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: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by insider15
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


No sorry i wasnt trying to say they where the only two or that they were even close to an answer just 2 that popped into my head that make sence to me, i have really enjoyed all the replies i have got and it has given my a lot to mull over, and hey who knows maybe the moon is just a natural lump of rock and we did go there in 1969 and its totally devoid of life of any orgin and the only reason we havent gone back is due to the cost and lack of political will(a bit far out there but hey who knows)

"Over himself his own body and mind the individual is sovereign"
John Stuart Mill.


"(a bit far out there but hey who knows)"
Why?




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 

Lunar meteorites are different from moon rocks and Moon rocks are different from "deep space" meteorites.

The few lunar meteorites which have been found all have one thing in common with other meteorites, their surfaces have a fusion crust formed by the heat of entering Earth's atmosphere. The 800+ pounds of rocks and sand returned from the Moon do not have this crust.

Lunar meteorites and the Moon rocks brought to Earth are very different from meteorites which come from deep space. Among other things, most meteors contain iron-nickel, moon rocks contain essentially none.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
The moon is filled with milk.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
You know just the points I brought up are worth threads on their own..

A few ideas for threads:

What do ancient texts say about the moon?

What do pre-NASA astronomers say about the moon?

What have NASA employees (inc astronauts) leaked about the moon?

The subject is so vast it needs to be broken up and analysed piecemeal.

Anyone else interested?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben Niceknowinya
 



The moon is filled with milk


This is clearly rubbish. This article on the cheese content of the moon proves your theory wrong. www.themoonismadeofcheese.org...
If the moon is made of milk it would have curdled years ago...



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Well 1st let mesay that i am leaning towards the belief that we did go and have been warned of for some reason, I beleive the benefits to mankind far far far outway any shortterm politcal or montery drawbacks as the devolpments of the 60s space program are still having benefits today for the government in terms of new defence tecs and also for the private sector in terms of profits from new patents. If we had truly stuck at it had devoloped a permament lunar expedition program or base the the science and research and private sector profit potential would be off the scale/ Just my opinion which i would be interested in hearing other peoples opinion on.

thanks



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by HiAliens
 


"What do ancient texts say about the moon?"

I would love to know more about this and would definitly read that thread, do u have any links to info on this topic?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by spikey
 

Lunar meteorites are different from moon rocks and Moon rocks are different from "deep space" meteorites.

The few lunar meteorites which have been found all have one thing in common with other meteorites, their surfaces have a fusion crust formed by the heat of entering Earth's atmosphere. The 800+ pounds of rocks and sand returned from the Moon do not have this crust.

Lunar meteorites and the Moon rocks brought to Earth are very different from meteorites which come from deep space. Among other things, most meteors contain iron-nickel, moon rocks contain essentially none.


I see why you would think that, and if one were to look at the question of lunar rocks with an un-critical eye, all of us would conclude the same as you.

However (and you realise this is all speculation don't you?), 'Deep space meteorites BECOME lunar rocks if they have been on the surface of the moon for hundreds of thousands or millions, even billions of years. Whatever is picked up and bagged, tagged and brought back from the moon, is for all intents and purposes, moon rocks. Of course, there are going to be areas of fresh meteoric bombardment on the moon where we could find what you would call deep space meteorites, but only having (officially) collected samples from an extremely limited area of the moon, we wouldn't know, one way or the other.

IF the official version of events surrounding sample retrieval is inaccurate, and personally i think it's likely it is (again, i don't know), then 'dressing up' earth recovered lunar meteorites would be really small potatoes.

How hard would you think it would be to slice and dice a sample to get rid of a fusion crust formed from friction? Considering a healthy slice of billions of $ worth of budget?

The bottom line is i guess, after weighing the pro's and con's, anything can be faked. And withought actually clubbing together to build our own probe, we're never going to know, conclusively, one way or the other. Unless of course, more folks in the know come forward.

spikey.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
"IF the official version of events surrounding sample retrieval is inaccurate, and personally i think it's likely it is (again, i don't know), then 'dressing up' earth recovered lunar meteorites would be really small potatoes."
Why do you think it is "likely"?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by HiAliens
 


Yeah, i'm in HiAliens. I'd be up for a bit of long term swotting on this topic.

Not tonight though eh? I finally finished my 54 2'x2' slab patio, and the kids have run me ragged today! So a long drink and stretch on the sofa is calling to me!

But yeah...i'll give it a go. Facinated by all this malarky.

spikey.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Are you a simulation Gawdzilla?

I've read quite a few of your replies on this and other threads..they mostly seem to consist of one word or one line questions or comments.

I've taken time to constuct and type out my replies...if you want a proper answer, and you are indeed a human being, why don't you follow my example...perhaps ask fully constructed questions, then we can talk eh?

Anyway...fascinating thread...night night all.

spikey.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by insider15
 


I believe the moon could be artificial, or maybe natural and then made into some type of vessel. I came to this conclusion when wondering why the face of the moon always faces the Earth.

It dawned on me to wonder, if the light side of our moon always faces us, then how did the meteors hit it head on? They would've had to pass through the center of Earth to hit in some of the locations where the craters are. I know Earth's gravity could manipulate some meteors in the direction of the moon, but they would have hit at an angle, causing mishapen crater, right? Then how do they hit in a naturally occuring head-on angle with the Earth in the way? Just my opinion.

Also, if you take a clear ball and fill it half full with water then spin the ball the water (heavy part of the ball) stays at the bottom, because of gravity. When the ball stops spinning the water is still in the same place, at the bottom. If the moon were partially hollowed wouldn't the heavy part of the moon be pulled by Earth's gravity toward the surface of Earth, thus causing the moon to always face the Earth in the same position?

[edit on 5-4-2009 by esteay812]


thats an easy problem to solve, during the chaotic period of our solar system being born, lots of asteroids would have been about,more than today, so lots of asteroids would have hit during this early period

also the moon would have been spinning a lot faster then, with asteroids able to hit both sides of the moon.
since then our moon has slowed down to the spin it has today



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Are you a simulation Gawdzilla?

I've read quite a few of your replies on this and other threads..they mostly seem to consist of one word or one line questions or comments.

I've taken time to constuct and type out my replies...if you want a proper answer, and you are indeed a human being, why don't you follow my example...perhaps ask fully constructed questions, then we can talk eh?

Anyway...fascinating thread...night night all.

spikey.


Not a simulation. Just asking people to back up their claims with evidence. People seem to skip over questions like "why?" if they don't have answers for "why?"



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
"It dawned on me to wonder, if the light side of our moon always faces us, then how did the meteors hit it head on? They would've had to pass through the center of Earth to hit in some of the locations where the craters are. I know Earth's gravity could manipulate some meteors in the direction of the moon, but they would have hit at an angle, causing mishapen crater, right? Then how do they hit in a naturally occuring head-on angle with the Earth in the way? Just my opinion."

I love this one. First, the Moon is about 250,000 MILES from Earth. So the about 8,000 diameter Earth would not impede many asteroids. Also, scientist recently observed that the "far side" (not the "dark side") of the Moon had once faced Earth because that was the best explanation of why there were so many meteor craters on the far side.

Second, very few of the craters are a perfect circle if you measure them with care. The oblate character gives ample evidence that the inbound rocks did not strike the surface at a perfect 90 degree angle.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
see my post above for explanation



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey

The bottom line is i guess, after weighing the pro's and con's, anything can be faked. And withought actually clubbing together to build our own probe, we're never going to know, conclusively, one way or the other. Unless of course, more folks in the know come forward.


The people "in the know" have come forward, publishing the results of their examinations of the Moon rocks. These guys are experts. They are not employed by the dreaded NASA. They work at universities all around the world. There are thousands of them. They are scientists. If they found anything fishy with the moon rocks they would scream. If others found something fishy with their findings they would scream.

We do know, conclusively, by the evidence, that the Moon rocks came from the Moon. It's the ones who are not "in the know", the ones who are either ignorant about the science involved or are intentionally ignoring it, who believe otherwise.

[edit on 4/6/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
If the earth is placed in a square box with a side length of 11 units, the moon will fit into a square box with a side length of 3 units with an accuracy of over 99%.
The earth's diameter in miles is 7920, which is twice the radius. 11 times 360 is 3960 which is the radius of the earth in miles, and the accuracy of this is over 99%.
The radius of the moon is 3 times 360 = 1080 miles. Earth radius plus moon radius is 5040 miles. 1x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 = 5040.
Are the earth and moon linked by more than this? Yes. It just so happens that the moon is just the right size at just the right distance to eclipse the sun.

The measurement known as a mile is a result of a statute of the Parliament of England in 1592 during reign of Elizabeth I. This defined the mile as being 5,280 feet in length. The measurement known as a foot originated in ancient Sumer, given in a statute by Gudea of Lagash in about 2575 BCE. Fossil remains indicate males had feet that, flesh included, were 1 foot (current measurement) long.

9x10x11x12 = 11,880; 10x11x12x13 = 17,160; 17,160 - 11,880 = 5280; 7x8x9x10 = 5040; 8x9x10x11 = 7920



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
Well Alrighty then.
First the office for The Truman Show was not on the moon. It was on the outside of the set of the show. If it was on the moon how did Truman get to Ed Harris charachter?

Secondly the moon is not artificial, nor is it hollow. If it was made by man or some other being why would it drift away from the Earth an inch or so every year?


dude have you ever seen the truman show? the editing room was definitely hiding behind the moon. secondly truman never got to ed harris' character, truman just walked off the set.

or was that an alternate ending?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
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".



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Whew!!!

This 'moon-pie' artificiality concept has gone way off.....

Let's see if I can summarize what's been claimed so far:

The Moon is artificial and hollow, yet it has a much higher gravity than claimed by NASA, that it's constructed by aliens, even though the crust samples of the rocks and dust that have accumulated on the shell of the spaceship are older than anything in our Solar System...that it is a replacement for the original that blew up 1000 years ago, and....that it is perfectly 'designed' so as to now, and then, provide a 'perfect' Total Solar Eclipse.

Not making this up, after reading through the responses this is the gist --- and I likely missed a few others (see: 'Soul Catcher')

On the otherhand, there HAVE been many, many salient comments that have attempted to tone down the craziest claims....mostly to little avail.

THEN we have a minority view of 'magic with numbers'...which, if you ever saw the film '23' (ironically with Jim Carrey) dovetails nicely with the incredibly way-out-there references to the film 'The Truman Show'.

Of course, what is missed, mostly, is the incredible rarity of Total Solar Eclipses visible to humans at any given time....considering that about 75% of the Earth's surface is water....and, from an obvious Astronomical viewpoint, a Total Eclipse will not occur beyond certain North and South latitudes.

Truly, if the Moon were at, say, 100,000 miles away instead of 250,000 miles away....I'd be more impressed.

Golly, I even read one opinion that 'because' the Moon is slowly spiralling away (erroneously stated as 6 inches per year...it is actually measured in just a centimeter or two per year) ... because it is 'spiralling' away that is somehow under powered intelligent control!! Well, I hope those 'intelligent' beings have very, very long lives, 'cause they certainly aren't going anywhere very fast.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join