It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why did the "moon ring like a bell" when anything landed on it? Not only American aircraft but Rus

page: 6
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677




I do not recall mentions of any seismic gear, but then that was long ago and my memory fails me regularly lol.


For example, the seismometer network provide from ALSEPs emplaced by A-12, 14, 15, and 16 enabled the location of impacts and moonquakes to be determined.

ares.jsc.nasa.gov...




posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
First time I heard of the moon "ringing like a bell" was when I read Alien Agenda by Jim Marrs. Completely baffling.


"That's no moon . . . it's a space station."




posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Thanks Phage...I figured it would be a seismograph if anything.
I suspect by "rang like a bell" they were referring to the duration of the impact effect and not so much a reference to a hollow moon type effect. I suspect that the hollow moon thing is just romantic interpretation well after the fact.

The mass of the moon is well documented. If it were hollow then the shell would have to be extremely dense. I am rather sure that if they were getting evidence from the seismology that the moon were hollow with an extremely dense shell that there would be significant activity investigating that.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
"I gave the moon a ring. She was so excited, she started waxing for me right then and there."



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Zedski

And with that i give you,,,



Blue Moon - Billie Holiday




posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome

Quintessential moon music.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome

Only one of the greatest singers of her age, not related but worthy of a star, I am surprized you never marked for host the planet's as it would have been more in theme, still this is a genuine debate with genuine questions so why does every one belittle it.

edit on 2-6-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   
So debunkers have explained the rotation/revolution aspect. As well as the "ringing" aspect.

How about the fact it is way too big to be a natural satellite of an earth-sized planet? Thats a big sticking point for me. I'd like to see a logical explanation of that.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuicideKing33
So debunkers have explained the rotation/revolution aspect. As well as the "ringing" aspect.

How about the fact it is way too big to be a natural satellite of an earth-sized planet? Thats a big sticking point for me. I'd like to see a logical explanation of that.


Please give some facts and figures, or a logical explanation, demonstrating that it is too big.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Our moon is the largest satellite in our solar system relative to the planet it orbits. It is second in density to Jupiters moon Io (from known densities).

That's from wikipedia but there is a planetary fact sheet on NASA's website that has tons of info on every planet and their moons.

The real question i suppose is largest by how much. If it were larger in relative size by a huge amount I'd be curious as to why. Heck I'm curious as to why its the biggest at all?

Which has me asking also...How could it be "hollow" or "ring" and be the second densest known moon?



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuicideKing33
Our moon is the largest satellite in our solar system relative to the planet it orbits.


Only because Pluto got demoted to "Dwarf Planet" status. Our moon is 1/4 the size Earth. Pluto's moon Charon is 1/3 the size of Pluto.

Two double-planets out of nine implies that proportionally-large moons may not be that rare.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
It is the 5th largest moon in our solar system, but the other 4 orbit the gas giants.

No-one is denying that the moon is large relative to the size of Earth, but this doesn't mean it is hollow, or a spaceship. What astrophysicists argue is that its relative size is indicative of its large impact origin. Its density is lower than Earth's, but is similar to the earth's crust, which lends support to that large impact theory of where it came from.

It isn't hollow and doesn't 'ring', but it does vibrate when impacted, or when there are moonquakes and this allows people to determine the internal structure.

It's fine to notice where the moon ranks in terms of its density, or mass, or size relative to other moons, but attaching significance to it requires proper analysis, not just "it looks odd, therefore aliens" (not impying that that is your perspective). You can find countless numbers of websites (usually with a hollow moon, alien spaceship etc etc angle) that make all kinds of woo woo noises about the moon being 'too big', but you won't find one of them giving any equations or scientific analysis backing that up. Newton and Kepler, on the other hand, provided equations centuries ago that explain it perfectly.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuicideKing33
So debunkers have explained the rotation/revolution aspect. As well as the "ringing" aspect.

How about the fact it is way too big to be a natural satellite of an earth-sized planet? Thats a big sticking point for me. I'd like to see a logical explanation of that.

I think the Giant Impact Hypothesis is the explanation. Most other moons in the Solar System might be small asteroids / planetoids that got captured by the planet's gravity. Our Moon was born from the huge amount of material released in the impact of a Mars-sized protoplanet with the proto-Earth.

~~~

By the way, it's not very nice to attach the tag "debunkers" to us. We're simply space enthusiasts. When someone asks "why does the Moon show only one side", we're happy to provide the answer, based on the scientific knowledge. When someone suggests that this phenomenon means that something strange or unnatural is going on, of course we're moved to point out that there's nothing unnatural.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   
I think what we have learned from this thread is that NASA shouldn't use analogies when talking about the moon, because a lot of people are too "literal minded" to cope with them.

In summary:

1) The moon doesn't make an audible ringing noise.

2) The astronauts didn't hear it ringing. The vibrations were picked up by seismographs.

3) Seismic vibrations are more persistent on the moon than they are on Earth.

4) To say that eclipses are "perfect" and wouldn't be so even if the moon was "one mile closer or further" is ridiculous. For one thing, the orbit isn't circular. The distance between the moon and the Earth varies by more than 26,000 miles, or about 11%, during its orbit.

5) The moon definitely isn't hollow.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Moresby

prob means physical vibration bet 20-20Khz



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Ok a big impact on earth breaks off the moon in a "perfect" sphere though? If it is not obvious I cannot believe in coincidences lol.

The distance to size ratio is supposed to be coincidence which it very well might be if it is slowly getting farther away.

Not trying to label but you guys did de-mystify the whole "one face of the moon fact" and showed it wasn't unique. Also posted was Pluto having a bigger moon relatively.

But it is still quite big and dense and even though it is "simple" physics its fascinating to me as I cannot believe in coincidences. I've learned some non-creepy stuff about the moon here though cheers



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: nOraKat

The resonant frequency of the "ringing" is lower than that: more like 0.5-2Hz.

Link



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuicideKing33
Ok a big impact on earth breaks off the moon in a "perfect" sphere though? If it is not obvious I cannot believe in coincidences lol.



Never said it broke off a perfect sphere! A sphere is simply the result of a balance of the forces operating on a body that size, and it's a shape that is achieved over millions of years, not instantly. The smaller moons in the solar system don't have enough mass to achieve that shape, hence they are still uneven lumps of rock.

Top all that off with it isn't actually a 'perfect' sphere, it creaks and groans thanks to the tidal forces that lock its face towards us and like Earth it is slightly distorted as a result.

It isn't coincidence. It#s physics



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuicideKing33
Ok a big impact on earth breaks off the moon in a "perfect" sphere though?

The impact didn't break off one big chunk, it was all rubble and rocks. Over time, they stuck together because of their own gravity. Eventually, the total gravity of the Moon became strong enough to shape it into a sphere.

It's called Hydrostatic equilibrium and is the reason all other large bodies in the Solar System are spherical. Gravity pulls equally in all directions, so the resulting shape is a sphere.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 2-6-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Sgt. Karl Wolf: US Air Force - (worked for Director of Intelligence at Headquarters Tactical Air Command) - claims to have been shown structures on the dark side of the moon. www.ufocasebook.com...



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join