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: 18
58
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Look who long it took to get the ISS up and running and that's on our doorstep or is that simple fact to much for you to understand.


I don't see any relevance in your comment at all. First of all, the question was (thoroughly unrelated to the thread, but still) whether it was possible to build structures in vacuum. The answer is yes. Then, the hypothetical scenario was about some advanced alien race building stuff on the Moon. Comparing THAT to ISS is ridiculous.

But again, the tangent of the atmosphere on the Moon: no, there is no breathable atmosphere, and anyone who wants to know why is welcome to visit the Lear threads.

Or just ponder all those craters that cover all of the Moon's surface. Or absence of dust clouds and weather patterns. Whatever works for you. Every little helps. Oh, and the Moon is emphatically NOT made of cheese.




posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Phage
 


Now just to diffuse this little ordeal, I want you, Mr. Phage, to explain to me why are we not on the Moon right now, with our own little base on that face
I for one look forward to that answer since his recent replys have been nothing short of spot on.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81

thanks .. just food for though so we unsolve the moon mystery
made this thread after a conversation with Swan001 (credit to him to)
Vive le Quebec pis vive la moon

edit on 12/16/2012 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)

The credit is entirely yours, mate


I believe the Moon does present some weird oddities which would prove that it could be more than a moon.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Look who long it took to get the ISS up and running and that's on our doorstep or is that simple fact to much for you to understand.


I don't see any relevance in your comment at all. First of all, the question was (thoroughly unrelated to the thread, but still) whether it was possible to build structures in vacuum. The answer is yes. Then, the hypothetical scenario was about some advanced alien race building stuff on the Moon. Comparing THAT to ISS is ridiculous.


There seems to be a few different subjects being discussed here.

First, 'freedoncommander' asked how those buildings we see on the moon could have been built without an atmosphere. My response was "what buildings?"

Secondly, he said buildings can't be built without an atmosphere. In response, I mentioned that modular construction similar to the ISS would probably be employed on the Moon (build modules on Earth and construct an array of those modules on the Moon).

Then he said that buildings can't be built from the ground up without a breathable atmosphere. My first answer to that would be: why would you want to build a building from the ground up when modular construction would do the job? I think even aliens would use modular construction techniques. My second answer would be that while it would be very difficult to build a builing on the Moon "from scratch", i don't think it would be impossible.

Besides, why are we even talking about constructing a building from scratch on the Moon? Why is that relevant?



By the way, if the Moon did have a breathable atmosphere, that thin line of atmosphere would be visible around the edge of the Moon when seen through a modestly good telescope -- such as the telescopes used by thousands of amateur astronomers around the world, and such as this image:


Source

By comparison, here is what Earth's atmosphere looks like as seen from space:




edit on 12/20/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Phage
 


Now just to diffuse this little ordeal, I want you, Mr. Phage, to explain to me why are we not on the Moon right now, with our own little base on that face
I for one look forward to that answer since his recent replys have been nothing short of spot on.

I'm not phage, but my answer would be simple: "Money".

Apollo was hugely expensive. I think that if we tried to do Apollo now rather than in the 60s, with our current economic climate, and considering all of the added astronaut safety measures NASA has now that they did not in the 1960s, there is no way congress would approve such a program.

The expense of putting bases on the Moon would have been doubly expensive as it was to put two people there temporarily. Even in the 1970s, with the economic and social concerns facing the U.S. at the time, I think there is no way congress would have approved building a Moon base -- in fact they did NOT approve building a Moon base. It was never a part of NASA's official budget requests, but that's only because NASA knew congress would say no.

The space shuttle was expensive enough, and NASA felt at the time that the shuttle was the way to move forward into the future. There was absolutely no possible way congress would fund both the shuttle AND a Moon base -- even a modest moon base.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Phage
 


Now just to diffuse this little ordeal, I want you, Mr. Phage, to explain to me why are we not on the Moon right now, with our own little base on that face
I for one look forward to that answer since his recent replys have been nothing short of spot on.


Do you really need someone to tell you that? Sheesh. Why would anybody spend ten thousand gazillion dollars and change to kick up some dust on the Moon?

Maybe you can tell why there is no luxury mansion on top of Mount Everest. I'm told the views are breathtaking!
Oh wait, I'm guessing now but Mt.Everest must be an alien base!



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
No, it's not a mothership, it's just a moon. And it does actually rotate, it's just that it rotates at the same speed that it goes around the Earth, which is called synchronous rotation. It's tidally locked with our planet.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Phage
 


Now just to diffuse this little ordeal, I want you, Mr. Phage, to explain to me why are we not on the Moon right now, with our own little base on that face
I for one look forward to that answer since his recent replys have been nothing short of spot on.


Do you really need someone to tell you that? Sheesh. Why would anybody spend ten thousand gazillion dollars and change to kick up some dust on the Moon?

Maybe you can tell why there is no luxury mansion on top of Mount Everest. I'm told the views are breathtaking!
Oh wait, I'm guessing now but Mt.Everest must be an alien base!


Well looking at why you may wan't to build on the moon at all could be down to a massive supply of Helium-3...



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
Well looking at why you may wan't to build on the moon at all could be down to a massive supply of Helium-3...


Well it would be helpful to build at least a small reactor first, which uses it, right?



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   


A official disclosure will happen before 2012..


this was in the link you supplied in the first post.

no disclosure has happened so far. thus, didn't read the rest.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
Well looking at why you may wan't to build on the moon at all could be down to a massive supply of Helium-3...


Well it would be helpful to build at least a small reactor first, which uses it, right?

Exactly.

Right now, the demand for helium-3 does not make it worth going to the Moon and getting. Helium-3 gathered right here on Earth is cheap enough at the moment because there is not a great demand for it.

If (someday) fusion power generation ever becomes a large scale reality, then the demand could increase past the point that earth-origin Helium-3 could be supplied in a cost effective manner.

Right now though? -- no, there is no reason to go to the moon to get it.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jamsession



A official disclosure will happen before 2012..


this was in the link you supplied in the first post.

no disclosure has happened so far. thus, didn't read the rest.


No disclosure so far? Have you read the Alien Interview of Airl ?
She crashed in New Mexico in July 1947.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Forget the Helium-3. We have moved on and found something a lot better for power
generation. Crystalline Fusion Generators



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 




No disclosure so far? Have you read the Alien Interview of Airl ?
She crashed in New Mexico in July 1947.

Lemme guess...you and Tolec read that on mistsofavalon.w/e or were given the document from the Andromeda Council.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


I don't have sources at the moment due to laziness, but I recall reading about and seeing pictures of, a potential base. Plus pyramids. And apparently a robot face?

I'd say it's plausible.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


No Tolec hasn't discussed the Alien Interview. It's a good read.
Airl gave us quite a history lesson.
She even warned us about magnetic pole reversals.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 




No disclosure so far? Have you read the Alien Interview of Airl ?
She crashed in New Mexico in July 1947.


Ah I see you may have read that from the "highly respected"
bibliotecapleyades.net

With sources like that, who wouldn't believe?

edit on 12/20/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


No. I went to the alien interview website. It's all there.
It turns out that Matilda was a member of the Lost Battalion.
Airl - Alien Interview - Be Above Yourself !



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Money isn't a problem at all. The problem is their greed and their self-pride. Scientist exhibit this idea and are willing to kill than have their ideas killed.

But what really gets me is; on the Moon, they said that gravity is 1/6th then why in the world do they need a bugy?



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Money isn't a problem at all. The problem is their greed and their self-pride. Scientist exhibit this idea and are willing to kill than have their ideas killed.


So you think a few $100 Billion in the name of science is something congress is just throwing around? The Curiosity Rover on Mars was "only" $2 Billion, and congress almost shut the project down due to expense. The same with the James Webb telescope at "only" $3 Billion. Those projects were cheap compared to the expense of building Moon bases.



But what really gets me is; on the Moon, they said that gravity is 1/6th then why in the world do they need a bugy?


You are seriously asking why someone on the moon (even at 1/6 gravity) would need a rover to go 8 km (almost 5 miles) carrying geology equipment and carrying the rocks they found?



edit on 12/20/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
58
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join