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.


Artificial Moon

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 09:03 PM

Originally posted by CarrierAnomaly
You poor guy... hopes and dreams dashed! Who's seen the new(er) movie based on the Time Machine? The moon crashed into Earth a little, and then went back up!
Amazing! Suspension of disbelief at its finest.
Decent movie though.

What is the movie's name?

posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 09:06 PM
I cant remember...I think its simply "the time machine"

the story begins in about 1895 and the scientist loses his wife or fiancee...he builds the machine to go back and prevent her death...

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 05:47 PM
He even goes billions of years into the future where structures that were once on earth still exist. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE.

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Electron
I would like your opinions on the following:

- Scientists have determined the moon is around 5.3 billion years old where as our solar system is only around 4.3 billion years old.

Incorrect. They have dated moon rocks to about 4.4-4.5 billion years, which palces it aroudn the same time as the Earth condensing.

- Strange anomalies have been spotted on the moon i.e. Pyramids, Strange Bridges.

Debateable but interesting.

- A crashed meteorite set of shock waves which lasted nearly and hour suggesting that the moon may be hollow.

Link? The only place I read this was the Weekly World News

- The moons orbit suggests that it was artificially placed there (one side always faces the earth and its just the right size to produce eclipses

The first one can simply be a fluke fo nature, like the platypus or Michael Jackson. Second, the Moon is slowly leaving the Earth. It won't be the right size for a eclipse in a few million years.

- Ancient text indicates there was know moon previously.

Link? All societies I know of all knew of the existence of the moon.

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 05:59 PM
I have heard of a theory before that there could possibly be alien bases on the "dark side" of the moon. I also read another theory were the guy said when he was a kid he went into the earth and found that it was hollow, filled with living beings and builiding structures.
I don't particularly believe in the earth theory, but the one with the aliens having bases on the "dark side" of the moon seems plosible (sp?).

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 06:03 PM
If you do a search on moon bases you will find that the astronauts did find a base on the far side of the moon.They talked about it in their transmission back to earth,after that slipped out the government stopped playing the transmissions to the public.
As far as the moon being placed there as a base,this makes sense.The hollow thing is interesting and the rotation is interesting also.
Oh yeah the rocks that they say are from the moon are not the same composition as the rocks on earth,so the moon being a chunk of earth theory doesnt work.
The records that have survived from history say that the moon was not always there and tidal records from the past back this up as well.
Its all very interesting and our government will never really tell the people the truth anyways.It will have to be a slip up or something for us to find out.

[Edited on 31-1-2004 by ashley]

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 06:06 PM
Ok, it wasn't the best movie, but the moon crashing thing seemed sort of... real, in the drama factor that is. Supposedly the moon's orbit was messed up because the explosions they did for mining. It just seemed to me that scientists would take it into consideration that mining that way might just mess things up. Even if they weren't sure about what would happen, I doubt they would be willing to take the risk of screwing up the orbit and potentially destroying civilization. If people still wanted to have their "lunar leisure", they would have just drilled.

They should've stuck with nuclear war killing everyone off. Thinking about the movie really ruined it.

EDIT: Wow, I am way off with this conversation.

[Edited on 1/31/2004 by CarrierAnomaly]

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 06:08 PM
You couldnt nuke the moon out of orbit it is just too huge you could set off every nuke we had and it would just barely scratch the surface and not do a thing to its orbit

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 06:12 PM
Erm... Hey, ever wonder why the moon covers the sun perfectly during solar eclipses? It's the pefect distance from earth....

Also, why are the lunar maria (black spots) only on the side of the moon facing earth?

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 08:41 PM
considering we've never landed on the moon, I don't see how we know if it's an "artificial moon" or not

we can't get past the van allen radiation belts in the PRESENT time and we supposedly did it in 1969 to reach the moon and have the men still alive in their older years in perfect health?

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 09:29 PM
I dont believe in the Moon being hollow thing, if the Moon was in fact hollow it would have a much smaller mass therefore its gravitationnal pull would be smaller. The Moon's gravity is 1/6th that of earth, how could the Moon's gravity be 1/6 that of earth if its much smaller than the earth AND hollow?

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 09:33 PM
I think that your right about there being a moon base. I read about it in several books as wel but i have never heard of the moon being hollow.
I also heard that the rocket carrying a nuclear payload was forced to turn back by the E.T.'s.

I heard that the government was working on UFO progects so they might be able to get through the Van Ellen belt to get to the moon.
I personally don't think that Apollo ever went to the moon through.

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 09:52 PM
Don't take our moon for granted, it's very mysterious place. There is still a lot of controversy about its age and origin.

For many years astronomers wondered why the Hubble telescope didn't take photos of the moon. The people in charge of Hubble said the moon was too bright and that it might damage the scope. Then, three or four years ago they released photos taken by Hubble of the moon during its full phase as part of an earth albedo experiment. What the heck?!?

And then there's this NASA Technical Report 277 about lunar anomalies released to the press just before the first moon landing by Apollo 11

And then there's Project Clementine, a lunar survey satellite funded by DoD's Strategic Defense Initiative and launched by rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base. What the heck does this missile shield 'star wars' defense project have to do with the moon?!?

The Feds have admitted that they considered sending a nuke to the moon, but deny they actually tried. Carl Sagan was in charge of that classified project and he got into trouble for accidentally acknowledging its existence in a letter he wrote to a science journal. Some of his coworkers got pissed off and tried have him prosecuted for breaking his security oath. There's some speculation that a small nuke was sent with Apollo 13 and the failure of the command module spacecraft botched the nuke experiment.

[Edited on 31-1-2004 by Condorcet]

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 09:58 PM

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
the moon came from something the size of mars hitting the earth while the earth was still a molten blob. the debris flew off the planet and got caught in its orbit. slowly the moon will make it's way back to the earth whence it came i.e. smashing back into the planet

actually no........... the moon is on an elliptical orbit that is throwing it further and further out into space away from us,

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:04 PM
I never questioned us landing on the moon before because I have never really investigated it, then after reading the research on it, it's really quite obvious.

If we can't get through the van ellen belt in the PRESENT time, don't EVEN start to tell me we did it in 69 in a tin can when tricky dick was president

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:14 PM
nothing is stopping us going through the belt, rofl. weekly world news indeed.

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:34 PM
do you have any links that says we don't?

NASA said in 2002 that they are having trouble protecting the astronauts in the International Space Station from radiation because it's something that goes through even the walls of the space station

and you're telling me we went THROUGH the actual van ellen radiation BELT in 69?

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Morrison
do you have any links that says we don't?

NASA said in 2002 that they are having trouble protecting the astronauts in the International Space Station from radiation because it's something that goes through even the walls of the space station

and you're telling me we went THROUGH the actual van ellen radiation BELT in 69?

The Apollo people travelled THROUGH the belt. The ISS is IN the belt.

It's the difference between driving through a hail of gunfire and sitting still in a hail of gunfire.

Radiation in small doses is acceptable. The ISS crew are literally gonna be bathing in it for months at a time.

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:42 PM
then how can you explain the behavior of Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin when asked about it?

Armstrong: "Ask me no questions and I'll tell no lies"
Collins: refused to speak about it
Aldrin: granted an interview but threatened a lawsuit if it was distributed publically

doesn't sound like the space trip of the american dream to me and more like something to be ashamed of

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:44 PM
Our moon either has an ET base on the back of it, or is fully hollowed out and one gigantic base. I stated my reasons in a recent thread in this forum.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in