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: 16
28
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
I definitely feel the moon is artificial also. Alex Collier an Andromedan Contactee also elaborates on this to say. That it is older than Earth, And that it was brought here as a magnetic device to regulate the distance between Earth and the Sun. Richard Hoaglund also knows that our moon is Artificial. And if people are aware of the works of Dolores Cannon. She also goes into this a little. But yeah I just wanted to post saying I agree. And people who disagree, don't say anything negative. This is a discussion forum, simply leave this thread.




posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Hey OP, you must be a huge fan of Star Wars...

I think you are just looking for attention, if you weren't, why make the moon out to be the "Death Star"



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by 3phaec
 


Have you even BOTHERED to read the 'thread'????

Seems not...

I don't have the time, nor the patience to refute this latest idiot post....I have other things to do.

Can some one explain??



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by xbranscombex

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by xbranscombex
It was put there by god to pull the tides and give us wind so nature can flourish.


Why would "God" need to do that? A great ball of rock in the sky to churn the oceans? Is that the best system he could come up with? Did "God" barely get his G.E.D. and works part time at McDonald's when he's not making universes?


I think you work at mcdonalds when you are not posting
full time



Your wrong Gawdzilla God CANT work at McDonalds they can only employ beings who actually exist. Story book characters aren't employed although he might be able to work at Disney


Mind you they could give him away as a happy meal toy


[edit on 12-4-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3phaec
I definitely feel the moon is artificial also. Alex Collier an Andromedan Contactee also elaborates on this to say. That it is older than Earth, And that it was brought here as a magnetic device to regulate the distance between Earth and the Sun. Richard Hoaglund also knows that our moon is Artificial. And if people are aware of the works of Dolores Cannon. She also goes into this a little. But yeah I just wanted to post saying I agree. And people who disagree, don't say anything negative. This is a discussion forum, simply leave this thread.


Okay, let me get this straight. If I don't agree with you, I should not say anything? Just STFU?



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3phaec
I definitely feel the moon is artificial also. Alex Collier an Andromedan Contactee also elaborates on this to say. That it is older than Earth, And that it was brought here as a magnetic device to regulate the distance between Earth and the Sun. Richard Hoaglund also knows that our moon is Artificial. And if people are aware of the works of Dolores Cannon. She also goes into this a little. But yeah I just wanted to post saying I agree. And people who disagree, don't say anything negative. This is a discussion forum, simply leave this thread.



If they dont agree then that will be negative well i dont agree with you or anything some delusional Andromedan Contatee(
yeh right) would have to say on the matter.
First of all we have people on here saying we didn't land on the Moon then we did and then told not to return

What proof does Richard sorry DICK Hoaglund have that the Moon is artificial please post a link so I can have a good



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Some of this info I posted an another thread regarding the appearance of the moon after the 'Great Flood' event.

The moon is a very unusual object, and has had many theories regarding its origin. That such a mundane object as the moon should require so many theories, that so many should be proved wrong, and that new ones have to be evolved as new data comes to light should be enough to raise peoples curiosity regarding this unusual object.

The origin of the moon is still very much in doubt. In fact one mission goal of the Indian Chandrayaan 1 moon mission was 'To collect evidence to help determine the origin of the moon.' (paraphrased).

The age of the moon is often disputed, but to me it seems the evidence is stacked in favor of quite an ancient moon - older than the Earth.

The Age of the Moon.

Cratering.

The moons surface has saturation crating. This means that new craters will destroy older craters. Based on FACE value observations of existing craters mainstream science determined an approximate age for the moon of around 4 or more billion years.

That is all fine and dandy - but this was called into doubt when recent high quality topographical and gravity anomaly maps of the moon were released by Japan, and more recently by the Indian Chandrayaan 1 mission (check this mission out - might get some more good info).

When a meteorite strikes it burrows into the surface - creating a region of differing density, detectable by gravity anomaly mapping. If you overlay the available gravity anomaly and topographical maps - you find that many of the anomalies refer to ancient craters that have been obscured. This indicates a far more ancient moon.

Geological samples.

Indicate that the moon is 'at least' 4.5 bil yrs old - however, there are problems with these samples.

1. The sample size is extremely small (slightly over 300kg), was drawn from very few locations, and was taken from the surface only (not by drilling). In short - the sample is not statistically representative.
2. Using the age of rocks can only tell you the minimum age, not the maximum age of the area they came from.
3. Finding old rocks on earth is actually quite difficult - you need to look in particular areas - on the moon the it probably more difficult due to its bombardment by meteorites.
4. NASA may decide to lie about the samples, especially if it indicates the moon is alien

So as far as the geological samples are concerned, they do not rule out a more ancient moon - but it has indicated that its easy to find rocks at least 4.5 bil yrs old - this tends to lend credibility to an assertion that the moon is in fact far older.

If the moon is ancient, then there is a problem - because it appears that its orbital path ISN'T so ancient.

It has a incremental increase in orbit - if you wind its orbital decay backwards - it collides with the earth around 1.2 bil years ago. Fossil evidence indicates it could not have evolved from earth at that time.

The 'generally' accepted theory is that it was formed from a collision of a small planet with earth and 'thrown off' into orbit around 4.5 bil years ago - however, firstly this doesn't adequately address its incremental orbit.

In the event of such a collision, the ejected material either spins off out of orbit, crashes back down, fails to form a moon, or is too dense (full of iron) - for it to form the moon is EXTREMELY unlikely.

In light of the evidence - I think the Moon is artificial. If it is, then we are left with the question of who made it, when it arrived and what is the purpose.

In terms of what its purpose is - I think a good first pass theory is that it is an alien generation ship. Who brought it, and why are they here - well - I have some theories - but the data is very thin.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   
You guys are getting waaay too paranoid over here. The reason that only one side of the moon faces us is because the earth and the moon are in tidal lock. Pluto and charion are like this too. You also have to remember that the moon is slowly moving away from us, which means it uses to be a whole lot closer. It just so happens that the moon is currently at a distance that just that perfectly conceal the sun during an eclipse (it has to pass through that distance at one point right?). In a few million years, there will be no such thing as a total eclipse.

Also, a total eclipse can only be seen on certain places on the earth. In some places, it's impossible to see a total eclipse.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


You have made a few assumptions in your post ,first the rate of impacts on the Moon and Earth has reduced greatly overmillions of years. I dont think many of the ancient craters will have been covered as no atmosphere to wear them down and not high enough impact rate.
When the Moon and Earth were both young there would have been a great amount of impacts due to the dust cloud the early solar system formed from.
You have also assumed that the rate that the orbit is increasing by has been the same since it formed.Evidence has been put forwar to show that not the case when I find the link I will post it.
The Moon is natural we have evidence that it used to be part of the Earth we have NO evidence that GOG from ZOG made it, has base on it or in it, all that is ,is an idea for a sci-fi film script.
Once the LRO mission has been launched we will see what happens when we get 0.5mtr/pixel pictures of the surface.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I think its possible for alien life out there but I think this is strecthing it, I don't think the moon is fake, I think its possible for alien life being on the side we can't see, but to say the whole thing isn't natural is like saying the same for the Earth, And yes there are more moons in our solar system and everyone is not fake i'm sorry, it's just another mystery of our universe and space itself, It's not a space station! It may have a space base on it, But it's not an a.k.a DEATHSTAR. If the moon was BUILT to somehow benefit Earth then how does all the other moons benefit lifeless or to what we think are lifeless planets? And how do we know for sure we haven't been back to the moon? Thats just what they say, Remember the goverment is only going to tell you what they want you to know, I'm not a skeptic but this is a little out of this world..lol



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by space.odyssey
 


Your comment about astronauts not jumping high enough have you considered that the suits are not very flexible so the amount of force the astronaut can provide is limited so therefore is the height of the jump!



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
It just so happens that the moon is currently at a distance that just that perfectly conceal the sun during an eclipse (it has to pass through that distance at one point right?). In a few million years, there will be no such thing as a total eclipse.

Also, a total eclipse can only be seen on certain places on the earth. In some places, it's impossible to see a total eclipse.



You still have to agree though that Astronomically, what are the odds that a Moon can produce such a Eclipse to occur on just one Planet, at the same time Intelligent life evolves to acknowledge and document it and then in another few million years time the very same phenomenon will be gone (possibly after the Human race has long been extinct.)
Sure there are Annular and Partial Eclipses aswell, but thats not to loose fact that a Solar Eclipse is the most life-changing experience one can ever see (And I should know as I saw the 2006 Eclipse in Turkey myself
)

[edit on 5-5-2009 by ROBL240]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ROBL240
 


ROB, actually to be precise, because of the elliptical nature of of the Moon's orbit, it does NOT always present a TOTAL eclipse.

Not able to bring references, since I don't know how to. But, they are likely out there.

AND, you're right, the actual swath that the 'totality' will show is quite narrow. AND, usually, it is somewhere sparsely populated.

The co-incidence?? Yeah, that is peculiar. But, still (to me) a co-incidence.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
For a Total Eclipse to Occur the Moon must be at the same alignment as the Earth after passing through what is known as a "Node", As you pointed out the Eclilipical orbit of the Moon dictates that not everytime the Moon orbits the Earth it generates an Eclipse, but when it does the "Node" must also co-incide with the same orbital circumfrence of the Moon, in that the Moon orbits Earth not as a complete Circle but as a "Egg" shaped orbit.
So even when the Moon does pass infront of the Sun at a certain point on Earth the chances are it will either be a Annular Eclipse (Ring of Fire) or a Total Solar Eclipse.
And often with Solar/Annular Eclipses there always often accompanied by partial/Total Lunar Eclipses 14 days later as the Moon passes through Earths "Node."



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ROBL240
 


So, ROB....you've learned a great deal!!!

There is an incredible 'leap' to assume that just because WE, as science-loving thinking Human Beings see our planet's natural satellite is co-incidentally about the same 'visual' diameter as the Sun (Sol) at this point in our development is like saying that it "Must Be Artificial!!!" is ludicrous!!

We have measured the 'current' decay in the Moon's orbit. It, the Moon, is slowly receding at the rate of 3.8 cm per year. Some try to use Math to work that backwards and infer that it would have impacted the Earth just over one Billion years ago....therefore, they 'posit', the theory is incorrect.

What is missing in these "brilliant" calculations is....the Orbit of the Moon, as it reacts with the MASS that is the Earth, is not static. In fact, the Earth-Moon system has a center of mass....THIS is the point, about which, both bodies orbit. This 'point' , the center of mass for both bodies, happens to lie somewhere BENEATH the surface of the Earth!!!

Think of, on a sheet of ice....a 6000 lb man and a 100 lb partner....now, try to imagine how they'd spin on the ice.

THIS is not accurate, because even on ice there is friction...but, in SPACE ther is minimal friction....


(I am NOT saying that the Earth compared to the Moon is a direct representation, as above. BUT, think about how mass affects gravity....if you don't know what that means, just learn about Sir Isaac Newton)



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


I don't know a whole lot about what goes on in outer space or what conditions make it possible for craters to affect one planet or moon more than the next.

I was just wondering if the atmosphere or lack there of on the moon would make it easier for a meteor to hit the moon and cause an impact crater.

I think that is one of the reasons why more meteors do not hit Earth, because they burn up in our atmosphere before they can hit and become meteorites.

I have also read in some places that Earth is around 4.6 b.y.o. - How far am I off from what you have read?

Also, I have read that the Earth recycles its self around every 4.5 b.yrs. through techtonic movement and lava flow, as well as geothermal venting. This would make it impossible to determine the age of the Earth beyond 4.5 billion years, if it is true.

If it is indeed true that the Earth recycles its self this way then it too could be much, much older than previously thought, and it could even be older than an celestial object in orbit around it - past, present, or future.

I may be wrong about this, but I was just wondering what you thought.


On a side note. How do people here, really everywhere, know that there isn't a base on the dark side of the moon, or mining going on, or that the moon isn't in fact artificial?

I can not say it is artificial for fact, but it is just as hard for me to say, with any accuracy, that it is a naturally occuring sattelite.

I just wonder how people "Know" this for 100% fact, without leaving open the possibility it is the other way than what their opinion is? Definitive opinions can start wars.

edit for grammar - once again

[edit on 5-5-2009 by esteay812]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Com'on guys of course is artificial, everyones knows the Moon is made of plastic and was made in China.

Maybe with some hotels for passing by aliens on vacation, but yet to confirm with proofs.

sorry for the trolling but in this thread was nothing more to say. (I recommend to read the first pages)



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


esteay, here are some answers.

The intense metoeroric bombardment is long past.

Understanding how our Solar System formed is important. THIS will help you to understand how OTHER Star Systems may also develop.

Let's make sure we are clear on a few concepts: A 'Solar System' MUST refer to OUR system.....since the other name for our Sun is 'Sol'.

IF YOU WISH to refer to any other star 'system', please remember --- it is NOT a 'solar system'.!!!!



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by theSeeker84
 


Not funny.

Either help, or be banned. Your choice.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I am not sure I am on the same page with you. I don't think I referenced anything as a "Solar System". Maybe I did in another way, but I am just not sure what you are typing about concerning my posting of something about the "Solar System".

Also, what would you call another star system? Would the name be something that includes the main star of the system, assuming the system has only one star?

Edit for grammar... again, and to add an extra question.



[edit on 5-5-2009 by esteay812]



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join