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.

 

Rare Hole In the Moon Photographed

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Mobius1974
 


I read what i typed, and in regards to hollow moon, i believe I wrote



" In any case, does anyone feel these discoveries could prove or disprove the hollow moon theory?


Please tell me why I should be required to provide proof the moon is hollow, by asking this question?

Maybe you need to take a chill pill, and get out more, you seem like you have underlying issues that are causing you to speak out in an explosive fashion.

Yep even with your outbursts, I still value ALL contribution, even if I disagree with them.

May you find peace,
---GeminiSky



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 




I think whats more important is to see the underlying pattern. After the negative post, someone (like me) replys and asks for proof of the absurd claims that are made.


His stance was that the Moon was NOT hollow. So his absurd claim is "the moon is not hollow" Ok.... so THAT is the obsurd theory... lmfao.....roflmfao. Really? So using math and science to come to a conclusion is absurd..again.. ROFLMFAO!

You also asked "Could this discovery prove or disprove the hollow moon theory?"

I need to know exactly HOW a picture of a hole on the surface of the moon would prove or disprove anything!

Or were you just trying to keep the thread going? How in the world would this prove or disprove anything, other than, if there was a question of whether there are holes on the moon.

Not everyone that disagrees with you has to be angry or hostile. I just have a real problem with people that talk just to hear themselves talk.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
To move past this absurdness (if thats a word) Maybe my eyes are not trained as well as others...

I would bet a good chunk of change the black spot is a shadow...

My final analysis ..... Shadow.... Nothing to see here!


[edit on 28-6-2010 by Mobius1974]

[edit on 28-6-2010 by Mobius1974]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974


Not everyone that disagrees with you has to be angry or hostile. I just have a real problem with people that talk just to hear themselves talk.


You could try to stop talking... it might reduce your problem


From what I can see the OP has maintained a very cool, calm demeanour throughout his post. He has replied to some real (in your words) 'angry and hostile' posting in a calm polite manner.

You should try it sometime ... you might be pleasantly surprised



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dagar

Originally posted by Mobius1974


Not everyone that disagrees with you has to be angry or hostile. I just have a real problem with people that talk just to hear themselves talk.


You could try to stop talking... it might reduce your problem


From what I can see the OP has maintained a very cool, calm demeanour throughout his post. He has replied to some real (in your words) 'angry and hostile' posting in a calm polite manner.

You should try it sometime ... you might be pleasantly surprised





posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


Really?? Your signature says you will provide facts, just to have me go away and hide.


Are you saying you are one of the trolls that I refer to in my signature? Now your posts make perfect sense


[edit on 28-6-2010 by GeminiSky]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


Ok so you are unwilling to answer my question. That makes his facts and proof, the only proof or facts provided. You are predictable... You love a good conversation as long as you feel you have the upper hand... You completely ignored the fact that you called his claim that the hollow moon theory is wrong, ABSURD.... You my friend are a flag and stars chaser.
You have completely disreguarded anyones request for proof.

As to your troll comment... After seeing how you handled this situation, I have to assume that your label or attraction of trolls is self inflicted.

I have asked you legitimate questions to statements that you obviously made. You have ignored them and told me what type of person I am.

I am opinionated and mouthy at times.. But I am true to myself. I do not make a signiture that portrays me as a persecuted seeker of truth, to turn around and be exactly the opposite.

Facts: There are facts to debunk the hollow moon. I have read them....
You call that claim absurd.. but can provide no facts.

Am I wrong to want you to be responsible for statments you made? Please enlighten me if I am.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by Mobius1974]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
At first I thought this would be a very interesting thread about a newly discovered feature of our moon. As I have read through it I have noticed that a lot of posters and their contributions are being ignored.

I wanted to post something relevant and meaningful to this thread but see now to do so would be a waste of time. The OP is disregarding posts that do not fit his viewpoint and is simultaneously ignoring those that offer valid dissent from the OPs viewpoint.

I have seen this pattern time and time again on ATS and each time I do it saddens me. I wouldn't be surprised at all, especially given the OPs registration date, if he suddenly posted a music video in the middle of this thread.

I fully expect a reply that will attempt in some way to demean or otherwise denigrate me. What would truly shock me and a lot of the readers of this thread would be if the OP followed his ridicule of me with a point by point response to all that he has thus far ignored in this thread.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


I have been visiting ATS for over 5 years. My registration date has no bearing on the quality of my contributions to ATS.

You feel as if I ignore the facts... Ok lets discuss some of the other posts made in this thread. Why has Suziwongs last post been completely ignored? I beleive she directed that reply to a few people, INCLUDING some that you are defending.

Does this not provide an objective view on the situation?

So I guess its ok for you to ignore factual evidence when you feel like it....hmm hypocritical if you ask me..

Or is her post also "Dreck"?

I will not be demeaning anyone here. As far as posting a music vid, I may start a separate thread on that so please check in often.

Love,

---GeminiSky



[edit on 28-6-2010 by GeminiSky]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by suziwong
 


Errrmmmm....not to beat this dead horse, but....

Well, look...you responded with more stuff that kinda sorta proves my point!


Like I said, in so many words..."So what?" if the gravitaional constant is 'off' by a fraction of a fraction of a percent?

Can we still use the math to plot courses for our spacecraft? Yes!

We can successfully navigate, using the known mathematics...like I thought the implication was clear, the very minor course corrections are made, in order to refine original course plots...and this is just the way things are, the state of our technology. These "variations" are so minor, and happen over astronomical periods in some cases...You should read in depth, rather than just the 'headlines' on some of those topics.

Now...I didn't think that contributing facts, and wishing to help educate, is being "smug"... that's kinda weird....


Weedwhacker – your latest smug statement about the moon once being part of earth is also not a fact – just a hypothesis which is currently the subject of much debate

LINK




Remember what I said about not just reading the headlines??

Your link, from "spacedaily", says in part:


Moon Has Small Core Say LP Scientists

Tucson - August 9, 1999 - Data from Lunar Prospector supports mounting evidence that the moon may still retain a small molten core, and was formed in a way unique within our solar system, after a Mars-sized planet smashed into a proto-Earth.

This latest report comes from scientists who measured the Earth's magnetic field near the moon using instruments mounted on Lunar Prospector. Their results strengthen the theory that the moon has a metal core that is much smaller than cores of the inner planets of the solar system.



See?

Now, this next one...OK....the exact age of formation of the Moon is not known -- since no one was around at the time


Inferences have to be drawn, and estimates made....


The age of the earth / moon is also not a fact – but is the topic of debate

LINK


Again....I looked into that article...and all it said is that, initially ONE theory was that the Moon formed when the Solar System was about 30 million years old...but, NOW they think they might revise that to 150 million years old.

SO, compared to the ~4.5 BILLION years, we're quibbling about a mere 120 million?

Pffffft! That's chump change, to stars' and planet's lifetimes!!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by suziwong
 


I tried to read through that LINK...but it's long, and in most parts has nothing to do with what I was talking about, anyway.

It is a scatter-shot approach at a variety of different accepted "constants" but all it does is point out that, when calculated out to many decimal places, there are very, very, very minor variances...it's really, in most cases, all about the minor errors that crop up in measuring...instrument calibration differences, and accumulated errors, I would think.

But, since it talks about such SMALL deviations, it does nothing to dispute the gross overall calculations for large objects, like Earth, Moon and their relative (average) G force, gravitational attraction due to mass.

Certainly, even as the Moon orbits the Earth, and as the Earth orbits the Sun, and the entire system dances in its cycles...there are minor perturbations. Nothing large enough to be seen, usually...but even the distant influence of Jupiter's gravity can have a small, meager effect. IF you try to calculate down to the smallest possible significant digit, but all are well down into the factor of a fraction of a fraction of one percentile.


That was the response given to the post you mention. It was given by one of the same people whom's factual replies you ignore so it does not surprise me that you did not see it given. Please go back and read this reply.

I did not come to anyone's defense in my post. I do not recall stating anyone's name as a source nor do I recall naming anyone other than yourself in my post. As the OP you should expect to be challenged when you start a thread and you should accept that ATS is not a pulpit from which you may preach disinformation and ignorance without reproach.

I and many others are still awaiting your replies to those posts which to this point you have left unanswered.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


Actually that was the reply to her first post, not her Last post as I had mentioned. I believe she brings up a valid argument.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
To suggest that material (rock) would somehow, when molten, form a "shell", rather than a solid ball is...well, outside the realm of reality, frankly.


LOL
I suggest you read a few books yourself Weedwhacker...
Geodes
One of the theories regarding the formation of the moon has the earth being impacted by a large object and knocking molten material out from the earth which formed the moon. When you figure out how molten rock can indeed and does quite often form a 'shell' then come back here and tell us about it's impossibility.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
To move past this absurdness (if thats a word) Maybe my eyes are not trained as well as others...

I would bet a good chunk of change the black spot is a shadow...

My final analysis ..... Shadow.... Nothing to see here!


[edit on 28-6-2010 by Mobius1974]

[edit on 28-6-2010 by Mobius1974]


I would tend to agree... My first thought when I viewed the image was "what hole?"



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


The second post is more of the whole "the entire scientific community is wrong" argument as the first. This is not a valid method of providing proof. Attempting to discredit the bulk of scientific knowledge in order to make one's own point is in fact a rather extreme and illogical attempt that only proves the weakness of the point in question.

Again I remind you I am still waiting for you to reply to all that you have ignored. Please reply to this as you will but follow that up with some responses to the people you are ignoring.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


??
??

So...if I hear what you're saying....your claim is that the entire Moon is a giant geode???


Um....did you READ the links up above....originally posted by "suziwong", and repeated in my post?

I'm afraid that an example of small geodes that (even if the size of a boulder) isn't going to convince the preponderance of scientific academia out there....perhaps you could, though. Go for it!



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join