Fascinating anomalies on Mars' moon Phobos

[Gareth]

One of the most fascinating areas of our (potentially) unknown past is the idea that there are anomalous 'structures' or terrain on near planetary bodies. Getting rid of all ideas of conspiracy and Govt cover-up, all it takes is a set of eye balls and a sense of curiosity.

So as Ive been worming my way through Mac Tonnies huge website looking at potential signs of artificiality in the Cydonia region of Mars (the very material that landing him a book deal - well worth checking out here - http://www.mactonnies.com/imperative ) I came across some stuff on Phobos.

Its possible everybody has already seen this stuff, but Im sure one or two here probably havent seen it.


"Monolith on Phobos" (with giant shadow):

Smaller "Outcropping":

Monolith and Outcropping in context:

More tall anomalies on Phobos:

Phobos in its entirety (can only include 4pics per post):

http://www.mactonnies.com/mgsphobos.jpg

I find it even more intriguing when looking at Phobos as it is, that these tall anomalies exist on the surface. (some people even think the 'track marks' on Phobos' surface are of interest - Im not so sure about that).

What you guys think?

http://www.mactonnies.com/imperative40.html
http://www.mactonnies.com/imperative7.html

 

[Astroboy]

One of the most fascinating areas of our (potentially) unknown past is the idea that there are anomalous 'structures' or terrain on near planetary bodies. Getting rid of all ideas of conspiracy and Govt cover-up, all it takes is a set of eye balls and a sense of curiosity.

So as Ive been worming my way through Mac Tonnies huge website looking at potential signs of artificiality in the Cydonia region of Mars (the very material that landing him a book deal - well worth checking out here - http://www.mactonnies.com/imperative ) I came across some stuff on Phobos.

Its possible everybody has already seen this stuff, but Im sure one or two here probably havent seen it.


"Monolith on Phobos" (with giant shadow):

This object does not appear to be tall or vertical. The sun angle is low judging by the highlights and shadow on the craters and shallow terrain features. This causes a long shadow.

Also the craters are close to a perfect circle which tells us that the shot is taken nearly overhead of the object. If the camera angle relative to the terrain were at an angle the craters would appear oval shaped in perspective. A lack of perspective suggests a near right angle camera angle.

If the camera angle is close to overhead you would not see much if any of the side of the "object" unless of course the object was severely slanted in an angle defined by the "edge" that you pointed out.

The edge of the object would define the shadow shape. The terrain near the shadow appears flat so if the object were a monolith with vertical side edges then the shadows would also be straight. But they are not. The shadows look organic without any straight lines. It appears to be the outline of a natural rock formation instead of an artificial object.

I believe the defined angles of shadow are a few degrees off. Should be about 5 degress more clockwise.

Also if the object was tall and we could see the sides of it then I would expect to see the shade side of the object a little lighter than the shadow of the ground as a result of reflected light from the surrounding lighted terrain.

I am guessing that the "edge" that you are pointing out is probably the lip of a crater or ground disturbance caused by the landing of the rock on the asteroid surface.

It is always hard to make any definitive judgments on the artificiality of these type of objects when the quality of the photo is so low. Otherwise we are getting Hoaglandesque.

 

[Gareth]

i didnt put those marks on the images. I pulled them all from Macs site, and Mac pulled them from guys like Mark Carlotta and McDaniel.

Thanks for the comments. You made some sense there.

 

[Astroboy]

i didnt put those marks on the images. I pulled them all from Macs site, and Mac pulled them from guys like Mark Carlotta and McDaniel.

Thanks for the comments. You made some sense there.

Didn't mean to put you on the spot. I realized later that those marks and comments probably came from others.

I guess I don't put a lot of faith in the photo analysis skills of any of these guys.