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.

 

Well this changes Everything!

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by atsbeliever
 

Like I said, it's a theory. The moon may not be all that inert but there are processes that don't require a lot of activity.

However, recent research reveals a moon location where some kind of volcanic eruptions could have taken place within a very recent geologic time, as recent as 2 to 10 million years ago.


news.softpedia.com...
cdsweb.cern.ch...
lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 9/25/2009 by Phage]




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


Why so serious, sckeptical ed?
...er, forget i asked.



I'm really a fun guy. But senseless comments demand "serious" replies. You notice I'm not serious when I'm exchanging POVs with posters who don't dig at skeptics. Some skeptics deserve digs, but digs as a blanket statement doesn't cut it.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You said: "Please point out a single skeptic (on ATS) who has denied the possibility of extraterrestrial life." Are you putting me on? I'm pointing out myself. ET is just wishful thinking, like Drake.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by amazing
reply to post by Phage
 


What is your take on the possibility of intelligent life on other planets? I'm familiar with the drake equation but still not sure where he got his numbers from. I'm thinking that the chance of life evolving on other planets like ours has to be high and I'm also thinking that the chance that they are more evolved then us has to be a probability. What are your thoughts on this?


You asked Phage but since you posted it on a public forum I'll take a stab at an answer. The Drake equation? Empty. You can come up with your own equation. Take nothing, multiply by nothing and you have the Drake equation. There is no evidence for one single extraterrestrial civilization so coming up with more than zero is truly theorizing.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I'm not really surprised. I read many years ago that scientists speculated that water ice may be found in certain areas of the moon like comet craters that were less exposed to the sun. Apparently the water ice is still in the rocks and dust that I heard can be very thick and deep like our soil is here. Water ice could have been deposited by icy comets or possibly tied up in rocks if the theory that the moon was an object that collided with the Earth is true. If the theory is true, a lot of water could have come from the Earth. If a massive object collided with the Pacific Ocean and later became our moon, you would think that some water would have merged with the moon.

I have wondered what would happen if you took a massive object and had it collide with Venus and assumed that Earth may have been like Venus 5 billion years ago. Would the object have blown away much of the atmosphere and taken huge amounts of material with it? If so, we may owe our existence to the moon in more ways than one.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 

Ok...
1...

But the OP said "life".



[edit on 9/25/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by atsbeliever
 


Why would this be a "huge blow" to the skeptics? It doesn't really change anything. Just because there is water on other planets doesn't mean that there is necessarily life as we know it too; and on the flip side not all life has to be carbon-based and needing water for survival, so... IMO, it changes very little or nothing.

Oh and DevilJin...




Well, I still think it will be years, if not half a century before people actually start moving there (if serious about colonizing). Let us hope that people don't [bleep] up the moon like the Earth.


I think the real reason for plans about such "colonizing" is basically to find new *dumpsters* for humankind's waste and/or to conduct dubious "social" or "anthropological" experiments.
Luckily I don't think it'll happen any time soon.













[edit on 25-9-2009 by Ethereal Gargoyle]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by atsbeliever
 


People who are skeptical of ET visitation consider it likely life exists elsewhere. You seem to be really confused by that issue.

What your saying is because life exists somewhere else it must be visiting earth? thats like saying because we exist here we must be visiting other star systems too. But we're not.



[edit on 25-9-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   
I also posted a thread about it here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Water on the Moon and plans to build bases there;
i wonder if this disclosure has anything to do with the photo i posted,
of a base on the moon with a water-way and a dam next to a gigantic statue







[edit on 25-9-2009 by DjSharperimage]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   


A huge blow to the skeptics


Wut? Do you have any idea how common water is in the solar system? That there's water is not the issue, is whether there are conditions capable of producing Abiogenesis. Very few celestial bodies in our Solar System are capable of this. Earth. Possibly Venus at one time. Mars at one time. Europa, perhaps still. You would need liquid water deposits as the first item on the grocery list, and the Moon just doesn't have it to the best of our reckoning. This new discovery is in regards to molecules in the top few millimeters of rock.

As for life out there, nobody is skeptical that life exists beyond Earth. Pretty much everybody knows it exists out there undiscovered. It's just that, because it's undiscovered, we can't say for sure. What people are skeptical about is intelligent alien life coming to Earth to give free colonoscopy exams to rednecks. The presence of water molecules on the moon does not support the UFO/Alien claim. Just like the discovery of microbial life on another planet does not support the UFO/Alien claim. Multicellular life, animal life.... even intelligent life. None of that supports the claims of the UFO community, and could only be considered anecdotal evidence at best of their claims.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by atsbeliever
A huge blow to the skeptics




Quotes like this annoy me.

Could you provide me with a link that shows someone stating that there is no water on the moon or anywhere else in the universe? If not then stop your ignorance. In fact, you will only find a tiny percentage of sceptics telling you there is no life elsewhere in the universe. Maybe you need to re-learn your understanding of what sceptism is?



(edited spelling)

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Hawkwind.]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawkwind.
 


can you imagine what theyll be like when further scientific discoveries are made?

these folk will probably spontaneously combust when the kepler telescope results come in. I can see it now "SKEPTICS BEATEN 50 terrestrial planets found omg we were right the alienz are visiting."

these people have the intellect of a rocking horse.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
The latest findings concerning water by India's lunar orbitter simply confirm what was observed 40 years ago after the first moon samples were returned to Earth. Water in moon rock was detected at the time, but scientists were sceptical and believed the results were due terrestrial contamination. Finding water chemically bound up in lunar soil makes the prospect of generating rocket fuel on-site more likely. There's no liquid water and therefore no life as we understand the term.

WG3



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
What I don't understand is that they're barely releasing to MSM that there's water on the moon? Thats like in our own backyard and they're saying we didn't know about it this whole time? Then, a day later they release images of Mars with ice spots all over? They have way more information than we know of and it's being trickled out to MSM in stages. Baby steps.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
"Why is it a blow to the skeptics? We've know about water all over the place for a long time. Water on Mars, water in comets, even in interstellar space."


It appears Phage is quite correct - they were singing about it in 1961's movie "Breakfast at Tiffany's" -- que the band boys --- "Moooooon RIVer..." )music by Henry Mancini, lyrics by Johnny Mercer)



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by snookhums
 


yes they will always know more than you becuase theyre the ones collecting the data. They release it when theyre sure of their conclusions.

Your also implying that the rate of "disclosure" just happens to match precisely with the time frame of these missions. Is it not more simple to say that these missions are finding this stuff?

Tell me in 3 years when the kepler telescope is finished its mission and they release the results. Will you claim this in another part of "disclosure"? that they knew it all long they were just hiding it for many years



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Comments from ATSbeliever and by people like him are very telling. They have no idea what skeptics think but are rather rehearsing their own prejudices.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Comments from ATSbeliever and by people like him are very telling. They have no idea what skeptics think but are rather rehearsing their own prejudices.


I agree with this, since I started posting here and not just lurking and reading I've gotten a few hate U2U's calling me a disinformation agent amongst other "colorful" terms simply because someone believes what they want to and cannot see past their own need to believe.

Am I skeptic, perhaps.

Do I think that intelligent life has visited the Earth at some point, maybe?
Is it possible, sure, anything is possible.

Do I blindly believe in a grainy picture that someone shows without researching it for myself and coming to my own conclusion based on all the evidence not just some, no I don't.

The universe is a damned large place, and we are just a very very tiny speck amongst all the galaxies, so the odds are high that some form of life exists somewhere or has at some point, have I personally seen it, no I haven't. Have I seen irrefutable proof that life exists elsewhere, again no I haven't but that doesn't mean that there isn't.

Being skeptical is not entirely a bad thing, when you have an open mind. Being skeptical and refusing to entertain the possibility that there is more going on than you currently understand is just as bad as buying wholesale every picture you come across as "100% proof positive of alien life/visitation"

The best advice I was ever given: Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.

On a side note, I do believe that the government does know more about the galaxy/solar system than they tell, but I don't necessarily believe that is because they are airbrushing out alien moonbases and what not in an attempt to cover up the existence of aliens. Could they though? Sure,like I said before anything is possible.

There are a number of theories floating around about how there is water on the moon, ranging from chemical process involving the lunar soil and solar winds to water being present on the moon when it was ejected into space but before it cooled, the truth is, no one knows and odds are we won't have a definitive answer for some time yet.
Just mah 2c here



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I think the main issue with skeptics is their continual proclamation that there is no "evidence" that ET's have visited this planet.... when that is purely not the case.

I find this view extremely irritating and beyond skepticism... that's where we are talking personal beliefs getting in the way of reasoning. Their personal beliefs are we haven't been visited... so they take no notice of the actual evidence there is.... regardless of whether it is anecdotal or otherwise.... and they do this whilst hiding behind quotes from Science... such as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"... etc etc etc.

At the end of the day for the Skeptics to say there is no proof that ET's have ever visited us..... then they are basically calling 1000's of eyewitnesses liars.... every person connected with Roswell..... every alien abductee are all making it up and delusional.... every airline pilot that has spotted these things many many years ago... all delusional... not to mention men like Col Philip Corso complete and utter liars.

We are talking about 100000s of bits of evidence that the skeptics have to come to the conclusion is "bull#".... except they like to use the word "inconclusive" to stop them from having to change their belief system and admit they were wrong. Only 1 piece of evidence has to be right to prove ET existence... yet the skeptics don't wanna hear about it. They want that giant billboard in the sky to tell them look its real.... and it all comes down to their ego. The good old Ego... is a very powerful weapon.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


i would describe the evidence as weak for ET visitation



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join