Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The MOON created by Aliens????...................Was it built for us?????

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


haha alright man. i thought you were putting me down or something, but glad to know you werent



and truely, i wonder how many theories actually do start that way




posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Originally posted by NGC2736



Do you now have anything that can either scientifically or physically back up these claims? And by those terms, I mean science as it is understood by the vast majority of educated humans, or that can be physically analyzed or shown through a generally accepted medium.

The same could be applied to any of us, so we must also show some form of proof. This is the way learning takes place for most of us.


Thanks for the post NGCV2736. My signature says it, I've said it, what does it take to help you understand that there is no proof at the moment for what I am speculating or hypothesizing. NAZA holds all the cards and the data. NAZA manipulates, fabricates and air brushes the truth out of almost everything they publish.

Now, if I don't possess the true and accurate data how am I supposed to prove something? Science, as it is understood by the vast majority of educated humans is falsified, manipulated, twisted and turned into fabricated facts, spoon fed to the unwary.

It is your choice whether or not to accept my ideas. Nobody is forcing you to read my posts. If you disagree all you have to say is, "John Lear, you're full it it, I disagree and I disagree on the basis of known scientifc methods and principles." Thats all you have to say.

Thanks very much for the post, your input is genuinely appreciated.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


John, I think you misunderstand me. I too think a certain amount of my tax dollars are spent on things hidden from sight, and the moon might make a good hidey hole.

But like everyone else, I'm just looking for answers I can accept.

Thank you for your time.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Id say the best way to approach this topic is to find out if there waas ever a time when the moon was not in the sky.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Agreed; our (archeoligists/anthropoligists) have done us the most injustice, but then again they don't want to fall outside the 'Set Reality', or the box because the implications would perpetuate a path to 'CosmicOrientation' 101.

And for those that do without the 'Science fields' backing usually don't get the funding to promote the growth or are dispatched from doing so from inside sources. A bad career move would be the entail.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Enrikez
 


I think for that to be a viable theory, then we would need to find two or more historical accounts from separate locations that agreed to this. Further, the sudden appearance of the moon would be an event of enough note that there should be two or (many) more accounts of that as well, even if they were on the order of cave drawings.

Possible, but a tall order at any rate.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks for the post NGCV2736. My signature says it, I've said it, what does it take to help you understand that there is no proof at the moment for what I am speculating or hypothesizing. NAZA holds all the cards and the data. NAZA manipulates, fabricates and air brushes the truth out of almost everything they publish.


Yes, NASA operates most of the probes they send out. This isn't necessarily a matter of conspiracy - a planetary probe requires a great deal of coordination and, more importantly, money.

Anyways, the good thing is that there are phenomena that are visible through telescopes, and small ones at that. For example, for those of you still thinking that our Moon is somehow special because of its synchronous rotation, here's an experiment you could do if you had a fairly large amateur telescope:

1. Observe Saturn's moon, Iapetus. Look it up on Wikipedia if you haven't heard of it before, but it's very unique in the solar system in that one hemisphere is very dark while the other is very bright.
2. Over the period of many days, you will notice that it will periodically get brighter and darker. This is because it is rotating and the brighter and darker hemispheres alternately face the Earth. Make note of how many days it takes for a full period of brightening and darkening.
3. Over the course of many days, Iapetus will also move in relation to Saturn; this is because of its orbit. Take note of how many days it takes for it to make a full revolution. Of course, this method isn't completely accurate as Saturn is also moving in relation to the Earth, but over short timescales it should be a pretty good approximation.
4. Compare those two values. What happens? They match. What does that mean? Iapetus, like most moons in the solar system, is rotating synchronously with its parent body.

In addition, you've applied a real astronomical method that is used by professional and amateur astronomers worldwide to measure such things as rotation periods, orbital periods of eclipsing binary stars, etc.

Of course, you could make the argument that the entire professional and amateur astronomical communities are somehow in on this secret, but I really can't help you there.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
i really wish all the fantasists would leave their bile to the ufo/aliens or skunkworks forums. This section is slowly being eroded down to their level of inane bufoonary it used to be the only decent space section on this site...shame



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
cdrn, an excellent experiment for people to get a feel for the subject. Well explained.

yeti101, there is room for speculation in these threads. Speculation isn't hard science, and we all know that. We are all wanting some kind of proof, and even the most strange of ideas is no stranger to that need.

Speculation can lead us to new areas to scientifically explore. The two must never be confused, for it is in that area where science becomes a religion, or worse. All we need to do is ask those involved here for the basis of their claims, in some form that is understandable and verifiable to the majority of humanity.

If they have some proof, then it is looked at and debated. If there is no proof, then it is, politely, left to find it's own level on the boards in those threads that deal with unsupported beliefs.

These are just my opinion on the matter, of course.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Originally posted by cdrn




here's an experiment you could do if you had a fairly large amateur telescope:

1. Observe Saturn's moon, Iapetus. Look it up on Wikipedia if you haven't heard of it before, but it's very unique in the solar system in that one hemisphere is very dark while the other is very bright.


Thanks for the post cdrn. I try not to use Wikipedia for any important reference. Wikipedia contains mainstream thought which may or may not be the real truth. Usually not. Wikipedia is a reference for those who are too lazy to read.

The picture in Wikepedia of Iapetus is fabricated. It is an airbrushed photo of Iapetus. The information about the discovery of Iapetus is highly sterilized if not contrived.


2. Over the period of many days, you will notice that it will periodically get brighter and darker. This is because it is rotating and the brighter and darker hemispheres alternately face the Earth. Make note of how many days it takes for a full period of brightening and darkening.


Fascinating.


I prefer to use Cassini's observation which he made in 1671. Cassini concluded that during the moons passage around Saturn various exposed faces exhibited considerably different reflectivities.

Incidentally, NAZA has misrepresented, airbrushed and otherwise deceived the public of the true nature of Iapetus' visible hemisphere.

Here is a drawing I made of what Iapetus really looks like. I would show you a photo but the one I have has notations on it and it is copyrighted by Norman Bergrun.



Norman has asked that I not post his photo of Iapetus because the notations on it are his exclusive property. He is presently writing a book about Iapetus

About 30 years after his initial investigation of Iapetus Cassini thought he saw Iapetus in the 'forbidden' region. In other words he thought he saw it where it should not have been.

From: The Ringmakers of Saturn Copyright Norman R. Bergrun The Pentland Press Edinburgh (LOCCCN 86-81530 ISBN 0 946270 33 3):


About a century later, Sir William Herschel took the view that the discoverer's original position was the only one possible. However, Cassini's skepticism is meritorious in light of more recent data. American Professor Edward E. Barnard, in 1889, reported sudden disappearances of Iapetus while engaging in ring translucency observations. Further, in 1913, Harvard advocated more study of Iapetus because some observations had revealed sudden and large, irregular brightness fluctuations. Attempts to explain Iapetus must contend with these horns of an historical dilemma.

Observers of Iapetus have wondered how the iceous region, being shadowed from the sun, can be so intensely bright. They have wondered how the iceous surface can change so abruptly into a radically different asphaltic composition. They have wondered about unexpected flashes of light, large variation in surface reflectivity and sudden disappearance from view.



"NAZA's weak and improbable fantasies about Iapetus do little to explain these mysteries." johnlear


(Bergrun is retired from a long and distinguished career as an engineer/scientist/thermodynamicist with Douglas Aircraft and NACA (Ames), having retired from Lockheed several year ago. Norm has been my friend for many years and I last visited him at his home in Los Altos Hills last August.)


3. Over the course of many days, Iapetus will also move in relation to Saturn; this is because of its orbit. Take note of how many days it takes for it to make a full revolution. Of course, this method isn't completely accurate as Saturn is also moving in relation to the Earth, but over short timescales it should be a pretty good approximation.


I would imagine "this method isn't isn't completely accurate" would be an understatement.

I think you may be overlooking Iapetus' significance for its orbital period. Its orbital period may vary.

While NAZA is trying to fabricate an excuse of why it is white on one side and black on the other they are neglecting to tell the public that the white and black on Iapetus looks like Pac Man. They are also skirting the issue of the variable intensities both in brightness and in time periods for the same hemisphere. (Just between you and me NAZA's really in a pickle on this one.)



In addition, you've applied a real astronomical method that is used by professional and amateur astronomers worldwide to measure such things as rotation periods, orbital periods of eclipsing binary stars, etc.


….while being defrauded by NAZA with airbrushed pictures of Iapetus and other significant facts about Iapetus.

NAZA airbrushed photo of Iapetus:




Of course, you could make the argument that the entire professional and amateur astronomical communities are somehow in on this secret, but I really can't help you there.


No I would guess that NAZA is defrauding them equally.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
OK, but if the mainstream scientific community agrees, through astronomical observations, that Iapetus's orbital period is consistent and that it has a consistent brightening and darkening pattern, then what does this have anything to do with NASA? If you hold your opinion, you're forced to also believe that the entire worldwide astronomical community is part of the conspiracy too.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Just what do you think this whole site is about? At ATS we like unusual, fringe and conspiracy topics. Maybe your just upset that your disinformation campaign isn't working.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


"We" as a whole also like a wee bit of scientific and logical backing.

There are certain words that people claiming intelligence should use soap and water to clean their mouth with after speaking. "Disinfo agent" is one of those. While each of us is entitled to an opinion, it should be understood that dissenting opinions are not always "disino". This is like Bush and his idea that if you don't agree with him on the war you're not a patriot.

To ask for, and then examine the evidence behind an idea or theory, is the only logical way to progress. Anything less is a matter of faith, and by rights is not a matter to be discussed rationally outside of a fantasy or religion forum. Speculation with facts is forward thinking and boundary testing, without any facts, it's wind.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Mmmm

Was enjoying this thread

Don't understand though ..

this thread was on Page One a few moments ago

which should mean that it contained a post dated 17 Oct 2008 (or, if you're in the US, 16 Oct 08) .. today's date

I read to the end of Page Four

and the last post is dated 2007

Nup .. don't understand





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join