Before the Flood, There Was No Moon.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2003 @ 12:27 AM
link   
My apologies....the last reply should of been a new thread




posted on Jul, 19 2003 @ 12:48 AM
link   
What if......the moon used to belong to another planet.....and by some awkward rotation of the solar system the Earth somehow snatched it? And the planet that once had the moon was Mars...That would explain how something as huge as the moon appeared out of no where over 12,000 years ago. And.....it may even explain why the water and possibly life disappered from Mars...................



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Isn't it amazing that the moon takes a month to go round! WOW! (Before you have me banned for ignorance, I was joking, honest...)



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I've seen photos of Ice-age tools that had what looked like markings showing the Moons phases. They were carved on some sort of Antler material. And
were probably being used as a calendar, or timepiece of some sort.
That suggests the moon is an old friend..

And YES, it is TRULY AMAZING that the Moon goes around, like once a month!

It's also quite a coincidence that the Earth takes about a Year to go around the Sun, cool eh?

The Face of the moon that we see, is Tidally locked onto the Earths Gravity.
They use gravity this way to "orient" satellites sometimes as well...Using an extended boom, to change the "center of gravity" of the Satellite.

Addendum: The moon is not Quite "locked on"
here is a pic of a months worth of the Moon...What you are seeing is called
Lunation..

Note: this link is down, I hope I didn't break it! I'll try and fix it



[edit on 24-6-2004 by spacedoubt]

[edit on 27-6-2004 by spacedoubt]



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
The Mayans did notice (and respect) the moon. The Mayans were far ahead of Europe in their study of astronomy.

Mayan photos of ancient Mayan cities are available at the Bible Code Research website. One of these is the "Pyramid of the Moon," a sister pyramid alongside the "Pyramid of the Sun" on the same ancient roadway.

The Webmaster and an attractive assistant took the photos. The link is onealclan0.tripod.com...

As to the origin of the moon, it probably wasn't what most people think it was. You can check out the science at www.psi.edu...



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Remember, though, that the Mayans weren't around 12,000 years ago when the moon was supposed to have appeared out of nowhere.

Wonder if David Copperfield's ancestors had anything to do with it? (sry, couldn't resist
)



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   



Anyone ever hear the testimonies of the military officials that stood in front of congress and told what they had saw and what they knew? They talk about the moon and how it is not what we are told.

You will find the testimonies on the Disclosure website.


Could you please explain more? I wonder what this is? What Discloure site?



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Actually the moon is composed of pieces of the Earth's crust.

www.danamackenzie.com...

The thing is, it happend 4.5 BILLION years ago.

a bit before the biblical Genesis, not to mention the flood.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   
The mean distance to the moon is 384,400 KM (between its perigree and apogee). If the moon had drifted 1.5 inches away every year as previously claimed, it would have moved 1.714 million km in the last 4.5 billion years. That's 3 times farther than the distance from Earth to the moon. Furthermore, the debris that formed the moon had to start outside the atmosphere far enough that it never was pulled back in. Our sattelite orbits decay and they eventually fall back to Earth remember, so you've got to get far enough from Earth to remain in orbit.
This means that if the moon has been drifting away at a constant rate the moon is probably closer to a billion years old or less.
I'm not an astronomer, but it seems sane to me. Does somebody want to bear me out?

EDIT: this doesn't change Roark's assertion that IF that explanation is the correct one, the moon seriously predates humanity. I don't necessarily embrace that explanation- I have no informed opinion to offer on the matter.

[edit on 26-6-2004 by The Vagabond]



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by j619pinoy
Any input? Great flood, Pyramids being built, ending of ice age.....


General info can be found in these two threads.

From 20,000BC to 10,000BC

From 10,000BC to 2000BC



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The mean distance to the moon is 384,400 KM (between its perigree and apogee). If the moon had drifted 1.5 inches away every year as previously claimed, it would have moved 1.714 million km in the last 4.5 billion years. That's 3 times farther than the distance from Earth to the moon. Furthermore, the debris that formed the moon had to start outside the atmosphere far enough that it never was pulled back in. Our sattelite orbits decay and they eventually fall back to Earth remember, so you've got to get far enough from Earth to remain in orbit.
This means that if the moon has been drifting away at a constant rate the moon is probably closer to a billion years old or less.
I'm not an astronomer, but it seems sane to me. Does somebody want to bear me out?

EDIT: this doesn't change Roark's assertion that IF that explanation is the correct one, the moon seriously predates humanity. I don't necessarily embrace that explanation- I have no informed opinion to offer on the matter.

[edit on 26-6-2004 by The Vagabond]


Actually it is a good question.

I found this

and the follow up

As you can see, it is a tough question to answer without a LOT of physics.


d1k

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger



Anyone ever hear the testimonies of the military officials that stood in front of congress and told what they had saw and what they knew? They talk about the moon and how it is not what we are told.

You will find the testimonies on the Disclosure website.


Could you please explain more? I wonder what this is? What Discloure site?


Click the link in my sig and go to the links section of that (my) web page. You can download the 70mb video of the very first disclosure project news conference.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 02:30 PM
link   
www.cecilarenas.webhop.net...
Two pieces of testimony here are from Sergeants, one from the army and one from the airforce. In most cases this means these people have been in service for 4 or 5 years.
I was good friends with a lieutenant commander who had worked in naval intelligence, and he was not generally even privy to many secrets about the USSR, let alone ETs. I've never met a sergeant, even in the Marine Corps, who had the first clue as to what was going on in the world (although a great many I have known have been extremely keen on exactly how to kill most of the things going on in this world).

The other piece, from the Admiral, says he was "kept in the dark". Translating this into objective language, the website says nothing in his experience with the British MoD clearly indicated the existance of ETs. His own testimony makes it clear that he believes it to be POSSIBLE and worthy of exploration. No part of his testimony points to current knowledge or a cover up.

I am still interested in seeing this testimony that was mentioned, but from what I have seen of te website so far, it does not appear that there is testimony to congress there. I will need your direction to find where in that site the material you refer to is located, and then I'll be happy to see it and research it.

EDIT: i read your post again and I was probably in the wrong place. I'll view the clip now and see what there is to see.

EDIT2: The national press club, who sponsored this little speaking event the video shows, is respectable, but not congress, as you claimed earlier. NPC hosts opinionated discussions from many respectable but biased sources, including the left-leaning center for American progress. They are even scheduled to host the toastmasters, which if memory serves is basically a speach/debate club. So, the event we're seeing video of isn't a news conference, it's an event being sponsored by a baised source. I'll still watch it later, but if the "officials" are sergeants, or if they don't give specific details, i will be upset to have wasted over an hour.

[edit on 26-6-2004 by The Vagabond]

[edit on 26-6-2004 by The Vagabond]



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   
The fact that the moons orbit is almost perfectly circular is the biggest clue to the fact that it originated on earth. If the moon had been 'captured' in orbit, the path would almost certainly be elliptical.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Without a moon there would have been no tides. And without tides life may never have emerged from the seas....



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   
The moon is indeed a very enigmatic body. It is exactly 200 times smaller than the Sun and exactly 200 times closer to us than the Sun. To us on Earth, the Sun and the Moon look to be the same size. This is why we have spectacular eclipses.

I find it intruiging that this is the case. The chances of this happening purely by chance are very high indeed, especially when coupled with the Moon's stange orbit.

Do you think it's possible that the Moon was actually placed there deliberately? andi if so, for what reason?



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   
It seems most likely that the earth and the moon were both molten at the same time in their beginning just as all the other planets and their moons. Since life here on earth is so dependant on the tidal fluctuations caused by the moon, the moon must have been around at early beginnings of life.

Now I would say that the moon received most of its surface scarring when the Great Deluge began. Imagine for a moment if one giant planet exploded in the solar system, how far-reaching would the debris blast be?



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   
What makes you think a planet would explode?

The initial formation of planets in the solar system was though the process of accretion.

The impact of Thia with the earth (4.5 BYO) to form the present Earth moon system was just one step in that process. The majority o the craters on the moon were formed over the next few billion years or so.

There is no known physical/ chemical or other process that would cause a planet to explode.


Remember, gravity rules all!



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phimes
...Wavering in and out a bit , but the rotations stays exact...


Hi Phimes/ all!

Has any body considered Librations of the Moon at all? These actually allow more than 50% of the lunar surface to be visible from Earth (around 59% in fact).

Please see here and here for more information.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Their is a moon in our solar system (Neptune/Saturn area i think) that goes the opersite way round than the planet and also the opersate rotation





top topics
 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join