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.

 

Aliens. Is this the proof?

page: 2
78
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


So what you're saying is that the solar system is artificially contrived, perhaps by an architect or maybe a set designer ? This dude had a theory...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.

William Shakespeare




posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 





How many planets in our solar system? How many solar systems in our galaxy? How many stars/planets in all the solar systems in our galaxy? How many galaxies in the known/unknown universe?




from Voidhawk


The above does NOT work with any other planets/moons within our solar system!



So Argyll if I discover that the rate of gravitational acceleration is 9.80665 at sea level, I would need to build a spacship and explore the whole universe to do all the calculations to see if I had a validated hypothesis pertaining to the Earth?

Yeah come on!





In the book the authors suggest that whoever it was that set up our solar system so that it could support life, would have been able to control the earths spin and orbital rate


Maybe this is what really scares you, the power and energy involved, that maybe we are insignificant test tube microbes, playthings of an older powerful race. Oh well there goes Darwin or Ambiogenesis



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


S&F Voidhawk.

I love the moon conspiracies and I too believe something is being hidden up there. The Astronaut testimony alone is compelling.

To bring to the table something of relevance to offer....

There are I believe four or five theories of where the moon came from. The Giant Impact Theory (Gravitational Ring Ejection), Fission Theory, Colliding Panetismal Theory, Condensed Asteroid Theory, and Capture Theory.

Please note - Artificial Moon theory is not even up for plausible discussion in academia. No wonder Phage is here!


It is interesting that a detailed comparison of lunar rocks and earth rocks rather dispute all these theories. As, if the moon was made from the same stuff that comprised the Earth, or even came from earth at a later time of planetary evolution such as the impact theory - the composition of the lunar rocks should show more similarity. It just doesn't. Indicating to my mind, that this was a foreign body traveling through the cosmos and was "captured" (or stopped) and it's artificial.

Hypothetically, perhaps our missing link, is the giant space ship orbiting us, that originally transported us here... and well then we did what all Apex predators do... killed the natives.

CdT



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth
 


the composition of the lunar rocks should show more similarity.
How much similarity are you looking for?


After correcting for secondary effects associated with cosmic-ray exposure at the lunar surface using samarium and gadolinium isotope systematics, we find that the 50Ti/47Ti ratio of the Moon is identical to that of the Earth within about four parts per million, which is only 1/150 of the isotopic range documented in meteorites. The isotopic homogeneity of this highly refractory element suggests that lunar material was derived from the proto-Earth mantle, an origin that could be explained by efficient impact ejection, by an exchange of material between the Earth’s magma ocean and the protolunar disk, or by fission from a rapidly rotating post-impact Earth.
www.nature.com...



We show that these variations represent large-scale evaporation of zinc, most probably in the aftermath of the Moon-forming event, rather than small-scale evaporation processes during volcanism. Our results therefore represent evidence for volatile depletion of the Moon through evaporation, and are consistent with a giant impact origin for the Earth and Moon.
www.nature.com...


After consideration of cosmic-ray spallation and degassing processes, our results demonstrate that lunar magmatic water has an isotopic composition that is indistinguishable from that of the bulk water in carbonaceous chondrites and similar to that of terrestrial water, implying a common origin for the water contained in the interiors of Earth and the Moon.
www.sciencemag.org...


The cloud of debris reformed itself into the modern Earth and moon. This "giant impact" theory neatly explained why the rocks Apollo astronauts brought back from the moon closely resembled rocks on Earth—or so it seemed at first.
www.sciencemag.org...

While the details of the giant impact theory does still have problems, lunar rocks are not one of them. Nor is the basis of the theory, that the Moon is the result of of a cosmic impact (or impacts).



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I fail to understand how accumulation of debris can have a core, gravity, glue to hold it together AND an atmosphere.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by lotusfoot
 

Then I guess you fail to understand the concept of planetary formation or that gravity is the "glue".


edit on 2/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   

The GUT
Even if the numbers do fluctuate a bit, we're still looking at some amazing facts. Excellent food for thought, V-Hawk. Thanks for a quality thread.



edit on 8-2-2014 by The GUT because: (no reason given)


Mild fluctuations does suggest something is nearer to by design than randomness and coincidence does it not! Very strange regardless of the scinical dismissal of
the number patterns. (what little we the public know!)

Also note that 366 is the days in a leap year.

Too much approximatty is possibly more than just coincidence.

Interesting thread.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   

VoidHawk
Wow, all the regulars with their usual sarcasm.
I must be onto something!


Yes it is my friend



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


VoidHawk, I suggest you pick up a copy of "Quadrivium" at your nearest retail book store. It will blow your mind. There actually ARE certain very perfectly geometric patterns found in many of the planets of this solar system, in terms of ratios of orbital radii etc.

You will find the creations of 2-dimensional dodecahedrons, icosahedrons, and much more.

You want to know what I think? I think if this solar system is all just by "Chance," then this is truly a very, very special one indeed. It doesn't need to be "made" by any E.T., and if this solar system. including all positioning and make up of these planets, are a natural occurrence, all I gotta say is
Awesome.
edit on 9-2-2014 by 1Providence1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2014 by 1Providence1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by lotusfoot
 

Then I guess you fail to understand the concept of planetary formation or that gravity is the "glue".


edit on 2/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Yes, gravity, the force that forces patterns of resonance upon everything, at least I'm assuming...



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Wow that picture of the moon and earth reminds me of their cubing the circle or trying to make infinity finite. I think its a part of a hack on the matrix.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Ok this image makes no sense...



Squaring the earth?

Wouldn't that mean the edges of the earth match the square?

Why does the earth go outside the edges?

What am I missing?



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 03:04 AM
link   

AlphaHawk
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Ok this image makes no sense...



Squaring the earth?

Wouldn't that mean the edges of the earth match the square?

Why does the earth go outside the edges?

What am I missing?




I believe it's the perimeter of the square equals the circumference of the circle.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Looks like someone has been deeply looking into the fabricated false numbers and "work" of Christopher Knight and Alan Butler.

Both are refuted and known for making up measurements that are not factual or correct to push a book's sales.

I am sorry you are deeply looking into this and not the landslide of information that is academic and in the public domain that both destroys these two men and exposes them for the scam artists they are.

I'm sorry, but Christopher Knight and Alan Butler are both hucksters and intellectually dishonest in their pursuit for E-fame, cash and undeserved notoriety.

Thankfully their "work" is not accepted or respected anywhere but within Youtube circles and fantasy minded folks who do not have a tolerance or desire for real research.


PS- I hope you also don't buy into their space-ship moon theories…those are overly flawed and filled with intentional lies as well.

MM
edit on 9-2-2014 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Providence1
 

Squaring the circle means drawing a circle with the same area of a given square. Algebraically, this cannot be done because there is no finite algebraic proportion to work with (pi is both irrational and transcendental)

edit on 9-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   
If you stand by the sea looking at a sunset or sunrise the sun is actually below the horizon, only when exactly the entire height of the sun is visible does it actually cross the horizon. You only see the before if crosses the horizon because the atmosfear bends the light. The strange coincidence(?) here is that only when the entire sun is visible does it actually physically cross the horizon line. QI clip from BBC below explains it better than me





posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 



Where is the moon in drawings before the mega disasters? (Answer: She was too far away to be seen.)


Au contraire, 'she' was closer the further back in time you go.

The Moon is drifting away from Earth by approximately 3.78 cm a year.

edit on 9.2.2014 by CJCrawley because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
and what about earth's 2nd moon i once read about. we were meant to have 2 moons thousands of years ago! where has that gone? and where did the rock for the pyramids and all those stone circles come from???



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Imo.:
When i put Milk, just for example, in to a Centrifuge
and start to use her i would get different Stuff
but all in a Relation to each other!



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Isn't the moon gradually changing its position and moving further away from earth?

in a few billion years it will be even further, there will be no more full eclipses and days will be longer as earth rotation get slower

BBC

All the wonderful coincidences are just that



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join