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.

 

Human awakening being “liberation from the moon.”

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
All of these things show that the moon is either artificial/inhabited/a form of spacecraft.

1)The moon is too old to be natural. Some rocks have been dated at 4.5 billion years old. The oldest rock every found on the moon is 5.3 BILLION years old! One Billion years older than earth!

2)To prove it, if the earth and moon were made at the same time, why does one body [earth] have so much iron and the other [the moon] not so much?

3) The moon is the ONLY known sattelite to have such a perfect circular orbit that never shows its opposite side. Some Astronomers speculate that only artificiality could possible achive this.

4) Some iron particles taken back to earth show mutated iron that NEVER RUSTS! we DO NOT have ANY technology as advanced as this. This is truly a sign of superior intelligence

5) Two elements are found in moon rocks that are not natural and should not be there (Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237) These elements are not even found naturally on earth! They have to be engineered

6) The moon has been proven semi-hollow starting at about 80 miles down. The core is only 1800 degrees ferinheit. compared to earths 9000 degree core! IT IS A PROVEN FACT THAT NONATURAL SATTELITE CAN BE A HOLLOW OBJECT.

7) There are various tracks, pyrimids, obelisks, dome, and more found on the moon that are published somewhere (google it)

8) The Apollo mission was mistankenly brodcasted on a radiostaion thought to be unknown to the public. But locals tuned into it! the message allegedly heard was "These babies are huge, sir....enormous....Oh God, you wouldn't believe it! I'm telling you, there are otherspacecraft out there... Lined upon the far side of the crater edge....there on the moon watching us!!!"

Artificial structures, space craft etc visible on the moon and currently feature on Jose Escamilla's documentary Moon Rising.






The above Piratical Criminal V.I.S.P., with local base a neighbor stellar body (Moon), entered our solar system about 11.500 B.C., and attacked against the pre-existing corresponding planetary V.I.S.P. Andromedians, who were friendly to the White Andromedian Pelasgian Terra Race.




Already from 1985, namely about 22 years before the disclosures of John Lear in 2007, G.H.REES wrote in their documents that Moon is a hybrid heavenly body, namely an ex-natural body of a planetary system in the constellation of Draco, transformed to a natural-artificial body, namely a hybrid body, which means transformed to a gigantic spaceship.
...
G.H.REES wrote that the entry of Moon to our solar system happened around 20.000 B.C. with a first attempt to enter our planet Earth’s orbit, that failed.

The second attempt happened in 11.500 B.C. and succeeded.
...





Levan-Selene-Moon: Hostile pirate megastarship (“terraformed” semi-artificial), responsible for the production of All Religions of the planet without exception, with purpose the obedience of the Slaves.


Source: hellenandchaos.blogspot.com...

Thoughts from more insighted people are welcome.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]




posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
This reminds me of what a fellow ATS member said once in a thread. They had a family member proclaim on their deathbed.."If you knew what the moon was you would blast it out of your skies" or something to that extent. The documentary you mentioned has been discussed here before. It is very interesting. What would be the consequences of blasting the moon out of our skies? makes you wonder.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
All of these things show that the moon is either artificial/inhabited/a form of spacecraft.

1)The moon is too old to be natural. Some rocks have been dated at 4.5 billion years old. The oldest rock every found on the moon is 5.3 BILLION years old! One Billion years older than earth!


Could be the result of an asteroid collision or other natural space event.



2)To prove it, if the earth and moon were made at the same time, why does one body [earth] have so much iron and the other [the moon] not so much?


I think that scientists who hold to the "moon collision" theory said something about the Iron wouldn't detatch so easily; that is, when the moon went spinning off of earth due to that collision, the Iron was too dense or some such to go flying off with it.



3) The moon is the ONLY known sattelite to have such a perfect circular orbit that never shows its opposite side. Some Astronomers speculate that only artificiality could possible achive this.


This one could be interesting.



4) Some iron particles taken back to earth show mutated iron that NEVER RUSTS! we DO NOT have ANY technology as advanced as this. This is truly a sign of superior intelligence


Ooooor it could be a different form of iron that naturally occurs in the absence of an atmosphere.



5) Two elements are found in moon rocks that are not natural and should not be there (Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237) These elements are not even found naturally on earth! They have to be engineered


If it's true that these have been found on the moon, it's entirely possible that there's a non-alien explanation; there could be some way that they are decayed into naturally that we aren't familiar with for one reason or another. But still, this could be interesting.



6) The moon has been proven semi-hollow starting at about 80 miles down. The core is only 1800 degrees ferinheit. compared to earths 9000 degree core! IT IS A PROVEN FACT THAT NONATURAL SATTELITE CAN BE A HOLLOW OBJECT.


I'm not finding any reputable proof of this fact.



7) There are various tracks, pyrimids, obelisks, dome, and more found on the moon that are published somewhere (google it)


Like the face on mars, I suppose?

The rest of your post SOUNDS like utter nonsense, but I'm not discounting it outright just yet, since I like to reserve judgment; I can't watch the documentary right now because I have to do some homework (ahahahaha time wasting D: ), but I'll look into it this weekend.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I enjoyed the post a lot.. until the last few nonsense quotes about Andromedians and religion.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 


I don't think that the moon can be removed from our skies just like that.
I'm not an expert in physics but I think that would have some consequences in our planet because of gravity.

Kinda reminds why so many information about advanced civilizations like Atlantis or Lemuria reach out to us and just vanish without a trace because of levels of the ocean being raised up.

Also the great flood mention in the bible.



Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth. And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him went into the ark, to escape the waters of the flood.



The arrival of the moon in our orbit could be related.
I would like to go to the bottom of this.



[edit on 18-2-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Very interesting to think about at the very least OP. Thank you for the post S+F! I watched Jose Escamilla's doc and it was fascinating as well. Makes you kinda wonder doesn't it? I for one would love to really get a peep at the dark side of the moon and would also love to hear from someone first hand or a recording of the things that were supposedly said by the Apollo astronauts on that seperate channel! Thanks again!



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Redwookieaz
 


Makes you wonder what "The Bigger Picture" is all about doesn't it?



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
[edit on 18-2-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
There's just too many things wrong with what you said for me to deal with so lets just address point #1 , the moons rocks are older than earths because the moon no longer has active vulcanism. the earth is constantly renewing itself, the crust gets destroyed, pushed into the mantle, eroded, rained on, blown around. Notice how there are very few meteor impact craters on earth, for the same reason, yet also notice how many there are on the moon. the moon is static by vulcanological standards thereby giving you older sediments and strata. peace.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by NephraTari
What would be the consequences of blasting the moon out of our skies? makes you wonder.

For one, there would be oceanic chaos on Earth.

Think about what would happen if all the tides on earth changed at once.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dashen
 


That's plausible I guess.
But does not explain the super structures, those are not natural formations.

Why would NASA's blurred out all the pictures released to the public.
We were ready to go to moon, but we certainly weren't ready to find out about this when we got there.
You should watch Moon Rising, if you haven't already.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I think one of the most interesting points about the moon are its rocks.

The rocks on the surface are older than the dust, which makes no loggical sense, seeing as dust would just be older grounded down rocks.

It is also weird that these rocks are sitting on the surface, seeing as how they would naturally sink through the dust from millions of years of just sitting there.

the rocks are also magnetized, which is weird because the moon, unlike the earth, is not magnetic.

It's also nearly impossible for the moon to be situated in such a perfect orbit around the earth, where the same side is always facing earth, and there are almost no variations. Most accepted theories say that the moon was either captured by the earth's gravity, or collided with the earth in the beginning of the solar system, however it would be nearly impossible for either of these events to cause such a perfect orbit.

Mars' moons are perfect examples of what happens when objects are pulled into a rotation around earth; eventually, they are going to fall into mars.

The moon is also the only moon in the solar system that gives us a perfect solar eclipse; no reason for that either.

There are wayyyyy too many coincidences for the moon to simply be 100% natural.

The moon UFO theory is one of my favorite "conspiracies" ever; you can look up at it, and think about it every single day; it's always there.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
1)The moon is too old to be natural. Some rocks have been dated at 4.5 billion years old. The oldest rock every found on the moon is 5.3 BILLION years old! One Billion years older than earth!


Too old to be natural? Do you think that "unnatural" things preceed natural things? Because in my experience, intelligent life comes from and acts on natural things.

Where do you draw the line of "too old to be natural?" Because the earth is 4.5byo, do you think that thats natural? So, for you, somewhere between 4.5byo and 5.3byo there is a point where everything older than that is artificial? Why does something being old indicate that it is artificial?

The earth and the moon both formed from substances that already existed in space. They didn't just pop into existance. Those substances that formed them could be much older than the earth and the moon themselves.



2)To prove it, if the earth and moon were made at the same time, why does one body [earth] have so much iron and the other [the moon] not so much?


Iron is heavy, when the moon was formed in a massive collision between the earth and another large body, the lighter substances were flung out into space(and went on to form the moon) and the heavier stuff stayed on/in earth. This is a good explanation, but even if it weren't, why would something containing less iron than the earth indicate that it is artificial?



3) The moon is the ONLY known sattelite to have such a perfect circular orbit that never shows its opposite side. Some Astronomers speculate that only artificiality could possible achive this.


So what if it's the only one? Why does a circular orbit indicate artificiality? And no, "astronomers" don't think that the moon is artificial. If they do site a source. Not everyone who writes things on the interenet about space is an astonomer. Astronomers are employed as astronomers, and none of them think that the moons circular orbit means that it is artificial.

Furthermore, the moons orbit isn't "pefectly circular." Its distance from earth varies from about 363,000 km to about 405,000 km.



4) Some iron particles taken back to earth show mutated iron that NEVER RUSTS! we DO NOT have ANY technology as advanced as this. This is truly a sign of superior intelligence


Iron isn't a technology. We don't make it, so of course we don't "have any technology" that can make iron that doesn't oxidize. The existance of iron of any type is not a sign of intelligence. It is naturally occuring. It's not outragous that we find substances with different properties on the moon than we do on earth. Why would this mean that it is artificial?



5) Two elements are found in moon rocks that are not natural and should not be there (Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237) These elements are not even found naturally on earth! They have to be engineered


Why do these elements indicate artificiality? Stars make elements. Do you have a list of elements that you think are signs of artificiality and a list of ones that you believe occur naturally? Virtually everything that is artificial is made of natural elements. I'm not sure why you think finding uranium in moon dust means that it is artificial. Why would any intelligence put uranium in moon dust?



6) The moon has been proven semi-hollow starting at about 80 miles down. The core is only 1800 degrees ferinheit. compared to earths 9000 degree core! IT IS A PROVEN FACT THAT NONATURAL SATTELITE CAN BE A HOLLOW OBJECT.


The earth and the moon are different things. The fact that they have different core temperatures doesn't mean that aliens must have made one of them. You cannot connect core temperature to artificial intelligence. Yes, there are articial satellites that are hollow, like the ISS. That doesnt mean that everything that is hollow is artificial. Coconuts are hollow but not artificial. Why do you think that something being hollow means that it is artificial?

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the moon is hollow. How can you suggest that it is hollow then give its core temperature in the same paragraph?



7) There are various tracks, pyrimids, obelisks, dome, and more found on the moon that are published somewhere (google it)


Yes, there are shapes on the moon. With a little investigation, you will find that there are shapes everywhere. Nature is capable of producing shapes, their presence does not indicate artificiality.



8) The Apollo mission was mistankenly brodcasted on a radiostaion thought to be unknown to the public. But locals tuned into it! the message allegedly heard was "These babies are huge, sir....enormous....Oh God, you wouldn't believe it! I'm telling you, there are otherspacecraft out there... Lined upon the far side of the crater edge....there on the moon watching us!!!"


Source? Hear say? Anecdotal evidence?


[edit on 2/18/10 by OnceReturned]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Monts
It's also nearly impossible for the moon to be situated in such a perfect orbit around the earth, where the same side is always facing earth, and there are almost no variations. Most accepted theories say that the moon was either captured by the earth's gravity, or collided with the earth in the beginning of the solar system, however it would be nearly impossible for either of these events to cause such a perfect orbit.

Mars' moons are perfect examples of what happens when objects are pulled into a rotation around earth; eventually, they are going to fall into mars.


I'm almost positive that I've seen documentaries that say that the collision theory explains the "perfect" orbit perfectly. Are there any moons in the solar system which would prove otherwise for that theory?



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


My source is the Networks.
I didn't talk with the astronauts, has you can imagine. But the info is spread all over.
Whether this is an actual brodcast or not is still under debate.

(other interesting info)




Neil Armstrong "We have no proof, But if we extrapolate, based on the best information we have available to us, we have to come to the conclusion that ... other life probably exists out there and perhaps in many places..." From a statement in October 1999. "It was incredible, of course we had always known there was a possibility, the fact is, we were warned off! (by the Aliens). There was never any question then of a space station or a moon city. I can't go into details, except to say that their ships were far superior to ours both in size and technology - Boy, were they big!...and menacing! No, there is no question of a space station.?


Neil Armstrong on encounters woth extraterrestrial life during the Apollo 11 Monn Landing.




Scott Carpenter "At no time, when the astronauts were in space were they alone: there was a constant surveillance by UFOs."


Carpenter photographed a UFO while in orbit on May 24, 1962. NASA still has not released the photograph.




Eugene Cernan "...I've been asked about UFOs and I've said publicly I thought they were somebody else, some other civilization."


Cernan commanded the Apollo 17 Mission-The quote is from a 1973 article in the Los Angeles Times.

All this and much much more.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by _SilentAssassin_
 


Well that's the least interesting of my objections. It would be cool if you would respond to the rest.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Solasis
 


There are a number of problems with the collision theory.

First, if it was a massive collision, why isn't there any physical damage noticeable on the earth or the moon? A collision of two objects that big would for sure leave a tell-tale mark on the earth, if not earth the moon especially, seeing as it has no active geology to "cover up" its scars.

Craters are hard enough for earth geology to cover up; there are obvious massive physical craters around the earth that were made millions of years ago that are still very easy to spot. Something as big as the moon hitting the earth would leave an unmistakable MASSIVE continent or bigger sized crater.

Second, if a collision of that size did occur, there would be TONS of debris floating around the earth, to this very day; of which there is none today.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


The Moon is really semi-artificial, we are both right.

For what purpose do you ask?
Control, manipulation, maintance of Soul food (energy) source in an unaware state so it can be stolen, prevent human enlightenment/spiritual advancement/transcendance...the list is endless.
If there is really a presence of much more advanced species in there
the whole "natural" satellite theory is indoctrinated into us since the dawn of times, this I believe and the facts still stand.




[edit on 18-2-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Monts
 


Here, watch this video, which explans the process in a couple of minutes. This happened in the very early history of the earth, so the debris has been "picked up" by the gravity of the earth and the moon.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
The moon is the ONLY known sattelite to have such a perfect circular orbit that never shows its opposite side. Some Astronomers speculate that only artificiality could possible achive this.


Some Astronomers? Do they happen to live in your butt, which is where I assume you pulled them out of to ask their opinion on such scientific matters. No "Astronomer", regardless of back yard hobby or profession academic, worth being called an Astronomer suggests that it's only possible when constructed artificially. That's like suggesting that the world's top medical professionals can't figure out why dookie is brown, and speculate that only explanation is that the liver is made of chocolate.




new topics




 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join