It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Before the Flood, There Was No Moon.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 02:20 PM
Just the devils advocate here howard...but what if you had a very hot core
and it were suddenly flooded with water (say through an impact fracture)
reckon that flash boiling -steam might resemble an explosion, or create a powerful eruption?

BTW it is my personal belief that the moon is in fact material from earth

but hey, I'm just a country boy...LOL

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Phimes
And I find it very interesting that the moon revolves only once each month,

This is no coincidence. The word "month" is comes from the word "moon". Also, The moon doesn't revolve around the Earth once a month, it does once every 28 days or 4 weeks.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 08:32 PM
Well, considering that the Earth's oceans average only 4.5 Km deep, (11 Km at the deepest), That the same ratio of thickness as the skin on an apple.

I just can't see your scenario working.

posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:53 AM
The moon has been there ALOOOOOONG time (geologists and NASA proved that). It is part of the primordial earth forming 4 billion years ago and breaking off very early. It has lava flows on its surface!!! WHich means it was once very very hot either on the surface or in the core.

Moon has been there way longer than man. Deal.

posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:32 PM
Many years ago, I heard a rumor that there was once an additional layer of atmosphere surrounding our planet. Due to its density and construction, it shielded the earth from a great deal of harmful ultra-violet radiation, thus explaining the longevity of the ancient peoples. This layer was primarily composed of water molecules and some catastrophic event caused the entire layer to precipitate out of the atmosphere, onto the earth, causing the flood. Taking into account the lifespans of people following the flood stories, as opposed to lifespans prior to the flood, there does seem to be a shortening of lifespan.

How this impacts the Moon theories, I don't know, but perhaps the 2 events are intertwined.

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 04:36 PM
I once read that when the tried to take samples of the rock (moon) they weren't able to drill into it. It was more of a metallic material than rock. It was said that once the drill hit whatever was underneath the rock it made a like metallic sound and it echoed as if it was empty inside. Could it be a satellite of some type?
P.S. What a great site this is. I also recommend and

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 12:58 PM
Stoking the conspiratorial fire...

Anyone else read about organic material ejected from the moon periodically?

And what about all the business of astronauts shouting "We have a Santa Claus, Oh my God theres hundreds of them!" when visiting the moon?

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 01:05 PM
Here's a theory to chew on: We all know the moon controls the tides. Suppose prior to the Great Flood, the moon went into some kind of wierd, freaked-out, super-gravitational state, causing tides high enough to flood all land masses?

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:09 PM
I have strong reasons to believe the following;

1. The moon is an extremely ancient object, possibly older than our solar system
2. It is an unnatural object, whose origin is not adequately explained.

I am resistant to forming beliefs, but I think there's a great deal of evidence that suggests that the moon is an alien generation ship - and may not have been in orbit for very long. I don't have much info on its length of time in orbit - but I am investigating it - some starting evidence indicates maybe 10k to 15k years.

The basis for my belief in the antiquity of the moon is built on a few things.

The moons surface has saturation crating. This means that new craters will destroy older craters. Based on face value observations of existing craters science determines an approximate age for the moon of around 4 or more billion years. However - there is more data available.

When a meteorite strikes it burrows into the surface - creating a region of differing density, detectable by gravity anomaly mapping. If you overlay the available gravity anomaly and topographical maps - you find that many of the anomalies refer to ancient craters that have been obscured. This indicates a far more ancient moon. Also - casual observation of the gravity anomaly maps shows a MASSIVE difference between the dark and face sides of the moon - there is no known attempt to explain this.

Geological samples indicate that the moon is 'at least' 4.5 bil yrs old - however, there are problems with these samples.

1. The sample size is extremely small (slightly over 300kg), was drawn from very few locations, and was taken from the surface only (not by drilling). In short - the sample is not statistically representative.
2. Using the age of rocks can only tell you the minimum age, not the maximum age of the area they came from.
3. Finding old rocks on earth is actually quite difficult - you need to look in particular areas - on the moon the it probably more difficult due to its bombardment by meteorites.
4. NASA may decide to lie about the samples, especially if it indicates the moon is alien

So as far as the geological samples are concerned, they do not rule out a more ancient moon.

If the moon is ancient, then there is a problem - because it appears that its orbital path ISN'T so ancient.

It has a incremental increase in orbit - if you wind its orbital decay backwards - it collides with the earth around 1.2 bil years ago. Fossil evidence indicates it could not have evolved from earth at that time.

We are left puzzling over an object that appears to be ancient - but arrived in orbit after it was formed.

The 'generally' accepted theory is that it was formed from a collision of a small planet with earth and 'thrown off' into orbit around 4.5 bil years ago - however, firstly this doesn't adequately address its incremental orbit.

Furthermore, in the event of such a collision, the ejected material either spins off out of orbit, crashes back down, fails to form a moo, or is too dense (full of iron) - its totally unlikely to create the moon.

Here's an analogy - when you open your garage you find that you car has moved from one side of the garage to the other. Your explanation is an inrush of hurricane strength wind, that lifted your car from one side of the garage to the other without disturbing or damaging anything else. Of course - your wife might just have moved it ..

I like to believe the simplest explanation - no matter how unlikely - is usually the truth.

The simplest explanation is that the moon is artificial, it was piloted here and placed into orbit. It is an alien generation ship and contains alien life.

I think those aliens have guided human events for the last 15k or so years, I think I understand some of their motives - and that they have bases on earth - notably Area 51 - possibly polar caps and the Australian desert.

I feel that they are not our friends.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:55 PM
As much as I hate to say it, the moon may not be what we think it is. I have seen enough evidence to think it is not natural, in the sense its a fabricated object.

The age of which is very debatable, if you ask me. You go by the age of the rocks when in fact that will tell you the age of the moon rocks, not how old the moon actually is. If someone had the capability to create such a large construct, then they would be able to camouflage it with, dirt and rocks, not to mention all the meteorites and dust that has accumulated.

I once read that the "meteorite" impacts are only half of what is seen. The other is actually "particle" beam weapon impact creators.

And if it is true that the moon is hollow, and was not present before the great flood, then there is a possibility that the moon itself, was used to transport the water for the flood, from I suspect, Mars.

Any thoughts on this line of thinking?

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 03:59 PM
To explore this subject further,you need to researach the cataclysm of abou 11,500 years ago. Below is an excerpt from an article discussing the book "When Earth Nearly Died" which has been updated and republished under the title "Cataclysm". I have it and it tells a fascinating story and details much of the supporting evidence.


"This first part of When the Earth Nearly Died challenges contemporary theories by showing in a detailed survey that well-established geological, palaeontological and biological evidence point to this planet undergoing sudden and very major physical changes about 11,500 years ago. (In fact, the 'Ice Age', as proposed by orthodoxy, is abandoned by the authors in favour of a much shorter later period of intense cold). Nearly all the phenomena ascribed to conventional Ice Age theory can be interpreted as the result of natural convulsions of worldwide proportions. The authors - citing much reputable supporting evidence - argue that the great mountain ranges of today and the great crustal displacements which, along with enormous seismic and volcanic eruptions, changed the face of the Earth, in fact happened violently, rapidly and comparatively very recently. "

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 04:50 AM
I think the ebb/flow record data is damning on this theory - it would be possible (especially now, although Newton made such calculations 400 years ago) to model two, or three moons and their influence on tides and compare them with the record of ebb and flow - thus proving or disproving the theory there were more, or no moons.

That said, that doesn't mean the Moon is what we think it is - just that whatever is it, it's been around for a long time.

I also have seen lots of programmes, done lots of reading that says the Moon is moving IN towards the Earth slowly each year and not AWAY from the earth... this would make more sense or else where is its energy coming from to give it the increase in velocity? Interesting...

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:28 PM
The bagavad gita script, hanuman, dragons,dinosaurs, are real? But they exist before the flood?

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:13 PM
reply to post by ultra_phoenix

Since we're speaking hypothetically, I don't mind going WAY out in Left Field to let myself imagine up new ideas, whether they're credible or not...

What if we flip the hypothesis? It wasn't Venus as the Mayans said, but the moon - farther away. And it was Venus that was wrecked from the Earth. This would explain the more "interesting" makeup of Venus, and the "plain-jane" moon.

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by therealdemoboy

How about: There being a ring of water around the earth (pre-flood) and the moon then being brought into orbit to break that ring of water causing it to crash to earth? Gen: 7-11 "the windows of heaven were opened"
And the new moon would cause gravitational stress on the earth, maybe that is how the mid-Atlantic ridge came to be? Again gen: 7-11 "all the fountains of the great deep broken up"

Imagine also as the great waters below the earth bursting forward, through the mid-Atlantic ridge the continents sliding way.

The flood being a punishment / cleansing and the moon being the new eye in the sky?
Just an idea

<< 1  2   >>

log in