the moon is artifical

Originally posted by Sam Cerulean
reply to post by insider15

 

It is true that the moon keeps only 1 side perfectly pointed towards us. Infact its the only body in the solar system that doesn't rotate; Which personally I find rather odd.

I also heard from another source, which mentioned that they had found exterrerstrial life on the moon and enourmous artifacts. I'm not just saying this, it was fully documented and classified. I heard about it on the Radio station on www.devinecosmos.com and there was a guy that was talking about it , and he used to work for NASA, and that there is really a massive cover up.

The moon does ROTATE!!! the time it takes to rotate is almost exactly the same as the time it takes to orbit the earth thats why you only see one side!

Just to clearify:
Almost all moons in the Solar System keep one face pointed toward their planet, so the moon isnt unique like that.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by insider15

 

I agree also. The Moon was obviously parked there, in the perfect synchronous orbit where it rides, never degrading, never changing it's orbital path, and it could not be drilled into, and di ring like a bell several times when parts of spacecraft was dropped on it. I have come to belive it was parked there by the Iggi, of the Annunuki who came here long ago and started this religious mess we are in, ans taught mankind to make war on each other. I believe they, for the most part, live in deep underground bases, and are actively waiting for reinforcements to arrive. Did you know in ancient history that are references to a time when there was no Moon in the sky? Finally, scientist confirm the Moon is much older than Earth.

Check your information, the Moon is not in a perfect synchronous orbit. Its orbit is decaying around 3 cm per yer, meaning with every year that has past in history the moon has gotten further and further away. Obviously this means that ancient civilizations would have seen a much larger Moon 90, 000 years ago than we see now. The moons gravitational pull on the Earth, which affects all life on the planet and the tides, would also have been much more then than it is now. Eventually the Moon will have moved far enough away from earth to escape its orbit and float freely until it is captured by a stronger gravitational influence than our Earth. However by then our Sun will have grown into a giant red star and incinerated the Earth and human beings, or rather an evolutionary off-shoot of human beings, will have either been extinct or far away in a different part of the galaxy or maybe in another galaxy all together. The most important aspect of this is that if you rewind time back far enough, with the moon getting closer and closer to Earth, eventually you will come to a point where there had to have been some collision between a proto-Earth and proto-Moon.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Not at all. One can explore several different explanations until one becomes preferable. It's freedom of choice and freedom of thought.

So the preferable choice for you is to believe what the majority of authoritative people agree on? In the next paradigm shift, you’ll probably believe whatever new theory they come up with. I’d bet there is not one thing that you and mainstream science disagree on. These principles hardly exemplify free will or choice. You appear to believe whatever they tell you to believe and you haven’t shown any evidence to the contrary.

As stated above it's through reading different explanations and settling for the one I perceive as having most merit. You imply that you are able to be an independent thinker whereas others, and specifically me, may not. That is a fallacy. A 'garbage in, garbage out' argument.

The fallacy you’re looking for is called special pleading, but I haven’t implied anything nor have I made any claims other than you should trust your own inferences over others’. You claim your beliefs are not the result of the authoritative majority telling you what to believe, yet in your last post you apparently invalidate this by clinging to the paradigm; Something in my first post I insightfully mentioned you do.

Ah...the empiricist argument. 'I haven't seen/held/tasted/smelled it so it might not exist' argument. Poor show Jfish. I'm on holiday in Northern Italy in summer for the first time. I guess I'll have to accept somebody else's evidence that the place and people exist.

“Poor show” as I goad you into admitting the accusations in my first post valid? You just confessed, so long as the authoritative majority tells you something, you will likely believe them; which means my first post is yet to be refuted. Lots of people say that northern italy exists, so you believed it existed and planed a vacation there. My beliefs are not that bold.

...or an attempt to show that scientists aren't inveterate liars and bridge the gap between some peoples perceptions of them and the mundane.

No, it is a red herring because I never claimed that scientists are liars.

Not at all. I do not seek to ridicule and you might notice my tone is much friendlier than your own. Appealing to contempt is also an informal fallacy.

I’m a very stoic person. Don’t mistake my lack of emotion for contempt. You were attempting to ridicule my position and through ignoratio elenchi no less. Your demeanor has no bearing on the validity of your statements, so whether you are affable or rude, I will address them appropriately.

A, The Moon exists

There is something that exists as “the moon”; I’ll agree to that.

B, Apollo Mission happened

Perhaps something called the “Apollo missions” happened, but what were the Apollo missions?

C, The Moon is a natural satellite.

define natural satellite.

Now we can continue to go through the 'Debater's Handbook' and tick off emergent/ dominant and residual ideologies and interpellation. We can take the route of analysis favored by Baudrillard or Foucault? Terry Eagleton is a favorite of mine. We can engage in some intellectual public masturbation exercise if you really want to? I sure hope not as I find it mildly tedious

If you'd prefer to continue with a tit for tat 'debating' match please also add something to this thread. The thread is called "The Moon is Artificial."

You’ve already conceded that you are inclined to believe whatever paradigm is emplaced by the authoritative majority. This was my original assertion, isn’t whether you do so by choice irrelevant?

Take it easy and try to be a little warmer in your posts. That 'icy blast of logic' persona is kinda off putting. Smile

I apologize . . . but I assure you this is not a persona. I suppose I’m not a very personable individual.

[edit on 4/9/2009 by JPhish]

The moon absolutely is artificial. That's why its hollow, we aren't allowed back, in a fixed rotational lock, is older than the earth itself with elements also totally alien to our planet, and is full of anomolous structures.

I always found it odd as a child that we went up there years ago and since then haven't been able to go back. Never made sense to me.

Be In Peace

reply to post by Asmus


Asmus....you are correct....about ONE point.

The Moon keeps a little more than one hemisphere facing the earth at all times.

the rest? Wrong, sorry. It is NOT hollow, it is NOT comprised of of 'stuff' totally alien to the Earth (well...MAYBE I'll grant that one, just to allow for the possiblity of interplanetary matter that may be on the Moon's surface for eons, since there is no erosion as on the Earth).

Forgot your other points....

The Moon as a celestial body would simply NOT be able to present the amount of gravitional pull she does if hollow. (well...again I will caution myself here...I suppose IF it were a shell of some unimaginably dense material covered by a few KM thick layer of regolith, craters and ancient lava flows (maria) along with erote highlands and lowlands....all indicative of the very features one would see on our own planet, if the tectonic plate activity had ceased billionsa of years ago....then, taking all of that into account, perhaps we could give your hypothesis some credence.

I, personally, just don't buy it.

The undisputable fact that the Moon is moving away from the Earth, with every orbit, to the tune of about 3 cm every Earth year is very telling.

Another thing usually ignored in disussing the dynamics of the Earth/Moon system is that -- we actually are, really, a dual-planet system, in terms of orbital and gravitaional mechanics. The two bodies have a CG....or better term, center of mass...which is calculated to lie at some distance beneath the surface of the Earth.

In the distant past the Earth's rotational velocity was much faster. AND, back then, the Moon was much closer, so the center of mass would be deeper. This dance continued for billions of years, of course....until we see the situation NOW, because by some chance WE are here, we are sentient, and we can observe and (hopefully) understand.

Sorry, long-winded.....

Blame Satellite TV....Discovery Channel, History Channel, Science Channel, etc.

the moon isn't artificial, but it's history is a bit of a mystery. The apollo astronauts brought back enough samples to study it's "natural" matter


the latest theory I've seen is the moon was formed when a mars sized object struck earth about 4.5 billion years ago, and the moon was formed form the aftermath debris

reply to post by Asmus


the moon is made of the same elements as the earth, in similar proportions, namely silicon, aluminum, oxygen and iron

things sometimes seem too perfect with the natural world, but these are the conditions we have evolved around so of course things fit together, weve adapted to our surroundings. If the moon wasnt where it is or the size it is we may not have evolved to a point were we can ask these questions or make that observation, the conditions are perfect we evolve and grow and eventually they wont be perfect and we will wither and die.

I think the moon is a natural satellite, no aliens involved its just another one of those lucky little breaks that happens and makes our planet perfect for life and maybe unique.

That is acceptable.

There is nothing about the moon being natural that makes sense to me. There is no resonance with me on that, and I have to trust that.

Almost all planetoids are hollow, or merely, honey combed. So I suppose this need not be an exception.

There is nothing alien about the moon, than why on earth are massive amounts of helium 3 being mined on it? Why are there loads and loads of anamolous structures on it? Who built them, where did they come from?

Why do we not go back to the moon?

And once again, why buy into a mainstream belief system? I grew out of that 6 years ago and was actually able to find answers for the vast amounts of questions that never had answers because one continually finds themselves in mind prison after mind prison.

Now there will be flocks demanding proof, to which I could only say you will never have the proof you seek until you let go of everything you were told, taught, and believe.

I would not believe a single thing that comes out of any mainstream sources mouth, I learned that lesson a long time ago.

reply to post by JPhish

the moon is artifical i dont think the moon can be natural, it had to be built by someone as its just to much of a coincidence that it is just the right size and distance from the earth so that during an eclipse it appears exactly the same size as the sun!! if it was a few thousand miles closer or further away an eclipse wouldnt work. My theory is that its a giant space station that over the millons of years in our orbit due to its gravity has accumulated a layer of rock and dust on its surface. this would also explain why nasa hasnt gone back to the moon since the apollo program, the makers of the moon warned them off. anyone got any comments??

What do you think? Any comments? I'll summarize for you...

The Moon is artificial. What do YOU think?



[edit on 10-4-2009 by Kandinsky]

reply to post by Asmus


Hang on a second....Asmus....

YOU made a blanket statement, that must be corroborated with facts!

You said...'Almost all planetoids are hollow'...then went on to backtrack, that they may be 'honeycombed'.

OK....that is an incredible assertion. I am not joking, I am dead serious....you cannot simply state something without definitive proof...to back up your claims.

Again, I fault the School Systems....for lacking the basics in Science and Astronomy in their curricula!!!

Still....anyone with even Basic Cable can get Science Channels....if you bother to watch!!

I have a 24-hour NASA Channel, for chrissakes!!! Yeah, it's boring....because THAT is how real spceflight is....hours and hours of boredom, wiht just a few minutes of stuff to do....THAT is real spaceflight, not 'Star Trek'.....

reply to post by Kandinsky

Originally posted by insider15
i dont think the moon can be natural, it had to be built by someone as its just to much of a coincidence that it is just the right size and distance from the earth so that during an eclipse it appears exactly the same size as the sun!!

Could be a coincidence.

if it was a few thousand miles closer or further away an eclipse wouldnt work.

Could be a coincidence.

My theory is that its a giant space station that over the millons of years in our orbit due to its gravity has accumulated a layer of rock and dust on its surface.

Could be a space station, but it would take more than millions of years for it to accumulate that much dust and rocks.

this would also explain why nasa hasnt gone back to the moon since the apollo program, the makers of the moon warned them off.

Conceivable.

anyone got any comments??

I'll admit, it does seem like an awful lot of coincidences. If anyone has recently sat through an astronomy class . . . "of course, that's just a coincidence" is said many times by the professor when addressing the moon and its' attributes. If you enjoy entertaining yourself with such notions and are interested in a similar story, you should check out Alex Collier.

[edit on 4/10/2009 by JPhish]

I read a book once with the same subject saying that it was built by people as a communication about the earth and when we have sufficiently evolved and could decode the message, we would understand what needed to be done. To do what, I dont know /can't remember but it was an interesting read.

Interesting subject s&f'd

Originally posted by Asmus
That is acceptable.

There is nothing about the moon being natural that makes sense to me. There is no resonance with me on that, and I have to trust that.

perhaps you need more education in basic astronomy

Originally posted by Asmus
Almost all planetoids are hollow, or merely, honey combed. So I suppose this need not be an exception.

except of course if it was formed by a collision of two planet sized objects. I'm not saying ti was, I wasn't there to witness it, but that could explain the differences

Originally posted by Asmus
There is nothing alien about the moon, than why on earth are massive amounts of helium 3 being mined on it? Why are there loads and loads of anamolous structures on it? Who built them, where did they come from?

ummm OK please tell me your evidence of helium 3 mining isn't some grainy pic of a "smokestack" the moon has been bombarded for billions of years because it has no atmosphere to protect it. that would make for thousands of anomolies, not aliens

Originally posted by Asmus
Why do we not go back to the moon?

we went 6 times over several years.

Originally posted by Asmus
And once again, why buy into a mainstream belief system? I grew out of that 6 years ago and was actually able to find answers for the vast amounts of questions that never had answers because one continually finds themselves in mind prison after mind prison.

Now there will be flocks demanding proof, to which I could only say you will never have the proof you seek until you let go of everything you were told, taught, and believe.

I would not believe a single thing that comes out of any mainstream sources mouth, I learned that lesson a long time ago.

ahh the old sheeple argument. it works both ways ya know. why buy into an underground alternative belief system ? because the websites have cool colors and pretty graphics and use bold print ?

Originally posted by Asmus
That is acceptable.

There is nothing about the moon being natural that makes sense to me. There is no resonance with me on that, and I have to trust that.

Almost all planetoids are hollow, or merely, honey combed. So I suppose this need not be an exception.

There is nothing alien about the moon, than why on earth are massive amounts of helium 3 being mined on it? Why are there loads and loads of anamolous structures on it? Who built them, where did they come from?

Why do we not go back to the moon?

And once again, why buy into a mainstream belief system? I grew out of that 6 years ago and was actually able to find answers for the vast amounts of questions that never had answers because one continually finds themselves in mind prison after mind prison.

Now there will be flocks demanding proof, to which I could only say you will never have the proof you seek until you let go of everything you were told, taught, and believe.

I would not believe a single thing that comes out of any mainstream sources mouth, I learned that lesson a long time ago.

How can you say all planatoids are hollow how do you KNOW and more to the point what PROOF do you have I will answer that for you N.O.N.E and as for the rest of your theories more BULLCOOKIES I would say!
So lets see some proof to backup your starnge ideas.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by wmd_2008]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the OP. I believe anything is possible. I just have a few questions.

1. If the moon is artificial, who created it?

2. When was the moon created? (this would go back many years)

3. What would be the reason for its creation?

Originally posted by Lunica
I think the possibilty is just their

This moon of Saturn is also very interesting.

Link

If that moon is bigger than mercury why isn't it considered a planet?

Is it because it rotates around another planet?

But what I want to know is, why can't a planet also be a planet and rotate ( orbit ) around another planet and still be a planet?

reply to post by Zeus2573



zeus...


Did you read the entire thread..?


You didn't, did you..?








Assumptions (best we can do for now) for all 3 of your ?'s have been addressed in this thread...


Multiple times...

reply to post by LucidDreamer85

Purely a matter of definition.

From its beginnings denoting the "wandering stars" of the classical world, the definition of "planet" has been fraught with ambiguity. In its long life, the word has meant many different things, often simultaneously.

en.wikipedia.org...