It used to "spin" as you would think of it. But over many years the energy of that angular momentum was transferred to it's orbital velocity. It's spin slowed down, and it flung itself out further from the earth. Now its spin rate is equal to its orbital rate, so one side faces the earth constantly, more or less (there is a little bit of wobble left).


One day, earths spin relative to the moon will stop, too. At that point, one side of the earth will face one side of the moon, constantly. However, at that time they will be so far from each other that you would barely be able to see any surface features of the moon from earth, it would look so small.

Hey flat earth-er's ...did we forget general science here??? The natural state of the universe IS motion. For the moon the moon not to show us its dark side is an unnatural occurance. Add to this the fact that VAN ALLEN...the scientist who discovered the Van Allen belts is still alive and states a moon vessel that contained astronauts would need to be constructed of 6ft thick lead walls and its impossible that what we have been spoon fed to be real actually happened. Add to that countless amount of nasa footage of peculiarities and anomolies and downright ufo activity is impossible to ignore. But the coup de gras for me is the astronauts finally breaking their silence before the drop with nothing left to loose as they have outlived their families and threats become a moot point. Or the ones who become violent when asked to swear on a bible they went to the moon. For the moon to remain as we perceive a tremendous amount of energy must be used to to maintain its position and resistance....YES Resistance. It is resisting the earths spin. ... Example. your standing in a pool. I stand next to you and start to spin. You will need to exert a degree of resistance not to be affected correct???? Same principle. This is my first time on your site but the disinformation swimming around this single subject is disheartening. Wake up people...what the best way to set up control of a planet....? Move a "Death Star" like moon body close to the planet and influence the indigenous stone age pre-adamic people's belief systems and political social structure to your benifit.
The amount of description and warnings of this are prevalent through out the dogmas of ages from ancient Sumaria thru Christianity.
Theres a reason we are not permitted by Nasa to see the dark side of the moon. No one wants you to see who the "man behind the curtain" really is. Same thing with the airbrushing away of the ruins on Mars. So much is visible for those who have eyes to see. Our rulers want things to stay the way they are....keep us stuck here and subservient and prevent us from being in touch with the other realms of reality there are not just the 3 dimensions and time. There are many realms we don't experience because the system is set up to insulate us from reality. And to keep us all dependent on the system by saying zero point energy is a dream or u cant drive on water. The tech is being hidden from us more and more each day as well as the truth. We are being hobbled to our planet. And if we could really go or even went to the moon we would have already been back many times with the shuttle and have bases and be starting in with mars next.
The time and the $ don't add up...much less the bs....
And no one ever mentions here either....the moon dates much older than the Earth....just some food for thought

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Add to this the fact that VAN ALLEN...the scientist who discovered the Van Allen belts is still alive and states a moon vessel that contained astronauts would need to be constructed of 6ft thick lead walls and its impossible that what we have been spoon fed to be real actually happened.

tl;dr, but I thought i'd rip this misconception apart. Van Allen died two years ago at the ripe old age of 91 or 92. He also said that the belts he predicted and were named after him would pose no serious problem to astronauts quickly passing through them, so no, it's not "impossible that what we have been spoon fed to be real actually happened." What he actually said was,

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

And by the way, lead shielding is not the optimal way to shield against the type of radiation trapped by the belts - heavy metals like lead induce severe secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation. Fibrous material is best, just like the kind found in the command module's insulation.

Oh and one more:

Or the ones who become violent when asked to swear on a bible they went to the moon.

Bart Sibrel's shameless ambush of Buzz deserved a good punch to the face. Sibrel flat-out told Buzz that he was a liar and a coward after Buzz asked him to step out of his way. That jerk got what rightfully deserved and I hope anyone stupid enough to accuse an apollo astronaut to their face of being a liar and a coward would get the same treatment. I think it's quite disgusting the way you've decided to distort and spin the story. He became violent only when Sibrel refused to get out of his way and resorted to personal insults, not when Sibrel ambushed him on false pretenses to swear on a bible.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
... For the moon the moon not to show us its dark side is an unnatural occurance.

Tidal-locking is NOT an unnatural occurrence and is very well understood by scientists. It is in fact quite a common occurance -- there are at least 25 other moons in the solar system that are tidally locked to their planet the way our Moon is locked to the Earth.

And, as stated in numerous post above, the Moon DOES indeed rotate. However, that speed of that rotation is the same as it's orbital period.

Add to this the fact that VAN ALLEN...the scientist who discovered the Van Allen belts is still alive and states a moon vessel that contained astronauts would need to be constructed of 6ft thick lead walls and its impossible that what we have been spoon fed to be real actually happened

1. Dr. James Van Allen died about 2 years ago.

2. If he ever DID say something like that, he was either misquoted or his quote was taken out of context. Dr. Van Allen KNEW and had often SAID that a human can easily survive a relatively brief trip through the Van Allen Belts -- much like the very brief amount of time the Apollo astronauts spent flying through them (less than 30 minutes) -- with very little radiation exposure. Plus independant scientists who study the belts also say that relatively brief exposure -- albeit while adding a small amount of radiation exposure and the risks that go with that -- is not lethal.

EDIT TO ADD:
ngchunter -- you beat me to it again. can you please give me some typing lessons so I can post more quickly?


[edit on 6/24/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
EDIT TO ADD:
ngchunter -- you beat me to it again. can you please give me some typing lessons so I can post more quickly?

No problem, you addressed more of it than I did by pointing out the truth of tidal lock. Not sure if you mentioned it, but to add to the slaying, the term "dark side" is false as the moon experiences night on the side facing us, hence the moon's phases.

It does not spin because when it got poked out of the earth it was from a direct hit. -Layman

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

The Van Allen reversal... how do you figure that.

The astronauts survived so that is proof the Belt is not what Van Allen
said it is or the misinformed media said would happen.

Actuall Dr. van Allen maintained that the belts would pose no threat to astronauts just passing through.

Or miscalculation by Van Allen.

He correctly calculated it would pose no threat.

My two cents....

the moon is locked in a geosynchronous orbit with the earth. it's rotation is not the same speed as the earth's. it's rotation is set to an exact ratio to earth's so as to only show one side. we do see about 58% of the surface of the moon.

IMO this has been designed. what are the odds that a planet's moon is in an orbital/rotation cycle that would only allow one side to be seen? has this occurrence happened to any other moons?

Think about it, what is the BEST position to watch a world evolve/grow? off-world behind a rock that the beings below can't get to because of a radiation belt.

Originally posted by Sliick
My two cents....

the moon is locked in a geosynchronous orbit with the earth. it's rotation is not the same speed as the earth's. it's rotation is set to an exact ratio to earth's so as to only show one side. we do see about 58% of the surface of the moon.

IMO this has been designed. what are the odds that a planet's moon is in an orbital/rotation cycle that would only allow one side to be seen? has this occurrence happened to any other moons?

Think about it, what is the BEST position to watch a world evolve/grow? off-world behind a rock that the beings below can't get to because of a radiation belt.

The moon is not in a geosynchronous orbit. If it were in a geosynchronous orbit people in either the eastern or western hemisphere would never see it. Oh, it would also be 23,000 miles away instead of 250,000 miles.

The moon is tidally locked with the Earth, causing it to rotate on its axis once for every revolution of its orbit around Earth. This is a natural "side effect" of gravity. Most of the larger moons in the solar system are tidally locked to their planets, rotating once each revolution.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Phage]