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: 17
28
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by theSeeker84
 


I suppose I shouldn't really post a reply to you, because it is not my job to ask or tell people how to post. I just wanted to point out the reasons there may not be much to read on these current pages; pointless posts and replies to pointless posts taking up so much space.

Anyway, I take it that you are a firm believer that the moon is, in fact, a naturally occuring sattelite? Have you ever thought that it may not be? How do you know for 100% sure that it is naturally occuring?

It would be cool to have resort on the moon, so we could vacation there. I suppose a type of travel, one that could transport enough people fast enough to and from the moon, would have to come before resorts are built.

Some people do believe that there is a resort type of place on the moon, along with many other building sites currently operational. It is thought that many of the world leaders and elite wealthy have been there.

I think that might be a bit far out, but I can't be 100% sure that it isn't there either.




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
You two are in a bad mood, hehe. Relax the Moon is not going nowhere.

Ok I can make a little opinion of mine. To much has been said what i think will not make a relevance.

I like astronomy and I'm a little of amateur astronomer. I saw videos of John Lear and red some his texts about the moon (you can look in the OpenMinds Forum), I red what Alex Collier said about the information he's got through the Andromedans and a video of Richard Hoagland about the structures on the moon (glass type).

Its a huge headache to try proof anything that three men try to imply. I guess is a wast of time because we don't have any hard evidences to say that the Moon is hollow, or have bases (ET or not), or simply a gigantic space ship or the Moon came from another solar system from another planet.

What we can see is what we know for sure (sometimes), so I'm in favor for the scientific results and evidences to explain the origin of the Moon.
Their is a lot of posts in the beginning of this thread to refer that, witch I agree.
Nether the less, I'm a very open minded person, I still try to believe maybe is something in the Moon underground like bases, for us (shadow gov), for "them" (our friendly neighbors) or both.
I'm still waiting for the day to come to end this mystery.

One thing, why our Moon is so big in relation to our planet Earth in comparative (ratio) to the other planets of our solar system? Its a odd thing.

PS: it helped? or i will shall be ban forever?


[edit on 5-5-2009 by theSeeker84]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


"Anyway, I take it that you are a firm believer that the moon is, in fact, a naturally occuring sattelite? Have you ever thought that it may not be? How do you know for 100% sure that it is naturally occuring?"

Why would anyone think otherwise? There is no evidence for an artificial origin, just speculation based on more speculation based on W.A.G.s.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by theSeeker84
 


When the LRO mission does its stuff and photographs the Moon at 0.5mtr/pixel we will see what IDIOTS Lear ,Collier and Hoagland really are when NONE of the things they claim are actually there!

Andromedans my A***



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Speculation based on more speculation is right. Those of us who have never been there and studied the moon first hand can not make an accurate assessment on the origin, or the purpose, of the moon.

Declaring if the moon is real or artificially placed can be nothing more than an individuals opinion, unless you believe the government's information.

Since I don't know for sure, I listen to both sides of the subject. One side is right and it is always fun to speculate on what it might be. I wish I could say, for sure, what the answer to that question is.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
This is insane. I was an astro-physics major. It's all a matter of perspective. Even if the moon were 10,000 miles farther away from us....it would still "seem" to line up perfectly with the sun. Why would any beings decide to create such a massive object....which is highly improbable...just so that it could make a small shadow on the earth's surface!!?? Also, news flash...there are LOADS of other moons in this solar system. Honestly, next time you decide to make a post....do a little research....into the scientific explanation u know?....Not all scientific explanations are correct...but I mean...this is embarrasing!!!....I'm relatively new to ATS but im tellin you...these kinda posts are gonna turn alot of potential members away.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
When the LRO mission does its stuff and photographs the Moon at 0.5mtr/pixel we will see what IDIOTS Lear ,Collier and Hoagland really are when NONE of the things they claim are actually there!


Heard those same comments for China's ChangE-1, India's Chandrayaan 1 and Japan's Kaguya/Selene missions... how they would show there was nothing there...

LOL

Still waiting...




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by fenix840It's all a matter of perspective. Even if the moon were 10,000 miles farther away from us....it would still "seem" to line up perfectly with the sun


Ummm no... if it was further away or closer it would not cover the sun's disk exactly...

I see why you USED to be an astro-physicist




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
This is idiotic...go talk to any Phd. of astronomy. The distances are SO HUGE that it doesn't matter how far the moon is from us. If you believe that logic than you're a fool. I don't claim to know anything truly and knowbody should, however unless you're prepared to scientifically explain your "theory"...I'm gonna stick with the reasons given to us by physics...u know... real science?



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by fenix840
...This is idiotic... you're a fool...

....I'm gonna stick with the reasons given to us by physics...u know... real science?


Could you please post these reasons along with the respective links and citations?

I would genuinely appreciate it if you did this as it will be of benefit to those willing to further research the matter.


Thanks in advance.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Well, because the orbit is elliptical it doesn't cover the Sun's disk EXACTLY even now!!

Really, z....think about it. 94,000,000 miles versus 10,000 miles? Less than 0.00106% difference.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by wmd_2008
When the LRO mission does its stuff and photographs the Moon at 0.5mtr/pixel we will see what IDIOTS Lear ,Collier and Hoagland really are when NONE of the things they claim are actually there!


Heard those same comments for China's ChangE-1, India's Chandrayaan 1 and Japan's Kaguya/Selene missions... how they would show there was nothing there...

LOL

Still waiting...





Well since the Indian and Japanese missions DONT have cameras with a high enough resolution they CANT!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
About the surfaces photos.

Its is correct that we have more public images from the surface of Mars than our Moon?
And both had/have plenty of satellite recognition missions. Its make me wonder.

If you compare the data available in (as an overview example)

here www.google.com... and here www.google.com...

Mars wins because of better resolution.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well since the Indian and Japanese missions DONT have cameras with a high enough resolution they CANT!





Is that your opinion?

Perhaps you could post some data on those cameras that would corroborate your viewpoint...

Start with the information on the capabilities of the imaging systems from both the Japanese and Indian lunar probes.


Prove yourself right.
('tis satisfying)

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Th8nker
 


The moon can be used as a space station and definately will be used as a station in the future by humans. Its weak gravitional pull is good for easy interplanetry exploration with a large ship. I dont think its an artificial object, why would anyone build something so big to monitor a relatively tiny planet like the earth, thats ineffecient and uneccessary.
Humans are capable of monitoring other planets with much smaller devices even with our relatively old technology.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesun

I dont think its an artificial object....


That is because you are from a Type Zero civilization.

If you were from a Type 2 or 3 civilization, you would might even be employed in the installation of moons around planets with the potential for life.

How many times has the moon saved us primitive lifeforms from total annihilation?

(look at the dark side to find out
)

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Exuberant, there is no 'dark side' of the Moon. That is a Pink Floyd euphanism.

Oh, and if you're implying that the Moon somehow protected us by taking all of the meteor hits....ermm, that's a pretty tall order for an object that is so small, relative to the Earth, and is in constant motion.

To think that ALL objects that threaten the Earth will always come from only one direction in the plane of rotation that the Solar System is found is, frankly, short-sighted. Sorry, a bit of two-dimensional thinking has cropped in, there.....



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhackerOh, and if you're implying that the Moon somehow protected us by taking all of the meteor hits....ermm, that's a pretty tall order for an object that is so small, relative to the Earth, and is in constant motion.

To think that ALL objects that threaten the Earth will always come from only one direction in the plane of rotation that the Solar System is found is, frankly, short-sighted. Sorry, a bit of two-dimensional thinking has cropped in, there.....


Meteor Crater, Arizona.

Been here, it's awesome.

I guess we have to fire the Moon. It's not been doing it's job. People are thinking Hudson's Bay is a meteor crater, IIRC. Thousands of impact sites located around the Earth. Australia has a string of them that has been called a "mini-Shoemaker-Levy 9 event".

The Universe is pitchin', and we're catchin'.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weedwacker,

Everyone over four knows there is no 'dark side to our moon' - nevertheless that is what the side of the moon facing away from the earth is commonly referred to. You don't know this?

It appears you were just using this as an opportunity to make a snarky remark under the guise of constructive criticism. Poor form.

*How many times has the moon saved us primitive lifeforms from total annihilation?

Do you know the answer to this? - or are you just here to take a jab at me?

If you really have done any research on the matter; please post some links.


[edit on 8-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I find it much harder to believe that a space station which somehow got covered in rock is the ideal size to cause eclipses...




top topics



 
28
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join