Toxic ‘Phobos-Grunt’ Probe Estimated to Fall to Earth Around November 26

Martian curse on Russian Space Exploration

Russian space experts are battling to fix a technical failure on board an interplanetary craft that was heading to the Martian moon Phobos, amid fears the ship could crash back to Earth without ever reaching its goal.

The rocket booster performed correctly, taking the craft into its programmed orbit where the engines of the second stage were supposed to send the spacecraft on a trajectory to the Red Planet.  They never ignited.

the Phobos-Grunt craft contains 10 tons of highly flammable and toxic fuel and a small quantity of radioactive material, will spiral down towards Earth, burning up in the atmosphere by the end of November or beginning of December. The date predicted for its landfall is November 26.

Live Real Time – Tracking ‘Phobos-Grunt’ : n2yo.com/?s=37872

Source and author: rt.news * Sheilaaliens (youtube)

40 responses to “Toxic ‘Phobos-Grunt’ Probe Estimated to Fall to Earth Around November 26

  1. I smell Bull Sh!t.

    Like

  2. It will likely be distroyed in space rather than allowed to re-enter the atmosphere.

    Like

  3. This shit is truly fucked up. These idiots conduct these actions with no regard to human life, or think about the babies being born. I really hate my fellow human counterparts( the elite )!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like

  4. this is the third space based ‘mishap’ in 3 months, come on are we seriously saying that NASA and other space agencies just decided to get lazy and let rockets crash, send out faulty space probes and let satellites crash back to earth with no clear trajectory? DO THEY THINK WE ARE STUPID!? i find it insulting that this keeps happening and they keep throwing up media blockades. The rocket crash in Russia for example, there is still no wreckage been found even though it crashed in Siberia ‘supposedly’, last time i checked there was alot of landmass in siberia, either that or it periodically turns into an ocean. please NASA and all you other over paid, pompous fools who think because you can send a ahip into space you rival gods, get a grip of your ego’s, share some of the wealth, and stop double dipping from the gravy train.

    Change is coming and it is coming soon….

    Luke

    Like

    • Luke.
      Its a distraction and a cover up.
      It is also being used to Numb us to all things visible from space.
      Just as all the astroid and comet action numbed us to that.

      We are being given SO many wild gooses to chase that we are losing our drive for it, becoming complacent. I know after 11 solid years of this crap that I Am.
      I still believe some thing is coming. But it is Lost in all the details.
      This is WHY it will come as a thief in the night.

      Like

  5. Ah, that is why its coming as a thief in the night as it was foretold minimum 2,000 plus years ago by the King of Kings, Lords of Lords, also known as Counselor, the Alpha and the Omega.

    Now folks, I have taken some time to write here and still trying to survive the post flood, with food very scarce, and a mega loss of my property here in Thailand. I need help desperately so please contact Ron the Admin of this site as he has set up a donation drive for my behalf. I will be posting pics of this destruction soon. For example, a dresser for a lady was completely ripped opened by this toxic water, Books exploded out of its crates, and the rust on your equipment is enormous, and I also sustained burns when I first initially tried to save some stuff. It is as bad as it gets. I had no electricity, phone, internet, for 21 straight days and struggled to live completely surrounded by 8 feet of water and live like it was the 1800’s. The damage I received I wish this to no one to experienced such, as it is as terrible as it can get and believe me its extremely very depressing trying to get your life back together being a senior citizen. Yes I am 60. So if you can help me out of the kindness of your hearts reading of my plea here for help do so as God will bless you truly. I have no family and the last survivor family name wise, on this planet and have no place to turn to for help. I have no relatives left alive.

    Take care

    Daveyo

    Thanks.

    Like

  6. Seems to me that all these rockets exploding and having problems are not coincidental. There may be several reasons for it. First, I believe that the U.S. (and possibly the International community) are finding a way to abandon the International Space Station (wait until that huge thing crashes into Earth….wanna talk about damage?). Right now the U.S. pays Russia approximately $63 million per seat to get anyone into space. This is because the Space Shuttle program is finished, and the U.S.-based Constellation program is not due to be completed until approximately 2016, and the only way into space right now is to pay the Russians to do it. This is a huge amount of money to be spending when there are financial crises around the entire world. It is also a farce because the United States is already involved in a secret space program, which is where much of the “black budget” defense department budget goes as funding. According to people like Ed Grimsley, we are currently involved in space “war games” and battles. He has footage of these specialized spacecraft (that were designed by back-engineering, and from help with extraterrestrials) flying around in space fighting and patrolling space in military formation. There is a galactic war that Earth is involved in, but the vast population of Earth does not even know it. Gary McKinnon found information regarding the secret space program also, and has been facing extradition for his “crimes” ever since. Strange how one bloke in jolly old England is the target of NASA, FBI, and NSA extradition and prosecution for only entering “open” NASA computers and finding a list of “non-terrestrial officers”, but the Chinese government who blatantly violates the United States interests daily by patent infringement and patent theft, cyber-espionage, currency manipulation, and continuous cyber-attacks get away with everything they do with not even a slap on the wrist.

    The truth is the United States already has a very active and functional space program. We don’t need the ISS, the Space Shuttle, the Constellation Program, or Russian rockets. The U.S. Military/Government only does this to distract the population of Earth. We also have active and functional bases on the Moon and Mars, and we have no need for these Mars explorers and cancelled Moon missions anyway. We also have 100% efficient devices capable of producing free energy, as well as “stargate”, or Einstein-Rosen Bridge technology that already works, so we don’t need rockets to get us off the Earth or to depend on fossil fuels for travel. Besides this, the Russian/Chinese Phobos-Grunt mission would have been a problem for the United States and their space program because the U.S. already knows that Phobos is not a true moon, but is an artificial entity, possibly an old derelict space station, battle station, listening post, or lifeboat. It wasn’t even discovered until 1877, which is ridiculous. Most of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter were found 100+ years before the moons of Mars, which is our next-door neighbor in the Solar System. The only reason for this is because before 1877 Phobos and Deimos did not exist in orbit around Mars. They were brought to Mars by an extraterrestrial civilization which currently exists on Mars along with Earth humans (working with each other against hostile alien forces). They are also in very specific and concentric orbits, which would indicate they were placed in their current orbits instead of being “pulled” into Mars orbit naturally. Also, Mars has very little gravity, and it would be difficult, if not impossible for an object to be captured by Mars’ gravity naturally and be put into a circular orbit around it. If it were to happen, the orbit should be elliptical.

    I also find two other things strange. First, the Russian Soyuz rockets were the most reliable rockets in the world until recently. Why is that? Why are they all of a sudden having technical problems and exploding so often? Also, I find it hard to believe that our Gemini and Apollo missions with essentially new and unproven technologies using Saturn 5 rockets had an incredible success rate compared to much more modern shuttle and international space programs. The six manned Apollo missions in the 1960’s to the Moon took off from Earth, traveled to the Moon, landed on the Moon, took off from the Moon, and returned to Earth at an 86% success rate. Since then, and with more modern equipment, technology and experience, more than 25 simple unmanned robots and observation craft have tried to fulfill their mission to Mars, but only 7 have succeeded; less than a 28% success rate. How is this possible? Were the Apollo missions faked, or were we just extremely lucky? It’s tough to find out what the real truth is regarding this, but if you just view percentage and probability it does seem the Apollo missions must have been faked by astronauts in low-Earth orbit and on an Earth-based production stage….not on a journey in a tin can to the Moon. This is not to say that we did not go to the Moon. We did go to the Moon, and went there earlier than the 1960’s. We have been going to the Moon since then, and have outposts and bases there now. I just think that the Apollo footage was most likely created to mislead the population of Earth to hide what is really going on and to see how thoroughly the rest of the Earth’s population would buy the big lie.

    Like

    • …good observations…

      Like

    • Faceless.
      You have some good details here, but you are pulling a bit of a daveyo with your observations and stating them as if they were facts.
      Things like, assuming that mars moons werent there before a certain date and that is why they werent previously discovered before said date.
      I agree with you on many of your hypothesis mind you, Its just a environmental pet peeve for me when people state hypothesis as if they were established facts.
      For those whom believe what they read as if it were gospel, it sets a bad precidense. And just as bad, when certain theories are scrutinised or Proven not true, it makes our theorist community seem like nut bars.
      ~V.

      Like

      • Varakienen,

        Please feel free to prove that my observations are incorrect and that they are not a fact. Also, I state it as a fact because I have proven to myself by research that, at least to me, these observations are indeed a fact. Many people believe that god is a fact, but to me, it is just another theory. I encourage you to do some research on the subject before comparing me to the ramblings other people that you have had a previous beef with.

        Mars has been known to exist since very ancient times, and is visible with the naked eye, without telescopes or binoculars. The Egyptians were the first to acknowledge it in approximately 1570 B.C.E. (although it has been observed for millions of years). Tycho Brahe was a Danish astronomer who made accurate calculation regarding the position of Mars in 1576. Galileo Gallilei was the first person to view Mars with a telescope. He observed the polar ice caps and the canyons on the planet that he thought were water canals. Galileo also observed with his telescope Venus and its various phases (like moon phases), Jupiter, including several of Jupiter’s moons, Saturn and its rings, the planet Neptune, and sunspots. In 1659 Christian Huygens observed the Syrtis Major section of Mars. He had enough of a good view of Mars that he was able to draw a reasonably accurate topographical map of it. It seems ridiculous to me that humanity has been observing Mars since 1570 B.C.E., and since the 17th century with telescopes, yet it was easier for astronomical observers to find many of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, the planet Neptune, and the planet Uranus (1781), before they discovered the two moons of Mars in 1877. There is also support from many astronomers and scientists, including Russian radio astronomer I. S. Shklovskii and even Carl Sagan who theorize that the idea that the moons of Mars are artificial is not just conceivable, but is very plausible. If these moons are indeed artificial, then there are only two conclusions.
        1) They are either ancient relics orbiting the planet and they have been there for an extremely long time. These moons would have been there for possibly millions of years, or at least since a lost civilization existed on the planet Mars (which there is also evidence for). If this scenario was the case, then they should have been previously observed by the many astronomers in the past that have studied Mars.
        2) The other conclusion is that they are more modern, and that they were currently towed into orbit to spy on Earth, or protect what is currently occurring on Mars right now.
        Either one of these options are very plausible. I believe they are more modern because they were not observed by astronomers before 1877. However, I am willing to believe that man is able to have such a large oversight, like failing to observe two moons orbiting the planet that is closest to us in the solar system, but this is unlikely in my opinion.

        Like

      • Some good observations, … worth watching…some of your assumptions may pan…but not facts…not even original theories…
        Are you aware for example most moons in the solar system have been discovered in the past 30 years? Aside from earth, the moons of mars were the first discovered in the inner planets…phobos is tiny and one of the least reflective objects ever found…and its seven times as large as its teeny tiny sister moon. Hall discovered both with the most powerfull scope that had ever been focused on mars. Nothing like the equipment in the 17th and 18th century. Only a handfull today that can make this observation form earth. The hollow moon theory proposed in the 50’s was an attempt to account for what was believed to be phobos oribit…which has since been measured accurately and the mass accounted for. Good stories die hard.
        Some odd happenings with US and Russian space program lately…that said…”we” do not have a functioning stargate…a number of advances in alternative energy technology not available to the public, yes…we also have nuks that arn’t available to the public…a bit more complicated than the reasons proffered by most conspiricy theorists… many folks working to bring some of the safer technologies out soon…it can be difficult to get a gennie back in the bottle…
        Keep eyes and ears open…

        Like

      • Hey faceless, I am Totally of the belief that one or more of mars moons is artificial. but that does not make it a fact, and there is no PROOF, and I used the word Proof strongly here, that it is a fact.
        I can no more Prove that mars moons were there before the supposed date you give than You can Prove that they were’nt.
        With out Proof on either side we cannot establish a hypothesis as a FACT.
        I can’t and You cant.
        Thus, you are giving hypotheticals as if they were Facts with out actual Proof. Do you understand the difference?
        This makes for Poor research and bad science, and sets a bad example while doing so.
        If you have a theory, Great, state it as a Theory, not as a proven fact with No proof, only coincidal evidence to loosly support it at best.

        I am already aware of all these mars based historical details. They support My arguments as much as they do yours. As I said, I actually concur and personally believe a several of the same theories as you your self do. But I would never state them for public view as a fact with no hard proof to support it, and coincidental evidences do Not constitute proof.
        Please dont make me start calling you Daveyo Two.
        Be well mate.
        ~Varakienen.

        Like

      • guys, guys, calm the horses, lets not have another daveyo event, as you are both valuable contributers on this site. I can validity in both your arguments but lets not let the heads get in the way of progress. Now i see where Vara is coming from, and its an argument that i have had many times with countless individuals, about lack of evidence and claiming fish tales as the true event. But i can also see that faceless has some solid backing to formulate a hypothesis, as opposed to a theory, the difference being in the way you go about state your facts, a theory can be generated with no predetermined factors to govern such ideals but a hypothesis usually stands on a base of credibility.

        Luke

        Like

  7. We are also forgetting about the “Grail” which mysteriously had to take a detoured route to the dark side of the Moon.
    A journey that should of taken about 5 days at most suddenly changed to almost a 3 month journey so wtf is that really all about or is it another NASA cover up.
    I also find it hard to beleive that with our advanced technology how are these failing & something that seemed to be a joint venture with Russia & China as there was a Chinese satelite piggy backed on the probe seems fishy or is it maybe a sign that Russia & China are joining forces for a much bigger event?

    Like

  8. ~Varakienen,

    Maybe you should add something useful into this conversation instead of trying to wrangle the differences between fact, proof, and hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with my research, my facts, my opinion, and my hypotheses. If there is, and I am factually wrong, I have no problem being corrected, and I encourage you or anyone else to do so. However, you stating that my comments constitute “poor research, that it is bad science, and that it sets a bad example” is just your own convoluted hypothesis. You have no proof of your statement either, and that’s a fact. Listen, I don’t want to get into a pissing contest with you or anyone here, but please don’t insult the research I do and the comments I make while you pontificate about the literal definition of theories, proof, and hypotheses while not adding any useful information into the thread. These forums are designed for people to talk about things that may be fringe or uncomfortable to talk to ordinary people about, and this whole site and everyone’s comments are based on hypothesis, theory, and conjecture. It would be a shame for someone to read this thread and see you “scolding” me about essentially nothing, and then not be willing to voice their ideas, theories, facts and opinions for the rest of us to consider for fear of them being scolded or ridiculed also. Lets work together. It is better that way. No?

    Like

  9. Everyone is entitled to post their opinions here &the TRUTH can maybe found from them as each & everyones theories can solve a puzzle or at least “hint” towards solving a puzzle.
    I like the fact that Faceless has took time to detail his theories and it does make some good sense though “links” would be good for those who disagree & also Vara you should also sit back & prove your disagreements with links otherwise these threads just become a yarn about the “egos” of certain people which takes away the good points raised.

    Like

    • Aasansaw.
      I didnt think You of all people would miss the point here.
      I have No problem with people posting thier opinions and theories.
      In fact I encourage it.
      The point you seem to have missed is that some people will post theories as if they were already proven fact. Which fools others into thinking that it IS in fact a fact when it is not yet proven so.
      When I have a dissagreement in theory you can be SURE that I will provide links to support my arguments. I always do when it comes to it, why wouldnt I now?
      But this isnt the debate here.
      I am not dissagreeing with any ones theories. I am dissagreeing with the notion of posting theories and ideas or suspiscions as IF they were already fact.
      It wouldnt be tolorated in the scientific comunity, why should it be tolorated here. it leads to missinformation and that is the Last thing we need with so much distraction published by the governements already. hard enough to weed the truth and fact out of that with out people providing unproven notions as if they should be taken as factual gospel.
      That is the point I am forced to make yet again on this site. as I have several times in the past.
      You are distracting from the issue by bringing ego’s into it lad.
      ~ V.

      Like

  10. Again faceless.
    I dont actually have a problem with your research. it is some of your conclusions that CANNOT be called fact, that I have a problem with.
    The issue isnt with mars or the details or the research or the conclusion. that is Not the subject I am bringing up here. I have Nothing new to contribute about any of that. My entire argument which some how you are missing is based SOLEY upon the matter of you posting theory as if it were fact. which no one has proven. And the fact that others may read it when it is presented as such and take it as fact and spread it as if it is an already proven truth. this clouds the science, and muddies our endevours to find proof when first we are forced to weed out what was wrongly taken as proof and fact to begin with. IF you are a decent researcher you will add a certain integritty to the way you present your notions so that they can broaden peoples views, with out muddying them.
    Show a touch ofproffessionaism is all I have ever asked.
    ~ VARAKIENEN.

    Like

  11. Ok this is a Daveyo event folks. The moons have been there since the formation of this particular solar system. And this is a fact and not a theory and or even a hypothesis. OK.

    People have spoken and even claim our moon was part of some galactic collision a few billion years ago.

    Secondly one cannot perceive or know the actual age of this solar system as I have said before the Universe time is faster than the speed of light. If aliens can travel 38 light years in 90 days, this is going at approximately 2.5 times the speed of light. Not only that it was not long ago that they now discovered there are things going faster than the speed of light.

    Which brings to say that part of Einstein’s theory on the part that nothing is faster than speed of light has to be thrown out.

    As to the rest of this discussion, a person here has said they have done their research and concluded their own facts based on their own personal investigation. It does not mean to say or to be construed otherwise that has to be a universal agreement to be considered a FACT as another is pushing regarding another persons statement.

    Ah, maybe I spoke too much here, so carry on gang.

    take care

    Daveyo

    Like

    • RE “fact vs opinion”…”a fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The test for a statement of fact is verifiabilty… Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments”…
      …”an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts”…
      For the record 38 lt yrs in 90 days is 152xC (C=speed of light)

      Like

  12. @Vara and everyone else,
    I did not specifically call any of my previous theories a fact (at least in my first post which generated this fact vs. opinion/hypothesis debate). I did say “the truth is”, which may have been a bit of a stretch. But again, I never originally called anything I said a hard fact. For the research I have done, it is my opinion that these events are likely true, and I may have written them in this forum as if they were fact. I apologize for the tone in some of my previous posts and I will try to qualify my statements as opinion or hypothesis better in the future so we can all discuss the substance of the post instead of the objectiveness of it. Deal? *extends open hand*

    @Daveyo,
    Thank you for the comments. You did understand where I was coming from, even though I may not have stated my “arguments” correctly. Regarding your light-speed comment; I would think the alien craft would only be able to travel at 2.5x the speed of light if they were physically travelling through our known universe. It has been theorized that these aliens do not actually travel through physical space (and don’t need to physically travel at 2.5x the speed of light), but are able to enter a “hyper-dimension”, or “null space” where they can travel these vast distances, but not have any significant time elapse while in this alternate dimension. This would mean that the mass/energy problem of a craft traveling faster than the speed of light would be irrelevant, and they would be able to travel these great distances faster than a linear beam or wave of light as measured by our current understanding of time.

    @waveform144
    I never did say that my theories were original. Many people, much more intelligent than me have thought about them and have done far more research than I have or ever could. I am just relaying things I have heard and things that I believe. It is my opinion that they are most likely true, and I have a bit of research thrown in to support my point of view. According to several sources, including Professor Frank Salisbury, Russian astronomer Iosif Shklovskii, and Russian writer Felix Ziegel, Phobos (Greek for panic, or fear) and Deimos (Greek for terror, or dread) should have been discovered before 1877. In 1862, many telescopes were focused on Mars because it was in opposition to the Earth and this made an opportunity for excellent astronomical observations of it. One observation of Mars in 1862 was with a 48-inch telescope on the island of Malta, while the 1877 observation of Mars by Asaph Hall (in which Mars was also at a greater distance from Earth than it was in 1862) was with a 26-inch telescope. I’m not an expert in telescopes at all, but it seems to me that the 48-inch telescope would be the larger of the two. So I’m not sure the rest of your observations about modern telescopes and the observations of the Martian moons are correct. Salisbury postulated, “Should we attribute the failure of 1862 to imperfections in the existing telescopes, or may we imagine that the satellites were launched into orbit between 1862 and 1877?” I believe this is a valid statement, and is worthy of further thought, although it is also possible that all the astronomers were inept in 1862 and missed these two moons during their Mars observations. Also, from my research, Deimos is 12.6km in diameter, and Phobos is 22.2km in diameter. This would make Phobos not even twice as large (in diameter) as Deimos, and certainly not seven times as large as you stated. I don’t know where you got that figure from.

    I also disagree that the hollow-moon theory was an attempt to reconcile the orbit of Phobos. What has been postulated is that the orbit of Phobos is decaying towards Mars. This decaying orbit is more indicative of an artificial satellite than a moon that was formed when the planet formed, or an asteroid that was captured by weak Martian gravity (although both are possible). There is also significant evidence that the “hollow-moon theory” (or as I believe more accurately, an “artificial Earth Moon theory”), is not only plausible, but is probable. This includes anomalies and artificial structures discovered in many moon observations from Earth, as well as lunar photographs up to and including the recent Indian Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft and Japanese Kaguya spacecraft. Other anomalies include studies on moon rocks that date them to 5.3 billion years old (which would make it older than the 4.6 billion years old the Earth is supposed to be and even older than our solar system), seismic data which indicated the moon transmits energy as if it were made from metal, not made from rock, and evidence of an atmosphere on the moon (which has been widely denied). There is too much to put here regarding our own moon, but I will give links below for everyone to look at.

    There was also evidence that was shown at the 2011 International UFO Congress which claims the existence of a “stargate” technology that is (or was) developed by humans with help from extraterrestrials. (As an aside, extraterrestrials and aliens are not the same thing. Extraterrestrials are future humans, or more accurately, more advanced humans that have been existence longer than our diluted version of human existing here on Earth. An alien is not human, but is truly alien in its genetic form and physical form.) This device was reportedly developed at the S4 research facility in the “secret” Area-51 military installation. The entire project was called Project Aquarius, with the stargate or Einstein-Rosen Bridge device (specifically called the Looking Glass device) which was developed and housed in level 4-2 of the S4 facility. It was reported to do two things. In one configuration it was able to predict the probability of future events. In another configuration it was able to be used to create a bridge between two locations in the universe, and to travel between them. It reportedly performed these two functions by being able to warp space-time by the use of electricity, electromagnets, noble gasses, and torsion physics. Do I know if this is a fact? Of course not. But I do think the evidence presented was plausible and have heard bits of this story for years. Also, the Looking Glass device did not physically resemble the “stargate” as seen in the movie Stargate, although the function was similar. There are also plenty of people that claim this device, as well as many other things (like UFO’s, global warming, free energy, etc.) are complete hoaxes, and the people who expose this information are quacks, and have no credentials. It is very possible that they are hoaxes, fakes, and the whistleblowers are crackpots, but it seems that people are always too quick to dismiss things that they deem are not possible instead of trying to conceive the fact of if they are, at least, plausible.

    [b]Some Books that can be read on the subjects of Mars and the Moon:[/b]
    “Water and the Search for Life on Mars” by David Michael Harland
    “Nature” Volume 16 edited by Sir Norman Lockyer
    “Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA” by Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara
    “Civilized Life in the Universe: Scientists on Intelligent Extraterrestrials” by George Basalla
    “The making of 2001, a Space Odyssey” by Stephanie Schwam
    [b]Links:[/b]
    The Mysterious Moons of Mars:
    http://www.unmuseum.org/marsmoon.htm

    Excellent Analysis of Phobos by Richard Hoagland (2 parts):
    http://www.enterprisemission.com/Phobos.html
    http://www.enterprisemission.com/Phobos2.html

    Our Enigmatic Moon:
    http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/01jan/moon.html

    More Moon Anomalies:
    http://beforeitsnews.com/story/317/206/NASA_Photos_Confirm_Moon_is_Artificial.html
    http://thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Moon_Images_Menu.html

    The Looking Glass Device and Dr. Dan Burisch:
    http://projectcamelot.org/project_looking_glass.html
    http://projectcamelot.org/dan_burisch.html

    Like

    • Faceless.
      Thank you.
      Works for me.
      Good on You.
      VARA over and Out.

      Like

    • Very Good…and not a thing wrong with considering/ supporting/ debunking theories of others. There are many theories that have pieces of the puzzle yet maybe not the whole picture…a work in progress….
      There has long been discrepencies regarding who saw what with what in Malta in 62, largely a result of articles in the 1890’s with some confussed information. A proposal had in fact been made before the RAS to transport a 1220mm Cassegrain reflector (metal not glass…another print error) to Malta. The scope actually used however was an optical 6″ Cooke Achromatic. A fine instrument. Don’t let the size fool you…they are apples to oranges. The 26 inch(800mm) used at the accademy in 77 was a Cassegrain with the new pollished glass mirrors, highest res scope of its time (not the highest mag).
      Shklovskii’s hollow Phobos explanation was no more than the result of his attempt to determine mass (he never maintaned such a theory) based on orbit, speed, and size…all three of which have since been corrected…actual mean dia. reduced by more than 30% (no one had guessed it was shaped like a potato). Shkovskii’s maths were correct…the data was incomplete…(not proof that its not hollow either)
      You caught me on the Phobos 7x Deimos…kind of a hip shot…let me correct… best data (03/2011) puts mean rad at 11.2 (22.4 km dia) and 6.1 (12.2 km dia) respectivley. Using V=4/3 pi x r^3 Phobos is only 6.18944 times as large as Deimos…however, before I eat the whole crow, I would point out that with known oribit data this puts Phobos mass at 1.06585×10^13 kg, Deimos at 1.47619×10^12 kg…or…7.220304568 times the mass of Deimos. So, I was either a bit high or a bit low, but certainly a bit off. You might want to brush up on maths a bit…
      I believe you confuse Project Aquarius (current moniker for blue book) with Project Pegasus re ” E-RB Stargate” and again with a different divice, the Chronovisor which has proven itself to be accurate only in forcast of “possible” future events…Edger Casey has a better batting average.
      I will mention to Richard that you think highly of his analysis…and that you recommended his books to me. His main contribution by the way has been his theoritical work in hyperdiminsional physics. The application of “angular momentum” has had good predictive history…however, to the best of my knowledge, my theory of dimensional harmonics was the only predictor of the “tetrahedral anomaly” that occured with Elenin…92 days in advance…as mentioned, lots of folks have a piece of the puzzle…
      (I hope you didn’t think I inferred “free energy” proponents were kooks!)

      Journey Well…and welcome aboard
      Waveform144

      Like

      • @waveform144
        Thank you for the explanation of the telescopes used, and I do understand the difference between resolution and magnification. I am just not well versed in the technicals of telescopes, so your explanation helps. As far as Project Aquarius goes, that is what the presenter said. I did a bit of searching and found; “(TS/ORCON) (PROWORD: DANCE) Contains 16 volumes of documented information collected from the beginning of the United States Investigation of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) and Identified Alien Crafts (IAC). The Project was originally established in 1953, by order of President Eisenhower, under control of NSC and MJ12. In 1966, the Project’s name was changed from Project Gleam to Project Aquarius. The Project was funded by CIA confidential funds (non-appropriated). The Project was originally classified SECRET but was upgraded to its present classification in Dec. 1969 after Project Blue Book closed. The purpose of Project Aquarius was to collect all scientific, technological, medical, and intelligence information from UFO/IAC sightings, and contacts with Alien life forms. This orderly file of collected information has been used to advance the United States Space Program.” (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread30836/pg1) So, I am only passing along what the presenter said about Project Aquarius and Looking Glass.

        As far as the calculation of the volume of Phobos and Deimos, I don’t think the formula you used can be accurately applied. Your formula, V=4/3 pi x r^3, is used to get the volume of a perfect sphere in three dimensions. We both know that most natural objects are not perfect spheres, and you even said that Phobos is shaped like a potato. Extrapolating the maximum diameter (or radius) of Phobos and Deimos to get the volume of an irregular object just does not work accurately. I’m sure I don’t have the specific technical information on Phobos or Deimos, but what I was able to find states that the dimensions of Phobos and Deimos are:
        Phobos: 13.5km x 10.8km x 9.4 km = 1370.52 km^3
        Deimos: 7.5km x 6.5km x 6km = 292.5 km^3
        Since mass should be irrelevant in the physical size of these two moons, the surface area would be what we are using to determine the size of either moon.
        1370.52 km^3 / 292.5 km^3 = 4.69
        So by the above calculation, it would seem that Phobos is 4.69 times the surface area of Deimos, not 6.18944 the size, as you stated. I don’t see how the mass/volume formula really translates to the size of an object when the surface area of it should be a more accurate form of its size measurement. Also, if Phobos is 1/3 – 2/3 hollow, it will have a lower mass than an object of comparable size that is solid rock. The mass may be different, but the surface area can be the same. Does this sound accurate?

        So, you know Richard Hoagland personally? That is great! I follow much of his work and feel that he has a lot of valid ideas, and think he is really onto something with his hyper-dimensional and torsion physics theories. However, the both of you seemed to get the Comet Elenin thing wrong. I didn’t see a tetrahedral shield in that photograph that was circulated a few months back; it just seemed to be an interesting lens anomaly to me. His dates of planetary alignment with Elenin and possible special events were wrong also (the alignment dates were right, just no special events happened). If these “predictable scientific events” were not wrong, I have not heard anything otherwise that confirmed any of the Comet Elenin predictions as being correct. I heard a recent lecture by Mr. Hoagland where he was presenting the work that Dr. Judy Wood did regarding the 9/11 “Dustification Event”, and I am glad he is putting his voice towards one of the largest unsolved events in American history. I believe that 9/11 was an inside job and there is no evidence linking terrorists or Osama Bin Laden with the coordinated collapses of the WTC site buildings and the Pentagon. The FBI even said there was no evidence linking Bin Laden to the 9/11 events, and he was never listed on the FBI 10 Most Wanted list as being wanted for the 9/11 event, just the bombings of the Cole and the Embassies in Africa. Anyway, I am getting off topic here, so I will stop now.

        Like

      • Excellent response. Good to see you take your research seriously and avoid a myopic view.
        A quick note re scopes, in addition to mag/vs res, it is difficult to compare on a one to one aperture basis reflectors to optical lens scopes. Are you “down under” as well?…if yes, you have a remarkably competent amateur astrologer I could point you to.
        I see you stumbled across the difficulty of assessing “size”. People refer to the size of a tree when they mean height, to the size of fat person when they mean either weight or width or girth, likewise “size” is neither mass, volume, or as you point out “surface area”…while being a general term related to all of the above. As to the “volume” calculation I provided you are correct that the formula is for a sphere. For irregular polyhedral forms, when you see the term “mean dia/rad” it refers to a reduction of not max or min or average but specifically what the radius/ diameter would be where the object reduced to a sphere. Your assessment of surface area…well done. I am guessing you see also the non specific ratios of mass/volume/surface area…I can tell you the volume of a surface area only if I know the shape…the mass of a volume only if I know the density…(orbit and spin help because we can derive angular momentum). You can pretty well throw out all of this if the object in question turned out to be an extremely dense hollow shell as opposed to a rock with a relatively consistent density…as may well yet be the case. None of the math can answer the question. Do seem to be having some difficulty with the “feet on the ground” approach required to answer the question…
        Your current assessment of Aquarius is accurate as well. It is an umbrella of sorts, encompassing a rather large body of research. My earlier comment was to your post of the 16th…”The entire project was called Project Aquarius, with the stargate or Einstein-Rosen Bridge device (specifically called the Looking Glass device) which was developed and housed in level 4-2 of the S4 facility. It was reported to do two things. In one configuration it was able to predict the probability of future events. The entire project was called Project Aquarius, with the stargate or Einstein-Rosen Bridge device (specifically called the Looking Glass device) which was developed and housed in level 4-2 of the S4 facility. It was reported to do two things. In one configuration it was able to predict the probability of future events”. Again, the E-RB “looking glass” has from the onset been Pegasus, the second device is not similar or under the same “program” for that matter …only part of Aquarius in the sense that all ET related projects fall under the umbrella. You refer me, by the way, to an ATS thread I have contributed to from the onset…I will leave you to guess at the identity of but another of my many alter egos…good work…
        We have some common past history. I have been peripherally involved in a minor way as a participant in aspects of peer review of certain of his papers and we do at times exchange e-mails, several different identities…no face to name recognition…not what you would call “mates”. Re Elenin, his observations were astute and while many predictions did not come to pass the appearance of intelligent control was not far from the truth…the conclusions were off a bit. The 19.5 connection wither by a stroke of genius or intuition was spot on…geometrically speaking, to a point. He grasp the “star tetrahedron” relationship but I suspect got hung up, as is so often the case, attempting to fit a square peg observation into a round hole theory. The tetrahedron did become somewhat visible, singularly…not as a star tetrahedron, and not a protective force field. Nothing more than a harmonic manifestation first order formations of energy. Very simple to set up a demonstration of how this works. Sympathetic vibration…you may know the science as “Cymatics”. I have provide instruction in this regard on this site before… “ the newest branch of science…and the oldest”… The second part of my “prediction”, that this would be the last passing, was contingent on the first (hedging my bets) and both were more or less in support of plasma theory predictions of others, (wish I could take credit…they made some good calls)
        Not familiar with Dr. Wood. I have had occasion to work on projects with several of the architects and engineers involved in contesting the findings of the 9/11 Commission and am quite familiar with hi-rise construction. I would have to agree that the truth has yet to come out. The whole thing really stinks.
        Be Well,
        P.S…re earlier comment opinion vs/fact…I neglected to mention neither has claim on truth…

        Like

  13. just as a quick add in here, i think we go into this too far thinking that these guys are accessing inter dimensional plains, IMO they are using devices that create what we in physics call “the perfect world scenario” (PWS), now some could argue that this would not be achievable in our concepts of space, but there are several examples of items we use that can achieve near to this PWS, a bullet fired from a rifled barrel into water creates a vacuum around itself similar to that of an air pocket as it were, while the bullet travels within this pocket it is free of nearly all outside factors until the spin on the bullet begins to slow, then the water density takes over, I just think that maybe we are thinking too much into the fact of dimensional traversal rather than the possible effects upon a craft traveling at the speed of light or faster, perchance resulting in this “bubble’ effect enveloping the craft. I know this has no sort of backing what so ever and my tutors could never understand where i was coming from in uni when i asked them about the possibility of this. But it has always played on my mind, along with the idea of these craft being able to travel through solid materials, like planets, without affecting the planet, its all above the levels of physics ive dealt with and i haven’t the time to find out if anything has been tested or not, at least not for another month or so.

    Luke

    Like

    • Well Said Luke.
      Makes for some good thinking. 😉
      ~V.

      Like

    • Good comment. Seems like the subject of faster than light travel keeps popping up. Interesting topic. Just to rock the boat a bit, I will tell you all the speed of light is neither a constant or a maxium…and (sorry Albert…) mass does not aproach “infinity” as it aproaches the speed of light. And, just to stur the pot, I’m not going to explain give proofs or offer reference.
      Well, maybe one…the best explanation (because it is visual and actual) I know of in laymans terms…and it really is easy to follow…is a vid that was done by David Sereda three or four years ago…might be “gravity clock”…definately worth a watch if you can find it.

      Like

      • Waveform144,
        No, I am not from Australia or the southern hemisphere, I am from New York City. Can’t do much “stargazing” here because, well, you can’t really see any stars. Maybe 10 or so on an average night. Pretty pathetic. That’s one of the reasons I don’t know much about telescopes. One of the lines in the move Madagascar says it so well (I don’t know if you saw it). They are in the Central Park zoo and the lion says “Hey, cheer up…..the Star is out tonight!….Oh, wait a minute….that’s just a helicopter”. Priceless! Makes me laugh every time because it’s so true. Anyway, I had first hand experience with the 9/11 incident. The 9/11 Report is not even worthy to be used as toilet paper. I would also recommend you take a look at Dr. Judy Wood’s website when you have some spare time. She has some great photos there and you can take a look at them and scratch your head as to what caused the damage seen in them. http://www.drjudywood.com/

        Like

      • I spent about 100 hrs back in 03 with some of the engineers from Roth as well as a group of demo engineers…not trying to figure out what had caused the colapse per say…we started with the assumption the building was still standing and designed plans to take it down. In general, solutions required an average of 200 radial nano-thermite charges with precise placement and even more precise sequencing. Only a hand full of demolition companies in the world that could have pulled it off. It was no doubt the most complex demo engineering ever undertaken…and would have been so even had the building been vacant and scheduled for demolition. 7, whan completed in the late 80’s was considered in the industry to be the most stable structure of its height and floor space ever constructed. Earthquake proof, blast proof,fire proof, multiply foundations including laterial support, unitized construction, multiply redundant gravity, preasurized ,as well as halon fire suppressant systems…each of which had more than one alarmed monitor location that had to be disarmed (codes and fire marshal required) before the systems could be disabled. The conventional “gravity” system (water) required 36 hrs to drain and was a two key system…fire marshal has one key… doesn’t answer the question as to who took it down…but fire didn’t and neither did debree from the towers…it is interesting that the short list of maybe 3 or 4 firms who could have engineered the demo includes one company who was owned by one of the tennants in the building…likely just a coincidence…

        Like

  14. Is it just me.. or does it look like it’s about to hit the U.S.?
    http://www.n2yo.com/?s=37872

    Like

  15. all of a sudden.. it’s not dropping anymore and altitude is increasing slightly as it nears the U.S. …???

    Like

  16. nevermind.. must be something to do with Orbital physics or something that I know nothing about

    Like

    • Greetings, Your observation is good. The variation you see is a result of the eliptical orbit of the Grunt. On this pass at Apogee (furthest point in orbit from the earth) Grunt reached an altitude of 336.25 km at 11:45 UTC. If you notice, as the altitude increases, the speed decreases…apogee was at 7.38km pr. sec (kms). The data shown in “elevation”, in this case -59km indicates lost elevation relative to last orbit. In this case apogee occured at about a 5.7% loss of elevation…it is comming down..likely in about 110 hrs. If you are following now you would be seeing the speed increase as Grunt “falls back to earth”…the altitude decreasing until it reaches perihelion (closest to earth), and it will again begin to slow and rise in altitude. However, you will notice at all points in its degrading oribit “elevation” will continue to be a negative number …until both altitude and speed hit -0-…

      Like

    • Emac, after watching consecutive orbits must admit I am scratching my head…clearly I am in error regarding interpolation of elevation data provided on link. The following apogee occured at 13:11:25…orbital time of 1hr 26 min 25sec…altitude had increased by 1km while speed had decreased by 1kms…not exactly consistant with the mathematical model I anticipated…ooops!
      At first blush I am looking at four posibilities (or a combination of…)
      1. inaccurate data 2. math error (mine…high probability)
      3. atmospheric “skip” (possible but unusual to see at apogee)
      4. satellite is getting some boost and not entirely in free uncontroled oribit…

      I am thinking maybe a few horus of sleep will help…

      Like

  17. I track certain things 24/7 in real time…solar and seismic activity, certain political activity, science breakthroughs (ya think I may have to much time on my hands?)…since the post by Emac I have been tracking Grunt as well.
    After contact was lost, it began its gradual fall back to earth as would be expected in its very low earth orbit…then a few days ago it began acting rather strangly…its orbit degrades for awhile, then seams to re-orient itself and regains altitude. At the moment it is not only not falling, it continues to baffle Russian as well as NASA scientists by increasing its orbit with out propulsion! Some interesting speculation that it may be “flying on its solar wings” (it would bounce and become more erratic not less), getting lighter as a result of lost fuel (lighter objects dont fall up), even that it may have grown a brain and decided on its own that it would fly itself around earth for awhile! I must admit I am a little relieved to discover I am not the only one left scratching my head. ..
    Still…the darn thing is falling UP!!!…Anyone have any creative ideas??? (none will be considered to far out in left field and subjected to ridicule)

    Like

    • I see no math or reason for this. My best explaination would be that the readings them selves are compromised.
      Even if it lost mass it could only slow or stabalise its trajectory and orbit at best, and that is far flung as well.
      I see nothing that would allow it to actually move out again with out it either using boosters or being effected by an out side force.
      A rather poor hypothoses I suppose would be it skipping off the atmosphere like a flat stone on water, but each skip would be visible and it would of course have smaller and smaller skips. Not one big one that jumps it away.
      Sorry Wave old boy, but thats the best I got with out far more data.
      ~ V.

      Like

      • I at first thought we were seeing an atmospheric skip as well which is not at all unusual as a satallite falls through the upper atmosphere. A skip (usually…always before this) results in a slowing as well as more eratic attitude and ultimate rapid loss of altitude…The Russians continue to claim they have no communication or means of control of the thing and no explanation for its behavior…other than that it is mis-behaving…hhhmmmm T/F….
        Be Well…

        Like

  18. I would like to add, that I am perpetually suspiscious of that which Nasa “Claims” is this or any other large objects purpose and its cargo or equipment. I feel they are Never telling us the full story or the real one at all at times.
    Could there be equipment on board which effects magnetics, and it is effectively bouncing off the planetary field?
    Could there have been such a leak or directed explosion on the faultering craft that it was directed like propulsion and pushed the object back away?
    I simply do not have the Knows for these kinds of things Im afraid.
    Next Guess?
    ~ Vara.

    Like

    • Again, you demonstrate excelent intuition.. (sparking my intuition to suspect you may not be a “good ‘ol boy”)….and the Russian space agency is no less suspect than NASA..
      …magnetics…an area of study I have committed years to, yet it hadn’t crossed my mind…they are years ahead of the west in magnetics as well as torsion physics and the two are linked at the hip…Grunt was officially going to retrieve 200 grms of “soil” from Phobos and return to earth…what would they need a magnetic/torsion feild device for…???
      you dear one have set the wheels in motion…

      Journey Well…
      waveform144

      Like