Is the Moon a Mothership ?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


95%. ~95% of Earth's gravity, and the Moon is a lot bigger than we think it is.

I highly suggest not trusting those numbers, even if they are done by a computer, they have no way of saying that they are the correct numbers.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


The openings, a.k.a. the egresses, are vital for any planet.

Why? Let's see here, if you don't have these openings, then everyone will be cooked alive. I mean, where do you think all that energy goes? All of that cosmic energy? Goes into the Earth and whatever the Earth doesn't use, it spews out.

To note, without these openings, there will be no compass.

KNOCK OFF THE CHILDISH BICKERING - Stick to the topic and civil discussion. Post Bans will follow if it continues.


Mod Edit: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

The openings, a.k.a. the egresses, are vital for any planet.

Why? Let's see here, if you don't have these openings, then everyone will be cooked alive. I mean, where do you think all that energy goes? All of that cosmic energy? Goes into the Earth and whatever the Earth doesn't use, it spews out.

To note, without these openings, there will be no compass.

Good point. I never thought about it that way. It is like a vortex of energy then. The universe also works the same way with the orange model/theory.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


In a basic sense, yes.

But our situation is reversed, or maybe both opening are radiating outward. Meaning, the cause of a aurora is that charged air. They are seen in Canada as well as Antarctica.

Kind of torn on, is one sending and the other receiving, or are they both sending and the shell is receiving.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

In a basic sense, yes.

But our situation is reversed, or maybe both opening are radiating outward. Meaning, the cause of a aurora is that charged air. They are seen in Canada as well as Antarctica.

Kind of torn on, is one sending and the other receiving, or are they both sending and the shell is receiving.

edit on 18-12-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)

The aurora is charged air, but I always thought it had something to do with the inner sun radiating outwards, rather than the earth ejecting any absorbed space radiation. Anyway I don't think we will solve everything tonight and we are going off-topic.

And aliens are real man. There is way too much evidence for that!

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by miniatus
No I don't believe the moon is a mothership.. I think it's a moon.. there are many of them in our solar system orbiting planets =)

Please correct me if I'm wrong but out of all the planets that have moons, 166 of moons, we're the only planet that has only one. That's enough for me to questions, why!

I've always wondered about that too...what if we had 2? would it make a difference?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


About 0:29:00 into the above 1996 Moon and Mars Lecture, Alex Collier says that the Moon was brought here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
From about 1:00 into the above Part 1, Alex Collier told that the Andromedans told him that the Moon is an artificial "satellite", in fact the Moon is a spacecraft, the Andromedans told him, he said, much of the debris on the surface was put there and built purposely to make it look like it isn't, it is hollow, it is able to leave the orbit of it's own power, that the Moon originate in another star system (called Chaulta or something like that i guess), it was originally one of 4 Moons that orbited the 17th planet of that another star system, it was built almost similar to that "Death Star" from the Star Wars movie, it was built around this 17th planet, it was then put in the tail of a comet and dragged to this solar system, when it arrived to this solar system it removed itself from the comet, and it placed itself around the planet called 'Maldek' which is the asteroid belt by now (Maldek was reportedly destroyed a long time ago), the Moon became one of 2 Moons that orbited 'Maldek', 'Maldek' was the first inhabited planet in this solar system, it was very much like Earth, and after 'Maldek' was reportedly destroyed the Moon then reportedly moved to Earth.

reply to post by DJW001


wow people will pick just to pick huh...... obviously didnt pick up that the rocket boosters and perfect orbits comment was sarc huh? and by perfect i meant it has stayed the same for x y z billions of years, little AR are we? lol

i know exactly why they film sun vs moon, as i stated oringinaly its the life giver and the moon is just blah the fact is we have tons of people that say there are bases ships and aliens flying around the moon so lets prove them right or wrong once and for all.

pictures? heres a vid www.youtube.com... this one is from italy, thats just one do your own search theres plenty.

"The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is still sending back pictures, the ARTEMIS spacecraft are still active, and NASA is sending up a new probe this summer. "

super duper, i dont want pictures i want live footage, real time 24/7 like soho

reply to post by ~widowmaker~

super duper, i dont want pictures i want live footage, real time 24/7 like soho

Stomp your feet a little harder. Maybe that'll work. Probably not though.

Believe or not the Moon doesn't change as much as the Sun does from minute to minute. Realtime images would be kind of boring. Sort of like watching the full Moon.

reply to post by Phage


Not stomping feet, just don't like repeating myself, so hard to sound enthusiastic. I stated that's what I would like to see and the person restated basically what you did. IM not looking for the changes in moon, I would like one there because people say there is aliens there, its a moon base, its a death star bla blah blah. Hence the title of article?

Is the Moon a Mothership ?

I do not believe it is, but the best way to prove it would be to have it monitored 24/7 for things flying out of it or into it or moving around on it no? IM pretty sure I made it clear I didn't want it for scientific purposes, but to prove or disprove this theory. and with the amount of crap we have wasted money on for no returns, why not this too? hell after they decide there is or isnt life moving about they could turn it to the flag area, blow it up 2000% and make nice hd photos of americas great landing site other than the little tiny pixels they try to say is a flag and landing site. lol

I think investigating whether another society is visiting the moon, living on, or conducting military exercises on it should be at least checked out, and sending a land vehicle to traverse most areas where these things would be is most likely impossible unless they send a mountain climbing version? So a satellite view would be best and if set up like the stereo versions, we could see 24/7 if it is or not a base /ship or just a big plain ol rock.

reply to post by ~widowmaker~

That's pretty funny. Prove that the Moon is not a mothership? To whom?

Anyone who believes the Moon is a mothership is not going to change their mind at this point. Not even if a satellite could and did provide 24 hour coverage of its entire surface. There are high resolution images of most of the surface and more are being added all the time. Don't you know, all the images we have from all the missions which don't show alien cities are fake? Why would what you suggest be any different?

reply to post by Phage


Well sure if you want to take the route I guess. I would have thought even you might be curious about this, but apparently I was wrong. In any event it will never happen so no worries. The non believers can keep non believing and the believers can keep on dreaming. ^^



Don't you know, all the images we have from all the missions which don't show alien cities are fake? Why would what you suggest be any different?

lol ^^ im not one of those people, but i do like to get answers for both sides when possible.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Were not at all. understand what is the Earth, understand the Moon.

The only thing that I have about it is that it wasn't really ours to begin with. It came from the planet that is no more called Maldek. No records set in stone say what it was like other than a speculation that it was Earth-like.

The remnants of Maldek are just asteroids. No known size or condition it was in before the war, let alone position. The Moon that Orbited Maldek (Now ours) took a beating but was still in good condition even after Maldek was no more.

So those in charge of taking care of the solar system and planets, called the Logos, decided to give it to one planet that didn't have such a opportunity to have one; Earth.

It was a miracle that Earth wasn't involved. No known record says that in ~5000 B.C. or earlier says that thundering that shook the land and lite the sky for days. ~5000 B.C. is when the Moon became ours.

The results were panic, and false worship. Deadman Secrets provided some insight on why people feared eclipses.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

Plus the Moon has a denser atmosphere than ours, so any rock entering, will burn up right away. Astrologist can prove that.

edit on 18-12-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)

Isn't it interesting that NASA had a very tough time landing spacecraft on the moon? How many times did they try and fail? It is said Werner Von Braun finally got it right, the same scientist brought to america by project paperclip after the nazis lost the war. He was in charge of designing V2 rockets that landed in england. Then he took over NASA when coming to the usa.

Basically they could not figure out the neutral point of gravity between earth and the moon. They thought the moons gravity was 1/6 earth when in reality it is approximately 63%(if I remember correctly). There must be an artificial gravity source on the moon or the moon is super dense and makes up the difference in terms of mass loss to earth.



"At a point 43,495 miles from the Moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal
to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant." - Wernher von Braun (Time Magazine, July 25, 1969).

edit on 18/12/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: add image and description

sorry but you are misunderstanding the point !
if the point where moon's gravity compensate earth's gravity has been corrected and is now more away from the moon, it's because moon is less dense than thought before.
Its gravitation is weaker than thought before, moon has no iron core like the earth does. This gives the conclusion that the entire moon formed from earth's crust, after the collision (don't remember the name of the other smaller planet that collided with earth)

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Ben81

 

Truth be told, No the Moon is not a Mothership, Yes the Moon isn't ours.

It's a remnant of a planet that was once was in this solar system called Maldek. It was destroyed and is now the asteroid belt.

Not enough mass in the asteroid belt to make a planet.

The total mass of the asteroid belt is estimated to be 2.8×1021 to 3.2×1021 kilograms, which is just 4% of the mass of the Moon

reply to post by KrzYma

if the point where moon's gravity compensate earth's gravity has been corrected and is now more away from the moon, it's because moon is less dense than thought before.

I think you're misunderstanding this one. Less dense = less mass = less gravity = "neutral point" closer to the Moon.

Originally posted by KrzYma
if the point where moon's gravity compensate earth's gravity has been corrected and is now more away from the moon, it's because moon is less dense than thought before.

If the value for the moon's gravity used in calculating the 'neutral point' changes, it has nothing to do with the 'density' of the moon, but with its MASS.

But the old story about how the point 'changed' is based on a common misunderstanding of how DIFFERENT 'neutral points' are calculated, and none of the different calues actually reflect ANY change in estimates for lunar MASS. None.

The simplest calculation just assumes the Earth and Moon attraction forces are from two different objects lying along a straight line, that is, motionless in inertial space. It's easy enough to do the inverse square times mass calculation.

But it's also a meaningless number because the Earth and moon aren't motionless, they are rotating around a common center of mass. So objects flying between them are affected by their own orbital speeds.

When it came time to actually FLY to the moon, a more practical definition had to be developed -- WHERE does one switch calculations from earth-based, with lunar perturbations, to a Moon-based, with Earth gravity perturbations. This defined the operational 'sphere of influence' of each body, and in this NEW definition, the Moon's gravity was more significant for a spacecraft in flight, farther out from the moon than the old simplistic 'neutral gravity' point.

They are just NOT the same definition of a point -- they have entirely different purposes and calculation methods, and their difference implies NO changes in values for Earth or moon mass.

Convince yourself of this by using the Earth-SUN system as a test case. Earth's gravitational sphere of influence extends out about a million miles, well past the moon [otherwise it would have escaped long ago], out to the Sun-Earth Lagrange points 1 and 2.

But if you do a simplistic Earth-Sun mass calculation, you discover that the 'neutral point' is much closer to earth, well inside the Earth-Moon distance. But the Sun doesn't snatch the moon away, because in terms of motion, the spheres of influence are DIFFERENT from the intertial-motionless [and hence non-realistic] simplistic 'neutral point' calculation.

Somebody please run the numbers and report their results. It ought to clarify the confusion.



I wrote about many of those old 'moon myths' in a book almost thirty years ago, here's the chapter:
www.jamesoberg.com...

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by KrzYma

 

if the point where moon's gravity compensate earth's gravity has been corrected and is now more away from the moon, it's because moon is less dense than thought before.

I think you're misunderstanding this one. Less dense = less mass = less gravity = "neutral point" closer to the Moon.

sure, my mistake
was thinking about the center of those masses