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: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I never gave this a thought until I found the MarsAnomalyResearch site..Some of the moon pictures on there need to be explained further..About once a week I go there to get my Its a strange universe fix....Click on all the pictures on this site.




posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I just went back to MarsAnomalyResearch..They changed a couple of things since I was last there..Go to Evidence Record(Master Listing).Then under 2004 you will see "Moon Banding" and other Moon stuff.



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I was unaware there were any bridges or pyramids on the moon. Or any other anomoly for that matter.

Seeing how the moons surface is easily viewd through a telescop, I wonder why others have not seen these anomalies too.



too a degree - but current telescope technologie doesnt allow magnifications good enough to make out a small object- and a 7 mile object is small from this distance - and in relation to the moons landscape.



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
i think the moon being just the right size for the solar eclipse is very strange. to think if our moon was half its size then we wouldn't have solar eclipses. also the fact that it is placed in the perfect spot so it does block the whole sun sometimes is also very strange. hmmmmmmmmmmm



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   
the moons scientest belive it broke of the earth... so im sticking to it's real



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Why you can't see the equipment left behind on the moon's surface.
Or any detail for that matter, of similar scale.



Originally posted by Zzub
From cornell.edu website...

Yes, the flag is still on the moon, but you can't see it using a telescope. I found some statistics on the size of lunar equipment in a Press Kit for the Apollo 16 mission. The flag is 125 cm (4 feet) long, and you would need an optical wavelength telescope around 200 meters (~650 feet) in diameter to see it. The largest optical wavelength telescope that we have now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii which is 10 meters in diameter. The Hubble Space Telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter - much too small!

Resolving the larger lunar rover (which has a length of 3.1 meters) would still require a telescope 75 meters in diameter.

Even barely resolving the lunar lander base, which is 9.5 meters across (including landing gear), would require a telescope about 25 meters across. And in reality you would want a couple (or a few) resolution elements across the object so that it's possible to identify it. (Otherwise it'll look like a one pixel detection, not an image, and I don't think people would be convinced by a couple pixels!) In addition, with a ground based telescope, you have to deal with distortion by the atmosphere as well, so you'll probably want something considerably larger than 25 meters if you want a good, believable, image of the lander. We don't have anything that big built yet! So there's really no way to image equipment left behind by the astronauts with current telescope technology.

More details for the mathematically inclined: How did I calculate this stuff? Well, here's the procedure. Let's take the case of Hubble and find out what the smallest thing it can see on the surface of the Moon is.

1. Resolution (in radians) = (wavelength)/(telescope diameter) or R= w/D. This is a formula from optics.

2. So for Hubble we know that the telescope diameter is 2.4 meters (it's not very big - it had to fit into the Shuttle.) Also, we know that visible wavelength light is in the range 400-700 nanometers. I'll use 600 nm, because it's somewhere in the middle and I've used it before for this calculation.

3. If you use all units of meters and do R= (600e-9)/(2.4) = 2.5e-7. Well, that gives us the resolution of Hubble in radians which isn't too intuitive, but we can convert to meters on the surface of the Moon.

4. To find the spatial extent that 2.5e-7 radians is at the distance of the moon, set up a triangle between Earth and the Moon, where R is the angle in radians that we calculated, x is the side opposite angle R which corresponds to the object on the moon, and the adjacent side is the Earth-Moon distance. Then you have Tangent(R)=x/(distance Moon). The distance to the moon is 384,400 km. So converting to meters again and plugging in R and d_moon will give you a size in meters of the smallest size thing HST can see.



5. When you do this you get 96.1 meters (315 feet). The astronauts didn't leave anything this big! If you look at this HST image of the Moon you can see that they say "Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across." I think they used 500 nm as their wavelength instead of 600 nm, but it's the same order of magnitude as what we got here. So there's no way HST can see anything humans left behind. HST can do a good job of studying large-scale geology, like craters, which is what the images were of. People and their stuff are just really small on a planetary scale!

From thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit for spelling

[edit on 1/1/2005 by Notme]



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
apparently the flag now is burried. blown over by other missions there. if that is true im surprised america havn't been up there to put a new one up or prehaps find the old one. im also surprised that there's no union jack up there. if we made our mark on the moon with flags etc then if we ever suddenly died out or became more primiative (de-evolve) then when our species rebuilt itself and went back to the moon we would be able to see the flags and the forgotten history could be remembered. If there ever was a cataclysmic event that wiped us all out, then it would be helpful if we had already made our mark on the moon, and mars. we wouldn't be here but it'd be a sign to tell any intelligent lifeforms that we used to be.



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
There is no alien base on mars - yet.

But when the prophecies of Gerry Anderson are proved real, after Humans have established bases on the moon; and visit Mars on the Zero X; making an enemy of the Mysterons; the Mysterons will construct a base on the far side of the moon; in the Humboldt sea. Fear not though, as it will be destroyed by a nuke placed by Captain Scarlet.


Humour over,Actual Facts now:

Jees; how did the greys get into this topic.

Here is a quote from a Proffessor Herman Oberth; senior mathmatician, engineeer and astronomer at Peenemunde, on the Warminster Thing:

"I believe extra-terrestrial intelligences are watching the earth - and have been visiting us for millenia i their 'flying saucers'."
"It is very possible that these 'Things' are spacecraft from Mars, using the side of the moon hidden from us as a base."



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Like the moon been thought to be hollow,the Earth is also.Many ancient text,particularly from Roman and greek text,it says that the Earth is hollow,and its shows maps of it and everything.There are currently other beings just as intelligent as us living in there although i dont know much about what they say of them.The core of our Earth acts like a sun to this underground world.What holds the core in the middle,im not sure,probably gravity from the hollow Earth itself.Some people think that thats where the greys are from,and something the men in black are from there(its being thought that the men in black may be beings from earth also,besides the human species,instead of them beings government agents or greys disguised as humans).

While one man who was flying over antartica in the 60`s/70`s ,he started to notice that the snow landscape become more mountainous,dispite him flying over the flatlands of antartica.Then he began to notice green grass,then clear blue waters.Another plane,i think it was a spitfire,flue behind him and radio`d into him tell him to land over to the base he was coming up to.When he landed he was greeted by the locals,who were very freindly.They were very blonde and had blue eyes.They said that they had been trying to get into contact with the outside world but there efforts had been unsuccessful due to the overprotective governments who kept on shooting their planes down.The landscape discribed by the man was very green and many woodlands surrounded the base and town he was at.Also the blue sky was a mixture of blue and red,like dawn.He then left the base and managed to fly out back into antartica.When he told his fellow pilots who he met up with earlier,obviously they did not belive him.Yet he wrote about it in books etc.Oh yes and he saw the nazi simble on the planeds and the buildings,but this simble was faced the oppisite way to the original Nazi simble.

This might explain that antartica could hold an opening to this world if it ever existed.Its just some myth but it may be possible for something similar to that,to exist.

Sorry if i wrote tolong,i got carried away lol



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackSt33L
Like the moon been thought to be hollow,the Earth is also.Many ancient text,particularly from Roman and greek text,it says that the Earth is hollow,and its shows maps of it and everything.


But are not these the same people who wrote in their "text" that the Earth was flat, and you would fall off if you sailed to far, and that everything in the universe revolved around the Earth?



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Notme

Originally posted by blackSt33L
Like the moon been thought to be hollow,the Earth is also.Many ancient text,particularly from Roman and greek text,it says that the Earth is hollow,and its shows maps of it and everything.


But are not these the same people who wrote in their "text" that the Earth was flat, and you would fall off if you sailed to far, and that everything in the universe revolved around the Earth?


You are both right and wrong.Both the Greek and roman texts on hollow Earth were made over a millenium(before 200B.C) prior the when they began to rule much of Europe and The middle east,N. Africa.Many things can change over afew centuries/milleniums,especially ideas.

Both Greeks and Romans(Especially the Romans)had constantly changed their views on the world.The texts on hollow Earth were among the first thought to be one of their views of the Earth.At that time they didnt know that below them was more crust,outer core,core etc.So when they assumed that the Earth was flats,naturally they assumed there was life there.

But then your probably wondering how they knew the world was round.Well these texts were found to be older than when people thought the world was flat(before both the Roman and Greek empires),so it is still a mystery.Although I think that due to influence,the Romans and greeks changed their views on the Earth.The Spanish were the ones who originally came up with the world being flat.Much of Europe began to adopt this theory because after all,the spanish at that time were one of the first nations to travel outside of Europe by sea(along with Britain,France and portugal).So because of this,the idea was excepted into European society for acouple of more cenuries.The Romans then thought of much of their earlier findings to be no more than myths.



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackSt33L

Originally posted by Notme

Originally posted by blackSt33L
Like the moon been thought to be hollow,the Earth is also.Many ancient text,particularly from Roman and greek text,it says that the Earth is hollow,and its shows maps of it and everything.


But are not these the same people who wrote in their "text" that the Earth was flat, and you would fall off if you sailed to far, and that everything in the universe revolved around the Earth?


You are both right and wrong.Both the Greek and roman texts on hollow Earth were made over a millenium(before 200B.C) prior the when they began to rule much of Europe and The middle east,N. Africa.Many things can change over afew centuries/milleniums,especially ideas.

Both Greeks and Romans(Especially the Romans)had constantly changed their views on the world.The texts on hollow Earth were among the first thought to be one of their views of the Earth.At that time they didnt know that below them was more crust,outer core,core etc.So when they assumed that the Earth was flats,naturally they assumed there was life there.

But then your probably wondering how they knew the world was round.Well these texts were found to be older than when people thought the world was flat(before both the Roman and Greek empires),so it is still a mystery.Although I think that due to influence,the Romans and greeks changed their views on the Earth.The Spanish were the ones who originally came up with the world being flat.Much of Europe began to adopt this theory because after all,the spanish at that time were one of the first nations to travel outside of Europe by sea(along with Britain,France and portugal).So because of this,the idea was excepted into European society for acouple of more cenuries.The Romans then thought of much of their earlier findings to be no more than myths.


sorry i ment hollow,not flats on the second paragraph.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I'm probably repeating, but I had a hard time wading through all of the crap and skipped ahead.

I'm posting up on random info I've come across over my studies, not in any order.

1) The Moons center of mass is offset from it's geological center, yet it still holds a near perfect orbit around the Earth. I'm assuming I shouldn't have to elaborate any further...

2) I've never heard otherwise that the Moon was dated at anything younger than 5-6 Billions years old, much older than this solar system, so if someone would be so kind...

3) The Earths gravitational field is by no means strong enough to capture an object of that size, period, much less rip it into it's own orbit and it remain. I'm not a mathematician, but I do not dout the words of Asimov himself.

4) There are mentions in ancient text, once again I don't have any links so if someone would be so kind, of a time where "There was no Moon in the Heavens."

5) There were numerous accounts as well as matching transcripts from many HAM radio operators of listening to NASA's trasmissions during the original Moon landing. Supposedly there was a greeting party, and not of the friendly kind. This seems to be one the explanations for us never returning once completing the Apollo missions.

6) There are several accounts of the Moon ringing like a "gong" for hours after impact of mereorites, and even Terrestial landing craft. As an extra tidbit, the moon's surface consist of materials either not foundin nature, some thinking by products of e.t. machinery, or materials normally thought to be found within the core of a planet.

There is one minor detail about the theory though, returning to Asimov brand mathematics/physics. NO NATURAL SATELITE COULD BE HOLLOW! It would be ripped apart by the Earth's gravitational field. Maybe the Moon was 'hollowed" and reinforced for whatever purpose by whomever, but that's abaout all I've got.

7) One other question that has always puzzled me...why is the American flag flapping in the wind in the original landing footage?

If anyone has anything to add, or can elaborate on anything I mentioned, I'm all ears.

Edited for typos.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Disciple]

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Disciple]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Great thread! For those interested, I second the poster who recommended
the book "Alien Agenda" by Jim Marrs. This is a fantastic book, really researched well and it has a whole section about the Moon.

What got to me was the astronauts who admitted to seeing UFO's and bases on the Moon, and the idea that we were "warned off".

Also the ideas of stuff/structures sticking out of the Moon---and---they have been observed to change. Weird.

I believe there was also mention in this book of indigenous tribes recalling ancestors' passed down stories of the time 'before the moon came'.

"Alien Agenda" is a great book, much better than most of the 'tabloid style' works out there.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Disciple, all of your questions can be answered in an easy to read book about the latest and greatest lunar origin theories called The Big Splat. I am willing to bet that your local library has it available. Check it out.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
While talk of the moon being artificial is completely ridiculous, if only because of the timeframe we exist in, the beginning of this thread got me really thinking - does the rotation of any planetary body (the earth, the moon, etc.) result in a completely round sphere? Shouldn't centrifugal force create an ellipse of sorts?

I'm not a geologist, I could be completely idiotic right now, but it just got me thinking!



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I'm no expert so dont shoot if I mix up a thing or two. Here goes.


Originally posted by Disciple
1) The Moons center of mass is offset from it's geological center, yet it still holds a near perfect orbit around the Earth. I'm assuming I shouldn't have to elaborate any further...


No you probably should have elaborated further. If your point is that it should wobble- it does. There was an illustration earlier in this thread. If I understand correctly the moon has a bulge towards earth as a result of earth's gravity.



2) I've never heard otherwise that the Moon was dated at anything younger than 5-6 Billions years old, much older than this solar system, so if someone would be so kind...


I've never heard otherwise that the moon was dated at anything older than 4 billion and some change, so if YOU would be so kind. See... thats how that works.



3) The Earths gravitational field is by no means strong enough to capture an object of that size, period, much less rip it into it's own orbit and it remain. I'm not a mathematician, but I do not dout the words of Asimov himself.


Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but wouldn't the velocity of the moon be a key factor in that equation? Earth may not be strong enough to steal the moon if it had once belonged to another planet but if the moon was severred from the earth by an impact of some kind as is one leading theory, astronomers seem to think that we indeed would have been able to keep it.



4) There are mentions in ancient text, once again I don't have any links so if someone would be so kind, of a time where "There was no Moon in the Heavens."

I can't totally dismiss that part. I want to be fair and give that some consideration. That being said, we can not accept it with absolute belief either. Afterall, there are other ancient texts that say there a bunch of drunken sexually promiscuous gods living at the top of a mountain in Greece.



5) There were numerous accounts as well as matching transcripts from many HAM radio operators of listening to NASA's trasmissions during the original Moon landing. Supposedly there was a greeting party, and not of the friendly kind. This seems to be one the explanations for us never returning once completing the Apollo missions.

Never heard of this and would be happy to look over any links or other evidence you might have, particularly transcripts. Let's also remember that there have been incidents where radio gossip (CB, not HAM) talked about us launching nuclear missiles at Afghanistan.



6) There are several accounts of the Moon ringing like a "gong" for hours after impact of mereorites, and even Terrestial landing craft. As an extra tidbit, the moon's surface consist of materials either not foundin nature, some thinking by products of e.t. machinery, or materials normally thought to be found within the core of a planet.


The gong thing was covered already and i'll get back to that. More importantly, the moon is not made of things not found in nature.


quote from wikipedia, re:moon
The lunar crust is composed of a variety of primary elements, including uranium, thorium, potassium, oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, titanium, calcium, aluminum and hydrogen...
The dark and relatively featureless lunar plains are called maria, Latin for seas, since they were believed by ancient astronomers to be water-filled seas. They are actually vast ancient basaltic lava flows that filled the basins of large impact craters.

What's so unnatural there? Sounds like sand and ore to me, and basalt isn't exactly unheard of in nature. Perhaps you are referring to the presence of KREEP rocks (Potassium, Rare Earth Elements, Phosphorus) which are remenants of lava. If that's the case, they are called -rare- not -unnatural-. The USGS has info on them here.
minerals.usgs.gov...

Now let's go back to the thing about the moon ringing like a bell. It was covered earlier in this thread. It didn't sound off like somebody hit a metal trashcan with a stick. It just shook more than we expected (and we're not talking about an earthquake, we're talking about a little vibration picked up by some sensors on the lunar surface. All it really proves is that the lunar surface conducts vibration better than we expected, probably because it's composition beneath the surface isn't what we expected, if I had to guess.



There is one minor detail about the theory though, returning to Asimov brand mathematics/physics. NO NATURAL SATELITE COULD BE HOLLOW! It would be ripped apart by the Earth's gravitational field. Maybe the Moon was 'hollowed" and reinforced for whatever purpose by whomever, but that's abaout all I've got.

Hey- I never would have thought of that, thanks for bringing it up.
*chalks up another point in the "moon isn't hollow" column.*



7) One other question that has always puzzled me...why is the American flag flapping in the wind in the original landing footage?


*bounces excitedly, raising my hand and chanting "i know, i know"*.
This was on the science channel just a couple days ago infact. Notice how the flag doesn't move even a tiny bit when somebody goes by it- dead give away that there is no air. Now look at how much it moves when somebody touches it- because there's less air and gravity to resist it and slow it down



If anyone has anything to add, or can elaborate on anything I mentioned, I'm all ears.
[edit on 3-1-2005 by Disciple]


You've said some things that interest me, but I can't possibly elaborate on them. I need you to do that. I've never heard of that alleged ham radio traffic and such. I hope I haven't rained on your post too much- just trying to satisfy your curiousity about the moon.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   
If there was another moon behind the one we see at night then it must be further away from earth than ours...right. This would mean it had a larger orbit and would therefor take longer to orbit earth, so we would be able to see it at some point if it existed!

PS- I didnt notice the 7 pages.....so this reply SHOULD feature on P1! sorry guys.

[edit on 5/1/2005 by deepthroat987]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Yea, I really enjoyed the shower Vagabond.



Those were just random bit of info I've come across, some contradictory, but I really didn't have enough interest to pursue "Moon Conspiracies" any further at the time. Anyways, digging back into the failing memory. I've got no works cited page, so take this with a grain of salt.

Concerning the Moon's gonglike ringing. NASA has apparently conducted SONAR testing of the Moons surface to get a better idea of the inside, and test reults show that it has Four (4) large cavities, I believe identical in size. I think this was in the book "Alien Agenda."

As for the Moon once being part of the Earth, due to it's composition, and complete lack of evidence on Earth, I believe that was debunked by scientist. Just my thoughts, if it had once been part of the Earth, how would it hold it's sphere shape. It's gravitational field wouldn't be strong enough to shape it, even over millions of years, and the Earths surely wouldn't have been able to pull that one off.

One other thing I forgot to mention about the composition of the Moons surface. I don't remember where I heard this, but there was talk of the presence of rust-proof iron found there. At the time, scientist stated it is somthing that far exceeds our own level of technology and could not have occured naturally.



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
The Earth was once known as Tiamat. It was a planet between Mars and Jupiter, directly where the asteroid belt is now. At the time, the three planets Venus, Mars, And Tiamat were all inhabitable. several million years ago, the planet Nibiru smashed into it knocking it out of orbit, the resulting debris became the asteroid belt. I know some of you may think I'm going to say this is the origin of the moon but it is not. The Moon IS older than our solar system and it was placed here to aid in the development of the human species.

Shambala, Agartha, Avalon, all these and more are names of the ancient cities we were once aware of, within the earth. If you research Admiral Byrd, you may find some interesting information. All the planets in the solar system are hollow, Nibiru included. Does anyone no what a centrifuge is? The inner wall of the planet is lined with oceans and mountains just as the outside is. The fusion core acts as the inner sun. There are acces points in the north and south poles, if you want to take an eye opening vacation.



All known physics used to determine the mass of the moon is based on the same physics determining our own mass here on Earth. So to say that moon can't be hollow based on the comparison to our planet is misguided.

The fact that every full moon displays exactly the same side of moon, absolutely suggest a controlled orbit. It uses a massive Gyroscopic engine at it's core.

The Dispute whether we made it to the moon or may go on for ever until people realize the dual nature of the debate. The united states could not afford to be "out done" by the soviets. so as they made preparations to send two astronauts into space they simultaneously built an exact replica of the area of the moon they calculated landing on in case they failed. They both went there AND faked it and used the footage of both interchangeably.

If none of you know yet there exists Over COP (coeffiecent of performance) energy generators (some mistakenly title the Over Unity or prepetual motion machines) in which they produce more energy than is put into them using tortion physics. One of which was used in the Lunar Module to create an electro magnetic field to repel cosmic radiation and help protect against neutrinos.

If you really think your government would tell you if they found evidence of such anomalies I find pity in you, and hope that one day you may Wake Up and think for your self. We've never been alone in this universe, we have been closely observed, and sometimes even aided when we have needed it.



new topics




 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join