Our Moon is an Artificial Space Station ~~~ PROOF!!!

page: 3
133
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConradsLaces
Interesting stuff... but why did this go out on the ATS Twitter? I expected some actual, hard proof... like NASA releases, analyses of moon rock showing high concentrations of plastic or such... or even an Astronaut's account of his own experiences on the "artificial space station"...

We need to be able to vote down things like this... things that use "PROOF" and "!!!!!!!" in the title... and then deliver nothing. Whenever I see either of those two items in a title, I immediately adopt the attitude I do when I see the supermarket tabloids... Weekly World News, et al.

[/url]
edit on 26-10-2010 by ConradsLaces because: addendum


Agreed. Whats the criteria for twitter blast? This should not have been tweeted in my opinion.




posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by maluminse
 


I'd love to know the criteria too... The Tweets about the cache of 9/11 footage, and Zecharia Sitchin were definitely
"OMG!" Tweet-worthy... this post.. definitely not.

I wonder if it's automatic. Maybe it picks a post in a forum that's had 'x' number of views within a certain period of time after it's posted; and looks for certain keywords... I dunno. Echelon anyone? lol! right here on ATS



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by maluminse

Originally posted by ConradsLaces
Interesting stuff... but why did this go out on the ATS Twitter? I expected some actual, hard proof... like NASA releases, analyses of moon rock showing high concentrations of plastic or such... or even an Astronaut's account of his own experiences on the "artificial space station"...

We need to be able to vote down things like this... things that use "PROOF" and "!!!!!!!" in the title... and then deliver nothing. Whenever I see either of those two items in a title, I immediately adopt the attitude I do when I see the supermarket tabloids... Weekly World News, et al.

[/url]
edit on 26-10-2010 by ConradsLaces because: addendum


Agreed. Whats the criteria for twitter blast? This should not have been tweeted in my opinion.


Surely you should know by now ?

and there is no conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ocker

Originally posted by maluminse

Originally posted by ConradsLaces
Interesting stuff... but why did this go out on the ATS Twitter? I expected some actual, hard proof... like NASA releases, analyses of moon rock showing high concentrations of plastic or such... or even an Astronaut's account of his own experiences on the "artificial space station"...

We need to be able to vote down things like this... things that use "PROOF" and "!!!!!!!" in the title... and then deliver nothing. Whenever I see either of those two items in a title, I immediately adopt the attitude I do when I see the supermarket tabloids... Weekly World News, et al.

[/url]
edit on 26-10-2010 by ConradsLaces because: addendum


Agreed. Whats the criteria for twitter blast? This should not have been tweeted in my opinion.


Surely you should know by now ?

and there is no conspiracy.


Well if you consider aliens trying to throw off the ats community from their trail of recent visits not a conspiracy than you may be correct!

: D



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Reported for misleading title. OP offers only opinion.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Segador
Breaking!!! OP uses multiple exclamation marks and claims there is proof when there is no PROOF!!!

All of this is nothing but speculation and your title makes me want to punch the next ATS poster who claims to have proof but really doesn't.


I agree. The OP is speculating based on evidence, but evidence doesn't equal proof. Yes, there are anomalies - doesn't mean it's a space station. It could be that we would have no life without a moon that perfect - meaning, that it's not a 'too perfect' coincidence that the moon is there, but just a rare occurrence that we are the offspring of, if that makes sense. We have absolutely NO evidence that it is some space station, rather, we have a bunch of anomalies and a hypothesis of the answer.

Ugh, I am confusing. What I mean to say is: a moon of the perfect size, perfect orbit, and perfect distance around the perfect might have a 1/1000000000000 chance of happening... but it is very possible that our moon is that 1/1000000000 chance, and it SEEMS like it's too perfect, but in reality, we are only alive to speculate about it BECAUSE of the perfection... so it isn't 'too perfect,' it is just the only thing that allows life so we wouldn't be able to speculate about it unless it was perfect.

Man, I really can't get my words out, and this is nonsensical. hfkdjalkjfkdj!
edit on 10/27/2010 by spacekc929 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by sp00n1
 

If the moon is responsible for sustaining life on earth, I am surprised they haven't tried bombing it yet. Why not test nukes there, at least? Get the ball rolling.

Alas OP, tidally locked moons are common, and as we were told, we really don't know what life would be like here on earth, were there no moon. We do know, however, that we must quiver in fear every time the BBC reports that 'it's too late to do anything about global warming', every time a sea current ceases to flow for a few days. The BBC has a way with rhetoric. When it comes to deepwater, it was all sunshine and microbes just slurping all that oil right out of sight. The powers that be never look to gain from attacking a corporation. The real money is on enslaving every one to a man, right down to the one sheet per #e proposal put forth by sheryl crow. It was never intended to be a joke, btw, just as there are persons who believe that climate change deniers belong 'on the dock at Nuremberg'. These globalist bastards have names. Rabidly low levels of self-esteem gives these usurpers their reason to be.

I wouldn't look too deeply into the moon as being artificially constructed, or as a 'satellite' or what have you. I'm not sure how you decided to place these things in your title. Just because there's a lot of wonder doesn't make it so. I would not have clicked on the thread were it not for your keywords etc.... Thankfully phage showed up and stopped the madness.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by spacekc929
 


I understand exactly what you mean.

We are only here today because of the rare chance that the moon would be here, so in essence without the moon we wouldn't probably be here to discuss the lack of a moon. I really dislike it when people use the whole "the chances of [object used for intelligent design here] happening is [insert figure here] thus it is incredibly improbable we would be here." But if it did not happen we would not be here to discuss it. It is a necessary coincidence that allowed us to be here, so that argument is null.
edit on 27-10-2010 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Tidal Locking.

...................



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sp00n1
 


Even if everything in the OP was factually accurate it doesn't serve as proof that the moon is artificial or a space station. Stating that the moon rotates or might be hollow doesn't prove it is a space station any more than me saying the fact that an orange is round proves that oranges are apples. There is simply no link between basic facts about the moon and the idea that it is an artificial space station.



yet it is widely regarded as the strangest object in the known universe.


By whom? You don't honestly believe the moon is stranger than pulsars or black holes do you? I can think of quite a few objects in this solar system alone that I find stranger, or at least more interesting, than our moon. Titan, for instance, or perhaps Europa where life might exist under the ice. This is clearly a subjective opinion being put forward as "widely regarded" without any evidence at all to back up such a claim.



Whilst we take this for granted it has been called the biggest coincidence in the universe.


And we're going to base speculation that the moon is artificial on a coincidence? Setting aside the fact that the moon was once closer to the Earth than it is now it is very poor reasoning to assume that because something seems improbable that it must have happened by design. Winning the lottery, surviving a really bad car crash, leaving a city the day before an Earthquake strikes - these are all coincidences, are we going to assume that some design is behind them?



There is no logical reason why the Moon mimics the Sun in this way and it is only meaningful to a human standing on the Earth.


Nature is not confined to human logic. For instance it was once logical to assume the Earth was flat because all reasoning and evidence had thus far held that it was. It was once logical, based on models of the solar system, to believe the solar system was geocentric. Discoveries later overturned the knowledge of the day.

Conclusions:

I'm honestly baffled how your post managed to scare up so many stars and flags considering the total of amount of zero evidence provided to support the conclusion in the title.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Just when you think you have read it all this post appears.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   


RESONANCE
When the spent Lunar Landers were commanded to crash into the Moon from orbit, the Moon rang for an unexpected period of time. The first time was on November 20, 1969 and it used the lander for the Apollo 12. The seismographs left behind caused the Moon to ring for more than an hour. Apollo thirteen's third stage impact on the Moon was even more incredible. Reverberations lasted for three hours and twenty minutes, down to an estimated depth of twenty-five miles. This ringing seems to suggest the Moon may have no core at all.



Not the best source but i have heard this before.

Then again, I have also read it has a small iron core.

www.rense.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The Moon rotates once each revolution because it is tidally locked to Earth. All of the major moons in the Solar System are tidally locked to their planets and exhibit the same behavior.


O.k.

So we have a gravitational reason for the rotation of the moon....

My question is this... Why is the moon tidally locked to the earth, yet the earth is not tidally locked to the sun???

Korg.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
PROOF??? please! all this proves it that you're a total........ actually never mind.
Do you have any idea how foolish it is to blindly assume that anything unlikely is in fact impossible and that it must therefore have required intelligent interference to occur?



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
All the galaxy's in the universe, all the stars, all the planets, all the moons and yet you believe it is impossible for one of the moons to have ended up like ours?? If the moon's rotation being locked to the earth, its distance etc and all the rest helped life form, then that explains why there is life on this planet.

The moon is natural, the moon is beautiful, it wasn't created by beings, it was created by nature a long time ago, and the circumstances were just right for it to play its game the way it does.





This otherwise bizarre phenomenon can be explained in terms of a subtle effect generated by gravitation and friction — tidal locking. Through their mutual gravitational attraction, the Earth and the moon create tidal bulges on each other. One bulge faces in the direction of the other body, and one faces away. These bulges generate heat through the friction of rock rubbing against itself. Over time, they siphon energy away from the rotational momentum of both bodies, producing a braking effect.


Why does the same side of the moon always face the earth?



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   
according to many ufo `know it alls` including alex collier
the moon is an artifical base dragged into our galaxy by ets

there used to be more than one apparently

dont shoot me im just repeating what ive read



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
With you on that one Segador,perhaps a look at the dictionary definition of "proof" before posting?



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Well, we shall agree that the thread title is misleading. But for those who think that there is no proof for this theory, why don't they spend some time reading the books, searching for supportive facts that this theory indeed could be a possibility?

How many of you have read the book by Don Wilson? I didn't and i would like to. What are all the books available on this topic? Read the book and then voice your opinion rather than totally rejecting it.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by billymeierprophet
according to many ufo `know it alls` including alex collier
the moon is an artifical base dragged into our galaxy by ets

there used to be more than one apparently

dont shoot me im just repeating what ive read


I read in some website that there once was 9 moons on the sky during ancient time. Don't know if its true or not. Any reliable sources that you know?



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sp00n1
 

edit on 27-10-2010 by MR BOB because: phage beat me to it...





new topics
top topics
 
133
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join