It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mel1962
Maybe Planet X is opposite of the earth on the other side of the sun! Maybe we are chasing our own tail?
remains of an ancient planet which once orbited the Sun not far from Earth.
Originally posted by impaired
Aren't the remains of this "Theia" the asteroid belt??
On page 85-86 of Penetration we find:
Additionally, most sources, such as the Columbia Encyclopedia, regarding Space Exploration indicate that Moon missions produced "increasingly large amounts of scientific data."
Even so, until 1997, official scientific descriptions of the nature of the Moon remained more or less the same as they had been offered up in 1957 some forty-five years earlier.
The moon remained a dead satellite, airless with high mountains, craters and dry, dusty, glassy and stony plains....
The Moon's age was still given as 4.5 billion old, dating from the time when the rest of the solar system was formed.
The Moon missions returned some 900 pounds of rock and soil samples. From these a curious factoid was ultimately revealed in 1973: some of the Moon rocks dated back to 5.3 billion years ago.
Thus between Earth and Moon, this factoid leaves an amusing discrepancy of some 2 billion years, with the errant moon rocks existing some 1 billion or so years before the solar system was formed.
Harvard's respected astronomy journal, Sky and Telescope, reported that at the Lunar Conference of 1973, it was revealed that one moon rock was dated at 5.3 billion years old, which would make it almost a billion years older than our planet. This puzzle was compounded by the fact that the lunar dust in which the rocks were found proved to be a billion years older than the rocks themselves. Chemical analysis showed that the moon rocks were of a completely different composition from the soil around them. Since dusty soil is usually produced by the weathering and breakup of surrounding rocks, the lunar rocks must have come from someplace other than where they were found. But where?...
The moon has at least three distinct layers of rocks. Contrary to the idea that heavier objects sink, the heavier rocks are found on the surface. Stated Don Wilson, "The abundance of refractory elements like titanium in the surface areas is so pronounced that several geo-chemists proposed that refractory compounds were brought to the moon's surface in great quantity in some unknown way. They don't know how, but that it was done cannot be questioned. These rich materials that are usually concentrated in the interior of a world are now on the outside." Ubell, a former science editor for CBS television, acknowledged this mystery, saying, "The first [layer], 20 miles deep, consists of lavalike material similar to lava flows on Earth. The second, extending down to 50 miles, is made up of somewhat denser rock. The third, continuing to a depth of at least 80 miles and probably below, appears to be of a heavy material similar to the Earth's mantle. . . ." Ubell asked, "If the Earth and moon were created at the same time, near each other, why has one body got all the iron and the other [the moon] not much? The differences suggest that Earth and moon came into being far from each other, an idea that stumbles over the inability of astrophysicists to explain how exactly the moon became a satellite of the Earth."
Originally posted by mystiq
Here is another reference to the information in 1973:
Harvard's respected astronomy journal, Sky and Telescope, reported that at the Lunar Conference of 1973,
I know information gets buried a lot, but this Lunar Conference in 1973 was reported in Harvard's journal, Sky and Telescope. I'm not going to run with the Wiki facts anymore. They're too much to swallow.