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.

 

Weird Things About The Moon...

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
*If* the moon is an artificial body, perhaps a generational starship even...then i'd guess it was constructed by us...humans.

I think ET has colonised it since we had abandoned and forgotten about the moon being a huge species carrying starship, but it's possible that humanity arrived on Earth after travelling here using the lunarship.

Maybe we were just colonists, travelling to the Sol system to colonise Earth, maybe we had no choice if our original home was destroyed or unable to support humanity...perhaps we were a criminal species, guilty of galactic war crimes and as a punishment were expelled from the galactic council and sent here.

Who knows.




A NOAHS ARK?

If you are going to launch an artificial sputnik, then it is advisable to make it hollow. At the same time it would be naive to imagine that anyone capable of such a tremendous space project would be satisfied simply with some kind of giant empty trunk hurled into a near-Earth trajectory.

It is more likely that what we have here is a very ancient spaceship, the interior of which was filled with fuel for the engines, materials and appliances for repair work, navigation, instruments, observation equipment and all manner of machinery... in other words, everything necessary to enable this "caravelle of the Universe" to serve as a kind of Noah’s Ark of intelligence, perhaps even as the home of a whole civilization envisaging a prolonged (thousands of millions of years) existence and long wanderings through space (thousands of millions of miles).

Naturally, the hull of such a spaceship must be super-tough in order to stand up to the blows of meteorites and sharp fluctuations between extreme heat and extreme cold. Probably the shell is a double-layered affair--the basis a dense armoring of about 20 miles in thickness, and outside it some kind of more loosely packed covering (a thinner layer- -averaging about three miles). In certain areas--where the lunar "seas" and "craters" are, the upper layer is quite thin, in some cases, non-existent.


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...




posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon



A NOAHS ARK?

If you are going to launch an artificial sputnik, then it is advisable to make it hollow. At the same time it would be naive to imagine that anyone capable of such a tremendous space project would be satisfied simply with some kind of giant empty trunk hurled into a near-Earth trajectory.

It is more likely that what we have here is a very ancient spaceship, the interior of which was filled with fuel for the engines, materials and appliances for repair work, navigation, instruments, observation equipment and all manner of machinery... in other words, everything necessary to enable this "caravelle of the Universe" to serve as a kind of Noah’s Ark of intelligence, perhaps even as the home of a whole civilization envisaging a prolonged (thousands of millions of years) existence and long wanderings through space (thousands of millions of miles).

Naturally, the hull of such a spaceship must be super-tough in order to stand up to the blows of meteorites and sharp fluctuations between extreme heat and extreme cold. Probably the shell is a double-layered affair--the basis a dense armoring of about 20 miles in thickness, and outside it some kind of more loosely packed covering (a thinner layer- -averaging about three miles). In certain areas--where the lunar "seas" and "craters" are, the upper layer is quite thin, in some cases, non-existent.


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



Thanks Zorgon. This is perfect.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Yeah "thanks zorgon"....for merely posting more supposition and science fiction scenario that has absolutely no evidence.

The Moon has been studied, measured, landed on, sampled.....science can calculate its mass, instruments have ascertained much of its internal arrangement....it is indisputably a naturally-occurring satellite of the Earth....it is no more "artificial" than Mars, Earth or Jupiter......



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Thanks for that zorgon.

Very interesting stuff, despite the odd bitter member posting to the contrary (who would do well to refer to his own sig line comment!)

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
An other suspicious act of NASA is to sent these little probes on wheels into areas on Mars where there is not much else than dessert and craters to investigate. If I was asked where to sent them I would chose to investigate these tubes or forests or some other interesting place. NASA probably did but didn't let us in on the mission....



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Astonishing that the "noah's ark" fantasy and fiction should be considered a "valued" contribution....as it has been spread around, already here....multiple times.

Guess it's always "new" to someone.....but, it is a tribute to the methodology of certain members, who just love to stir the pot.

"deny ignorance"??? R.I.P. to that motto, it seems, based on the content seen over about the last twelve months or so.

R.I.P. ATS?? (The intelligent, thoughtful and science-fact-based speculation that used to be a hallmark of ATS? Withering and dying....)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

edit on 25-12-2010 by redgy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 




It has to do with the Anunnaki?? It would have been placed by another civilization just to watch us?? Or to keep us as resources?? Maybe to explore both our planet and our genetics??


That is my thoughts and theory, Russo. I am of the opinion that the Moon contains crystalline computer systems that control the matrix of our cognizant reality, it works along with our own though-forms and and has default settings that make certain things happen at certain times. I think the Annunaki brought it here, it was called "Kinga" then, and used it to control their creations here on the surface. I also think that other ETs came later and altered the program for control purposes.
I suspect the Sirians did this, but have no proof. Whether you believe that or not, show me another Moon that has a similar orbit and characteristics, and "rings like a bell" when struck, and has all of it's luminous material on it's surface.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by spikey
 


Astonishing that the "noah's ark" fantasy and fiction should be considered a "valued" contribution....as it has been spread around, already here....multiple times.

Guess it's always "new" to someone.....but, it is a tribute to the methodology of certain members, who just love to stir the pot.

"deny ignorance"??? R.I.P. to that motto, it seems, based on the content seen over about the last twelve months or so.

R.I.P. ATS?? (The intelligent, thoughtful and science-fact-based speculation that used to be a hallmark of ATS? Withering and dying....)



I didn't use the word 'valued', i said 'very interesting'...which to me, it is.

Something i and others consider to be very interesting doesn't necessarily have to be unheard of or new. An interesting subject doesn't really have a sell by date.

What interests me and the next member, doesn't have to be interesting to everyone in order to be worth posting.

ATS is *not* a pure science or academically precise based website, you've been around long enough not to feign ignorance of that fact.

'Deny ignorance' does *not* mean scientifically proven or 'text book' theory only. It does not mean knowledge that can be precisely quantified or gauged as for example evidence in a court of law would have to be.
Knowledge comes in many forms. Esoteric knowledge, paranormal knowledge among myriad other topics is still knowledge, regardless of whether it is provable or not.

To learn such knowledge is denying ignorance of that particular topic.

Fact based scientific speculation is fine, and is to a large extent still alive and well on ATS, but doesn't preclude more hypothetical or even fantastic opinions and thoughts from being exchanged and enriching the experience for a great many members.

The answer to your apparent bitterness over 'fantastic speculations' and views aired on certain topics is elegant in it's simplicity, if you or any other member don't like or agree, or feel enraged or angry...*do not read the thread*, or if you feel you cannot resist the temptation to read a thread that annoys you, *don't post trying to elicit replies*...simple.

Have you considered you're simply too long in the tooth and set in you ways to get your head around some of these more 'way out' hypotheses? I'm not suggesting you cannot understand what is being said, i don't believe that to be the case, but i am saying that your mental patterns have become too rigid and automatically rejects anything out of hand, that clashes with or impinges on your long held dogmatic beliefs?

It's a valid point, and may explain your apparent vitriol expressed in almost any post that comprises fantastic opinion or comment.

In other words...the problem may be with you, not with 'certain members' as you put it.

Live and let live WW, it's Christmas. (try to have a happy one eh?)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


In order to bring some science, rationality and perspective......some visual aids: (links)

www.astrodigital.org...

That was just some very interesting science and facts that seem to be ignored, far too often, in favor of the "preferred" fiction....


Some more fact, sizes, perspectives:

www.freemars.org...

Of course, the coincidences are just that. And, as shown, the "coincidences" aren't nearly as "exact" or 'unusual' as assumed....not when the science is examined, and details paid attention.

There are many more ways to learn, get educated, and dispel myths...or, those who choose to do so may continue to reject logic and science, and fall for fantasies.....



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

I was wondering if perhaps you missed this one or just don't wish to ackknowledge such perposterous claims.

Weedwhacker
As you might suspect I disagree Weedwhiffer.( just funn'in with you a bit) From the complete and opposing and just as legitimate view. I, like God, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence. I find it very odd that you scientific academics always refer to that, in place of, well "that's another thread"? Actually it may not be if you think about it a lil futher up around the bend. CCRs reference to Heaven? Am I like a crazy person? " I'm quite sure they will say so".:



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Weedwhacker is right about ATS, I agree, people (in general) seem to want to believe what they wish to believe in, regardless of the quality or magnitude of evidence which supports or contradicts those beliefs, and we are all a bit lazy about fact verification.


About the similarity of apparent sizes of the Sun and the Moon as seen from the Earth.
1) In the space of all possible coincidences, you must expect that at least a few major coincidences would occur in any system.
2) What is the significance of this arrangement? There is no purpose that I can fathom why an intelligence should arrange things so that for some span of time in the distant future the moon will just barely fully eclipse the sun as seen from various narrow strips of land on the Earth. Why should I suspect that this development has anything to do with intelligent design?

There is nothing more to be said about the fact that the moon always shows the same side to us, as that phenomenon has been fully explained. Though it could be said again that there are a large number of other satellites in this solar system (in addition to the moon), which are also tidally locked with their parent bodies (i.e. they too persistently show the same face to the bodies that they orbit).



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Yeah "thanks zorgon"....for merely posting more supposition and science fiction scenario that has absolutely no evidence.


Your quite welcome...
I am sure if it was left up to you, there would only be evidence presented to support YOUR side of the fence


The Moon has been studied, measured, landed on, sampled.....science can calculate its mass, instruments have ascertained much of its internal arrangement....it is indisputably a naturally-occurring satellite of the Earth....it is no more "artificial" than Mars, Earth or Jupiter......


Well NASA says it 'rang like a bell for hours when they slammed that rocket into it (NASA LOVES smashing things into anything they can hit... cosmic litterbugs I say... no regards to any possible life on the object they are smacking and some of those ships are laden with deadly plutonium :shk: )

So it must be hollow... if it 'rang like a bell'

edit on 25-12-2010 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Yeah "thanks zorgon"....for merely posting more supposition and science fiction scenario that has absolutely no evidence.

The Moon has been studied, measured, landed on, sampled.....science can calculate its mass, instruments have ascertained much of its internal arrangement....it is indisputably a naturally-occurring satellite of the Earth....it is no more "artificial" than Mars, Earth or Jupiter......


The Moon has been studied, measured, sampled, and analyzed by VERY,VERY BAD Scientists, during this time, if ONLY AFTER FORTY YEARS they discover an HUGE amount of WATER on the satellite that they have deeply studied, measured, sampled, and analyzed from more than FORTY YEARS!

edit on 25-12-2010 by Arken because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by spikey
 


Astonishing that the "noah's ark" fantasy and fiction should be considered a "valued" contribution....as it has been spread around, already here....multiple times.

Guess it's always "new" to someone.....but, it is a tribute to the methodology of certain members, who just love to stir the pot.

"deny ignorance"??? R.I.P. to that motto, it seems, based on the content seen over about the last twelve months or so.

R.I.P. ATS?? (The intelligent, thoughtful and science-fact-based speculation that used to be a hallmark of ATS? Withering and dying....)



I didn't use the word 'valued', i said 'very interesting'...which to me, it is.

Something i and others consider to be very interesting doesn't necessarily have to be unheard of or new. An interesting subject doesn't really have a sell by date.

What interests me and the next member, doesn't have to be interesting to everyone in order to be worth posting.

ATS is *not* a pure science or academically precise based website, you've been around long enough not to feign ignorance of that fact.

'Deny ignorance' does *not* mean scientifically proven or 'text book' theory only. It does not mean knowledge that can be precisely quantified or gauged as for example evidence in a court of law would have to be.
Knowledge comes in many forms. Esoteric knowledge, paranormal knowledge among myriad other topics is still knowledge, regardless of whether it is provable or not.

To learn such knowledge is denying ignorance of that particular topic.

Fact based scientific speculation is fine, and is to a large extent still alive and well on ATS, but doesn't preclude more hypothetical or even fantastic opinions and thoughts from being exchanged and enriching the experience for a great many members.

The answer to your apparent bitterness over 'fantastic speculations' and views aired on certain topics is elegant in it's simplicity, if you or any other member don't like or agree, or feel enraged or angry...*do not read the thread*, or if you feel you cannot resist the temptation to read a thread that annoys you, *don't post trying to elicit replies*...simple.

Have you considered you're simply too long in the tooth and set in you ways to get your head around some of these more 'way out' hypotheses? I'm not suggesting you cannot understand what is being said, i don't believe that to be the case, but i am saying that your mental patterns have become too rigid and automatically rejects anything out of hand, that clashes with or impinges on your long held dogmatic beliefs?

It's a valid point, and may explain your apparent vitriol expressed in almost any post that comprises fantastic opinion or comment.

In other words...the problem may be with you, not with 'certain members' as you put it.

Live and let live WW, it's Christmas. (try to have a happy one eh?)



Spikey only Four words:
Brilliant! Smart! Clear! Meaningful!

Star!



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


You're smarter than this, yet you persist in spreading the steer tripe??


Well NASA says it 'rang like a bell for hours when they slammed that rocket into it....

So it must be hollow... if it 'rang like a bell'



Need it be explained, yet again??

Tell us....what other things can "ring" when struck? (or, better choice of term..."reverberate").

Can SOLID objects not reverberate, as well??

Really....the "rang like a bell" meme has gone out a long time ago....but, better to not just write it out, using the same themes that I have already read (and that SERIOUS researchers should already also be aware of):


The 'ringing like a bell' business is a misquote from the Apollo 12 post-mission press conference. The vibrations from an impact, measured by a seismometer left by the Apollo 11 mission, went on for longer than the scientists expected. To make it understandable to everyone, the person reporting this at the press conference described it as being as surprising as striking a bell and still finding it ringing an hour later. It was an analogy intended to convey the fact that the result was unexpected.


answers.yahoo.com...
edit on 25 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Once again, not comprehending science, and the scientific method? H2O is an abundant compound, found all over the Solar System. It is chemistry --- specifically the affinity that H and O have for each other, and the ease with which they form bonds.

The "question" of H2O on the Moon wasn't really "if", but "how much", "where", and in "what form".

"How much" was (still is) open to much discussion, and many very learned people weigh in on it.

"Where" was about its proximity to the surface, and that was a big question, since it leads to "what form"...since 'regular' ice will tend to break down (sublimate) over enough time, when exposed to vacuum. Keeping it out of direct sunlight slows the process. Forms of H2O molecules can exist in other substrates though. "Locked in" the make up of other materials.

Trying to claim the recent "discovery" of H2O as you did is disingenuous, and shows a lack of research into the facts.

Some Apollo lunar returns suggested water, tied up in the volcanic samples. What was required was a much larger exploration, at a "price" that would be most effective for minimal cost. The impacting of a projectile, and resulting throwing up of debris, allowed some spectroscopy examinations to be performed. The alternative, (and obviously NOT feasible, from cost standpoint) would have been either robotic landers, or even manned missions....BUT, the whole point of this was to ascertain likely, best candidate spots FOR a manned return, and possible long-term stay.

Truly....as yet, have not seen ONE DECENT "argument" to support any such "weird" things about the Moon...just in the imaginations of either the intentionally provocative entrepreneurs who dwell in peddling these ideas, or in the continued misunderstanding of rather simple basics of science, history, space exploration and technology. All things easily researched, and easy to comprehend once analyzed with the proper foundation of knowledge at one's disposal.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Yeah "thanks zorgon"....for merely posting more supposition and science fiction scenario that has absolutely no evidence.

The Moon has been studied, measured, landed on, sampled.....science can calculate its mass, instruments have ascertained much of its internal arrangement....it is indisputably a naturally-occurring satellite of the Earth....it is no more "artificial" than Mars, Earth or Jupiter......


The Moon has been studied, measured, sampled, and analyzed by VERY,VERY BAD Scientists, during this time, if ONLY AFTER FORTY YEARS they discover an HUGE amount of WATER on the satellite that they have deeply studied, measured, sampled, and analyzed from more than FORTY YEARS!

edit on 25-12-2010 by Arken because: (no reason given)


40 Years. This is like case closed to me.
Star Arken. You got the point.

edit on 25-12-2010 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Given infinite time any possible set up can form naturally.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


All righty then perhaps you might speak to me only about how often science depends on the word coincidence?
Where would science be without that word? Perhaps this would be a good thread?
edit on 25-12-2010 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join