Weird Phobos Pictures - Any Info ?

[justcurious]

I stumbled upon these in a blog but can't find any related informations or even any other instance on the web.

The only caption read:

Appears to be a craft making it's way across the surface of Phobos, leaving tracks. The same object was seen in another NASA photo

Looks like a giant cogwheel (?!), the most artificial-looking anomaly I've come across, and we have two different but consistent pictures of it.

Intriguing, any info or comments would be highly appreciated, thx...
​

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I stumbled upon these in a blog but can't find any related informations or even any other instance on the web.

The only caption read:
Looks like a giant cogwheel (?!), the most artificial-looking anomaly I've come across, and we have two different but consistent pictures of it.

Intriguing, any info or comments would be highly appreciated, thx...
​

Looks like something rolled and left a trail. It doesn't have to be artificial.

 

[dyingsun]

Looks like a chain, doesn't it. Until we see a Megamonolith in our skies..well, it looks cool.

Let's just wait for "Mars Attacks" , I wonder if Webre or Bassett saw that one,

 

[Brian Now]

Looks like something rolled and left a trail. It doesn't have to be artificial.

It looks a lot like a vertical pole with some kind of wire wrapped loosely around it, photographed at an angle of course. One of the loops of that wire goes through a crater. I don't think a track from something rolling would do that exactly. It also looks like it has a "base" of sorts.

But I know, I know...this "pole" isn't casting a shadow. There's probably a (bizarre) natural explanation.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It looks a lot like a vertical pole with some kind of wire wrapped loosely around it, photographed at an angle of course. One of the loops of that wire goes through a crater. I don't think a track from something rolling would do that exactly. It also looks like it has a "base" of sorts.

But I know, I know...this "pole" isn't casting a shadow. There's probably a (bizarre) natural explanation.

I think you're right, there probably is a natural explanation that's bizarre. There's so many weird ass things that happen in space.

 

[hemi]

It looks a lot like a vertical pole with some kind of wire wrapped loosely around it, photographed at an angle of course. One of the loops of that wire goes through a crater. I don't think a track from something rolling would do that exactly. It also looks like it has a "base" of sorts.

But I know, I know...this "pole" isn't casting a shadow. There's probably a (bizarre) natural explanation.

shadows or some other nature explanation perhaps?

 

[dyingsun]

I think you're right, there probably is a natural explanation that's bizarre. There's so many weird ass things that happen in space.

That's for sure, all we have to compare it to is our little polluted brown marble by now. Honestly, we don't really now shit what is really going on out there.

 

[justcurious]

OK still can't find any info on these pictures, but the more I search Phobos images the more I think that it isn't on Phobos. More like some pre-landing Moon images. I'll check this possibility...

Yeah don't worry folks, this picture won't upset your reality (nothing can), I just find it interesting, is it not ?

 

[dyingsun]

It is interesting.

 

[ironlung]

In the larger photo, it looks like an appendage of the space craft projecting from right to left pointing at the moon . The lack of depth perception makes it look like it's on the surface.

 

[justcurious]

Okaaay it wasn't Phobos, this lousy blogger made me loose 3 hours ! It's a picture from one of the five pre-Apollo Lunar Orbiter missions [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] between August 1966 and August 1967.

This is what is now shown on the rts/nasa website : see here (scroll down half[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] way)
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Great resolution ! Cover-up ?
(haaaargh I said cover-up)
​

And that's only one of two pictures, honestly, twice the same object with the same trail, that has to be a real interesting natural phenomenon, no ?

 

[dyingsun]

Now honestly, is this a 'Photoshop' or...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Okaaay it wasn't Phobos, this lousy blogger made me loose 3 hours ! It's a picture from one of the five pre-Apollo Lunar Orbiter missions [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] between August 1966 and August 1967.

This is what is now shown on the rts/nasa website : see here (scroll down half[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] way)
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Great resolution ! Cover-up ?
(haaaargh I said cover-up)
​

And that's only one of two pictures, honestly, twice the same object with the same trail, that has to be a real interesting natural phenomenon, no ?

So, are you implying that it's something other than natural by putting "natural" in italics? If it isn't natural, what do you believe it is?

 

[justcurious]

So, are you implying that it's something other than natural by putting "natural" in italics? If it isn't natural, what do you believe it is?

Well the skeptical approach (as I see it) doesn't allow me to conclude on that yet... As I said :

And that's only one of two pictures, honestly, twice the same object with the same trail, that has to be a real interesting natural phenomenon, no ?

I have written "object" in italics because I can't be sure it is one (could be a camera artefact or something else) and "natural phenomenon" in italics too because I can't be sure of that either...

On "Interesting", I didn't put italics because that's subjective.

But surely, I don't have to explain to you what skepticism is (don't mind the italics), do I ?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well the skeptical approach (as I see it) doesn't allow me to conclude on that yet... As I said :
I have written "object" in italics because I can't be sure it is one (could be a camera artefact or something else) and "natural phenomenon" in italics too because I can't be sure of that either...

On "Interesting", I didn't put italics because that's subjective.

But surely, I don't have to explain to you what skepticism is (don't mind the italics), do I ?

No, you don't have to explain skepticism to me. You don't have to be scared of speculating what it is either - you can do that. So again, if it isn't natural, what can it be? For it to be artificial goes against everything we have learned about the solar system so far, so I can't accept it right now (no evidence and all that fun stuff), but that doesn't make it wrong.

 

[justcurious]

It really is some appendage protruding from the lunar orbiter. What got me is that in the smaller picture, the antenna is not complete. But it is because the picture is a composite of two and is badly stitched :

This is the lunar orbiter, the long antenna with the round thing at the tip is visible :

​

Seems obvious now but it took me most of my Sunday ... Aaah I'm starting to like this debunking business !

 

[exo_doc]

Looks to me like an overhead view of the Russian Lunokhod unmanned remotely controlled rover from the 1960's....check it out;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunokhod_hires.jpgLunokhod

But I do not see the landing platform the rover rolled off of after it landed. At least the non-close up one. The other one DOES look like the antenna.

 

[justcurious]

Looks to me like an overhead view of the Russian Lunokhod unmanned remotely controlled rover from the 1960's....check it out;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunokhod_hires.jpgLunokhod

But I do not see the landing platform the rover rolled off of after it landed. At least the non-close up one. The other one DOES look like the antenna.

It's the nasa lunar orbiter omnidirectional antenna for sure.

But the Lunokhods look great, thanks for the link.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It really is some appendage protruding from the lunar orbiter. What got me is that in the smaller picture, the antenna is not complete. But it is because the picture is a composite of two and is badly stitched :

This is the lunar orbiter, the long antenna with the round thing at the tip is visible :

​

Seems obvious now but it took me most of my Sunday ... Aaah I'm starting to like this debunking business !

Well done justcurious - perhaps I can still turn you into a true skeptic