Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Traces of another world found on the Moon (BBC)

page: 10
73
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy

The single land mass you speak of was not the original land form. The single land mass was created by plate tectonics (smaller land masses pushed together) and was broken up by the same process. Therefore that earlier single land mass of which you speak had fault lines, subduction zones, divergent boundaries, mountains, volcanoes. etc etc. There is no reason to believe that the crust was ever faultless, lacking in activity. The indications, given just plain common sense, would be that the earliest crust would be weaker and thinner than now...so use your imagination just a tad.

You took the custard allegory to an oversimplified extreme. The custard (or water) allegory is just to provide a simplistic example of convection for those who may not know. If you take the custard, form it into a huge ball (somehow) and heat it from the center, and give it a significant spin, then you are getting a bit closer to the dynamics involved. Now...with the spin, and significant gravity effects tell me about how the skin may wrinkle some etc ..

The mantle is not custard.

Your last paragraph is ... disgusting and insulting, not to mention just plain ignorant.




posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677
you don't have a clue but obviously will do your best to act like you do even going as far as being extremely patronizing. I love listening to smart people say ridiculous things.

let's hear how you try to wedge the Moon creating impact in there
edit on 11-6-2014 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy

I'm a fan of watching trolls do their thing, to a point. bbracken677, it's really NOT worth discussing this anymore.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: astrostu

oh the trolllll card. always the easy way out when you been called on b.s.

none of you has a real argument against the Sumerian/Sitchin account. nothing that proves it wrong. nothing.

act like you have a clue, it's funny to watch



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy

I have a degree in Geology from Texas Tech, '76. If I am incorrect in ANY aspect of what I posted, please let me know.

First off, with regards to the "moon creating impact" I assume that you do not believe that is how it happened. Secondly, it is a theory, and I do nothing more than refer to it as such. Did it happen? Maybe, maybe not. Plate tectonics, on the other hand, is universally accepted.... there is no other theory that holds water to compete with it.

You are not much more knowledgeable than the fella who thinks planet collisions behave the exact same way as "pool balls" and that the moon may have been created by earth volcanoes.

edit on 12-6-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: astrostu



edit on 12-6-2014 by bbracken677 because: deleted: replied to wrong post



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy

I see...so this was all about Stitchin the whole time? What does he have to do with plate tectonics? What does he have to do with basic Geologic science?

It is my understanding that he was severely discredited and his interpretation of Sumerian was called hokum. Personally, I could care less. Stitchin was quite an entertaining read but backed by zero evidence.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677
so all you got out of your degree was custard? Why not describe the plate tectonic mechanism in a little more detail?
I don't subscribe to the pool ball theory and the Earth doesn't behave like custard. It is healing from the impact that created the asteroid belt and subsequently captured the Moon. if the Earth still has an active molten interior why not the Moon? Where's your evidence of the smaller landmasses prior to Pangea- rice pudding? What are you basing your ideas on, speculation?



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

I guess your degree is getting in the way of you being able to connect the dots. That is caused by mainstream brainwashing.

the point about the Sumerian account of what happened to the early Earth (Sitchin doesn't talk about plate tectonics) is that it explains why PT is happening. Can you explain why the Earth has not settled down in the last 4.54 billion years but the Moon is stable? maybe because it was already formed when the Earth got hit, ya think? don't need a degree to figure that out.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy

Once again, the collision theory is nothing more than a theory and I do not maintain anything but. For me, it seems the most workable. But a theory it remains. Plate tectonics has such a preponderance of evidence that, well, name one geologist, geophysicist, or vulcanologist with any credibility whatsoever who denies it.

As far as Stitchin is concerned, he has been found to be a quack, his interpretations to be far from accurate, and rather laced with fantasy and conjecture.

Your dots to connect: Based on what you alleged with regards to the planet healing etc is rather simple: 1) you have a moon exerting tidal forces on the earth. 2) you have a molten interior and a crust that remains thin. 3) as I stated in an earlier post the crust can be dated back to roughly the same time the moon formed based on the dating of moon rocks returned by the Apollo missions. Is that coincidence? Is it not coincidence? No one knows. Period.

You speak of connecting the dots...

Connect these dots: There is zero evidence supporting the truth of Stitchins books. Yes, I have read them. I believe back in the 90s, perhaps as late as the first few years of the 21st century...I don't remember. Found them fascinating and thought provoking in many ways. But from a scientific basis, please detail the evidence supporting his "ideas". There is none, zilch, nada, niente...they are a fanciful myth of creation much like any other myth of creation supported by any number of cultures/societies/civilizations whether old or new.

Why would you believe the Sumerian myth of creation presented by Stitchin and choose to not believe the myth of creation that the Hindus subscribe to? What about the Australian aboriginal myth of creation. What makes Stitchin's interpretations more truthful than theirs? Because you deem them so? Because you want his tale of creation to be the correct one?

edit on 12-6-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Badda boom!



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

1) then why isn't the Moon just as active?

2) we all know that. so what's your point?

3) "Moon rocks"=from the debris scattered after the impact with the other planet

4) can you explain this: news.discovery.com...

5) not sure where you were going with the part where you said "no one knows". It's obvious you don't know even after your degree. I mean seriously what good is it if everything they taught you is wrong or at best in serious doubt? (I'm not saying you don't know what an igneous rock is just that they didn't teach you things like the dynamics behind PT because even they don't know more than "custard")

6) the evidence supporting Sitchen's "ideas" is the tens of thousands of clay tablets which pre-date the Hindu works (which also talk about flying people from other worlds with amazing abilities and who used technology). maybe you should've spent more time studying them than rocks? (love geology by the way always wanted to be a geologist)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy

Lol your evidence is stone tablets which have been misinterpreted by a fraud. OH, and you say thousands of stone tablets, as if that will add weight to your "proof"...quite deceptive of you: by far and large most of those tablets are mundane records such as inventories and sales records etc etc. There are but a very few that STITCHIN claims are related to the Sumerian myths of creation. You know this.

How are those any different and more believable than the Hindu myth of creation? How are those any different from any other culture's myth of creation? What is it that makes the Sumerian myth correct and the other's wrong?

So....for a degree in geology I should study clay tablets written by an ancient civilization? hahahahahahaha! Yes, your grasp of the sciences and what is real vs what is myth is astounding!

I will respond to the rest of your post when I have more time.




edit on 13-6-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: bbracken677

1) then why isn't the Moon just as active?


Because there is no molten core, mantle...it's dead. Perhaps at one time there may have been, but it has been proven with seismic equipment left on the moon that it is solid.



2) we all know that. so what's your point?


My "point" is replying to your question about why the crust has not "healed". 2+2=4, no? lol



3) "Moon rocks"=from the debris scattered after the impact with the other planet


Your point is?



4) can you explain this: news.discovery.com...


I can offer 2 possible explanations: 1) the moon was formed in space by accretion of asteroids lacking water or 2) the heat (from the collision model) generated vaporized the water which, with little gravity and no atmosphere, escaped into space as vapor. There may be other reasons as well. I do not have a crystal ball nor a time machine (nor does anyone else) to "know" such things.



5) not sure where you were going with the part where you said "no one knows". It's obvious you don't know even after your degree. I mean seriously what good is it if everything they taught you is wrong or at best in serious doubt? (I'm not saying you don't know what an igneous rock is just that they didn't teach you things like the dynamics behind PT because even they don't know more than "custard")


No one knows...you do know the definition of theory, correct? #5 is just asinine.



6) the evidence supporting Sitchen's "ideas" is the tens of thousands of clay tablets which pre-date the Hindu works (which also talk about flying people from other worlds with amazing abilities and who used technology). maybe you should've spent more time studying them than rocks? (love geology by the way always wanted to be a geologist)


I see. Tens of thousands of clay tablets. Most of which are inventories, sales records etc etc. But then we also have those tablets that the Sumerians left us that are the equivalent of modern day dictionaries that define meanings of words. Tablets (dictionaries) that Stitchin totally ignored and fabricated his own meanings. Not only that, but his lack of training and education shows when he cannot even grasp the "grammar" of the Sumerian language.


Whether you want to accept it or not, when you take Sitchin's interpretations of stories over the word meanings the scribes themselves left us (they made dictionaries back then too!), this justifies academics treating alternate material with disdain. This situation should not be. We should look and be willing to slay academic (and even theological) sacred cows; you should respect the results of centuries of work in the field by people who do this for a living.


Your whole premise is based on misinterpretation. When I asked for "evidence" supporting the Stitchin/Sumerian Creation Myth you have zero (absolute nada) to support it. Even if the interpretations were correct what makes the Sumerian Creation Myth any more valid than any other civilization's Creation Myth? Saying it came first is hardly scientific validation. I was asking for evidence, as in of the scientific kind. I already knew there was none.

Therefore, I am offering science as an argument to someone who is bound and determined to accept mythos as fact. Badly interpreted mythos, at that. Badly interpreted mythos by an individual who does not even have the training, education or experience to support his interpretations. Badly interpreted in the face of "dictionaries" the Sumerian scholars themselves provided. Would you rather believe Stitchin or the Sumerians themselves when it comes to what a Sumerian word means? Interpretations that are denigrated by virtually every scholar who has worked the subject. It is rather clear Stitchin's motivation was to print books and make money, facts not being important.

Seems that believing such, accepting such as fact, makes one rather gullible.

edit on 13-6-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-6-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-6-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
"Because there is no molten core, mantle...it's dead. Perhaps at one time there may have been, but it has been proven with seismic equipment left on the moon that it is solid."

why is the Moon dead if it formed the same time as the Earth? you mentioned its effects to our "thin crust" so why did the Moon settle down before the Earth? I'm not sure if you subscribe to the "impact origin of the Moon" or not- do you? otherwise you believe the Moon formed how? ( p.s ok after reading the rest of your post I see you have no real opinion just the skipping record noise of someone who's too proud to admit he doesn't really know what to think because he's been brainwashed )


"My "point" is replying to your question about why the crust has not "healed". 2+2=4, no? lol"

but 2 pieces of apples + 2 pieces of oranges do not equal anything. all you did was reply without saying anything substantial. You said "2)you have a molten interior and a crust that remains thin" and implied the Moon was perpetuating plate tectonics. no? That's all the degree got you? how about a few more dots to connect in order to make yourself sound like you have a more rounded understanding of what you are talking about?"

"Your point is? "

my point was an alternative explanation of why the rocks brought home from the Moon were similar to Earth rocks

"I can offer 2 possible explanations: 1) the moon was formed in space by accretion of asteroids lacking water or 2) the heat (from the collision model) generated vaporized the water which, with little gravity and no atmosphere, escaped into space as vapor. There may be other reasons as well. I do not have a crystal ball nor a time machine (nor does anyone else) to "know" such things."

1) ok so why not accreting somewhere else as a binary planetoid, losing it's companion with which it was tidally locked after the collision with the larger Earth and then caught in orbit around it? why not? where's the scientific proof this can't happen? (and by the way that's pretty advanced mythos if you ask me lol)
2)"no one knows" said the man who acts like he does. ok so then this brings us back to why the Moon is dead. If it formed as a result of the collision it should still be as active geologically as Earth, so why is it dead?

"No one knows...you do know the definition of theory, correct? #5 is just asinine."

lol. why is it asinine to think someone is spouting a lot of hot air as if they know answers yet keep spewing the "no one knows" solution when they get in a corner? are you confused or just wrapped up in your ego?

"I see. Tens of thousands of clay tablets. Most of which are inventories, sales records etc etc."

ok you're right they didn't have an ongoing creation myth soap opera with the tablets I was using hyperbole. Their civilization is a whole other can of beans the mods don't want us to get into right now.

"Your whole premise is based on misinterpretation..."

Why couldn't your whole premise be based on misinterpretation? I didn't write that part about "sacred cows" so I'm not spending any more of my night arguing someone else's quote. You're a mainstream linear thinker and will never be able to make the right connections. talk about gullible?
edit on 13-6-2014 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy
You believe in myth, incorrect myth propagated by an uneducated misinterpretation of Sumerian writing, and you call me gullible?

Really? lol Dude....you still never explained why the Sumerian myth is superior to any other civilization's creation myth.

Obviously because the Stitchin myth involves aliens. ROFL

Myth vs science. I will take science theory over myth any day. You can have your Stitchin mythos. Just ask yourself why is it, indeed that you believe in the Stitchin myths over Hindu myth, or Aztec myth. If you can truly answer that question with any credence, with any credibility whatsoever, then more power to ya. Problem is, you cannot. There is no logic for choosing one mythos over another other than "because I like this one more". There is zero science to support any of them...hence myth. You do know what myth is, right?



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

yes "myth" is what it says on the back of your degree talk about rolling on the floor laughing

your reply is proof positive you haven't a clue my friend. Can't argue the message? Attack the messenger.

p.s.

speaking of Sitchin's misinterpretation, he had to have misinterpretated the Sumerian deluge account because really, how could those people have possibly known the Antarctic Ice Sheet was unstable?
dailycaller.com...
edit on 14-6-2014 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wolfenz
How Far off was Stichen the Claimed Spoof ? in his Tale of Sumerians about Tiamat hitting earth and the Moon ? when this is now theorized of a mysterious claimed ROUGE planet or moon called THIEA



Completely off since the Moon was the result of the collision and could not have been hit.

The impact theory was theorized in 1946, so if you can show me Stichen claiming it first ...

how about before 1946 in general

throwing out some names

Astronomer H. Olbers

L.W. King Translator ( Sumerian Creation Tablets )


Nice !!

Tom Van Flandern
metaresearch.org...

Resume of Tom Van Flandern
metaresearch.org...

Well I guess we have too Re Look at the Enuma Elish the Sumerian Creation Tale,,, The 7 Tablets yet AGAIN!

and see what they Mean .. anyone willing to to do the Task of Translating Them?


ENUMA ELISH
THE EPIC OF CREATION
L.W. King Translator
(from The Seven Tablets of Creation, London 1902)
www.sacred-texts.com...

The Seven Tablets Of Creation
By Leonard W. King
www.globalgrey.co.uk...

edit on 14-6-2014 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy

The Sumerian Creation myth is common knowledge and has been around a lot longer than Stitchin's version. The particular misinterpretations I mention involve 12 planets, involve aliens, involve the aliens coming from the planet that struck the earth etc etc etc.

There is no arguing science with a fanatic. I could beat you over the head with fact after fact and you would maintain your alien/Sumerian mythology beliefs.

You still have yet to even discuss why you believe the Sumerian Creation myth is truth, and the other civilization's creation myths are false. (other than the Sumerian's came first, which proves absolutely nothing other than their myth came first)
edit on 14-6-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Oh, and Stitchin's misinterpretations are legion. He didnt even get right the Sumerians depiction of the Sun vs other stars. Of course, that would have damaged part of his alien theory...





new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join