It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:37 AM

Originally posted by Ben81
reply to post by wmd_2008

yes the angles can vary a bit i agree with that
but there is a big surface that never show toward earth
didnt know that the dark side was 40% thank you for that detail

Can YOU not read there is NO DARK side only a FAR SIDE.

Meaning of DARK "The absence of light in a place"

The far side gets sunlight so it is not DARK

What has happened to the education system around the world looking on here at what people think and post it has went right down the toilet!!!

Also the Moon ROTATES, it rotates almost exactly once on it's own axis in the same period of time it takes to orbit the Earth that's why we see one side but as it's not exact that's why we see 59% of the total surface of the Moon.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:52 AM

Originally posted by Human_Alien

What? What does an equal amount have to do with it? My point is: multiples verses a solo moon.

Same with our Sun. Most solar systems have binary stars.
Planet Earth seems to be more the exception than the rule in comparison to the limited solar bodies we have to work with.

So couple all of what we know (or I think I know) with ancient alien theories, there are more reasons to believe we are not alone (on our own planet and moon) than we are.

Again, my opinion. And 90% of that is from being an experiencer.

Well YOU always try to put your slant on things there are lots of differences between the numbers and also masses of the other moons in the solar system SO what I am saying there is NO correct number of moons for a planet, Venus and Mercury don't have any

Also your comment re binary star systems.

The vast majority of binary stars have eccentric orbits. It is difficult for bodies to exist in a system with two very massive bodies in an eccentric orbit. They can only exist very close to each star, or very far from both stars

So binary systems would be a problem for life to form on planets around them, so as you say most stars are binary that reduces the chance of life elsewhere.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 04:20 AM
Can't the alien mechanics not repair it then? I'm assuming it's broken down as it hasn't moved very far in a while

edit on 17-12-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 04:35 AM
This is the most ridiculous and confusing thread I've seen in ages.

1. The moon is not an 'elongated mothership'. We've seen the far side of the moon thanks to the Apollo missions, and if the moon was a cylinder, then they wouldn't have made it back. We also know the moon is a sphere thanks to Solar and Lunar eclipses.

2. The moon rotates on itself. OP, how many pages does it take until you realize this?

3. The moon is not hollow, but it is very cracked and fractured internally. Almost like a sponge with a solid core, which is why it resonates / vibrates.

The moon could very well be intelligently designed, but no one is going to find the proof that it is if people in this day and age still don't understand the moon's rotation and composition.

And, lol @ "Why is our planet the only planet in the solar system with 1 moon?"


"Most solar systems are binary. Isn't it odd that our solar system has one sun?"

Lol, I never get tired of ATS.

edit on 17-12-2012 by mr10k because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-12-2012 by mr10k because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 04:37 AM

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by Human_Alien

So you think science says the moon is SOLELY the source of gravity?

I admit I'm confused.
edit on 12/16/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

I don't think that. I am repeating what I was taught. I am 53 so science might've modified their previous beliefs (and that's exactly what they are. Beliefs. Not facts)

At some point in history, my ancestors went to school learning the Earth was flat. So science is always changing. They are just theories but passed out as truths.

Listen, I don't know for certain the Moon rotates. I've never seen it. I am taking the word of what I've read. See? So we can never ever be so sure.

Pluto was also a planet if I remember correctly

If the Moon did not rotate we would see 100% of it as it revolved around us every 28 days. That is how you can KNOW it rotates before you ARE seeing it. This is called a Synchronous Rotation (tidal lock) and it's a scientific fact and a mathematically proven model and eventual outcome for all revolving and rotating bodies. Moons that do not follow this model have external influences (or lack thereof) such as distant orbits and gravitational pull of other large moons). Our moon has no such external influences and therefore follows the standard formula of a tidal lock:

It has never been taught in any school that the Moon caused gravity. If you grew up believing that then you were indeed a poor science student. When an apple fell on Newton's head he did not think "Wow, the Moon caused this apple to fall on my head".

Yes, science is continually evolving but one thing remains constant - mathematics. And once a formula is proven then it is pretty much set in stone. Believing that the world was flat was not science - it was the lack of science and knowledge.

Now on to the amount of moons a planet has. In order to proximity to teh Sun:

Mercury: 0
Venus: 0
Earth: 1
Mars: 2

See a pattern?

The outer 4 gas giants are huge and have many planets due to their gravity capturing so many bodies. Again proving that gravity is caused by mass. Proven again by the existence of the solar system revolving around the sun and why our galaxy MUST revolve around something incredibly massive.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 04:48 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 05:35 AM
how does current science explain the origins and formation physics of the moon.
i read somewhere that it cannot.

a few nights ago i noticed a massive full moon, about twice to three times
as large from my same perspective, as the full moon i noticed in august/september.

how can this be, if the moon describes a roughly circular orbit around earth?

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:29 AM

Originally posted by FinalCountdown
The Moon is most likely an artificial satellite, think Death Star.

When it arrived and placed itself in it's perfect orbit and distance between us and the sun, life on this planet changed dramatically.

Instead of the previous freedom that all life forms on this planet experienced, we were suddenly locked into bondage by the massive gravitational pull from this object.

The tides were created with the appearance of the moon and we have been slaves ever since.

Mars also has a artificial satellite that governed and controlled its lifeforms before the sun died out a little and life left for the newly ready to be inhabited planet Earth.

Imagination is a great thing

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:48 AM
reply to post by OutonaLimb

a few nights ago i noticed a massive full moon, about twice to three times
as large from my same perspective, as the full moon i noticed in august/september.

About twice to three times? Sounds like you need a more accurate measuring device.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Human_Alien
That's why I am so amazed when NASA comes off as if it knows practically everything about our cosmos and yet it doesn't know about gravity and UFOs? But give them another galaxy and black holes and they are experts!

I think this amply demonstrates that you have no idea about science. What you wrote here is just so stunningly wrong. You GPS depends on precise application of theory of gravity. So yes, science tells us a lot about this and other things. And NASA knows little about cosmos, and nobody told you otherwise.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:59 AM
reply to post by Ben81



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:15 AM
May have been posted already...

but the moon does rotate on its own axis. where the earth takes 24 hours to complete a rotation, the moon takes just over 28 days i think (28.2 maybe, cant remember off the top of my head)

if you take 2 balls and rotate one around the other, it will always be a different side of the rotating one facing the stationary one. so for the moon (rotating one) to always show the same side to the earth (stationary one) it has to rotate on its own axis. try it out, just coincidence it completes one rotation on its own axis in the time it takes to complete a rotation around the earth

sounds easy when i explain it to myself, but if you have any trouble understanding my explanation just google it or try the experiment yourself

quick google brings up plenty of info, heres just one Rotation of moon

edit on 17-12-2012 by connelly4245 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-12-2012 by connelly4245 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Jetman44
We will find out something tomorrow(Monday 12/17) if it is.... NASA is going to crash two probes...

Let's see if the moon rings like a bell as it has done before, therefore signaling its hollowness.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:26 AM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Ben81

The Moon does rotate.

Now do you understand!!!

So why do we only have photographs of the face we always see, if the moon rotated we would see its 'backside'

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:35 AM
I havent read the whole thread but I did read into the subject a little in the past. So I want to present the following article for your scrutiny.. I thought it was a very interesting and well-informed read.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:46 AM

Originally posted by OutonaLimb
how does current science explain the origins and formation physics of the moon.
i read somewhere that it cannot.

The going theory (that the Moon was created out of an impact event involving earth and another protoplanet that occurred during earth's very early days) is incomplete and currently has a few inconsistencies, but that does not make it wrong. It just means we may need to gain a better understanding of some things about nature to help reconcile those inconsistencies.

There are a lot of theories in science that include holes or inconsistencies. That does not make those theories "all wrong". It just mean that we need to learn a few more things about nature to help us explain those inconsistencies. What we think we understand about the nature of those inconsistencies may not be correct.

a few nights ago i noticed a massive full moon, about twice to three times
as large from my same perspective, as the full moon i noticed in august/september.

how can this be, if the moon describes a roughly circular orbit around earth?

When people see the Moon near or a little ways above the horizon, there is an optical illusion that causes the Moon to look big. The exact cause of this illusion is still not quite understood, but I think it may have something to do with comparative size of the Moon and other objects. It seems that when we see the moon close to relatively close objects on our horizon (trees, buildings, mountains, etc.) the Moon can appear larger to our eyes than when it is high overhead in the sky.

However, it is the same size as when it is overhead. The next time you see a "huge looking" Moon at Moonrise, take out a measuring stick and hold it in front of you at arm's length and measure the width of the Moon. Measure it again four or so hours later when the Moon is overhead and looking much smaller. You will find that even though the Moon looked so much larger earlier, it will measure out to be the same size.

By the way, I noticed the full moon earlier this month, and it looked fine to me. The reason I remembering noticing it is because at the time I said to my self that it was good that the Moon was full then, because that means we would have a moonless sky (near the New Moon phase) for the Geminids Meteor shower, and it's always better to see meteors in a moonless sky.

edit on 12/17/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:35 AM
I watched the diagram, followed the thread, but still can't find the axis it rotates on! I think it seems that it is orbiting a kind of fixed orbit with no rotation x or y however the planet is rotating on an axis. what is the degree angle of the moons axis? hahah i win

I still don't see it. You are orbiting not spinning. If you are on the moon ask yourself which direction am I spinning, oh around the earth. you see the language is tricky but what wiki is saying is that its orbiting, er rotating around the earth in fixed position. the earth is rotating around itself. the moon does not rotate around itself. thank you good day

edit on 17-12-2012 by nrd101 because: (no reason given)

Its all about perspective really, try to find the axis of rotation, and you can't because the moon is ovoid, which means the heavy face of the moon is held in place by gravity. heavy side attracted to fat planet. Ok the moon rotates, just not around itself ok? around earth sure. I guess to add, you could find an axis in 3rd person diagram, so depending on your point of reference, I just don't subscribe to that view. I am either on the planet or on the moon.
edit on 17-12-2012 by nrd101 because: (no reason given)

Its really funny how they spin up the moon in this vid then lock its rotation as soon as it is going in orbit around earth. LOL

I would just like to take this time now to point out everything that you know or is science based provable, does not mean NASA is honest. Frankly I think it is a little dishonest even in this vid. I guess it just takes a genuine experience of out of this world phenomenon to start to believe the world around you isn't what it seems.
edit on 17-12-2012 by nrd101 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Ben81
reply to post by FinalCountdown

made me think about something i have read somewhere
that the moon is indeed an artificial satellite to control the cosmic energy flow
emprisonning all soul on earth from returning home after a life
making earth a giant prison planet with infinit reincarnation cycle
that nobody cant escape
edit on 12/16/2012 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)

that is very scary thought to think about and very few would actually believe this scenario but I being completely open minded don't rule out anything. John Lear and Hoagland have said theories about this and there's a soul catcher on the moon that takes your soul which could expand on what you said.

I know there is life out there and believe the evidence is overwhelming that they are interacting with Humans and our planet (maybe they never left) but seeing is believing. I've seen an overwhelming amount myself to believe in ET and ghosts etc. You can choose to take my word or not cuz jimmy crack corn. I'm not out to convince anyone of anything.

Lets actually say this is a prison planet and we are enslaved here for all of eternity. Many people will never open up fully to understand that maybe if we were trapped here, you would have different levels of consciousness as you learned more and more and internally although not truly understanding but knowing inside yourself as you keep living more and more lives. Maybe thats why certain people can see paranormal stuff. I just love thinking about all the scenarios that could be going on, I really hope one day I can discover the truth.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:31 AM
reply to post by nrd101

You have been given many different ways to explain why you are wrong, I recommend you accept it and then read the explanations again and you might realize why.

One more explanation
You should try to understand that movement and rotation are totally different things. If object moves without rotation it will face the same direction all the time (for example point to the same star since stars are relatively stationary from here). If you stand on the moon you can see that the stars are moving, thus moon is rotating.

You should also understand that you can't have different perspectives when talking scientific stuff like this. There is only one objective perspective and that is the space itself.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:33 AM
To the OP

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in