whats wrong with the moon part 2

Keep thinking about my questions while I go to another board and debunk there...........it might take a while for anyone to answer them, especially if they feel embarrased!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I am saddened beyond words to see this response.

It is rare that I (or the others who have helped, in multiple ways) fail to instruct. (I can't speak for them, but for ME?? I see it as a sort of personal failure. Not "personal" in the sense that I have failed overall..but just in this one instance..... I somehow missed finding that one "MAGIC KEY" --- the one to the special light bulb socket that makes it go 'ON' in someone's mind --- and "failed" you, in that regard.

Perhaps someday, the right "key" will turn up, and unlock that block in your perception....like it or not, there ARE people who derive a certain pleasure from being able to instruct....when the person on the receiving end has that "AhHah!" moment of clarity and understanding.

it IS a way to diminish ignorance, and IGNORANCE (while not the fault of the innocent) can be a lead weight around the ankles of those who have not yet had the opportunity to dispel the poor information that may have caused their "ignorance" of the reality and science, and continues to drag them down, and leave them behind the rest......


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To add:

I see in that post, after the "opening remarks", (the ones that saddened me so greatly) an attempt was made to post three images. My browser tells me that they cannot be read....the box with the "red 'X' of death" is all that appears. Care to retry??

Because, once we see your three examples, I am sure that I (or anyone else, who happens to step up, if my timezone means that I am asleep, and someone else in a different timezone wishes to field the points, the images, and the questions), please feel free. ANY of us will be able to address your issues, rest assured....

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hi WW

You are wasting your time!

All I can say is this.

Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Thats the guy this saying is about

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I see in that post, after the "opening remarks", (the ones that saddened me so greatly) an attempt was made to post three images. My browser tells me that they cannot be read....the box with the "red 'X' of death" is all that appears. Care to retry??

Really? The "funny" thing is I can see them perfectly! Hit refresh or F5 button....

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I am on my laptop, as I am not at home...and using another ISP server.

So, laugh all you wish. The photos have come up. (#1)....The girl and bucket (you obviously don't understand)

(#2) ....The "whirly" ride, with people in chairs, at the end of cables (you still don't comprehend).

(#3)....The "super-duper" merry-go-'round (essentially what it is)....you STILL don't understand.

LAST hint, just-in-case....in EVERY EXAMPLE YOU PRESENTED there is one thing in common. WHAT is it??

[[>>it's physical

really, if they don;t get the "tennis ball and flashlight" explanation....just say thankyou!! haha

and leave..!!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Watch this video use full screen button



You can see the Earths rotation about its OWN axis you can see the Moon orbit the Earth and you can see the Moon rotates about its OWN axis something YOU cant seem to get your head round!

You can download the FREE software look at other Moons of other Plantes in the Solar System that do the same list was given a few pages back iirc.

After read the whole topic ARE WE SAFE OR NOT??? IF IS A YES = GOOD IF NOT=HOW LONG??

reply to post by rocha123

ARE WE SAFE OR NOT???

Yes

IF IS A YES = GOOD

Good

IF NOT...

Irrelevant. Good.

reply to post by weedwhacker


What a waste of time this thread was. You and the other deniers failed to answer a single question of mine, while I answered all of yours. How exactly is that fair? You think just because you have an "advanced degree" in something that gives you the right to abuse people and call them names? Who the hell do you think you are???

Why are you and the other deniers on ATS if you can't contemplate alternative views and listen to other people's arguements. You think you have a monopoly on the truth? If so then you are sadly mistaken "my friend" and I would add you are very ignorant and naive! Don't worry you are not alone, I counted at least 5-6 people who can't listen.

To be frank I should have quit when you were quick to label richard hoagland "con artist"(sic), "insane"(sic) and "delusional"(sic). Some of the comments you made were typical of james oberg and phil platt who have an obssession in attacking him, yet get proved wrong again and again. Ad hominem attacks do very little to enhance the truth wheedwhacker so may I suggest you grow up, listen more, speak less and most importantly stop thinking so highly of yourself.

I am not trying to insult you but I will admit your behavior on ATS, especially from the 9-11 board. leaves a lot to be desired. How can someone be a regular visitor there FOR YEARS yet still believe the official story in all its entirety? And then you have the nerve to brag about your career as a flight instructor when you can't even put 2 and 2 to get 4.........give me a break!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


The only direct insults I've seen have come from you. IN that last post, especially.

Dick Hoagland is NOT a member of ATS, so he is fair game to be called what he is: A charlatan. I think he's either incredibly stupid (unlikely) or a huckster (more likely). I label bad people like that "idiots"...not for being stupid, but for being terrible people. Liars. Frauds.

Nor is Hoagland a real topic of this thread, in the main. Except, inasmuch as his whacked -out "claims" might ever impact the way the OP presented, and to dispute the "worries" of the Moon being "wrong" in some way. Because, it's perfectly normal. It is some people's incredibly incorrect views that are "wrong"...and it is sad to see such mistakes perpetuated, to confuse and pollute the minds of those who are still learning.


Now, this started primarily from your post that referenced this "article" from "grant chronicles".

A hot mess of incorrect claims, and based on a seriously flawed perception of reality. Odd, in your post, you even included snippets of pertinent text, where the author of that "article" had it right...at first, but completely misunderstood and jumped the shark in his "analysis" and interpretation of how the Moon actually moves, and more importantly, WHY!! (For example, he confuses gravitational attraction, with a physical connection...as if it has some actual, tangible and physical effect directly. Your three photos displayed the same misconceptions).

The ONLY effect of gravity, in terms of rotation of the Moon, is in altering its rate of rotation, over the billions of years that the Moon has been there....until we see it today, in the apparent state of equilibrium that has developed, because of MUTUAL gravitational attraction. Of course the Moon's mass is sufficiently less, so that IT slowed more, and was affected more, by the Earth, since Earth is much more massive.

These interactions continue, to the effect that the Moon is STILL "robbing" angular momentum energy from Earth, as it has been doing for ~4Billion years. It HAS slowed the rate of Earth's rotation in that time period, and the extra energy it receives in doing so means that its orbit is very, very slowly increasing its distance. This has been measured VERY accurately since 1969...when Apollo 11 left the retro-reflectors, for the most precise way to get the best measure of distance, and change over time.

The Moon used to rotate faster, of course. BUT there were no Humans to see this (and to see it much larger in the sky, since it was closer to us). 3 Billion years ago, is when this was the case. It changed, all so gradually, until what we see today.

THIS is the way the orbital mechanics of physics, and the math, is. It is reality, it is immutable. Copernicus, Galileo, Hoyle, Kepler, et al have done this work, it has been checked and re-checked millions of times by now, refined as technology invents more precise ways to measure to more precise detail....etc.

This is where the "grantchronicles" go so terribly wrong:

Within in this frame of reference, the Moon follows its rotational path as gravity turns the direction of motion of the Moon inward maintaining orbital distance and any reference on the surface of the Moon changes direction by 360 degrees with the frame in relation to the Earth. The problem the Moon rotation that those who formulated this theory, is that they confused completing a curved path of rotation where points of an object do change in relation to others in an expanded reference frame. The frame of reference used for rotational spin contains only the object itself. The definition of spin about an axis is the object must complete 1 rotation about its axis within the frame no matter what motion the frame itself takes on.

What a mess! He says it correctly at first, then goes off into La-La-Land there, with the irrelevant crap about the orbital path of the Moon. He says it, right here:

....and any reference on the surface of the Moon changes direction by 360 degrees with the frame in relation to the ....

...except, he writes "...to the Earth..." at the end. IF he substituted "Sun" instead, then he'd be precisely correct. "..surface of the Moon changes direction by 360 degrees....". Translation? IT ROTATES ABOUT ITS AXIS!!!

Rest of his "explanation" involves the same mistaken belief and analogy, of a PHYSICAL connection of some sort.

Planets, as they orbit each other, and/or their star, have NO direct physical connection.

The "grantchronicles" fails to comprehend this, and thus draws very false conclusions....born from a deep ignorance and lack of understanding, apparently.

It is truly sad that anyone would come along, and disparage thousands and thousands of very well educated people, to include Phil Plaitt, and try to claim that ALL OF THEM are "wrong".

It is amazing in its audacity, and foolishness......

THAT doesn't matter, except in the fact of the radius of orbit, and the period of time it takes to follow one orbital path.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Even if the moon does rotate in a synchronous fashion it does not prove the moon is a natural satellite.

In fact all the evidence points to an artificial satellite...aka our spaceship moon!

Read it or leave it, all up to your discretion. Thanks for the discussion and sorry for being "stubborn".

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Most moons in the solar system are tidally locked to their parent planet and only present one side to their parent planet, just as our moon does. Although our moon does have some unusual attributes, that is not one of them, and none of them indicate it to be a spaceship. In fact, its moment of inertia (0.393) indicates it's a sphere of mostly consistent density with slightly higher density towards its core than at its surface. A hollow sphere, as many have accused the moon of being in making the "spaceship" argument, would have a radically different moment of inertia, approximately 0.67. A solid sphere of constant density would be 0.4 and a planet with a significant and dense core like earth would be 0.33. The moon is between the latter two, on the wrong side of the 0.4 number; anything greater than 0.4 would indicate less density and perhaps hollowness near the core.

Originally posted by pazcat
reply to post by NWOnoworldorder

 

Firstly, your second link is a failed link. I had to go dig up one of his vids on my own and all it does is repeat the same old story from the first video using the same pictures at the end. It adds nothing new to the first video. Which for me at least is easily explainable.
What is the source of these pictures anyway? Von Helton?
They are obviously out there on the web on some site.
Basically it doesn't matter anyway, all you have to do to keep a track on the moon yourself is to look at it or if you prefer the indoors type of thing just check out a few astronomy forums lunar section, daily many people will put pics up of what they saw last night. If your lucky you might even get a location. Do this long enough you will have quite a collection of changing Moon pics and you yourself can make the same sort of rubbish these people are sprouting.
Von Helton even admits he doesn't know what he is talking about.
As for smokingjoetrainer, well just by looking at his other vids listed I wouldn't call him reliable either and he admits he is running off of Von Helton.

Again, I question the source of these pictures, where and when and how they were shot. This is the pictures appearing in the videos.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b77c0be7b0d9.png[/atsimg]

This is a picture taken just a few hours ago.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce75118c0cc5.jpg[/atsimg]

Both videos claim the pics they show was how the Moon was last night, well the most recent ones and ones from last night prove different.

edit on 14-11-2010 by pazcat because: (no reason given)