The Greatest UFO?

this is a nice post.. i have read this book as well and the responses to this thread have prompted me to post for my first time on this forum! I have read this forum for quite some time now and it never ceases to amaze me how some people will not even consider the possibilities of some theories stated. It's almost as if the possibility of it being true scares them so much that they have to find every way possible to debunk the theory to make themselves feel better about the world around them. But, I am just repeating what has already been said for so long anyways.. ANYWAYS, Distortion, don't take this personal but some of the things you have stated are also "misleading."

Originally posted by Distortion
the moon is not responsible for earths tilt, earths is "tilted" due to the fact that it orbits the SUN approx 24 degrees off its rotational axis, nothing to do with the moon. Granted weather patterns would be drastically different, but seaons are due to the tilt not the moon. In addition the reason the planet is warm and not frozen is due to a natural greenhouse affect raising the average earths temperate around 32 degrees.

The moon has alot to do with the earth's tilt. In fact, the moon causes the tides and keeps the sun from throwing the earth's tilt into a frenzy. In fact, if the moon had it's way, it would have the Earth's tilt straightened about and pretty much at a right angle with the moons orbit. The only thing that prevents this is the Sun pulling on the Earth as well. In fact, it is a big debate right now as to what will happen to the earth when the moon starts getting drastically farther away from the Earth being as it will not have as much gravitational pull on the earth and the sun will have its way. There is also something known as "precession" caused by the moon and sun pulling on the equatorial bulge. It makes the earth wobble like a top wobbles when it starts to slow down. The moon and sun also create the tidal forces on the earth which in fact slow the earth down like the top. This is where you have heard about Earth's days getting longer each year. The big question is whether or not the Earth will wobble more and more and what will happen.

Originally posted by Distortion
I dont really see what your saying. Every planet is unique. Earth is not the only unique one. Most of the other terrestrial planets have many moons.

The earth is in fact very unique due to it's moon. As stated, the moon keeps the tilt at 23.5 degrees which creates the somewhat mild conditions compared to alot of other planets and their moons. You should be thankful for your moon because it is in fact the only reason the climate and conditions are suitable for life as we know it to live.

Again, it is amazing how people write of possibilities as crap just because of their controversial and extreme nature. When kids are just in kindergarten and even up through elementary and middle school, they will tell you Colombus was a great man. They would write you off immediately as a liar if you told them that Colombus had slaves and killed the natives of the islands he discovered. Even people back then thoguht the earth was flat

EDIT: Also, I find the placement and distances rather amazing as well. It is the only thing that makes life livable on this planet. Is this by chance or by some divine intervention? Or is it in fact aliens who made the moon and drove it here? I don't have the answers but one thing that I do find interesting is the comments about Neil Armstrong in this book and what Amateur Radio operators picked up on their Ham Radios between the transmissions between him and Houston while he was walking on the moon.

[edit on 13-12-2005 by Arkane]

I realy appreciate you helping to confirm some of the things I mentioned earlier on.

I'm not too sure why the link I posted with my first response doesn't seem to want to load properly.

If that worked, you could see a lot more about why this isn't completely insane, and that this theory may hold more water than the average person wants to admit.

Do you have a link to these recordings or transcripts Arkane? I would love to hear them for myself.

Just to come to this site, I leave my mind open to the possibility of everything. Due to the vastness of space and the universe in a whole, we try and determine fact from fiction with math and reasonable logic. Now since we invented math (or so we believe), it tends to conflict deep inside with logic, yet it must be true because the math says it is.
Now just for a moment, whats to say that our math isn't wrong? What makes us think our math is 100% correct? A single humble man invented math for us to live our entire life by? Whats to say he was correct?
Take this as a simple example to throw you completely out of sync. Through school we learn that the colour orange is in fact orange, the sky is blue etc. Holding this 'learning' in account for everything in our life, can't we take a child and home school him/her and teach that the sky is green and an orange is black? Since we have given names to these items, can't we be wrong?
What I am getting at, is that the ONLY reason we say the sky is blue, is because we have been taught that.
Yes, I can look at the sky and say 'Wow, nice and blue today', but having been raised to believe the sky is blue, I wouldn't know any different. If that child had been raised to believe the sky his green, his response would be 'Wow, nice and green today'
What would happen when some one in the 'real' world told them that in fact the sky is blue, not green? He would fight it because he knows it to be wrong. and there would be nothing we could say to prove him wrong. Math can't even help us because there isn't a mathematical equation that determines the colour of the sky. Or if there is, is our math correct?
Now lets take that one step further. Whose to say that Einstein was right? Or Newton for that matter? Sure we can apply what we have learned to prove or disprove what has been put forth. But if we are working with an incomplete set of tools, then won't that provide a false answer?
Someone on this topic said something a long the lines of how blackholes can't be used for industry or transport, that all a blackhole does is destroy matter.
How can we possibly know that without having stepped through a blackhole ourself?
I mean, the main basis behind a blackhole is that it bends space time gravity that severley, that it is infact black because no light can escape its gravitational pull. Even if we sent objects through a blackhole for testing purposes, we can't know for sure if that item survived the trip. High compressed time field and we except the item to come back to us immediately? Yeah right, come back in a million years or so.
Thus I digress...

My main point on this matter was the fact that we are overlooking one very important fact... The moon is so close to us and easy to reach, WHY don't we send MORE people back to the moon for a proper exploration mission? Why do we spend more time on Mars when the moon is just a 15 minute ride away? Or for the fact of human preservation, why not send a small army of Mars rovers to the moon? -- I guess that would make them Lunar Rovers ;p
There has to be a reason why we don't, there has to be something stopping us that the Gov' doesn't want us to know about. Otherwise we would have been sending missions back and forth for years. There is no reason for us not to explore the moon if it is in our capabilities to do so.

I think you're very much on point here Sovaka.

It is my contention that most people want nothing to do with their beliefs getting all tangled up with new knowledge. There is definitely friction to be seen by anyone who has their beliefs challenged, but the only way to combat this is to realize that humanity is still so very ignorant.

We are learning more and more every day, and all these discoveries challenge what was in the past generations knowledge. I don't know for sure about the moon, but I have to agree with many people that it's going to be very interesting to see humanities development over the next decade or two.

That is if we can last that long.

i have yet to find any audio on the Neil Armstrong thing, but I did manage to find a link for the dialogue. The link is right on point with what is mentioned in "Alien Agenda."

www.ufoarea.com...

Originally posted by Arkane
i have yet to find any audio on the Neil Armstrong thing, but I did manage to find a link for the dialogue. The link is right on point with what is mentioned in "Alien Agenda."

www.ufoarea.com...

That certainly is an interesting read. Would really love to get the audio recordings I will have a dig around later and will let you know if I find them.

This forum to me is a bit like recess at school. A break from the monotony.

I would like to touch on the small fragments of information we have obtained regarding the period of time when the Earth was without Moon. Aristotle wrote that Greece had a population of aborigines, the Proselenes that lived in a time before there was a moon. Plutarch’s “pre-lunar people.”

The book of Job 25:5 as well as Psalms 72:5 refer to a moonless time. A lot of this Marrs referenced in Alien Agenda. Along with the wealth of research others have posted on the internet, it’s entirely plausible that in the early centuries this planet may not have had an orbiting satellite. That said, the question of the Moon being artificial is intriguing.

Are those who refute the idea of an artificial moon more grounded or rational? Or perhaps simply too narrow minded to possibly consider that we are on an evolutionary universal equivalent of my 4 year old daughter. A bit like the ‘who built the pyramids’ debate. We may never know but it’s sure a hell of a lot of fun discussing it.

Originally posted by Arkane
this is a nice post.. i have read this book as well and the responses to this thread have prompted me to post for my first time on this forum! I have read this forum for quite some time now and it never ceases to amaze me how some people will not even consider the possibilities of some theories stated. It's almost as if the possibility of it being true scares them so much that they have to find every way possible to debunk the theory to make themselves feel better about the world around them. But, I am just repeating what has already been said for so long anyways.. ANYWAYS, Distortion, don't take this personal but some of the things you have stated are also "misleading."

Originally posted by Distortion
the moon is not responsible for earths tilt, earths is "tilted" due to the fact that it orbits the SUN approx 24 degrees off its rotational axis, nothing to do with the moon. Granted weather patterns would be drastically different, but seaons are due to the tilt not the moon. In addition the reason the planet is warm and not frozen is due to a natural greenhouse affect raising the average earths temperate around 32 degrees.

The moon has alot to do with the earth's tilt. In fact, the moon causes the tides and keeps the sun from throwing the earth's tilt into a frenzy. In fact, if the moon had it's way, it would have the Earth's tilt straightened about and pretty much at a right angle with the moons orbit. The only thing that prevents this is the Sun pulling on the Earth as well. In fact, it is a big debate right now as to what will happen to the earth when the moon starts getting drastically farther away from the Earth being as it will not have as much gravitational pull on the earth and the sun will have its way. There is also something known as "precession" caused by the moon and sun pulling on the equatorial bulge. It makes the earth wobble like a top wobbles when it starts to slow down. The moon and sun also create the tidal forces on the earth which in fact slow the earth down like the top. This is where you have heard about Earth's days getting longer each year. The big question is whether or not the Earth will wobble more and more and what will happen.

Originally posted by Distortion
I dont really see what your saying. Every planet is unique. Earth is not the only unique one. Most of the other terrestrial planets have many moons.

The earth is in fact very unique due to it's moon. As stated, the moon keeps the tilt at 23.5 degrees which creates the somewhat mild conditions compared to alot of other planets and their moons. You should be thankful for your moon because it is in fact the only reason the climate and conditions are suitable for life as we know it to live.

Again, it is amazing how people write of possibilities as crap just because of their controversial and extreme nature. When kids are just in kindergarten and even up through elementary and middle school, they will tell you Colombus was a great man. They would write you off immediately as a liar if you told them that Colombus had slaves and killed the natives of the islands he discovered. Even people back then thoguht the earth was flat

EDIT: Also, I find the placement and distances rather amazing as well. It is the only thing that makes life livable on this planet. Is this by chance or by some divine intervention? Or is it in fact aliens who made the moon and drove it here? I don't have the answers but one thing that I do find interesting is the comments about Neil Armstrong in this book and what Amateur Radio operators picked up on their Ham Radios between the transmissions between him and Houston while he was walking on the moon.

[edit on 13-12-2005 by Arkane]

having seasons does not make the earth sutible for life if anything it makes it harder for life to evolve. If there was NO TILT and the earths rotatinal axis was in line with its plane of orbit around the sun there would just be no seasons. The equator would be hot and going either north or south it would get colder as the angle of the sun dimishes due to the curvature of the earth. There would still be hot, cold, warm, cool, etc places.

Originally posted by Sovaka
A single humble man invented math for us to live our entire life by? Whats to say he was correct?
Take this as a simple example to throw you completely out of sync. Through school we learn that the colour orange is in fact orange, the sky is blue etc. Holding this 'learning' in account for everything in our life, can't we take a child and home school him/her and teach that the sky is green and an orange is black? Since we have given names to these items, can't we be wrong?
What I am getting at, is that the ONLY reason we say the sky is blue, is because we have been taught that.
Yes, I can look at the sky and say 'Wow, nice and blue today', but having been raised to believe the sky is blue, I wouldn't know any different. If that child had been raised to believe the sky his green, his response would be 'Wow, nice and green today'

Firstly one person did not invent math/physics. Its been an ongoing process for thousands of years, we build on what we know, sometimes radically, and apply our knowledge to our surroundings.

Sure we can say that orange is black and black is orange but that makes no difference what so ever because there is physics behind everything, even colors. We know that visible light is just a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and different colors occur because of the frequency and period of their wavelengths.

What im getting at is I belive we ultimately have the ability to understand anything and everything. I do not agree with the notion that when we dont understand something we arbitrarily assign its existance to supernatural origin.

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Distortion]

Originally posted by TheDarkHorse

Are those who refute the idea of an artificial moon more grounded or rational? Or perhaps simply too narrow minded to possibly consider that we are on an evolutionary universal equivalent of my 4 year old daughter. A bit like the ‘who built the pyramids’ debate. We may never know but it’s sure a hell of a lot of fun discussing it.

I never said that the moon COULDN'T be created by aliens, i've just presented my evidence in comparison with yours.

Thats also a pretty strong statement of calling me narrow minded while the evidence you've presented is ancient text and psalms from the bible. I suppose you believe in creationism too? Or do you just take small excerpts when it suits your arguement.

I would also disagree with your analogy with your 4 year old daughter, I would say that we're not even a week old in our understanding of our universe. Thats why we must logically pursue every avenue of understanding without dismissing mysteries as divine and beyond our understanding.

Originally posted by Distortion
Firstly one person did not invent math/physics. Its been an ongoing process for thousands of years, we build on what we know, sometimes radically, and apply our knowledge to our surroundings.

Sure we can say that orange is black and black is orange but that makes no difference what so ever because there is physics behind everything, even colors. We know that visible light is just a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and different colors occur because of the frequency and period of their wavelengths.

What im getting at is I belive we ultimately have the ability to understand anything and everything. I do not agree with the notion that when we dont understand something we arbitrarily assign its existance to supernatural origin.

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Distortion]

I agree with you there, we have the ability to understand everything around us given time.
You have also proven my point about naming conventions. You say physics play in the fact of what colour is what. But in reality, we still had to initially name that colour. Despite where it is located in the light prism. So over our entire life, we could still have got the name of colours backwards, and we would not be any wiser.
As to what you said about math not being created by one single person... You are correct, but my point still remains as you so pointed out.
Over the years of our existance, we constantly add to and change what we know of mathmatics.
So my main secondary point is still valid... We proove or disproove fact and fiction via what we currently know. This can't happen because the theory of relativity says so... Or that can't work because it defies the laws of gravity.
The point is that we have taught ourselves these laws, we wrote them. Since we are still in our infancy of the universe in a whole, how can we say that we are right with 100% certainty.
Given the fact that we WILL discover Anti-Gravity (if we haven't already), we will then have to make ammendments to the Laws of Physics and all that. The same goes for when we discover FTL travel (Since our current laws dictate you can't exceed Faster Then Light travel)

Originally posted by Sovaka

Originally posted by Distortion
Firstly one person did not invent math/physics. Its been an ongoing process for thousands of years, we build on what we know, sometimes radically, and apply our knowledge to our surroundings.

Sure we can say that orange is black and black is orange but that makes no difference what so ever because there is physics behind everything, even colors. We know that visible light is just a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and different colors occur because of the frequency and period of their wavelengths.

What im getting at is I belive we ultimately have the ability to understand anything and everything. I do not agree with the notion that when we dont understand something we arbitrarily assign its existance to supernatural origin.

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Distortion]

I agree with you there, we have the ability to understand everything around us given time.
You have also proven my point about naming conventions. You say physics play in the fact of what colour is what. But in reality, we still had to initially name that colour. Despite where it is located in the light prism. So over our entire life, we could still have got the name of colours backwards, and we would not be any wiser.
As to what you said about math not being created by one single person... You are correct, but my point still remains as you so pointed out.
Over the years of our existance, we constantly add to and change what we know of mathmatics.
So my main secondary point is still valid... We proove or disproove fact and fiction via what we currently know. This can't happen because the theory of relativity says so... Or that can't work because it defies the laws of gravity.
The point is that we have taught ourselves these laws, we wrote them. Since we are still in our infancy of the universe in a whole, how can we say that we are right with 100% certainty.
Given the fact that we WILL discover Anti-Gravity (if we haven't already), we will then have to make ammendments to the Laws of Physics and all that. The same goes for when we discover FTL travel (Since our current laws dictate you can't exceed Faster Then Light travel)

The thing about the colors is you can assign a color any name. Even on earth green is called different things for different languages but its still just green. Aliens could call it "as;ldjas;lk" (just hit a bunch of keys, hah) but the point being its still green because physics makes it green. Green existed before humans, our naming something does not change what it is.

Secondly you're dead on about math and phsyics constantly changing our view of our universe and the things in it. But part of physics and mathematics is developing a question (is the moon natural) testing it and then being able to accurately explain the outcome with science and evidence from your experiments. If you are able to do this then the answer to you're question becomes a theory, not even a fact i.e. Einsteins theory of Relativity. Even though every possible test to this theory holds true 100% we dont it fact, more or less.

That was a bit of a tangent there, from what I see you developed a question and went straight to a theory without any substantial evidence.

For the FTL travel and stuff like that i've read all of the articles on here I would say even classical physicists (Newtonian, not Quantum) would agree that some of it is possible as long as you dont do it by just accelerating to C because that takes an INFINITE amount of energy not to mention the problem with time dilation. You can't break C but you can manipulate the universe to get around that problem so you're not breaking any laws of physics.



[edit on 16-12-2005 by Distortion]

sorry double post

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Distortion]

Ok, to cover my example of the 'Theory of Relativity' was just as a base example.
You say that we can't simply jump to C because it would take infinate amount of energy to do so. Based only on the calculations that we have tested thus far. And that the best way to accomplish this feat is to work around it.
Not so... There COULD be a method out there that is of a straight line that takes little energy to accomplish and we just haven't found it.
The universe is infinite in itself and the possibilites of what can learn is also infinite. We should not inhibit our learning process by the rules and laws that we have founded to this date. Think outside of the box so to speak.

It's true, we can test the moon to our methods that we have developed to get an answer.
But the fact is that answer could be wrong if indeed the moon is an alien craft. Because one thing we don't take into consideration with that calculation of the moon is the possibility of different materials we have yet to find in the universe and how they could possibily react with our tests.
We could use a very simple sonar method to test if the moon is hollow but if there is a sonar absorbing material in the universe that we don't know about and the aliens do, then our sonar test will come back negative for the moon being hollow.
Hence our test will conclude that the moon is whole and a big rock with a coincidental perfect orbit around our planet.
Since we don't know the whole picture because we haven't learned of it, then we can't possibly get the true answer.

The main point is that we can't possibly apply OUR methods to test an extratorrestial body when we don't know what that body is made of. We would have to develop a new method in which testing would take into consideration the bodies different materials. Until that point, all we can do is assume and work from there.
Assume this then make a test based on that assumption...
Test proves possitive...
Assume that the answer for the test was this...
Develop a test to prove previous result...
Etc.
So the best way for us to get our answer of the moon being hollow or not, is to simply recieve full government disclosure and to start a drilling operation.

Penn, I recommend "Rule By Secrecy". I let a friend borrow it and haven't got it back yet but it is very interesting. Ties in all conspiracies regarding politics, secret societies, religion, and of course alien contact on Earth. He is meticulous and lists all of his resources.

Originally posted by Infra_red
Penn, I recommend "Rule By Secrecy". I let a friend borrow it and haven't got it back yet but it is very interesting. Ties in all conspiracies regarding politics, secret societies, religion, and of course alien contact on Earth. He is meticulous and lists all of his resources.

im reading that one right now, fascinating book to say the least.

Originally posted by Sovaka
Ok, to cover my example of the 'Theory of Relativity' was just as a base example.
You say that we can't simply jump to C because it would take infinate amount of energy to do so. Based only on the calculations that we have tested thus far. And that the best way to accomplish this feat is to work around it.
Not so... There COULD be a method out there that is of a straight line that takes little energy to accomplish and we just haven't found it.
The universe is infinite in itself and the possibilites of what can learn is also infinite. We should not inhibit our learning process by the rules and laws that we have founded to this date. Think outside of the box so to speak.

It's true, we can test the moon to our methods that we have developed to get an answer.
But the fact is that answer could be wrong if indeed the moon is an alien craft. Because one thing we don't take into consideration with that calculation of the moon is the possibility of different materials we have yet to find in the universe and how they could possibily react with our tests.
We could use a very simple sonar method to test if the moon is hollow but if there is a sonar absorbing material in the universe that we don't know about and the aliens do, then our sonar test will come back negative for the moon being hollow.
Hence our test will conclude that the moon is whole and a big rock with a coincidental perfect orbit around our planet.
Since we don't know the whole picture because we haven't learned of it, then we can't possibly get the true answer.

The main point is that we can't possibly apply OUR methods to test an extratorrestial body when we don't know what that body is made of. We would have to develop a new method in which testing would take into consideration the bodies different materials. Until that point, all we can do is assume and work from there.
Assume this then make a test based on that assumption...
Test proves possitive...
Assume that the answer for the test was this...
Develop a test to prove previous result...
Etc.
So the best way for us to get our answer of the moon being hollow or not, is to simply recieve full government disclosure and to start a drilling operation.

I think we're in more agreement than I thought.

I do agree that we know probably next to nothing about the universe in this point in time but we will eventually know a great deal if not everything

the FTL is an excellent example because it represents a problem that we know very little about right now and FTL travel goes against nearly all classical physics, however quantum mechanics is opening new doors every day. The thing about the moon being 'fake' is that we undertand a great deal about planetary formations and satellites in compairson to FTL travel. And the fact that we understand the moon more but no real evidence has come about that would suggest it is artifical to me is nearly proof that it is not artifical.

Now, im using the word proof, but in my previous statment I said nothing is set in stone, so unless there is strong evidence that can "prove" otherwise, im sticking by my opnion that the moon is just a big ass rock caught in orbit.

How far are you? I like the part where he talks about how war is really just used as a way of collection of debt.

Im on like page 90. I was reading it at the end of last summer than pretty much quit when school started, I picked it back up but was lost so im re-reading the first 100 pages or so.

Originally posted by Distortion
I think we're in more agreement than I thought.

I do agree that we know probably next to nothing about the universe in this point in time but we will eventually know a great deal if not everything

the FTL is an excellent example because it represents a problem that we know very little about right now and FTL travel goes against nearly all classical physics, however quantum mechanics is opening new doors every day. The thing about the moon being 'fake' is that we undertand a great deal about planetary formations and satellites in compairson to FTL travel. And the fact that we understand the moon more but no real evidence has come about that would suggest it is artifical to me is nearly proof that it is not artifical.

Now, im using the word proof, but in my previous statment I said nothing is set in stone, so unless there is strong evidence that can "prove" otherwise, im sticking by my opnion that the moon is just a big ass rock caught in orbit.

Agreed, we can speculate all we want on the physicallity of the moon and debate about what we have been and haven't been told. The simple fact of the matter is, there just isn't enough physical proof to say the moon is hollow. So until someone circumnavigates the earth and finally proves it is round, we will continue to believe earth is flat... metaphorically speaking

So back on topic and back to my original question...
Why haven't we sent more people to the moon to do further exploration? Why do we think it is better to setup a space station then a base platform on the moon? It would be a whole lot easier to produce space craft and a way of getting into space then trying to break from earths pull every mission. Plus the danger between the missions would be lessened due to the fact that the astronaughts can land back on the moon instead of having to come back to earth. Then we can focus on better ways of ensuring the survival rate of the astronaughts through take off and landing on earth. By only having the people on the moon change shifts once every 6 months or so...