It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Morrison
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

Uh...what are you talking about? They're quite open about the subject.




posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   
The off center impact of a Mars-sized planetoid is a theory slowly gaining impetus. It explains the composition and angular momentum in the Earth-Moon system. Which is of course being lost due to tidal forces, pushing the moon further away and slowing its rotation so that one side is forever facing the Earth. It is actually slowing Earths rotation also.




Originally posted by Morrison
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.


Reading the research? Evidently not...

www.redzero.demon.co.uk...

[Edited on 1-2-2004 by Kano]



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by Morrison
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

Uh...what are you talking about? They're quite open about the subject.


obviously not recently, have you seen the press conference following the return home and how they acted during that?



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Morrison

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by Morrison
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

Uh...what are you talking about? They're quite open about the subject.


obviously not recently, have you seen the press conference following the return home and how they acted during that?


No I have not. Have you seen piece of evidence that the moon landing was hoaxed ripped to shreds?

What I have seen Neil Armstrong giving speeches about the moon landing as recently as 2002.

Now, do you have a link for this exposing press conference?

I ask you this: If the moon landing was faked, why fake sending more men to the moon? Why fake the Apollo 13 crisis?

[Edited on 31-1-2004 by Esoterica]

[Edited on 31-1-2004 by Esoterica]



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   


Originally posted by Flinx

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


one thing: The Sea of Moscow... the HUGE mare on the far side. Also, the far side of the moon is more exposed to space than the near side.

Keep in mind, also, the near side has had the earth blocking it as a majority. Anything that would strike that side would have to come in from an angle, anything directly towards the moon would hit the earth first.




Originally posted by Morrison

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


there are particles that would travel through you, i, the earth, and a thousand ligh years of lead before even starting to slow down. they're called neutrinos, not to mention countless others.



Originally posted by CarrierAnomaly

Maybe the E.T.s have something to do with the face on the moon.


Umm... That was Mars, first off. Second of all, it was because the Viking probe didn't have as good of cameras as we now possess today, so it was highly blurred when that photo was taken in 1976. Now it has been discovered that it is just a mesa, something very common on Mars (as well as Earth).
New NASA images of the "face"

...
and we did land on the moon. i love how the theories that we haven't have been ripped to pieces.
the flag blows as if there was a wind? it had springs in it to keep it like that. the footsteps stay there? there's no atmosphere, there for no wind.

ah, that whole theory cracks me up...



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   
From cassiopaea.org some comments on our moon, you decide if they are true.

Q: (L) When and how did planet earth acquire its moon?
A: Was caused by the regular passage of a large comet cluster
which caused a gravitational disruption allowing a large chunk
of the original earth's surface, which was somewhat less solid
at that point in space/time, to break away from the main body
and assume a locked in orbit around the main body.
Q: (L) When did this happen?
A: This occurred approximately 3 billion years ago.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Keenkid, either they don't show up in quotes, or you conveniently ignored and then removed from your quote the
after my statement. And have you never heard of the man in the moon? Look at the moon one night, and the way the craters are arranged, it looks almost liek a face. So yes, the one I'm referring to is on the moon, and I am not talking about Mars. I'm not that dense.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 12:29 AM
link   
oh geez, i'm sorry! i didn't even see that smiley until now when you just pointed it out... and i completely forgot about the face in the moon. i've never been able to see it... i so just assumed you were talking about the "face" on mars. sorry again, i didn't mean to offend.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 04:27 AM
link   
The moon's density is 3,340*10^3 kg*m^-3. Mars' is 3,940*10^3 kg*m^-3. Pluto's is 1,100*10^-3 kg*m^-3. Are you saying Pluto and Mars are hollow as well?

The moon radius is 1,738*10^6 m. It's mass is 7,35*10^22 kg. If the moon was hollow with a shell of 1 km, the volume of shell is:
4/3 * pi * (1,738*10^6)^3 - 4/3 *pi * (1.738*10^6-10^3)^3 = 3,794*10^16

Let's say the shell is only 10% of the mass of the moon, the density of the shell would be:
10% * 7,35*10^22 / (3,794*10^16) = 193,744*10^3 kg*m^-3

That's about 10 times as high as platina, which is the metal with the highest density.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   
i have two artificial moons, was artificially placed by my surgeon on chest, and they're so big they eclips my feet : (



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   
It has been said that the Moon was not in the right position and had to be moved to the correct postition.
It is said that the Moon is hollow when leaving the Moon they heard the beel toll as I say Nasa sent something up there to drop on the Moon to see what the bell ring was about but nothing else was ever said.
Our government knows that the Moon and Mars have bases or complexes underground in both locations.
Lorraine



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   
i personly dont believe that we have landed on the moon-this topic interests me substantially..the moon cant be a hoax surely?



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
The moon's density is 3,340*10^3 kg*m^-3. Mars' is 3,940*10^3 kg*m^-3. Pluto's is 1,100*10^-3 kg*m^-3. Are you saying Pluto and Mars are hollow as well?

The moon radius is 1,738*10^6 m. It's mass is 7,35*10^22 kg. If the moon was hollow with a shell of 1 km, the volume of shell is:
4/3 * pi * (1,738*10^6)^3 - 4/3 *pi * (1.738*10^6-10^3)^3 = 3,794*10^16

Let's say the shell is only 10% of the mass of the moon, the density of the shell would be:
10% * 7,35*10^22 / (3,794*10^16) = 193,744*10^3 kg*m^-3

That's about 10 times as high as platina, which is the metal with the highest density.



Ok, Riiiiiiiiiight, Sorry but i'm einstien, I'm assuming you cut and pasted that from a site trying to sound smart.

Allright back to the topic at hand.

The moon did come from earth, Billions of years ago a big planetoid smack right into earth when it was basically a ball of lava and out poped out moon.
Heres another way you can visualize it: in real life or a commercial you see a little pool of water and a single drop of water falls into it and a little bit after it hits the waters surface a smaller size of a water droplet comes out of the water, but then of course because of our gravity it goes back in, but imagine it with out gravity and you get the point.

and as many of people have said the earth is going away from earth. 1 inch every year. You might be asking how do you know that? Simple went the apollo astranauts landed they did bring some scientific gear with them and one of them was a laser measuring device that is still on the moon powered by solar panels, and its still working today, so over time we've figured out that its moving away from us 1 inch a year.

and I personally don't think the moon is hollow, thats just stupid, and even worse some one suggested that there might be a giant city inside of it. WHAT are you on crack, so what the city just kinda floats around in there bouncing off the inner moon walls, come on please people. Its good to question governments and individuals but don't get your head stuck so far up ur azz that you can't find your way out.

As for aliens being on the dark side of the moon, well, thats the only thing that i might believe. But if it is there I doubt that all of the worlds goverments are wanting to conseal it, for instace a non-United States probe is heading there now it's called "SMART-1". The US has no control over it so your suggesting that it will reviel a Alien Base.

Plus our government knows that its only a matter of time before space travel is for the public as well. So whats the point of denying something if you know later that it will be revieled and the public won't like that on bit.

As for us going to the moon, I believe we did but with a little skepticism. Like why can't all these new high powered earth based telecopes be able to see the moon bugy and other stuff left on the moon. I have yet to see any photographs from an earth telescope that show American debri left on the moon.

Personally i'm just waiting for my chance to go up to the heavens and find out for myself. Thats why i'm really supporting the sub-orbital space race. (cause ya gotta start somewhere)



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretlysexy
i personly dont believe that we have landed on the moon-this topic interests me substantially..the moon cant be a hoax surely?


The moon isn't a hoax, I can assure you. Simply step outside of a evening for confirmation that the moon really exists.


There are some pretty whacky ideas in this thread.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:40 AM
link   
I think the moon is a spaceship, an interstellar noah's ark from a very ancient alien species that came to earth a very long time ago since it's planet was dying.

It's hollow, but not completelly hollow, it's filled with machinery, that's the reason for the density and gravity of the moon.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:55 AM
link   
With all this talk about the far side of the moon, I though I would direct you to a pic of it.

www.astro.wesleyan.edu...



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Perhaps it is the moon's core that is hollow, not the entire body. "During the Apollo Moon missions, ascent stages of lunar modules as well as the spent third stages of rockets crashed on the hard surface of the moon. Each time, these caused the moon, according to NASA, to "ring like a gong or a bell" On one of the Apollo 12 flights, reverberations lasted from nearly an hour to as much as four hours. NASA is reluctant to suggest that the moon may actually be hollow, but can otherwise not explain this strange fact." This quote comes from a book called The Anti-Gravity Handbook which contains a segment called "Eleven things that Nasa discovered about the moon that you never knew." Pretty interesting, it shouldn't be too hard to find some information about it online



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I'm going to propose the theory that it's just a lifeless ball of rock....
I think it formed no differently than any other moon in the solar system, but at one time did get the # knocked out of it and sent it into the strange rotation it has now...



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
The moon isnt hollow. If it was we would have a lot less pull on Earths oceans effecting tidal movements. Scientists can accurately predict and calculate gravitational forces that an object will produce, this calculation has a direct correlation to the objects mass. If the moon was hollow scientists would have found out by the errors produced in their formulas. Scientists dont even need to see the object to know its mass, they can simply observe the gravitational forces exerted on the objects around that mass. This is the process that allowed us to find the super massive black hole at the center of our own galaxy. In short if the moon was hollow we would know it without having to listen for a distinct ring when struck with a hammer.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I've heard that the moon was moving away from us at a rate of 4cm/year. Where did you get the inch distance?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join