Is the Moon a Mothership ?

reply to post by OutonaLimb

i know what i observed. i was quite taken aback

You observed an illusion. Why do you think I commented earlier about the accuracy of your measuring device. If you would take Soylent's advice and measure it like he said you just might be surprised. I'll be even more surprised if you come back and admit he's correct.

The thing that makes me suspicious that the moon is there by design is the fact that it is exactly the right size and relative distance between the sun and us to give us a total eclipse! I sometimes think that may be some sort of hint or signature for us to consider as evidence that there is more than just us, but then we have a danger of going down the Ancient Aliens/Gods route which I struggle with

Having said that, the probability of a collision with a giant rock knocking just enough of our forming planet to just the right distance... (Is this still the current theory of the moon's formation?) to give us this "diamond ring" eclipse is pretty small!!

Originally posted by KristinLynnxo

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?

First of all, those dark trails are not shadows. As you can see from the images below (from your link), those dark trails go BOTH directions horizontally from those "objects", so they can't be shadows (shadows don't get cast in two directions 180 degrees apart.





To understand what those dark trails are, you need to understand what those "objects" are. They are not really objects at all, but instead they are film artifacts that showed up due to developing errors on the spacecraft that took these photos (Lunar Orbiter 5, from 1967).

The method Lunar Orbiter 5 used to take and transmit images to earth was to actually take real "film" pictures (not digital) right on the spacecraft and automatically develop those real film pictures right inside the spacecraft. Those pictures were then automatically scanned inside the spacecraft, then transmitted back to earth.

Errors in the development caused those white spots, and the scanning method caused those over-bright white spots to "bleed" a horizontal dark bar in the transmitted scans.

Originally posted by UKLionheart
Having said that, the probability of a collision with a giant rock knocking just enough of our forming planet to just the right distance... (Is this still the current theory of the moon's formation?) to give us this "diamond ring" eclipse is pretty small!!

But it wasn't knocked "just enough". The Moon is constantly moving away from Earth; the speed it is moving away right now is a little less than 4 cm per year. That means the Moon one billion years ago was closer to the Earth and larger-looking than the Sun. One billion years from now, it will be farther away and smaller-looking than the Sun.

Yeah -- you could say "then why is it that we humans just so happen to be living in a time when it is the same size", and I would answer that by saying it is just a coincidence.

reply to post by faceoff85

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!

I see. So a "source" which provides no sources is preferable.

reply to post by Phage


No its not. The point I tried to convey was that drafting theories and speculating based on findings, or a lack of expected findings, is the way science works. Why discourage it? Then, even a source-less article can provide interesting trains of thoughts.

reply to post by faceoff85

The point I tried to convey was that drafting theories and speculating based on findings, or a lack of expected findings, is the way science works. Why discourage it?

Theories require evidence.
Distorting or inventing "findings", as that article does, has no place in science.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by KristinLynnxo

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?

First of all, those dark trails are not shadows. As you can see from the images below (from your link), those dark trails go BOTH directions horizontally from those "objects", so they can't be shadows (shadows don't get cast in two directions 180 degrees apart.

To understand what those dark trails are, you need to understand what those "objects" are. They are not really objects at all, but instead they are film artifacts that showed up due to developing errors on the spacecraft that took these photos (Lunar Orbiter 5, from 1967).

The method Lunar Orbiter 5 used to take and transmit images to earth was to actually take real "film" pictures (not digital) right on the spacecraft and automatically develop those real film pictures right inside the spacecraft. Those pictures were then automatically scanned inside the spacecraft, then transmitted back to earth.

Errors in the development caused those white spots, and the scanning method caused those over-bright white spots to "bleed" a horizontal dark bar in the transmitted scans.

That makes sense - I forgot the name of the website I was on, it was like 'daily ufo' something, it has hundreds of moon photos other than the ones I had downloaded. The other photo with the steel beam looking thing could also be a photo error, except that it looks like it goes above then into/under the ground. Idk, it really is hard to look at some of these and determine fact/fake

Interesting thread. I really like the original post, every bit apart from the Moon being a spaceship.

Update: www.ibtimes.com...

Weren't there recorded documentations of times where there was no moon, then suddenly it came to be over night? WAY back when of course. WAY before BC.

I could have swore I read an article somewhere about a philosopher who wrote that the moon was once never there, magically appearing over night.

All my google searches come up with the same results being "What would earth be like without the moon..." So my search isn't going that great. But I came across a website where a guy claims the moon isn't real. Which ties in with all allegations that it's a satellite or a base.

I haven't had much of a look as I am at work (oops) but here is his website. www.revisionism.nl...

Call me crazy but I don't think it's too far fetched to believe that it may indeed be a satellite, base, or something of other origin.

reply to post by Phage


I believe you're fussing over semantics here, as many people confuse the word 'theory' for 'hypothesis'. That being said, "facts" are not always necessary to prove a theory. Using only facts to prove a theory limits the possibilities of the investigation, because you would be using only what you know at that point to prove something you know nothing (or very little) about. Creating new knowledge using only recycled facts isn't true innovation, it's simply adaptation to a paradigm that may be flawed. True innovation comes from thinking outside the box. I imagine there was quite a bit of 'free-thinking' involved in the early stages of the Manhattan Project.

It really frustrates me that 'Science' is supposed to be about exploration and investigation, however many people who claim to be Science oriented are closed minded to "outlandish" possibilities, but that attitude in itself contradicts the idea of Science in the first place.

I admit some of these ideas are a bit far-fetched and are mostly conjecture, however some of them are quite interesting and could be considered plausible.

Originally posted by faceoff85
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 careful not to do so...

With all due respect. Your first paragraph sounds like the begining of just about every pseudo-science documentary I've seen. Shall we debate the "evidence" so to speak? With related links and what not? heh.. I'm in. I'll be the first to say I am no scholar when it comes to this but I'm pretty convinced I'm in the right.

I'd like to see this link you previously put into the thread. I'll check, but if you reply anytime soon. a re-link might be nice too.

reply to post by haunebu52

That being said, "facts" are not always necessary to prove a theory.

Please reread the post to which I was replying. "The way science works" is this:
1) Hypothesis
2) Evidence
3) Theory
You can hypothesize all you want but if you start fabricating and distorting evidence as well as discounting evidence to the contrary to support your hypothesis, it isn't science.

It really frustrates me that 'Science' is supposed to be about exploration and investigation, however many people who claim to be Science oriented are closed minded to "outlandish" possibilities, but that attitude in itself contradicts the idea of Science in the first place.

I would say that there are many more scientists who are open to outlandish possibilites (as long is there is a lack evidence to the contrary) but evidence which is presented in support of those possibilities has to stand up. That is the way science works.

I admit some of these ideas are a bit far-fetched and are mostly conjecture, however some of them are quite interesting and could be considered plausible.

Interesting, sure. Plausible, no. Unless you just accept the "evidence" as presented without question.

reply to post by Phage


Excellent post. When will people stop thinking that a moon that has "vibrated" for example, is not EVIDENCE of a SPACESHIP!?!? Lol

I have found another one



if I think of it, looks like a hoax, looks too choreographed witch makes the first one also a fake

sorry, no alien base on the moon

I think the Moon is an inhabited planet. I've lived a whole affaie and i'm supposed to have leaned thanks to that that the Moon is inhabited. It is supposed to be a big planet with 9 billions inhabitants on it. We onl know the suface but if we go deepe in the Moon it can eveal the planet it is!!!

we ae so used to see the white Moon and igid that we don't conceive that it ma be the sk of the Moon!!! i'm sue if we saw ou own planet in an extenal point of view we'd view it the same. I bet it is tue that thee ae continents and oceans on the Moon!!!

reply to post by cathyx


No offense to you, but I don't understand many of the words of your two above posts.

Could you make them a little clearer so I (and others) might understand better?

letters are missing on my computer. I was saying that what I've learned because of a 10 years paranormal phenomenon the Moon is an inhabited planet and we're just so used to see it white and empty that we don't conceive either that the whole surface seeming to be rigid may be the sky of the Moon!!!

Originally posted by cathyx

letters are missing on my computer. I was saying that what I've learned because of a 10 years paranormal phenomenon the Moon is an inhabited planet and we're just so used to see it white and empty that we don't conceive either that the whole surface seeming to be rigid may be the sky of the Moon!!!

We can tell from seismic tests that the moon is solid.