Scientist Claims Mars Moon Phobos Is Hollow and artificial!
I have been always interested in Space and all it’s oddities. One of them is the moons of Mars. They are just full of mystery and it feels that something is not right. Same thoughts have Dr. Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky and here they are, enjoy:
Astrophysicist Dr. Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky calculated the orbital motion of Martian satellite Phobos and came to the jaw-dropping conclusion that the moon is artificial, hollow, and basically a titanic spaceship.
Phobos is spaceship says famous scientist Dr. Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky
The scientist is world-renown for penning the classic science book, “Intelligent Life in the Universe” with famous Cornell University professor, the late Carl Sagan of PBS and Voyager space probe fame.
Fear and Horror
Mars’ two moons, Phobos and Deimos, translate into “fear” and “horror.” As Mars is named after the god of war, the names seem appropriate. Both satellites were discovered in 1877 by U.S. astronomer Asaph Hall who never guessed they were artificial.
Both moons are extremely odd, especially the tumbling moon of fear: Phobos. Shklovsky puzzled over them.
Deeply troubling facts
Two facts deeply troubled Shklovsky.
First, both moons are too small. No other planet in the solar system has moons as tiny as the Martian moons. They’re unique.
Second, their origin bothered him. Were they captured asteroids as others assumed? No, they could not be! Their orbital plane was all wrong. And they’re too close to Mars. Much too close. Even more amazing–Phobos changes its speed from time to time.
Impossible, yet true!
Russian astronomer Dr. Cherman Struve spent months calculating the Martian moons’ orbits with extreme accuracy early in the 20th Century. Yet, Shklovsky astutely noted, as the years progressed into decades the mystery moon’s orbital velocity and position no longer matched its mathematically predicted position.
After lengthy study of the tidal, gravitic, and magnetic forces, Shklovsky came to the inescapable conclusion that no natural causes could account for the origins of the two odd moons or their bizarre behavior, particularly that exhibited by Phobos.
The orbit of that fantastic moon was so peculiar, so bizarre, that Phobos had to be a gigantic spaceship.
Every other possible cause was carefully considered and resignedly rejected. Either alternate explanations had no supporting proof or the math was wildly off.
So, Phobos had to be accelerating as it lost altitude, yet could the outer fringes of the thin Martian atmosphere be affecting it? Was the atmosphere actually causing a braking action like the deteriorating orbit of a slowing Earth satellite?
Phobos is a hollow, empty tin can
During an interview about the peculiarities surrounding Phobos, Shklovsky said, “In order to make this braking action so significant, and taking into account the extremely rarefied Martian atmosphere at this altitude, Phobos should have very small mass, that is, very low average density, approximately one thousand times smaller than the density of water.”
A density that low, less than an Earth cloud, would have dispersed Phobos eons ago. That could not be the solution.
“But can a continuous solid have such low density, probably smaller than that of air? Of course not! There’s only one way in which the requirements of coherence, constancy of shape of Phobos, and its extremely small average density can be reconciled. We must assume that Phobos is a hollow, empty body, resembling an empty tin can.”
A tin can indeed! Like a spaceship is a tin can in the cosmos. For all intents and purposes, the Apollo Lunar Excursion Module was a tin can exceedingly smaller than Phobos, of course.
“Well, can a natural celestial body be hollow? Never! Therefore, Phobos must have an artificial origin and be an artificial Martian satellite. The peculiar properties of Deimos, though less pronounced than those of Phobos, also point toward an artificial origin.”
Alien spaceships the size of small moons orbiting Mars? That makes the so-called “Face on Mars” look ridiculously feeble by comparison!
Strange monolith on surface of Phobos
Yet, no less than the United States Naval Observatory weighed in on the Russian astrophysicist’s amazing revelation, stating: Dr. Shklovsky quite correctly calculated that if the acceleration of Phobos is true, the Martian moon must be hollow, since it cannot have the weight of a natural body and behave in the prescribed manner.
Thus, even that august American institution conceded that mysterious alien ships might be orbiting Mars…the objects’ strange origins and ultimate purposes completely unknown.
Speculations over what the giant artificial spaceships might be have ranged from massive Martian space observatories, to half-completed generational interstellar spaceships, or even gargantuan planet-killing space bombs left over from an interplanetary war waged millions of years ago.
Shklovsky’s “Hollow Phobos” hypothesis
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’s 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 kilometers (9.9 mi) across but less than 6 cm thick. In a February 1960 letter to the journal Astronautics, Fred Singer, then science advisor to U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, said of Shklovsky’s theory:
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.
Subsequently, the systemic data errors that Singer predicted were found to exist, and the claim was called into doubt, and accurate measurements of the orbit available by 1969 showed that the discrepancy did not exist. Singer’s critique was justified when earlier studies were discovered to have used an overestimated value of 5 cm/yr for the rate of altitude loss, which was later revised to 1.8 cm/yr. The secular acceleration is now attributed to tidal effects, which had not been considered in the earlier studies.
The density of Phobos has now been directly measured by spacecraft to be 1.887 g/cm3. Current observations are consistent with Phobos being a rubble pile. In addition, images obtained by the Viking probes in the 1970s clearly showed a natural object, not an artificial one. Nevertheless, mapping by the Mars Express probe and subsequent volume calculations do suggest the presence of voids within the moon and indicate that it is not a solid chunk of rock but a porous body instead. The porosity of Phobos was calculated to be 30% ± 5%, or a quarter to a third of the moon being hollow. This void space is mostly on small scales (millimeters to ~1-m), between individual grains and boulders.
And because I am also interested in remote viewing of course I had to find something about that too. So here remote viewer Edwrd Riordan remote views Phobos:
And here Richard c Hoagland talks about Phobos on Coast To Coast:
So again it’s up to you make the decision what is the Truth.