Which planet do you find more interesting for studying and exploration? (Page 10) xyzzz1: id rather livde onna paradise planet orbitting a star not in danger of blowing up or expanding for 6 billion years no comet or anythign its jus nice and secluded in sum part of our glaxay not near trouble  lori100: mars would be interesting----------godlikeproductions.com----------hollow earth, hollow earth moon.........now hollow mars moon...------------ESA study declares that Phobos is manufactured!---------------What some of us have been suspecting for a long time now, all of a sudden seems true! Just like our old friend Richard C Hoagland have talked about for years, his ideas that Phobos is artificial is well-known. Hoagland thinks that several things in the universe are artificial. His list includes Comet Elenin, Phobos, Iapetus and who knows what else. Except that now he`s backed by ESA! Because the prestigious European Space Agency has declared Phobos, the mysterious Martian moon, to be artificial. Yes you heard it! At least one-third of it is hollow and it’s origin is not natural, but alien in nature. The ESA is Europe’s counterpart to NASA. Could this revelation motivate NASA to release the secrets it’s harboring? Don’t count on it. Phobos first believed artificial by famous astrophysicist Astrophysicist Dr. Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky first calculated the orbital motion of the Martian satellite Phobos. He came to the inescapable conclusion that the moon is artificial and hollow–basically a titanic spaceship. The Russian astronomer, Dr. Cherman Struve, spent months calculating the two Martian moons’ orbits with extreme accuracy during the early 20th Century. Studying the astronomer’s notes, Shklovsky realized as the years progressed into decades Phobos’s orbital velocity and position no longer matched Struve’s mathematically predicted position. After lengthy study of the tidal, gravity and magnetic forces, Shklovsky came to the firm 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 moons were artificial. Someone or something built them. The ESA study declares clearly that Phobos is not natural. ----------------------The ESA study abstract that appeared in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters reveals that Phobos is not what many astrophysicists and astronomers believed for generations: a captured asteroid. “We report independent results from two subgroups of the Mars Express Radio Science (MaRS) team who independently analyzed Mars Express (MEX) radio tracking data for the purpose of determining consistently the gravitational attraction of the moon Phobos on the MEX spacecraft, and hence the mass of Phobos. New values for the gravitational parameter (GM=0.7127 ± 0.0021 x 10-³ km³/s² and density of Phobos (1876 ± 20 kg/m³ provide meaningful new constraints on the corresponding range of the body’s porosity (30% ± 5%), provide a basis for improved interpretation of the internal structure. We conclude that the interior of Phobos likely contains large voids. When applied to various hypotheses bearing on the origin of Phobos, these results are inconsistent with the proposition that Phobos is a captured asteroid.” ------------------Casey Kazan writes in ESA: Mars Moon Phobos ‘Artificial,’ that “…the official ESA Phobos website contained explicit scientific data, from multiple perspectives, which strongly ‘supported the idea that this is what radar echoes would look like, coming back from inside ‘a huge…geometric… hollow spaceship’. In fact, they were the primary source of the decidedly ‘internal, 3-D geometric-looking’ radar signature. The concurrence of all three of these independent Mars Express experiments ‘imaging,’ ‘internal mass distribution,’ (tracking) and ‘internal radar imaging’ now agreed that ‘the interior of Phobos’ is partially hollow with internal, geometric ‘voids’ inside it.’ Meaning that Phobos is artificial.” In other words, phobos is not a natural satellite, is not a “captured asteroid,” and is hollow. This is exactly what Dr. Shklovsky found back in the 1960s. Phobos was artificially constructed and placed into Martian orbit by…what? (Edited by lori100) xyzzz1: Id still love to be on aparadise planet oceans tropics maybe it has 2 or 3 continnets and like over a million sub islands nice wetaher life...food etc...id love it lori100: messagetoeagle.com----------Richard Hoagland is convinced the moon is hollow and artificial which means there could be extraterrestrial life there. "This idea, that Phobos could be an "intelligently-created, giant spacecraft, a space station orbiting Mars" is not new; after Hall's initial discovery of "Phobos" (fear) and Deimos (terror) at the US Naval Observatory, in 1877, the earliest, scientific proposal of this idea -- that Phobos itself was "an actual 'space station' ... now slowly spiraling into Mars because it was actually a manufactured, hollow object and thereby, subject to even the slight atmospheric drag thousands of miles above Mars. Shklovsky further suggested, based on the lack of any previously published telescopic detection of any moons around Mars (despite a telescopic technology more than adequate), prior to Hall's totally unexpected discovery in 1877, that Phobos and Deimos might have been launched "recently", thus explaining their "sudden" appearance in the Martian skies ... sometime between the 1875 and 1877 Mars "oppositions," says Hoagland. lori100: MessageToEagle.com - A satellite of the planet Mars, Phobos, discovered by A.Hall in 1877 still attracts great attention. "We should visit the moon of Mars. There is a monolith there, a very unusual structure on this little potatoes-shaped object that goes around Mars," said former astronaut Buzz Aldrin in an interview with C-Span some years ago. His words confirmed the existence of a mysterious structure on Phobos, one of Mars' two moons. When Buzz Aldrin was asked who created the structure, he replied with a smile it was either the Universe or God.  LiptonCambell: For the life of me, I cannot find this ESA article you're referencing....the most i can find is the ESA is giving up on a probe recently sent to Phobos by the Russians... http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/02/esa-writes-off-phobos-grunt/#.UMkCLWe0viQ So where is this article lori? lori100: godlikeproductions.com Lipton, and just search phobos artificial -------lots of articles..... LiptonCambell: No, i'm asking for the original- not the commentary. Where is the article ESA presented? The article you presented referenced Geophysical Research Letters - but that website has no articles on Phobos in the last 2 years LiptonCambell: Don't you find that a little odd? That there's 6-12 websites advocating that ESA has taken a stance claiming Phobos is Hallow, and yet, no one can find the source of the information? And yet, you insist it must be true. LiptonCambell: Well, I managed to find it; http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041829.shtml Despite all the articles from UFOdigest and Godlike Productions and beforeitsnews and universetoday, which all came in the last week, the article they are referencing is 2 years old. Again, odd. Your articles also reference this (2 year old) website; realityzone-realityzone.blogspot.ca/2010/06/european-space-agency-mars-moon-phobos.html You know whats even more odd about these two websites? Neither hint that it's a "titan spacecraft" or aliens or anything. Neither mention Dr Shklovsky. They merely think it's not made up of an asteroid. That doesn't mean it has to be aliens. "The origin of the Martian moons is still controversial.[36] Phobos and Deimos both have much in common with carbonaceous C-type asteroids, with spectra, albedo, and density very similar to those of C- or D-type asteroids.[13] Based on their similarity, one hypothesis is that both moons may be captured main-belt asteroids.[37][38] Both moons have very circular orbits which lie almost exactly in Mars's equatorial plane, and hence a capture origin requires a mechanism for circularizing the initially highly eccentric orbit, and adjusting its inclination into the equatorial plane, most probably by a combination of atmospheric drag and tidal forces,[39] although it is not clear that sufficient time is available for this to occur for Deimos.[36] Capture also requires dissipation of energy. The current Mars atmosphere is too thin to capture a Phobos-sized object by atmospheric braking.[36] Geoffrey Landis has pointed out that the capture could have occurred if the original body was a binary asteroid that separated under tidal forces.[38] Phobos could be a second-generation Solar System object that coalesced in orbit after Mars formed, rather than forming concurrently out of the same birth cloud as Mars.[40] Another hypothesis is that Mars was once surrounded by many Phobos- and Deimos-sized bodies, perhaps ejected into orbit around it by a collision with a large planetesimal.[41] The high porosity of the interior of Phobos (based on the density of 1.88 g/cm3, voids are estimated to comprise 25 to 35 percent of Phobos's volume) is inconsistent with an asteroidal origin.[6] Observations of Phobos in the thermal infrared suggest a composition containing mainly phyllosilicates, which are well known from the surface of Mars. The spectra are distinct from those of all classes of chondrite meteorites, again pointing away from an asteroidal origin.[42] Both sets of findings support an origin of Phobos from material ejected by an impact on Mars that reaccreted in Martian orbit,[43] similar to the prevailing theory for the origin of Earth's moon." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)#Origin And on what the ESA found? This is what wiki has to say ' 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.[50] 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." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)#Shklovsky.27s_.22Hollow_Phobos.22_hypothesis (Edited by LiptonCambell) LiptonCambell: It's funny, really. Lori stomps around acting like they found the biggest thing in news....when it really is just old repackaged news- and her sources? They keep out key points to keep her in the dark... lori100: lol stomps around.....? if it is old, doesn' t mean it isn't true Lipton, glad to keep you busy....how are the tighty whiteys doing........?  LiptonCambell: No lori, i'm not saying that the ESA is wrong- I'm saying your sources are leaving out key information- old information, that they MUST know, but choose to leave out to better justify their stances. They are LYING to you, and you are proud to spread that garbage like it's fact. They are taking scientific fact, and distorting it, leaving out important facts and replacing them with lies. Do you not respect legitimate science, not respect the people you post this to and choose to lie to them, or not respect yourself enough to be honest with yourself?  edricleeboneham: Whatever planet we can go too is the best, except in all honesty they lack any real insentive, for one most these planets have nothing of value, and two if they do the cost for sending something from earth to there and back is ridiculus, NASA ESA, and Commercial Space programs will snail along bearly making any real progress, until all governments decide to send them to the chopping block, and Comerical Space flights are religated to tourism. But if we happen to have an agressive space race against say... CHINA then its on like Donky kong. Cause god knows, there ain't really a good reason for it, but we in America sure as hell will not be outdone by no man or country. Or if we find life on mars....I forgot the point of this rant  the real slim DEEPy: the moon and mars lack an adequate magnetic field to shield from solar radiation | Science Chat Room 5 People Chatting Similar Conversations |