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.

 

the moon is artifical

page: 11
28
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
ok mate but u still havent answer my question and no one reading this thread has all the mega powewrfull scpes hubbleand that new one that can read the geomagnetic readings from the earthe(its a european sat) why cant we just point a few sats at the moon instead of all this stuff........theres something up there that we arnt suposed to see.




posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by insider15
ok mate but u still havent answer my question and no one reading this thread has all the mega powewrfull scpes hubbleand that new one that can read the geomagnetic readings from the earthe(its a european sat) why cant we just point a few sats at the moon instead of all this stuff........theres something up there that we arnt suposed to see.


I have yet to see convincing proof that there's "something up there". What evidence have I missed?



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mikeyy
While I agree that there could very possibly be an Alien Base on the Dark Side of the moon, and that being the reason we haven't returned in 40 years.

I have to respectfully reject the notion that the moon was "contructed" as a Vehicle or Device. Such as the "Death Star".

Many many MANY planets have moons. They are not all "Spy tools".


yeah i have to agree that there is more to the moon than we are led to believe. just do some searches here on ats about strange music being heard on the far side of the moon and one of the astronauts patches for the space suit being rejected because it had a ufo pictured in it. think about it like this, my cell phone has more technology in it than any of the apollo spacecrafts. so with todays technology there is no reason why we shouldnt be on the moon. so either we have been back and arent told about it or we were warned and we stayed away for our own good.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
mate thats my point"you havent seen convicneing proof" u gotta ask urself ..WHY!!!!!! why havnet i seen prroof" we have sats the can map the whole surfuce of our planet...we "euro" have just got ne in rbit that measures the gravitinol stuff of the earth....so surely with the thousands of sateliitels that that the IST has to avoid!!!! we can pint ONE at the moon!! for gods sake i canlook out my window and see it!!! how hard can it be!!!!! but we dont WHY!!!!!!! THERES A REASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by insider15
mate thats my point"you havent seen convicneing proof" u gotta ask urself ..WHY!!!!!! why havnet i seen prroof" we have sats the can map the whole surfuce of our planet...we "euro" have just got ne in rbit that measures the gravitinol stuff of the earth....so surely with the thousands of sateliitels that that the IST has to avoid!!!! we can pint ONE at the moon!! for gods sake i canlook out my window and see it!!! how hard can it be!!!!! but we dont WHY!!!!!!! THERES A REASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You haven't seen the proof because you refuse to look. That's your problem to solve, not mine.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by insider15
 

Can you be more specific about what it is "we are not supposed to see"? What is it that you think would be visible with a telescope?

[edit on 4/7/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I dont realy understand what yur saying i have followedd the moon landings since i was born(true i was born in 72 so i am an 80s kid) but come on!!!!! dude sooo many questions unanswered why didnt we g back for the basic!!! like if we mined it the profits of a multi trillion dollor expeption would reap sooooo many benifits.. leave aside the mineral mining stufe .......the zero g grav research that as been done on the #tles into cell research!!! why why why???? coz theres something up there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i am not gonna say i know, i put forward on theory which i am glad as spawn this discussion which has spwaned so many orther equely valid theiries.


thanks



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by insider15
 


It's generally frowned upon for threads to just wander around. Your topic is "The Moon is artificial". Unless the discussion is about that, it is off topic. If you want to talk about something else you should start a new thread.

[edit on 4/7/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
umm well sir i was only trying to answer you question so forgive me if i was going of topic by answering your question....my topic still stands...so many unansered questions about the moon ....geolgy. orbit..orgin..history..i dont prtend to be an expert...there r plenty of people who throw explantions at us that just dont add up... i just want to hear as many as possible so i can evalute them all and wieght them up agianst my post and then come to an opinion....and if u have read a prueuvius post of mine you will know that i dont mind admitting i am wrong.....once i have been proved wrong!!!

thanks keep it coming till the truth be out.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
so anyone got thinig intellgigent to offer?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by insider15
umm well sir i was only trying to answer you question so forgive me if i was going of topic by answering your question....my topic still stands...so many unansered questions about the moon ....geolgy. orbit..orgin..history..i dont prtend to be an expert...there r plenty of people who throw explantions at us that just dont add up... i just want to hear as many as possible so i can evalute them all and wieght them up agianst my post and then come to an opinion....and if u have read a prueuvius post of mine you will know that i dont mind admitting i am wrong.....once i have been proved wrong!!!

thanks keep it coming till the truth be out.


You should work at proving your theory right or wrong. You shouldn't just state it and ask others to do the research to prove or disprove it. You have based a theory on speculation and front-loaded assumptions. The unanswered questions are unanswered, not answered by your unsupported speculations. If you're really proud of your "discovery", PROVE it. I know, I know, years of training and education are too much work and you might realize that your theory is unfounded somewhere along the way. That's the horrible danger science presents to pet theories.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
You should work at proving your theory right or wrong. You shouldn't just state it and ask others to do the research to prove or disprove it.


Insider15,

Please do not post any of your original theories on ATS. Do not allow yourself to be baited into submitting an original theory, equation or otherwise to a website who considers such material to be it's intellectual property, and which you will be required to ask permission of before you replicate or publish 'your' original work.

(Read the T&C's, along with the rest of the fine print at this site)

*The main exception for this would be to publish your work elsewhere , and then cite/quote yourself as you need to - otherwise don't post original research and information here that you would like to consider your own in the future.

Nevertheless, ATS is quite the forum and cooperatively publishing certain things with them could certainly be of benefit to the budding writer/researcher/scientist. It also a good place to pre-screen any material slated for peer-review elsewhere (just make sure your quoting yourself...)

Just keep in mind the intellectual property laws in your state and country before you post certain material - no matter where you are posting it.

(Of course, I've yet to hear of ATS stealing a mathematical concept from anyone or obstructing scientific research by disallowing the use of research first posted on ATS... nevertheless; be aware of the laws and agreements you make)



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I have posted this once before in a previous thread on a similar subject but it still proves to be something unexplainable and re-enforces a hollow moon theory.

Scientists tell us that the craters on the surface of the moon were
caused by the impact of meteors or comets. There are also meteorite craters on earth. According to scientific calculations, if a meteorite of several miles in diameter hits the earth or the moon at a speed of 30,000 miles per second, which is equivalent to one million tons of dynamite, the depth of the crater it creates should be four to five times that of its diameter. The meteorite craters on earth prove this to be correct. Yet the craters on the moon are strangely shallow. For example, Gagrin Crater, the deepest one, is only four miles deep, although its diameter is 186 miles. With a diameter of 186 miles, the depth of the crater should be at least 700 miles, instead of 4 miles, which is just 12% of the diameter. This is another scientific impossibility. Why is it so? Astronomers are unable to come up with a perfect explanation and they don't seem to want to either. They know that a perfect explanation would overturn established theories. The only explanation is that the moon's crust is composed of a very hard substance four miles beneath the surface. The meteorites have failed to penetrate this hard layer. Then, what is the very hard substance?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
"Then, what is the very hard substance?"
First, your numbers are general, and not specific to any one impact. Second, why would the crater remain empty? Some of the volume would be filled with molten rock after the impact. Some would be filled in with dust from other impacts over millions or billions of years.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


We are far more intelligent than you give us credit for, and you are far less intelligent than you think.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


We are far more intelligent than you give us credit for, and you are far less intelligent than you think.


One or both of those statements may be wrong.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by insider15
nice respond...and i have one reuest show me the apollo lander????

when we can see the whole moon surfuce in that resultion i shal put my hands up an say "sorry" but the best briains on the planet who design these scopes that can see planets around aother stars cant pint one at the moon and say "yeah theres nthing up there"???? uuuummmm why dont they?????

wow cool responds really loving the posters here much love folks keep em coming pros n cons!!!! truth will out!!


If you get the "tube time" you can do something like image the lander. But you have to convince the Hubble committee that this is something that needs to be done. There are other demands on it's time. And it's dying, so that time become ever more precious. Using it to resolve urban legends is not high on the list to things to be done before it expires.



The hubble could not image a lander max magnification of the Hubble is about 6000 iirc Moon is 238,000 miles away.
So EVEN at 6000 x magnification it would still look 40 miles away a lander is about 15ft across the resolving power is not good enough to show it.
Telescopes like this and the larger earth based ones are designed to gather light and to have good resolving power not as much magnification as you think they may have.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008 The hubble could not image a lander max magnification of the Hubble is about 6000 iirc Moon is 238,000 miles away.
So EVEN at 6000 x magnification it would still look 40 miles away a lander is about 15ft across the resolving power is not good enough to show it.
Telescopes like this and the larger earth based ones are designed to gather light and to have good resolving power not as much magnification as you think they may have.


Good point. Now, why don't we just suppose that they built the Hubble with that resolution just so they could use that excuse to not image the lander. Ain't they tricksey!



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherfey
I have posted this once before in a previous thread on a similar subject but it still proves to be something unexplainable and re-enforces a hollow moon theory.

Scientists tell us that the craters on the surface of the moon were
caused by the impact of meteors or comets. There are also meteorite craters on earth. According to scientific calculations, if a meteorite of several miles in diameter hits the earth or the moon at a speed of 30,000 miles per second, which is equivalent to one million tons of dynamite, the depth of the crater it creates should be four to five times that of its diameter. The meteorite craters on earth prove this to be correct. Yet the craters on the moon are strangely shallow. For example, Gagrin Crater, the deepest one, is only four miles deep, although its diameter is 186 miles. With a diameter of 186 miles, the depth of the crater should be at least 700 miles, instead of 4 miles, which is just 12% of the diameter. This is another scientific impossibility. Why is it so? Astronomers are unable to come up with a perfect explanation and they don't seem to want to either. They know that a perfect explanation would overturn established theories. The only explanation is that the moon's crust is composed of a very hard substance four miles beneath the surface. The meteorites have failed to penetrate this hard layer. Then, what is the very hard substance?



SHOULD IT
Meteor crater Arizona 4000ft across 570ft deep.
Can you explain that! The meteor that caused that was about
50mtrs across. Crater dimensions depend on a lot of factors such as what it was made of, speed ,angle it strikes suface etc.
Please show a link to were you got your scientific facts!!!!!



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by wmd_2008 The hubble could not image a lander max magnification of the Hubble is about 6000 iirc Moon is 238,000 miles away.
So EVEN at 6000 x magnification it would still look 40 miles away a lander is about 15ft across the resolving power is not good enough to show it.
Telescopes like this and the larger earth based ones are designed to gather light and to have good resolving power not as much magnification as you think they may have.


Good point. Now, why don't we just suppose that they built the Hubble with that resolution just so they could use that excuse to not image the lander. Ain't they tricksey!


Well the LRO will launch soon to photograph Moon at 0.5 mtr/pixel and when we see the landing sites you guys will cry fake beacuse even if NASA took you there YOU JUST WONT ACCEPT IT!!
I think they should offer you guys a trip but if I was them I would make sure it was one way only !!


[edit on 8-4-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 8-4-2009 by wmd_2008]




top topics



 
28
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join