Mr. M.B. sent this article, and I found it curious, to say the least, given all the attention that the little Martian moon Phobos generated a few years ago. Phobos is one of two Martian satellites, the other being Deimos, the pair being the Greek names for "Fear" and "Trembling," respectively. The attention that Phobos generated years ago was due to the photographs of the European Space Agency(ESA) of the object, which included rectilinear features on the surface, straight lines of craters, and, from the ESA's radar tomography of the object, two apparently large hollow cavities within it, which were, curiously enough, outgassing. The features were so curious that Russia attempted to launch a special probe, Phobos Grunt, which would land on the object and conduct further tests.

Surprisingly (or, perhaps, not so surprisingly) the Russian probe got no further than Earth orbit, and then malfunctioned. If you'll recall, the malfunction itself summoned its own speculations at the time, including statements from Russian generals that in fact the probe had malfunctioned due to corrupted computer chips, and "strong radar interference" during its launch. The word "sabotage" was bandied about.  It was not the first time Russia (and other nations) have experienced the strange failure of a Martian probe, for one Russian probe, Phobos II, as it approached Mars, snapped a photograph of... well... of a "something" about 16 km in length, appearing to be a long cylinder of clearly artificial origin. Then, the probe went "silent." The Russians, so alarmed, allegedly shared the Top Secret photograph with the Americans, and that at the height of the Cold War.

To be sure, the high strangeness of the little Martian moon does not stop there. In my book Covert Wars and the Clash of Civilizations (pp. 27-62), I pointed out a number of other curious things about the little Martian moon. For starters, it was not discovered until 1877 by the American astronomer Asaph Hall. The problem was, why did it take so long to discover it? The telescopic technology of the 18th century was adequate to the task, and indeed, the satirist Jonathan Swift stated, fully a century before their discovery, than Mars had two satellites, and he even gave their orbital periods with amazing accuracy, all of which implied a secret discovery, or, as one 20th century Russian astronomer (I.S. Shklovskii) put it, since they weren't discovered until long after the telescopic technology existed to do so, this meant that they weren't there. Implication: someone parked them there at a later period, until Asaph Hall discovered them.

So, in that context, consider the article Mr. M.B. shared with me:

Clearly, in the picture, if one looks carefully, one can see the rectilinearity of surface features, a faint line of craters, and so on. What intrigues me is the story itself, for according to it, one is left with the impression that NASA had to made some "last minute corrections" to the orbit of its MAVEN probe, lest Phobos and MAVEN collide, as the latter was "too close" to the little moon.

Uh huh...

I'm not buying it for a moment. I suspect, rather, that the probe was deliberately piloted to be as close as possible to the Martian satellite to take as many pictures as possible, and that the collision story is just that, a story designed to deflect attention from what may very well have been a quiet "reconnaissance" mission. Given the high strangeness surrounding the Martian satellite, one may perhaps be forgiven for a bit of really high octane speculation: perhaps NASA's orbital insertion of the MAVEN probe was originally done correctly, and that the course correction was needed because either its orbit had somehow been altered, or Phobos' was (the latter, of course, being quite improbable, for it would surely be noticed and reported by astronomers). Given the strange picture from Russia's Phobos II probe of the strange cylindrical object, anything's possible.

See you on the flip side...


Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Francois Raby on March 14, 2017 at 10:14 pm

    And with all these powerful telescopes sending back pictures crisp as a clear summer day of galaxies far far away, we never can get a single clear shot of the moon surface. Just a thought gathering dust in my head..

  2. Robert Barricklow on March 14, 2017 at 6:11 pm

    MAVEN sounds like an up-dated 21st Century version of Looney Tunes Marvin the Martian.
    There are three prominent “suspect” artificial moons: Mars’ Phobos, Saturn’s Iapetus, and Earth’s Moon.
    I wonder what’s being hidden, that is known, on all of them? Are there others that are “suspect” and not on “our” radar?
    Well, maybe one of these days Alice, POW!
    Straight to the moon!
    Meanwhile it’s never a straight answer[NASA].

  3. DownunderET on March 14, 2017 at 5:10 pm

    What’s going on in space changes on a daily basis, but I suspect that “someone” knows “exactly” what’s going on and maybe in touch with our space cousins.
    Everybody knows NASA is a cover up agency, and has been from the get go.
    So, when are we going to be told the truth, I’m not holding my breath, but, maybe, just maybe, it will be “them” that busts the story, since we down here clearly don’t want to let the cat out of the bag…………here’s hoping, because I’d really like to know who my “relatives” are.

  4. marcos toledo on March 14, 2017 at 10:54 am

    What is the real story that this cover story is masking for the monoliths of the 2001 series of books written by Arthur C. Clarke and the movies derive from them.

  5. Kahlypso on March 14, 2017 at 10:20 am

    Cover story?… NASA?
    Ce n’est pas possible.

    Oki, I get it that the orbits can overlap, but they realised that the probe would pass within 5 seconds of Phobos, so they gave the moon another 4 km radii to make sure it slipped by?

    So when are we getting images of the Monolith. ” rectilinearity of surface features” Thats a might euphemism for STELE… but that’s my humbe opinion… I hope that I’m wrong as the implications are history breaking… actually now that I think about it, I dont mind history getting broken a bit..

  6. goshawks on March 14, 2017 at 9:49 am

    Article: “MAVEN stands for Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN. … NASA’s MAVEN spacecraft is orbiting Mars to study the planet’s atmosphere…”

    JPF: “…and, from the ESA’s radar tomography of the object, two apparently large hollow cavities within it, which were, curiously enough, outgassing.”

    1 + 1 = 2. NASA (deep state side) wanted to sample the outgassing. For that, you had to get Really Close. So, the initial burns were set up to eventually bring MAVEN into almost-contact with Phobos, as previously calculated. This was the plan from before launch. (I always wondered about the prime mission of MAVEN. Something seemed ‘off’, to go so far with so minor a mission.)

    Maybe, the almost-contact was a little too much almost-contact. Or, maybe ‘someone’ reached-out and said, “Back off.” We’ll never know…

  7. basta on March 14, 2017 at 5:31 am

    I agree it certainly is implausible that NASA, with all that computing power, could miscalculate the probe’s trajectory, so yes, they obviously wanted to get as close as possible to take a good look (which we’ll probably never see) and here is the cover story.

    Then again, we should not be too quick to reject sloth or negligence either, as we need only recall the fiasco of the lens of the Hubble telescope.

    • WalkingDead on March 14, 2017 at 8:04 am

      The company that designed and manufactured the lens knew it was a one off. Knowing that the defense/aerospace industry likes to make its money off of “repairs” and “design corrections” I wouldn’t put it past them to have designed in the flaw in order to make an extra buck off the “fix”. Look at the F-35 cash cow currently under manufacture for a prime example of this.

      • basta on March 14, 2017 at 10:23 am

        If true, that’s the most extreme case I’ve ever heard of, but I certainly wouldn’t put it past a .gov contractor/parasite, and they’d need collusion inside the agency before going through with it.

        Re: Hubble, what really knocked my socks off was about 7-8 years ago, the DoD “gifted” a couple of huge spy telescope-satellites they had lying around in the garage that had optics so massively better than Hubble that they made it look like Johnny’s First Telescope put in orbit. Each one cost about as much as NASA’s entire annual budget, they were then over a decade old and had never even been used, and had obviously been superseded by something even more powerful long before. That story went by like a flash and not a peep about them since.

        • goshawks on March 14, 2017 at 4:01 pm

          basta, I read about those two ‘cast-off’ mirrors at the time of donation. I wondered much the same about costs/capabilities. Taxpayer bit big on those…

          Recently, I read that one of the two mirrors was to be incorporated into a NASA mission. So, not a total loss. Sorry, but I can’t remember the details of which mission…

          • basta on March 15, 2017 at 10:23 am

            Thanks goshawks for the heads up. I’m going to see if I can find more info on that mission, I’m curious what its ostensible, stated purpose is.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events