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them."


This was in the 50's, interesting.

I dont know what to make of the Science Advisor to Eisenhower coming out and agreeing with this theory though.

erthiz
07-04-2010, 11:35 PM
30 views and no replies?

Does no-one think this is important? :)

If it can possibly be true of Phobos, can the same be said of our moon?

What are your thoughts? :)

sm1973
07-04-2010, 11:56 PM
30 views and no replies?

Does no-one think this is important? :)

If it can possibly be true of Phobos, can the same be said of our moon?

What are your thoughts? :)

I wouldn't rule it out, put it that way!
Would like to see more analysis done first though.

I can remember seeing a picture of what was supposed to be a massive spacecraft near Phobos which was taken on one of the Russian missions back in 1989. I think someone on here has this picture as their avatar as well?

erthiz
08-04-2010, 12:00 AM
I wouldn't rule it out, put it that way!
Would like to see more analysis done first though.

I can remember seeing a picture of what was supposed to be a massive spacecraft near Phobos which was taken on one of the Russian missions back in 1989. I think someone on here has this picture as their avatar as well?

Really? cool il have to check it out

To be honest im waiting for the book to come out before i make a decision on it all, but the posts have been so negative about it all im trying to find some evidence, to actually ask some questions :)

diamond dogs
08-04-2010, 12:21 AM
The large crater (Stickney) doesn't look right to me, more like an entrance port..surely if something that size scored a hit it would disintegrate into smithereens?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Phobos-viking1.jpg

erthiz
08-04-2010, 12:25 AM
Hey Diamond Dogs, its a pretty big crater right? :)

I think your right, something huge mustve collided with this moon, youd think the moon would smash into bits.

pound
08-04-2010, 12:49 AM
Richard C. Hoagland believes it to be 'Hollow' as well.

godgoo
08-04-2010, 01:41 AM
Phobos and Deimos may be composed of carbon-rich rock like C-type asteroids. But their densities are so low that they cannot be pure rock. They are more likely composed of a mixture of rock and ice. Both are heavily cratered. New images from Mars Global Surveyor indicate that Phobos is covered with a layer of fine dust about a meter thick, similar to the regolith on the Earth's Moon.

C-type, includes more than 75% of known asteroids: extremely dark (albedo 0.03); similar to carbonaceous chondrite meteorites; approximately the same chemical composition as the Sun minus hydrogen, helium and other volatiles;

Trojans: located near Jupiter's Lagrange points (60 degrees ahead and behind Jupiter in its orbit). Several hundred such asteroids are now known; it is estimated that there may be a thousand or more altogether. Curiously, there are many more in the leading Lagrange point (L4) than in the trailing one (L5). (There may also be a few small asteroids in the Lagrange points of Venus and Earth

It could be synthetic?

moving finger
08-04-2010, 05:16 AM
The large crater (Stickney) doesn't look right to me, more like an entrance port..surely if something that size scored a hit it would disintegrate into smithereens?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Phobos-viking1.jpg

A lot of people would argue that the reason it is the shape & size it is is because that happened - whether it was that crater or not is another matter.

Hollow? No. No credible evidence.

Artificial? No. No credible evidence.

erthiz
08-04-2010, 06:36 PM
A lot of people would argue that the reason it is the shape & size it is is because that happened - whether it was that crater or not is another matter.

Hollow? No. No credible evidence.

Artificial? No. No credible evidence.


Ahright so your just dismissing it straight away?

Anything is possible.

Is it hollow? maybe it is maybe it isnt.


This is a post from another guy on one of the other threads, makes some valid points.

So, is the moon really an alien Spaceship? :o let's look at some facts:

After hundreds of years of detailed observation and study, our closest companion in the vast universe, Earth’s moon, remains an enigma. Six moon landings and hundreds of experiments have resulted in more questions being asked than answered. Among them:

1. Moon’s Age: The moon is far older than previously expected. Maybe even older than the Earth or the Sun. The oldest age for the Earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old; moon rocks were dated at 5.3 billion years old, and the dust upon which they were resting was at least another billion years older.

2. Rock’s Origin: The chemical composition of the dust upon which the rocks sat differed remarkably from the rocks themselves, contrary to accepted theories that the dust resulted from weathering and breakup of the rocks themselves. The rocks had to have come from somewhere else.

3. Heavier Elements on Surface: Normal planetary composition results in heavier elements in the core and lighter materials at the surface; not so with the moon. According to Wilson, "The abundance of refractory elements like titanium in the surface areas is so pronounced that several geologists proposed the refractory compounds were brought to the moon’s surface in great quantity in some unknown way. They don’t know how, but that it was done cannot be questioned." (Emphasis added).

4. Water Vapor: On March 7, 1971, lunar instruments placed by the astronauts recorded a vapor cloud of water passing across the surface of the moon. The cloud lasted 14 hours and covered an area of about 100 square miles.

5. Magnetic Rocks: Moon rocks were magnetized. This is odd because there is no magnetic field on the moon itself. This could not have originated from a "close call" with Earth—such an encounter would have ripped the moon apart.

6. No Volcanoes: Some of the moon’s craters originated internally, yet there is no indication that the moon was ever hot enough to produce volcanic eruptions.

7. Moon Mascons: Mascons, which are large, dense, circular masses lying twenty to forty miles beneath the centers of the moon’s maria, "are broad, disk-shaped objects that could be possibly some kind of artificial construction. For huge circular disks are not likely to be beneath each huge maria, centered like bull’s-eyes in the middle of each, by coincidence or accident." (Emphasis added).

8. Seismic Activity: Hundreds of "moonquakes" are recorded each year that cannot be attributed to meteor strikes. In November, 1958, Soviet astronomer Nikolay A. Kozyrev of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory photographed a gaseous eruption of the moon near the crater Alphonsus. He also detected a reddish glow that lasted for about an hour. In 1963, astronomers at the Lowell Observatory also saw reddish glows on the crests of ridges in the Aristarchus region. These observations have proved to be precisely identical and periodical, repeating themselves as the moon moves closer to the Earth. These are probably not natural phenomena.

9. Hollow Moon: The moon’s mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth’s is 5.5. What does this mean? In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, "If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere." Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the moon’s reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where is "simply a cavity." MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote, "the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon’s gravitational field . . . indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow." In Carl Sagan’s treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."

10. Moon Echoes: On November 20, 1969, the Apollo 12 crew jettisoned the lunar module ascent stage causing it to crash onto the moon. The LM’s impact (about 40 miles from the Apollo 12 landing site) created an artificial moonquake with startling characteristics—the moon reverberated like a bell for more than an hour. This phenomenon was repeated with Apollo 13 (intentionally commanding the third stage to impact the moon), with even more startling results. Seismic instruments recorded that the reverberations lasted for three hours and twenty minutes and traveled to a depth of twenty-five miles, leading to the conclusion that the moon has an unusually light—or even no—core.

11. Unusual Metals: The moon’s crust is much harder than presumed. Remember the extreme difficulty the astronauts encountered when they tried to drill into the maria? Surprise! The maria is composed primarily of illeminite, a mineral containing large amounts of titanium, the same metal used to fabricate the hulls of deep-diving submarines and the skin of the SR-71 "Blackbird". Uranium 236 and neptunium 237 (elements not found in nature on Earth) were discovered in lunar rocks, as were rustproof iron particles.

12. Moon’s Origin: Before the astronauts’ moon rocks conclusively disproved the theory, the moon was believed to have originated when a chunk of Earth broke off eons ago (who knows from where?). Another theory was that the moon was created from leftover "space dust" remaining after the Earth was created. Analysis of the composition of moon rocks disproved this theory also. Another popular theory is that the moon was somehow "captured" by the Earth’s gravitational attraction. But no evidence exists to support this theory. Isaac Asimov, stated, "It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible."


13. Weird Orbit: Our moon is the only moon in the solar system that has a stationary, near-perfect circular orbit. Stranger still, the moon’s center of mass is about 6000 feet closer to the Earth than its geometric center (which should cause wobbling), but the moon’s bulge is on the far side of the moon, away from the Earth. "Something" had to put the moon in orbit with its precise altitude, course, and speed.

14. Moon Diameter: How does one explain the "coincidence" that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Again, Isaac Asimov responds, "There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion."

15. All the craters of the moon have a maximum depth of between 2 to 2.5 miles irrespective of their diameter, some of the larger craters have convexed floors, which means if you stood inside at the center of the crater. the crater rim would be below the horizon, Could there be an outer shell that limits the depth of the impacts?


16. For hundreds of years Astronomers have reported strange lights observed of the surface of the moon, these have been called TLP's (Transient Lunar Phenomena) they are still seen to this day and even now cannot be explained,


17. Spaceship Moon: As outrageous as the Moon-Is-a-Spaceship Theory is, all of the above items are resolved if one assumes that the moon is a gigantic extraterrestrial craft, brought here eons ago by intelligent beings. This is the only theory that supports all the known data, and there are no data that contradict this theory.

Also, if you read:

Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon by Don Wilson 1974

Secrets Of Our Spaceship Moon by Don Wilson 1979

Who Built The Moon? by Christopher Knight & Alan Butler 2005


You may not be so dismissive :rolleyes:

So yes, I'm going to read the new book with an open and inquisitive mind and leave the skeptics to do what they will always do

cluas
19-04-2010, 08:47 AM
Richard C. Hoagland believes it to be 'Hollow' as well.

Here it is, PART 2, just out, very exiting

:)

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Phobos2.html

cluas
27-04-2010, 03:39 PM
David Icke is saying this too, he just mentioned it in the - Truth Frequency Radio - interview

:)

http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114077

cluas
28-04-2010, 09:14 AM
SO -

We now have LOTS of people saying this.....

Phobos is artificial and hollow.....


Dr. S. Fred Singer (special advisor to President Eisenhower)

Shklovsky (Soviet astrophysicist)

David Hatcher Childress (author)

Buzz Aldrin (astronaut)

Stewart Swerdlow (salesman ?)

David Icke (researcher)

David Wilcock (professional lecturer)

Alex Collier (contactee)

Freeman (from Freeman Perspective)

Hoagland (from enterprisemission)



I probably left someone out :eek:

moving finger
28-04-2010, 01:38 PM
OK, so when did Buzz Aldrin say it was artificial & hollow? All I've seen is one video clip of him mentioning a 'monolith' that is routinely taken out of context as some sort of proof that Buzz Aldrin says there's a monolith when what he is actually saying is 'spend some money on a space program so we can prove that this stuff is natural & not artificial'.

Truth does not operate on a consensus. You don't suddenly acquire veracity just because lots of people agree with you. Things are either true or they aren't.

A bunch of conspiracy theorists agreeing with each other is not credible evidence.

Using hypotheses as evidence (I think Phobos is hollow and artificial, therefore it is) is not the same as having actual evidence.

Having a theory that is then discounted by actual evidence is not counted as currently credible evidence.

There is no credible verifiable evidence that Phobos is hollow and artificial.

sm1973
28-04-2010, 01:44 PM
There is no credible verifiable evidence that Phobos is hollow and artificial.

Do you have credible verifiable evidence that Phobos isn't hollow and isn't artificial?

If so can you share it on here.

moving finger
28-04-2010, 01:58 PM
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/index.html

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31031

http://starryskies.com/solar_system/mars/mars_moons.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v341/n6243/pdf/341595a0.pdf

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=7528

http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22794

Check some out. Theories based on actual measurements from equipment that has actually been there. Measurements that, if they were taken again, even by different equipment, would be the same. Actual proper science by people who understand it.

Believe them. Don't believe them, it makes no difference to the Universe.

sm1973
28-04-2010, 02:39 PM
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/index.html

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31031

http://starryskies.com/solar_system/mars/mars_moons.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v341/n6243/pdf/341595a0.pdf

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=7528

http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22794

Check some out. Theories based on actual measurements from equipment that has actually been there. Measurements that, if they were taken again, even by different equipment, would be the same. Actual proper science by people who understand it.

Believe them. Don't believe them, it makes no difference to the Universe.

I will take a look if I get chance. What do you think that large object was that was photographed near Phobos by the Russians back in 1989?

cluas
28-04-2010, 03:21 PM
Sorry about that part about Aldrin - He did say some INTERESTING stuff though

:)

erthiz
28-04-2010, 03:37 PM
Hey guys

Yeah theres quite a few people who believe Phobos is hollow/artificial :)

That website you posted Cluas is awesome, read it all last night.

cluas
04-06-2010, 12:25 PM
A nice song, if you like metal :)


VOIVOD - PHOBOS

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Complete world control
Design the signal
Log on
Spy wed satellite
Network spider site
Digital neurons
Data system on
Enter masterplan
Locked on
Global multi-scan
Restart fear program
Virtual readout
Data system down
Exit masterplan
Log out
Phobos moon
Dying star
Phobos doom
Lying star...

astrochicken
04-06-2010, 12:31 PM
Another thread on phobos (an iapetus and the moon) (http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1058857191&highlight=astrochicken+phobos#post1058857191)

truth seeker 09
04-06-2010, 08:53 PM
SO -

We now have LOTS of people saying this.....

Phobos is artificial and hollow.....

Dr. S. Fred Singer (special advisor to President Eisenhower)

Shklovsky (Soviet astrophysicist)

David Hatcher Childress (author)

Buzz Aldrin (astronaut)

Stewart Swerdlow (salesman ?)

David Icke (researcher)

David Wilcock (professional lecturer)

Alex Collier (contactee)

Freeman (from Freeman Perspective)

Hoagland (from enterprisemission)

I probably left someone out :eek:

Stewart Swerdlow is a survivor from the Montauk project. He talks about the Reptilians also. His home page is:

http://www.expansions.com/