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.

 

Is the Moon a Mothership ?

page: 15
58
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Ben81
 

I don't think astrologists know much about the physical aspects of the Moon. They know a lot about the zodiac and telling the future though.


I don't know about that, Phage. There is a Danish proverb: "It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future."




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

Brings to mind a phrase near and dear.
Yoyodyne, where the future begins tomorrow!



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
They thought the moons gravity was 1/6 earth when in reality it is approximately 63%(if I remember correctly).


Jesus H Christ, where does this nonsense come from??????????????


I guess from the same source that says: "Baby Elvis found in Louisiana. He's an alien."



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Wernher von Braun (Time Magazine, July 25, 1969).


Nope. Another lie. Not Von Braun. His name doesn't even appear in the Time magazine article. It's also important to note the full context.

At a point 43,495 miles from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the earth, then some 200,000 miles distant. Beyond that crest, lunar gravity predominated, and Apollo was on the "downhill" leg of its journey.

www.time.com...
industrialnews.industrialartifactsreview.com...

As is often the case, a mass consumption news source, in oversimplifying a complex point, got the details half right. Apollo 11 was on the downhill leg but not just because of the moon's gravitational influence. It is not a simple two body calculation and it has virtually nothing to do with the "neutral point". There are actually four bodies involved; Earth, the Moon, the spacecraft, and the Sun. Add to the mix the motion of both the spacecraft and the moon and the calculation for the "top of the hill" becomes a very great deal more complex than a simplistic two (static) body calculation.

The Moon's gravity is 1/6th that of Earth. As has been repeatedly demonstrated by various satellites in orbit around it. As is demonstrated by its orbital period around Earth.
edit on 12/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


The spacecraft and the sun are irrellevant variables. Why do they matter? Also the data about neutral point seems fixed because the moon and earth do not change distance from each other.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

The spacecraft is irrelevant? Right. Who need to consider what it's doing.
The spacecraft is moving...quite fast. It wants to continue to move...quite fast. The Moon is moving, on a vector different to that of the spacecraft.

The Sun exerts a gravitational force on the spacecraft just as the Earth and the Moon do.


Also the data about neutral point seems fixed because the moon and earth do not change distance from each other.
Actually they do change distance, by about 26,000 miles each month. But as I said, the "neutral point" has nothing to do with the trajectory of the spacecraft. Using the "neutral point" as a milepost oversimplifies a complex problem.

But of course, rather than understand the situation it's easier to lie and say "Von Braun said so! That proves the Moon has 2/3 the Earth's gravity!"

edit on 12/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Moongate Excerpts on Lunar Gravity

(MGTE)--Page 32

"The point where a spacecraft enters the predominant attractive zone of the Moon's gravity is called the neutral point. It is the region in space where the Earth's force of attraction equals the Moon's force of attraction. Since the Moon is smaller and SUPPOSEDLY has a smaller surface gravity, the neutral point should be quite close to the Moon. In fact, if it is assumed that the Moon has one-sixth of the Earth's surface gravity (which is what we are all taught in school), the neutral point is calculated to be about nine-tenths of the distance between the Earth and the Moon. The average distance to the Moon is about 239,000 miles, hence this places the neutral point approximately 23,900 miles from the Moon's center."

(MGTE)--Page 45

"At a point 43,495 miles from the Moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant." ('Time' magazine, July 25, 1969.)

(MGTE)--Page 45-46

"At a distance of 43,495 miles from the Moon, Apollo 11 passed the so-called 'neutral' point, beyond which the lunar gravitational field dominated that of Earth." ('History of Rocketry & Space'--1969.)

(MGTE)--Page 48-49

"...since the Earth's pull equals the Moon's at the neutral point, the inverse-square law enables the pull of gravity at the Moon's surface to be determined...The result is that the Moon's surface gravity is 64% of the
Earth's surface gravity, not the one-sixth (or 16.7%) value predicted by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation!"


www.thelivingmoon.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

As I pointed out those quotes are not talking about the static "neutral point" they are talking about the trajectory of the spacecraft.

edit on 12/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

(OMSM) Page 66-67
"The strangest anomaly...concerning the Moons craters, is that despite their fantastic size, even the LARGEST gaping holes are surprisingly shallow. Craters fifty, even one hundred miles in diameter are no more than a mere two to three miles deep."
"It has been calculated that a meteor of one million tons would be equal in explosive force to a one-megaton atomic bomb. We know that meteors weighing one million tons have clobbered the lunar surface. Yet they've left only broad, shallow holes."
"Even CONSERVATIVE estimates by scientists indicate that meteors 10 miles or more in diameter should have penetrated the Moons surface to a depth of 4 or 5 TIMES that diameter; yet the deepest Moon crater we know about (the Gagarin Crater is 186 miles across but less than 4 miles deep."
"The conclusion that some scientists drew is that there is something extremely tough and strong under the shallow lunar surface, beneath the thin layers of rock and dirt covering this mysterious sphere, that prevented deep holes. What could that tough, strong thing be?"

(OMSM) Page 72
"In 1962, Dr. Gordon McDonald, a leading scientist at NASA, published a report in the July issue of Astronautics. In it he stated that, according to an analysis of the Moons motion, it appears that the Moon is hollow: If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the Moon be less dense than the outer parts. Indeed, it would seem that the Moon is more like a hollow than a homogenous sphere. Astronautics magazine July, 1962 issue.)


So the moon has 64% earth's gravity and the craters are ridiculously shallow in relation to their diameter.

Hard shell and soft interior..........all the gravity is located "on the skin" and little inside. No wonder it rings like a bell for hours. Yeah no artificial gravity mechanism lol. Or that moon and earth are gravitionally locked so same side of moon is always showing. Sounds like george lucas "death star" plot to me!
(waiting for darth vader to show up with his magnetic beam sword)

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


So the moon has 64% earth's gravity and the craters are ridiculously shallow in relation to their diameter.
The Moon has 1/6 the Earth's gravity.


The depth of a crater is considerably less than the diameter. For example, simple craters on the Moon have a depth/diameter ratio from 0.14 to 0.2, i.e., the diameter is about 5 to 7 times greater than the depth. For complex craters on the Moon (larger than 20 kilometers in diameter), the depth/diameter ratio ranges from 0.1 to 0.05, i.e., the diameter is from 10 to 20 times larger than the depth. This is because slumping of the inner walls and formation of the central peak causes a shallower depth.

www.lpi.usra.edu...


Too bad they don't provide a full context quote of what McDonald said but in 1962 it was thought that the composition of the Moon was similar to Earth, with a large iron core. It doesn't have a large iron core so its average density is much less than that of Earth, thus McDonald's comment. It isn't hollow and McDonald didn't say it was. In fact, this was discovered as a result of the experiments that caused the Moon to "ring like a bell".

The Moon's density is fairly uniform throughout and is only about 3.3 times the density of water. If it has an iron core, it is less than 800 kilometers in diameter. This is a sharp contrast from planets like Mercury and the Earth that have large iron-nickel cores and overall densities more than 5 times the density of water. The Moon's mantle is made of silicate materials, like the Earth's mantle, and makes up about 90% of the Moon's volume.
www.astronomynotes.com...

Densities of Earth's layers:

Continental Crust: 2.7 to 3.0
Oceanic Crust: 3.0 to 3.3
Mantle (silicates): 3.3 to 5.7 (increasing with depth?)
Outer Core (liquid): 9.9 to 12.2
Inner Core (solid): 12.6 to 13.0
jersey.uoregon.edu...

edit on 12/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


That's what I keep hearing from John Bigbooty " tomorrow, I'll bring the overthruster back tomorrow". I don't think he's coming
. Gonna have to watch that again soon.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
But of course, rather than understand the situation it's easier to lie and say "Von Braun said so! That proves the Moon has 2/3 the Earth's gravity!"


That's a flashback to my debate with John Lear here on ATS some years ago. I made some calculations but didn't get very far. The best I can now remember is pretty much in the vein you presented here.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Phage
But of course, rather than understand the situation it's easier to lie and say "Von Braun said so! That proves the Moon has 2/3 the Earth's gravity!"


That's a flashback to my debate with John Lear here on ATS some years ago. I made some calculations but didn't get very far. The best I can now remember is pretty much in the vein you presented here.


Both he and Zorgon quit years ago.

I guess they couldn't take the pseudo-debunking.

Too bad ATS lost top notch conspiracy theorists!


What's "pseudo" about a plain statement that the Moon does not have a breathable atmosphere? Please detail your objections to this.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


How do you know that the moon does not have a breathable atmosphere? Because nasa said so? So what richard hoagland showed all the artifacts on the moon and mars.

John Lear showed high resolution unedited photos of the moon that were never seen before. He has traced down sources, done calculations, interviewed people he knew via the vast connections he had as af pilot and commercial pilot, etc.

How do you know that millions of humanoids do not reside in our solar system as we speak?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The whole alien deal, I'm a little skeptical on it, but I'll keep an open mind about it.

As for the orbit, (might as well be shot down for this) Gravity is a EM for with a wavelength of .3 to 4.3 mm, a frequency of 1 terahertz and highly penetrating.

To prove this? Flood.

The conditions of the Earth, pre-flood time, was that it was covered in clouds in order to keep itself from over heating from the sun. Very standard procedure for any planet. But how did it get there? It had help from the outside. By implying a Levitation-beam, you need two large ships to do that. They did it, and then put it into today's position.

Now I understand why orthodox scientist are so hasty to drop the idea the flood happened, kills most of their ideas and they hate starting fresh.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


Read the book, Etidorhpa, most people will write it off as science-fiction.

Sci-fi in a 1880 setting? Yeah right, it's the closest public account given to what it's like in Inner Earth.

Can you imagine not to feel hunger, thirst, or fatigue while down there? To feel eternal peace without death in the way? To open all senses? To see with your skin? To taste with your touch? To speak with your mind?

But one interesting passage was that the protagonist walked up to a mushroom the size of a 200 year old full-grown tree, and put his palm to it, velvet like texture was how I would put it in his description. He was encouraged by his guide to smell his hand that touched the mushroom. Expecting a foul and dull smell, instead he got a exotic smell, in his description it was like strawberries and pineapple on a dewy morning. More of the reason why anyone should go there.

There are 3 different Earths: Earth Surface (The one we are on now), Inner Earth (Below our feet several miles down), and Hollow Earth (Like the map you shown)

Your on the right track, sir, the only problem is, we don't have a guide.

Astrology is not only the study of constellations but also the study of astronomical phenomena. However, it's still considered a pseudoscience due to 18 former Nobel prize winners and over 170 of their colleagues spear-headed attack on it.

But isn't some of the pseudosciences the best science of today's time?

But if you want a short summary of it, just look for the book by the name of "Awesome lifeforce" And type that title in the search, you'll find what you seek.
edit on 18-12-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join