I was told to make people see this:

What I am going to write here is something I found I had written sometime back here at ATS and maybe it is time to bring it forward again for discussion.

I was told to make people see this: "From the Grey's"

The Moon is the wrong size for Earth, I was told to have them look at all the Planets and Moons in the Solar System everything is the wrong size for one another.

I made mention about the terraforming of the Solar System and the reverse terraforming of Earth, hmmmmm.

They wouldn't tell me this if there wasn't a reason maybe we can come up with why I could have been told to bring this to light. It didn't go anywhere way back when I wrote it, maybe it is time now, any thoughts?

Amazing! Can you please post pics of your "Grey" friends! If true, this could be life changing.

Originally posted by observe50
The Moon is the wrong size for Earth, I was told to have them look at all the Planets and Moons in the Solar System everything is the wrong size for one another.

I wonder what is meant here. Is there a 'right' size for a planet and moon? In fact, the moon and the earth are technically a binary system. A binary planetary system is one where the two planets rotate around each other. As I remember it the midpoint in our earth/moon system is within the crust of the earth not very deep. Also, I've heard said (maybe someone else can add more details) that the moon is at the perfect distance to earth for sustaining life and that if the moon were not exactly where it is causing tides, etc., that the chances of life on earth would be far less. now I'm pretty hazy at astronomy, so I'm sure someone else has a better explanation than mine (so don't beat me up on this).

Of course, if you believe George Adamski and John Lear, the moon has a breathable atmosphere, a gravity half (not a sixth) of the earth, cities and a population, so hey, put that in the mix, too.

Oops, I see you started another thread. Consider this next for that tnhread, then. Sorry.

What I'm partiularly interested in are the details of you talking with these beings. You've been giving little tidbits here and there of conversations, but I still am not clear on the extent and method of these communications. George Adamski and Truman Bethurum, for example, actually went aboard flying saucers (or "scows" in Bethurum's case) and talked to beings who were more or less just like us. They lectured to these guys, told them stuff, and they repeated it back to us in the books they wrote in the fifties. Sleeper, on the other hand, talks to 'Milton' in his head. I think that's right. I haven't been following that massive thread, so I may have that slightly wrong. Strieber, on the other hand, had conversations with greys during abductions that were brought up via hypnosis, at least initially. So my question is, do your communications with these greys bear any resemblance to the accounts we've been told in the past, or do yours follow a different sort of trend altogether?

[edit on 6/22/2007 by schuyler]

[edit on 6/22/2007 by schuyler]

I never learned to do that but I have no pictures to post.

The Grey I learn from is a tall Grey there are many pictures around that do them justice.

Even with having travels in the ships I don't know much about our Solar System all I can do is bring what I have been asked to bring forward and maybe we all can figure things out.

The way I see it there has to be some reason why I was asked to do this.

Observe50
The Moon is the wrong size for Earth, I was told to have them look at all the Planets and Moons in the Solar System everything is the wrong size for one another.

Here are some of the irregularities concerning the moon I've heard before:
1- The moon's orbit should be elliptical but isn't. Therefore it was put in place and wasn't a captured body.
2- Early NASA soundings indicated the moon is hollow and seemed metalic.
3- For it's size its orbit should be further out (assuming it is made of similar material as Earth).
4- The moon has more gravity than was expected.
5- The moon's one side facing earth would not be expected naturally.
6- The implication is that the moon is a non natural body put in place.

Originally posted by observe50
I never learned to do that but I have no pictures to post.

You'll have to get a picture for us next time then, won't you?

If you need an excuse about why you can't take a pic of one, please PM me and I can give you any one of thousands, no doubt you will have a good excuse ready anyway.

Originally posted by plumranch
2- Early NASA soundings indicated the moon is hollow and seemed metalic.

This one is frequently taken out of context. NASA hit the moon with one stage of a booster, and it "rang like a bell".

Knowledge of Lunar Interior Structure. Like Earth, the Moon has a crust, mantle, and core. The lunar crust is rich in the mineral plagioclase and has an average crustal thickness of 60-70 kilometers, which is about 3 times the average crustal thickness on Earth. The lunar mantle lies between the crust and the core and consists mostly of the minerals olivine and pyroxene. The core is probably composed mostly of iron and sulfur and extends from the center of the Moon out to a radius of no more than 450 kilometers; i.e., the core radius is less than 25% of the Moon's radius, which is quite small. In comparison, Earth's core radius is 54% of Earth's radius. However, the size of the lunar core is not well constrained by existing seismic observations. Better constraints come from the laser ranging retroreflector and magnetometer experiments.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Some of these alien post s may be the work of GOVT agents propolgating the alien angle for the segway into the new world order

Hoax.

There is no "right" or "wrong" size of planets. As you can see just from our solar system, they come in a variety of sizes, and some are not even solid masses.

If Earth is "reverse terraformed", how come life is only on our planet, and all the "terraformed" planets as your "grey friends" suggest are barren and desolate.

You also said that you already made a thread on this, why didn't you just bump that one instead of starting a whole new one?

By Observe50:
The way I see it there has to be some reason why I was asked to do this.

An example of a similar suggestion is the "Teacher" in Charles Hall's "Millennial Hospitality" series. Hall was interested in what powered the Tall White's craft. "Teacher" suggested he look into the properties of light. Later in his life Hall did just that and became a physicist specializing in light properties. It is postulated by Tom Bearden that gravity is produced by light interference in the X, Y, and Z axis. Bearden Website.

by Yarcofin
all the "terraformed" planets as your "grey friends" suggest are barren and desolate.

Do you have proof that the other planets are barren and desolate?

Originally posted by plumranch
Here are some of the irregularities concerning the moon I've heard before:
1- The moon's orbit should be elliptical but isn't. Therefore it was put in place and wasn't a captured body.

Accepted theory doesn't say it is a captured body, but rather formed from the earth during the early solar system when another large body smashed into the proto-earth.

Originally posted by plumranch
2- Early NASA soundings indicated the moon is hollow and seemed metalic.

Addressed by Yarcofin...

Originally posted by plumranch
3- For it's size its orbit should be further out (assuming it is made of similar material as Earth).

The moon is actually moving away from the earth. It was very close in the distant past and in the distant future it will be very far away. This supports the theory it was formed from the proto-earth.

Originally posted by plumranch
4- The moon has more gravity than was expected.

Elaborate.

If this is based of John Lears claims, then there is no evidence for this apart from extraordinary claims with no evidence..

Originally posted by plumranch
5- The moon's one side facing earth would not be expected naturally.

Why? It is tidally locked. It is perfectly natural and explainable.

Originally posted by plumranch
6- The implication is that the moon is a non natural body put in place.

Who's implication? What do you base this on?

In comparison, the sun and the moon, the sun is guargantian. Ever wonder why the look the same size from our view from earth? How is it that they fit together perfectly.

Uh, because the moon is 8 million miles closer than the sun so when it crosses in front of it then it looks much bigger than it really is?

You have to understand that they can be pranksters with wicked senses of humor. They once told me I was talking to Eddie Van Halen through my computer headseat...Then it was President Clinton and there was a war between us and them and that I helped to stop it...Truth is that they run the show and have since our inseption...Bigger ones as well as the so called
"Greys."

Originally posted by observe50

The Moon is the wrong size for Earth, I was told to have them look at all the Planets and Moons in the Solar System everything is the wrong size for one another.

Can you clarify this particular point please? What do you mean with "wrong sizes"?

By Stumason:
Elaborate. (Regarding more gravity than anticipated)

Based on astronaut experience in moon walks.

Accepted theory doesn't say it is a captured body, but rather formed from the earth during the early solar system when another large body smashed into the proto-earth

Whether it is formed from earth or captured the odds of it forming the near perfect, non elliptical orbit it has is unlikely.

Why? It is tidally locked. It is perfectly natural and explainable.

I don't understand the "tidally locked". What locks it? The moon must be more dense on one side although I've never heard this stated?

Who's implication? What do you base this on?

My supposition based on perfect orbit, one side faces earth constantly, not made of same stuff as earth.

Van Halen really suck.

Originally posted by All Seeing Guy
Van Halen really suck.

That is uncalled for!

you claim to talk to aliens, and you expect us to believe this?

Bring proof....