Is the Moon a Mothership ?

Originally posted by texasgirl

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

uk.news.yahoo.com...

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

The Moon "Ringin" so to speak does not verify that the moon is hollow. There are other conclusions that can be made from a "ringing" as well. Such as planetary fractures and composition of the moon.

A "hollow" moon is one of many "shot down" ideas that have been proven to be invalid through other observations and experiments. I could go into greater detail if you'd like.

The Hollow moon has about as much truth to it as us living on a flat earth.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by Ben81

 

Great thread Ben. A point you make is dont wonder why it never rotate on itself like a normal planet.

If the moon was a real planetoid body it be solid and therefore have enough mass to create the gravitation force needed to rotate it. It doesnt rotate and therefore this could be a give away the moon is a hollow sphere. A hollow sphere with fraction of the mass compared to if it was solid. Therefore a hollow moon will not have enough mass to create the gravitation force for rotation. A stong indicator the moons interior is artificial.

Jesus H Christ, what a bunch of baloney. Well if you read this thread you probably encountered "tidal lock", so there. It's sad that you haven't learned this in school.

And further, the mass of a spherical object has nothing to do with whether it rotates or not. Why you would even consider such connection is baffling. "Gravitational force for rotation"? Puh-leeze.

reply to post by foodstamp


A theory being "shot down" is only aplicable when the evidence supporting it is conclusive. Since none of the really conclusive evidence proves or disproves anything major, except for some circumstancial details, this statement cannot be true. The link I put up in my previous post talks about quite a few controversial issue's in regards to the moon and its origin. Of wich none have been proven false or true BTW. the same thing aplies to mainstream science. Its one huge pile of assumptions and hypotheses.

Then how can we possibly form any kind of conclusion? we cant. So we should be carefull not to do so...

Originally posted 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.

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

Sometimes, after a night of drinking, my head feels twice to three times as large from the same perspective, especially in august/december. At those times, it also seems to be on a roughly circular orbit around earth.

Somehow, I doubt it makes is a suitable "mothership".

Armstrong: I can't go into details, except to say that their
ships were far superior to ours both in size and
technology - Boy, were they big! and menacing!

i must know more about Armstrongs quotes!

where did he say this?
When did he say this?
Is it only written documentation or is there video/voice recordings?

reply to post by faceoff85

he link I put up in my previous post talks about quite a few controversial issue's in regards to the moon and its origin. Of wich none have been proven false or true BTW.

The link you put up is a repetition of the same nonsense which has been discussed often.

Among these “breath-stopping” mysteries or anomalies as scientists prefer to call them is the fact that the Moon is far older than previously imagined, perhaps even much older than the Earth and Sun.

False. No such evidence exists. pubs.usgs.gov...

Contrary to the idea that heavier objects sink, the heavier rocks are found on the surface.

Evidence? Where?

Yet Apollo 16 astronauts found Moon rocks that contained bits of rusted iron. Since oxidation requires oxygen and free hydrogen, this rust indicates there must be water somewhere on the Moon.

Rusted iron? Source? Well, there is some water on the Moon but it doesn't take water for oxidation to occur.

The vapor cloud eruptions lasted 14 hours and covered an area of some 100 square miles

Evidence? Where?

So where did the magnetism come from

A time when the Moon did have a magnetic field. Billions of years ago. www.space.com...

Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, “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 homogeneous sphere.”

Based on earlier assumptions that would be one conclusion. MacDonald did not believe it to be the case. It is known that the Moon is indeed much less dense than the Earth.
The average density of the moon is less than earth because it has a very small iron core in comparison to Earth.

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...

I think the moon is a alien base.

Originally posted by alex45
I think the moon is a alien base.

No, but Elvis certainly was an alien.

To get to the real mysteries of the moon -- and there are many -- you have to struggle your way through the fake ones, and especially the long-discredited fake ones whose explanations are omitted or overlooked by enthusiastic reposters. I've tried to discuss many of those 'classics' on my home page [link in my signature], and I hope anyone serious about their interest looks that material over, too. It's too bad there seems to be no practical internet search engine method that can answer the basic question, 'who argues against this theory X?'

Below are some visual aids I made a few months ago for another thread about the Moon's rotation. This will help understand how the Moon rotates once every time it revolves around the Earth.

Here is the Earth and Moon. This graphic is looking "down" on the earth and moon from above their north poles. The Moon (red circle) is shown in 12 different locations as it makes its 29-day orbit around the Earth.

The red line indicates the side of the moon that is always facing Earth. As the Moon orbits the Earth, it is oriented so that same face of the Moon is always pointing toward the Earth.





NOW, lets take each of those 12 orientations of the Moon, and put them together -- one by one -- in a little animation, as seen here. Each frame of this animation is one of the 12 orientations of the moon shown, each in order:



This animation repeats itself, so what it shows would be the continuous motion of the moon, month after month, year after year.

Looking at this animation, it certainly appears that the Moon rotates.

Note: Please ignore the slight wobble in my animation -- that was inadvertent. I'm not that skilled at making ".gif" files, and I didn't feel like going back and fixing the "wobble".

some of you guys are just unbelievable... Moon is not rotating, no gravity proof...
I can't stop shaking my head...

and you try to talk about Lunar being an spaceship ??

how old are you? 3 ?

I can understand some people never had a proper education at all, but this here must be just a big joke,
when will you start claiming that 2+2=5 LOL

unbelievable !!!!

you and the girl in this video must be from the same country I guess



sorry for this little off topic, can we start talking about about the video please???
is there any more youtube proof of Lunar being a base?

reply to post by AthlonSavage

It doesnt rotate and therefore this could be a give away the moon is a hollow sphere.

How many illustrations, explanations, and links will it take people to realize that the moon DOES indeed rotate?????????????????????

Originally posted by KrzYma

is there any more youtube proof of Lunar being a base?

This is somewhat oxymoronic.

thanks for the reply.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

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.

so which parts of the accepted theory are wrong and which are right?
if it is not a workable theory and is contradicted by empirical data,
then it should be discarded or greatly modified, no?

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.

i know what i observed. i was quite taken aback
on both occasions, at the apparent size deviations from 'normal'.
it was way too small on the first occasion and way too large on the second.
i attempted to record it on the first occasion, but it didn't come out too well.
the moon was high in the sky on both occasions and horizon illusions didn't come into it.

reply to post by Phage

Among these “breath-stopping” mysteries or anomalies as scientists prefer to call them is the fact that the Moon is far older than previously imagined, perhaps even much older than the Earth and Sun.

False. No such evidence exists. pubs.usgs.gov...

I know you are a respected member of these boards Phage and quite frankly I take you comments seriously because of my experience with your posts. However the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I think its useless and ill-informed to come to conclusions based on things, science itself acknowledges, that are not necesarilly 100% correct. Most conclusions being made, are creating that much more questions. With that in mind its fun to play with theories. yesterday there was a thread on this youtube video wich created alot of perspectives you'd probably not come up with yourself.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'd recommend a watch. Not a complete waste of 30 mins.

About the total lack of evidence pointed out I believe its good to keep in mind who it is that is breast-feeding us this so-called evidence that we DO get! In 1 corner of ATS the hot topics are centered around the idea that TPTB are actively throwing dust in our eyes in order to ensure that the masses never REALLY know what is going on, and in the other corner that same dust is being used as solid evidence



Keep an open mind and deny ignorance

Phobos is the moon shaped spaceship you are looking for, just ask the Russians.

Since no one says it, Phage seems to be John Lithgow Phage, why are you fighting us ?

Good questions, I love looking at this kind of stuff. Either way, wonderfully interesting
I want to know what these things/structures are on the moon that are casting shadows?




The most accepted reason for the moon always showing us one side:

Tidal Friction:. The Earth's gravity pulls on the closest tidal bulge, trying to keep it aligned with Earth. As the Moon turns, feeling the Earth's gravity, this creates friction within the Moon, slowing the Moon's rotation down until its rotation matches its orbital period exactly, a state we call tidal synchronization. In this state, the Moon's tidal bulge is always aligned with Earth, which means that the Moon always keeps one face toward Earth

Other planets raise tides on their moons, too, so almost all the moons in the Solar System are tidally synchronized. There's even one planet that is sychronized to its moon! Charon, Pluto's moon, is so large and so close to Pluto that the planet and moon are both locked into the same rotational rate. The Moon slows the Earth's rotation, too, but at a very slow rate, increasing the length of the day by a couple of milliseconds each century.

source - curious.astro.cornell.edu...



Info From NASA on our Solar System's moons:

Usually the term moon brings to mind a spherical object, like Earth's Moon. The two moons of Mars, Phobos and Deimos, are different. While both have nearly circular orbits and travel close to the plane of the planet's equator, they are lumpy and dark. Phobos is slowly drawing closer to Mars and could crash into the planet in 40 or 50 million years. Or the planet's gravity might break Phobos apart, creating a thin ring around Mars.

Jupiter has 50 known moons (plus 16 awaiting official confirmation), including the largest moon in the solar system, Ganymede. Many of Jupiter's outer moons have highly elliptical orbits and orbit backwards (opposite to the spin of the planet). Saturn, Uranus and Neptune also have some irregular moons, which orbit far from their respective planets.

Saturn has 53 known moons (plus 9 awaiting official confirmation). The chunks of ice and rock in Saturn's rings (and the particles in the rings of the other outer planets) are not considered moons, yet embedded in Saturn's rings are distinct moons or moonlets. These shepherd moons help keep the rings in line. Saturn's moon Titan, the second largest in the solar system, is the only moon with a thick atmosphere.

In the realm of the ice giants, Uranus has 27 known moons. The inner moons appear to be about half water ice and half rock. Miranda is the most unusual; its chopped-up appearance shows the scars of impacts of large rocky bodies.

Neptune has 13 known moons. And Neptune's moon Triton is as big as the dwarf planet Pluto and orbits backwards compared with Neptune's direction of rotation.

Pluto's large moon Charon is about half the size of Pluto. Like Earth's Moon, Charon may have formed from debris resulting from an early collision of an impactor with Pluto. In 2005, scientists using the Hubble Space Telescope to study Pluto found two additional, but very small, moons. The little moons Nix and Hydra are about two to three times as far from Pluto as Charon and roughly 5,000 times fainter than Pluto. Eris, another dwarf planet even more distant than Pluto, has a small moon of its own, named Dysnomia. Haumea, another dwarf planet, has two satellites, Hi'iaka and Namaka.

source - solarsystem.nasa.gov...

Pretty much.

Originally posted by Speckle
Phobos is the moon shaped spaceship you are looking for, just ask the Russians.

Could you please provide a link?
I'm not sure which Russian you want me to ask.

I find it hilarious that so many people in this thread speak with any sort of certainty on this topic.

"the moon is almost certainly some kind of space station".

Lol... oi vey.

I'm almost positive that all of the quotes in the OP are utter BS, considering there is never a decent link for them and they have been kicking around ATS for years.

Besides those suspect quotes, the only evidence is "I'm pretty sure the moon is a space station".

I want to believe... but I don't.