Is the Martian moon Phobos an artificial structure?

[mhgaffney]

According to Richard C Hoagland, the European Space Agency's Mars probe has gathered powerful evidence that the Martian moon Phobos is 1/3rd hollow -- indicating that it cannot be a natural moon -- but is an artificial structure.

Check it out here:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/

This could be a huge story.

[mhgaffney]

Phobos is 15 miles across and orbits Mars at a height of only 4,000 miles. We have earth satellites higher than that.

The orbit is also circular -- strange.

This is not a new story. A Soviet scientist first proposed artificiality back around 1958 in a book: INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE. The scientist's name was I.S Shklovskii.

The US astronomer Carl Sagan was so impressed with Shklovskis's book that he had it translated into English -- and published here in the US in 1963.

The title of Chapter 26 reads as follows: ARE THE MOONS OF MARS ARTIFICIAL SATELLITES?

(The other moon is Demos -- and is even smaller than Phobos.)

[mhgaffney]

When I read Hoagland's paper -- I dug out my copy of INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE.

Had to dust it off. But sure enough.

Today I will review chapter 26 -- and report anything of interest. This was 1958, folks, when we had MUCH less evidence.

[USAFBronco]

From a study conducted using the Mars express:

"Preliminary density calculations suggest that it is just 1.85 grams per cubic centimetre. This is lower than the density of the Martian surface rocks, which are 2.7-3.3 grams per cubic centimetre, but very similar to that of some asteroids.

The particular class of asteroids that share Phobos's density are known as D-class."

http://www.dlr.de/mars/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-207/422_read-13776/

[ghwk]

Criminy Gaff this must be a slow news day for you.

[Rohirrim]

http://www.freewebs.com/redcommander27/death-star-1.jpg

[mhgaffney]

An Amazing Prediction by a Soviet scientist

Here are a few pertinent passages from Shklovskii's book INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE (pp. 366-373):

"In 1945 an American astronomer B P Shapeless, detected a remarkable peculiarity in the motion of Phobos. Comparing a series of old observations made by Hermann Struve with more recent observations, he noted the orbital velocity of Phobos is increasing. The magnitude of this acceleration is small, but from his data, apparently real."

Shklovskii then considered all of the possible explanations for the change in velocity. These included atmospheric drag, tidal friction, magnetic braking, radiation pressure and celestial mechanics. He concluded that none of them could explain the data, assuming that Phobos had a density comparable with Mars itself.

[The recent data posted by Hoagland is that the actual density is much less than this -- as determined by the European Space Agency in recent months. Thanks to USAF Bronco for posting the numbers.]

Shklovskii, of course, did not have this data at the time. In his book he wrote:

"In 1959 I proposed a new and radical hypothesis concerning the motion of Phobos. Thus, if the mean density of Phobos were about 10 -3 gm cm -3 [corrected by Sagan in 1963 to 10 -5 gm cm -3] then its secular acceleration could be explained by the resistance of the Martian exosphere."

"But how can a natural satellite have such a low density? The material of which it is made must have a certain amount of rigidity, so that the cohesive forces will be stronger than the gravitational tidal forces of Mars....Thus, only one possibility remains. Could Phobos be indeed rigid on the outside --- but hollow on the inside? A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object. Therefor, we are led to the possibility that Phobos -- and possibly Deimos as well [the other twin Martian moon] --- may be artificial satellites of Mars."

This was an amazing bit of speculation -- if the new data about Phobos is right. As it almost certainly is.

MHG

[Abqbronco]

When I read Hoagland's paper -- I dug out my copy of INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE.

Had to dust it off. But sure enough.

Today I will review chapter 26 -- and report anything of interest. This was 1958, folks, when we had MUCH less evidence.

I'd settle for intelligent life in the Mane

[mhgaffney]

Hahahhahaa!

Some of you guys are ready for disclosure.

[W*GS]

No, it's not artificial.

Criminy, you're a ****ing retard.

[W*GS]

On Hoagland:

"On 2–3 February 2010, on the Coast to Coast AM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_to_Coast_AM) radio show,<sup id="cite_ref-72" class="reference"> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland#cite_note-72)</sup>Hoagland announced that the Russian SLBM had in fact been captured by Dark Forces intent on preventing mankind's exploration of outer space. These Dark Forces, he explained, were probably headed by Nazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi) officers who had escaped into space after World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II)."

No wonder gaff-o like this utter and total flake. Two pees in a pod.

[mhgaffney]

No, it's not artificial.

Criminy, you're a ****ing retard.

hey W*gs,

It was Carl Sagan who championed the work of this Soviet scientist in the early 1960s.

Are you telling us you know more than the European Space Agency?

[W*GS]

hey W*gs,

It was Carl Sagan who championed the work of this Soviet scientist in the early 1960s.

Are you telling us you know more than the European Space Agency?

I'm telling you that you're an idiot.

[W*GS]

(gaff-o swallows more than a $2 hooker)


In their 1966 book Intelligent Life in the Universe<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference">[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts#cite_note-5)</sup> astrophysicists I.S. Shklovski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosif_Shklovsky) and Carl Sagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) devote a chapter<sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference">[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts#cite_note-6)</sup> to arguments that scientists and historians should seriously consider the possibility that extraterrestrial contact occurred during recorded history. However, Shklovski and Sagan stressed that these ideas were speculative and unproven.
Shklovski and Sagan argued that sub-lightspeed interstellar travel by extraterrestrial life was a certainty when considering technologies that were established or feasible in the late '60s;<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts#cite_note-7)</sup> that repeated instances of extraterrestrial visitation to Earth were plausible;<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference">[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts#cite_note-8)</sup> and that pre-scientific narratives can offer a potentially reliable means of describing contact with outsiders.<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference">[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts#cite_note-9)</sup> Additionally, Shklovski and Sagan cited tales of Oannes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oannes), a fishlike being attributed with teaching agriculture, mathematics, and the arts to early Sumerians, as deserving closer scrutiny as a possible instance of paleocontact due to its consistency and detail.<sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference">[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts#cite_note-10)</sup>
In his 1979 book Broca's Brain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_Brain), Sagan<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference">[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts#cite_note-11)</sup> suggested that he and Shklovski might have inspired the wave of '70s ancient astronaut books, expressing disapproval of "von Däniken and other uncritical writers" who seemingly built on these ideas not as guarded speculations but as "valid evidence of extraterrestrial contact." Sagan argued that while many legends, artifacts and purported out-of-place artifacts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact) were cited in support of ancient astronaut theories, "very few require more than passing mention" and could be easily explained with more conventional theories. Sagan also reiterated his earlier conclusion that extraterrestrial visits to Earth were possible but unproven, and perhaps improbable.

[watermock]

That "moon" is just a pile of rocks held togther by gravity. That's why the density is low.

[mhgaffney]

W*gs,

Why do you rely on Wikipedia -- to interpret Sagan?

It's because you don't know how to think original thoughts -- and probably never had one in your whole life.

Consider this.

Shklovksii's speculations about Mars were published many years BEFORE the 1976 US Viking mission photographed anomalous structures on the surface of Mars.

Strange structures that NASA (Never a Straight Answer) has attempted to keep under the radar -- ever since.

So it isn't only the matter of Phobos.

As a matter of fact, it was Sagan who wrote that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence..."

I support that logic 100%. It's why I am a skeptic.

MHG

[mhgaffney]

No way it's a pile of rocks. If it were, the tidal force of Mars would have pulled it apart long ago.

It must be rigid just as Shklovskii concluded in 1959 -- and Sagan agreed.

[watermock]

Your own article says otherwise.

[W*GS]

No way it's a pile of rocks. If it were, the tidal force of Mars would have pulled it apart long ago.

Now you're an expert on exogeology?

You've believe just about any line of bull**** no matter how insane, inane, or wholly unsupported by any fact or evidence.

You must be a kick at parties - trust me, they're laughing at you.

[W*GS]

It's why I am a skeptic.

You're no skeptic. You're a gullible idiot.

You don't even know how to begin to assess a claim. Like I said, you swallow more than a $2 hooker.

[watermock]

If you want a lead Gaff, look up the Turner Construction company headed by Perry, yes, the gov. of Texas.

Turner contruction took over from Otis on WTC 1,2,and 7.

[mhgaffney]

Your own article says otherwise.

My article?

Which article? I have not posted an article on this.

[mhgaffney]

yeah yeah.

Mock, you are regurgitating from the failed mainstream science model (the Big Bang and Cometary Ice Model)

But there is no way that comets are aggregations of rocks and ice.

And the same goes for asteroids. Sagan and Shklovskii knew this way back in the 1960s.

[mhgaffney]

Asteroids and comets are hard rigid masses -- - solid rocks. Not piles.

One pass by the sun would pull an aggregate apart.

One pass by a large planet would pull a loosely bound asteroid apart.

In fact, we saw this happen when Shoemaker - Levy impacted Jupiter back in 1994 ---

This was a solid rigid comet -- and even then -- it broke up long before it hit Jupiter.

[W*GS]

gaff-o is an expert on the geologies of the bodies of the solar system like he's an expert on metallurgy, thermodynamics, physics, chemistry...

Which is to say, he's full of ****.

[watermock]

http://www.dlr.de/mars/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-207/422_read-13776/

sorry, some else gave the link.

Ya know, I actuall defend you at times, specically on WTC7, and all I get is condesending, arrogant anti-zionist bulshiat.

Your sniffing up the wrong hole.

Go check Turner construction. There's your smoking gun.

[mhgaffney]

OK Mock.

Here's a photo of Phobos from the ESA site. Look at the cratered surface. This alone tells you it CANNOT be a loose aggregation of rocks.

One impact would have blown the whole thing apart. The craters prove it is one rigid piece of rock.

Of course -- now we know it is one third hollow. Shklevskii (and Sagan) agreed in 1963 that this is impossible.

So - you tell me.