(Apollo-gee) The Moon See the Earth through the Sun

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

So what you saying is:

The thread you presented here has made your stance on Apollo and men going to the moon change?

Well kinda.

I don't believe we've gone because we can't, but I do believe they aren't lying when they say man has set foot on the moon because I believe the earth is the moon. I know that makes no sense, but I don't know how else to explain it.

Peace

Originally posted by pryed -eyed-one
well ive been looking at it a litle bit more and i am starting to see corrilations especially arround the antarctic region and north pole. also on the left side of south america there is a big two ringed crater on the moon that matches up with a geographic feture there. and the big brite crater on the bottom portion matches with a feature as well so yea something weird is going on here i think. especially since nasa rendered the images to fit the exact spots too. so have a look for yourselves

Yes, I believe some of the features were from before and were on the earth present in our time, so that when looking at the moon we still see some of them.

Check out the yellowstone caldera or the sierra nevada mountain range, it is still very much in tact. Washington DC looks like it gets hammered. I think some are natural and some are weapons as almost every major capitol has a huge crater.

Thanks for your reply.

Peace

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Look at every capital.

Why, aren't 33 (I think) enough?

Sorry, duplicate.

[edit on 15/7/2010 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by ArMaP
Sorry, duplicate.

[edit on 15/7/2010 by ArMaP]

ArMaP if you are just looking at the moon with nothing to compare it with how do you think you will see anything? Obviously the moon is different from the current landscape we enjoy so nothing could be apparent without comparative analysis of corresponding features. Like I said I believe many of the features have literally been peeled off or are under a blanket of ash filling in the Mediterranean and many of the other seas and oceanlines and laying bare the mountain ranges.

I believe the catastrophe happens on the pacific side which is why it is virtually impossible but to make out only various features on that side save the Yellowstone caldera, the pacific mountain range and a few other features.

For goodness sakes look at the names on the moon, they lay over the same spots on the earth. Take Mare Australe for instance which lay correspondingly to the southwest of Australia's remains. You don't find it odd that Montes Alpes Just so happen to correspond to the french alpes?

As I've said, compare the Yellowstone caldera or the giant crater at the intersection of Nairobi, Uganda and Tanzania.

Peace



[edit on 15-7-2010 by letthereaderunderstand]

Some 3d Renderings

Lights
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e5e7b5cccdae.jpg[/atsimg]

Yellowstone
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5be7cabef13.jpg[/atsimg]

Hold on I have more, but I am having some technical difficulties. To much rendering...brb

Peace

THE MOON

Mathematical impossibilities

However, eminent scientists, working in defiance of the establishment, have proven conclusively, using the most scrupulous methods, that if an object such as the moon really existed, it could not remain fixed in the sky for very long. Proactive arguments in support of this finding return to a closer examination of the original mathematical formula generally referenced when rallying to solidify the moon’s improbable existence:


F = GMm/r2

In other words, the moon does indeed alter its distance from the earth. So why is it not widespread knowledge that the end – mathematically predicated BY NEWTON’S OWN FORMULA - has been anticipated and is drawing near? Due to some irrational explanation the moon has managed to defy those very laws of physics that were originally developed to justify its existence.

Here is the link
moon

You could be right it was made by some thing or some one and placed there to look like the earth who knows for sure ?

Nice video.








[edit on 15-7-2010 by jsettica]

Originally posted by jsettica
THE MOON

Mathematical impossibilities

However, eminent scientists, working in defiance of the establishment, have proven conclusively, using the most scrupulous methods, that if an object such as the moon really existed, it could not remain fixed in the sky for very long. Proactive arguments in support of this finding return to a closer examination of the original mathematical formula generally referenced when rallying to solidify the moon’s improbable existence:


F = GMm/r2

In other words, the moon does indeed alter its distance from the earth. So why is it not widespread knowledge that the end – mathematically predicated BY NEWTON’S OWN FORMULA - has been anticipated and is drawing near? Due to some irrational explanation the moon has managed to defy those very laws of physics that were originally developed to justify its existence.

Here is the link
moon

You could be right it was made by some thing or some one and placed there to look like the earth who knows for sure ?

Nice video.


Thanks for your post. I deal with the end in the last video i posted.

This is what i don't understand. If a vacuum has nothing in it to stop something (ex. pressure) and the moon is caught in earth's gravity, then how does the moon simply not fall to earth? Orbital velocity? How do you measure velocity against something that has no viscosity (ex.vacuum)?

I'm going to check out your link. Thanks again for your post.

Peace

[edit on 15-7-2010 by jsettica]

Here's the problem with your theory (and, I apologize if someone's already said this - but, not in the 1-1/2 pages I did read, before giving up looking)...

No matter what side of the ('origins argument') fence you are on, you have to acknowledge that both the earth and moon are very, VERY old.

Old enough to where plate tectonics would prohibit the earth and moon lining up in the neat, overlay fashion that you have represented.

More importantly, I see no correlation, to begin with.

Good video editing/creation skills though. (Star, but no flag)

Originally posted by Smack
Why would there be any correlation between the relatively recent topography of earth and the moon?
Studies indicate that the moon is at least as old as Earth, possibly even older.
So if anything a map of Pangaea should align better with the moon than today's maps of earth.

Actually according to Sitchin and the translated Sumerian tablets, He states that the moon was supposed to be a planet in the making. but due to the colliding between Nibiru and Tiamat the moon didn't get its chance and instead became our moon. The moon is older for sure.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


From what I gathered you seem to be leaning towards the mindstate that we are not living on a planet as many preceive.. Like the hologram set up, but why if humanity is on the moon would there be a need to show the moon why not hide it. Unless you view it like other ATS members as the prison planet of the human concious... And the moon would be the observation point as well as the spherical background image. Cool thread friend.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
Here's the problem with your theory (and, I apologize if someone's already said this - but, not in the 1-1/2 pages I did read, before giving up looking)...

No matter what side of the ('origins argument') fence you are on, you have to acknowledge that both the earth and moon are very, VERY old.

Old enough to where plate tectonics would prohibit the earth and moon lining up in the neat, overlay fashion that you have represented.

More importantly, I see no correlation, to begin with.

Good video editing/creation skills though. (Star, but no flag)

Hey SquirrelNutz thank you for your post.

As far as "origins" go...I am here, you are here, we are here. To say we have witnessed and therefore know where we have come from wouldn't be entirely true. We can Hypothesize from where we have come, but we can't honestly go any further then our imaginations as no one has witnessed our beginnings.

As to the age of the moon, I've stated no where how old I think it or the earth is for that matter, but again, that is irrelevant. We have no witness, we have no case. As science is always updating it's stance, only things set in stone can be accounted, till then I have no stance on the age of either body. I "know" they are older then I am or anyone living, past that all we have is here say.

I gladly take no stance then to take one and be wrong. I'm perfectly fine admitting I don't know things, but I'm responsible for what I do know. MS Science is very interesting and has taught me much, but we can always improve with science and I think many people forget that when grants and the money to be made from their research is questioned. Sadly science is becoming religion. Even so, science was never truly about facts. At one time science and philosophy were the same thing and in many ways still are. The word is literally a direct relative of the word "Sh!t" or "Scat" meaning to separate or divide from the body. That should tell you something.

science

c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study," also "a particular branch of knowledge," from O.Fr. science, from L. scientia "knowledge," from sciens (gen. scientis), prp. of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE base *skei- (cf. Gk. skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Goth. skaidan, O.E. sceadan "to divide, separate;" see shed (v.)). Modern sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1678. The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Gk. episteme) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhne), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill. Main modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions ... concerning any subject or speculation" is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this concept commonly was called philosophy. To blind (someone) with science "confuse by the use of big words or complex explanations" is attested from 1937, originally noted as a phrase from Australia and New Zealand.

I grew up thinking science was about stuff you could prove and that their were no bias's attached, but that is no where near the truth. When I say prove, I mean witness and not on a television set, but in reality.

Finally to the correlation, that is totally understandable. Again, I believe what ever hit the 'Earth" or Moon or what ever it is did some mighty damage as is evident with the Mare Moscoviense entry wound and the exit wound of the Orientale Basin which lay directly across from one another. The moon had a "drive by" and got "capped"....lol.

Thanks again for your post.

Peace

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


hey thanks for that "Scat/Shiite" tidbit, know where the word Testament is from?

[edit on by No King but Jesus]

Originally posted by No King but Jesus
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

hey thanks for that "Scat/Shiite" tidbit, know where the word Testament is from?

[edit on by No King but Jesus]

You are welcome. It is also the root of Schizo "to (shatter)" phrenic "the mind". Eclectic, that is Ecclesiastic also has root in this as they are "set apart" from the rest to be put in "confinement". They are then rapidzo, that is rapped on, beat, bludgeoned. "It pleased the father to bruise him"...

Last will and __________.

Peace

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
ArMaP if you are just looking at the moon with nothing to compare it with how do you think you will see anything?

So, I post more than 30 cities on Earth with the corresponding position on the Moon, as you said, and you answer that?

I just don't see anything on the places of all those capitals that could be understood as a result of "your" hypothetical cataclysm, some of those places look little affected by crater-making events.

Obviously the moon is different from the current landscape we enjoy so nothing could be apparent without comparative analysis of corresponding features. Like I said I believe many of the features have literally been peeled off or are under a blanket of ash filling in the Mediterranean and many of the other seas and oceanlines and laying bare the mountain ranges.

So, does it mean that you don't see corresponding areas and so you say that they were "peeled off" or "covered in ash"? That's a good way of avoiding comparisions.

"It was an exact replica, but something destroyed it", something like "the dog ate my homework".

For goodness sakes look at the names on the moon, they lay over the same spots on the earth. Take Mare Australe for instance which lay correspondingly to the southwest of Australia's remains. You don't find it odd that Montes Alpes Just so happen to correspond to the french alpes?

You do know what Austral means, right? And you know that the names of the Moon features were given by people living on Earth, right? So what's so strange in seeing those names on the Moon?

The same thing happened with the newly discovered lands, the Europeans gave names from the places they knew to the new places.

As I've said, compare the Yellowstone caldera or the giant crater at the intersection of Nairobi, Uganda and Tanzania.

You also said to compare the capitals; I did and you ignored it.

Peace

Only if you stop ignoring what I post.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
ArMaP if you are just looking at the moon with nothing to compare it with how do you think you will see anything?

So, I post more than 30 cities on Earth with the corresponding position on the Moon, as you said, and you answer that?

I just don't see anything on the places of all those capitals that could be understood as a result of "your" hypothetical cataclysm, some of those places look little affected by crater-making events.

Obviously the moon is different from the current landscape we enjoy so nothing could be apparent without comparative analysis of corresponding features. Like I said I believe many of the features have literally been peeled off or are under a blanket of ash filling in the Mediterranean and many of the other seas and oceanlines and laying bare the mountain ranges.

So, does it mean that you don't see corresponding areas and so you say that they were "peeled off" or "covered in ash"? That's a good way of avoiding comparisions.

"It was an exact replica, but something destroyed it", something like "the dog ate my homework".

For goodness sakes look at the names on the moon, they lay over the same spots on the earth. Take Mare Australe for instance which lay correspondingly to the southwest of Australia's remains. You don't find it odd that Montes Alpes Just so happen to correspond to the french alpes?

You do know what Austral means, right? And you know that the names of the Moon features were given by people living on Earth, right? So what's so strange in seeing those names on the Moon?

The same thing happened with the newly discovered lands, the Europeans gave names from the places they knew to the new places.

As I've said, compare the Yellowstone caldera or the giant crater at the intersection of Nairobi, Uganda and Tanzania.

You also said to compare the capitals; I did and you ignored it.

Peace

Only if you stop ignoring what I post.

How have I ignored what you posted? You posted names over places on the moon with nothing to compare it against. As I've already asked you, how do you expect to see anything if you are not comparing side by side? You can't compare Apples and Oranges if you don't know what an orange is. Make sense?

There is nothing strange about seeing the names on the moon, rather that the names directly correspond to the twin location on earth if indeed the earth be the moon. Where you find Monte Alpes or Valley Alpes on the moon you find the French Alpes when comparing side by side to it's corresponding location. They didn't name them Mount or Mons Alpes. It's not named after anyone so why not just call it Mount Alpes? Another example is Mare Frigoris. Why not just call it the Sea of Cold, rather then to use a Nordic name which directly corresponds to it's place on the earth?

If the pacific ocean was hit with something that could destroy all life on the planet do you honestly think the landscape would be exactly the same? Do you think the Austral sea was named after a 100 centavos? Surely you don't

Look at any of the ancient crater beds COMPARATIVELY. You want to see what the Chicxulub crater looks like for real? Line up your maps and have a look.

Either way, wither you see or don't really doesn't matter. I knew some would and some wouldn't. You're one of the ones who can't. Don't beat yourself up over it, just stick it in your "have a laugh" bin. It's on me.

I've answered you every time you've posted, so I know I haven't ignored you and I'm sorry if i did. The thirty names you posted were great and I thank you, but again if you're trying to figure out if two things look alike you need the other "thing" to compare to, so your post made no sense. You could of just put up a picture of cheese with names pined to it and said "I don't see the resemblance". Without the comparison, why even look?

Anyway Armap...Peace

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
How have I ignored what you posted? You posted names over places on the moon with nothing to compare it against.

I did what you tell us to do.

"Have a look in Google earth. Switch between the moon and earth. Pick a spot on the earth, then switch over to the moon. Only thing is, it will try to jump the second it switches. Check the pyramids. It will be in the same spot it is on my maps..."

I went to Google Earth, marked the places of all those cities and and then I changed to Google Moon to see where those markers would be. How is that comparing it against nothing?

I went to some major capitals looking for the craters you told appeared in every Major National Capitol, but there's nothing there.

There is nothing strange about seeing the names on the moon, rather that the names directly correspond to the twin location on earth if indeed the earth be the moon. Where you find Monte Alpes or Valley Alpes on the moon you find the French Alpes when comparing side by side to it's corresponding location.

Not really, you will find that a Earthly version of Montes Alpes would be on western France, not where the Alpes are (on the south east of France).

They didn't name them Mount or Mons Alpes. It's not named after anyone so why not just call it Mount Alpes?

They didn't named them "Mount" because most of the names not associated with people are in Latin and because of the same reason they didn't called them "Mons", because "mons" means mount and not "mounts", and the name means Mounts Alps, not Mount Alps.
(at least this was what I got from a little search, I don't know Latin )

Another example is Mare Frigoris. Why not just call it the Sea of Cold, rather then to use a Nordic name which directly corresponds to it's place on the earth?

What Nordic name are you talking about?
Mare Frigoris is Sea of Cold in Latin.

If the pacific ocean was hit with something that could destroy all life on the planet do you honestly think the landscape would be exactly the same?

No, a hit that would be strong enough to obliterate everything around the Pacific ocean would be so strong that nothing would be left as it is, the Earth would become a ball of lava, nothing would be left.

Do you think the Austral sea was named after a 100 centavos? Surely you don't

No, I think that Mare Australe got its name by the same reason Australia got its, because both are on the south. Mare Australe means southern sea and Terra Australis means southern land (or something like that).

Either way, wither you see or don't really doesn't matter. I knew some would and some wouldn't. You're one of the ones who can't. Don't beat yourself up over it, just stick it in your "have a laugh" bin. It's on me.

I understand (I think) what you mean, but what's there is not what you said it was, so either I am not seeing things as they are or you are seeing things as they are not.

I've answered you every time you've posted, so I know I haven't ignored you and I'm sorry if i did.

You did answered all my posts (and I thank you for that), but your answers ignored what I said.

The thirty names you posted were great and I thank you, but again if you're trying to figure out if two things look alike you need the other "thing" to compare to, so your post made no sense.

Then what you said to us (to look at Google Earth and then change to Google Moon) makes no sense either.


I think your biggest problem is a lack of enough resolution in those images. A 2500 pixels image of the Moon has a resolution (at the equator) of almost 4.5 km per pixel, so a pixel wrong moves things 4.5 km. But on a 2500 pixels image of the Earth you will have a resolution of 16 km per pixel, so a wrong pixel moves things 16 km from the original place.

I also think that you didn't how much energy is needed to obliterate the Pacific area, and that so much energy will make more damage than the one you are using for your (highly original) idea.

There's nothing wrong in having original ideas, but basing them on real facts is always better.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
The earth is hit by something on the pacific side something like this...
...

This obliterates everything on the western hemisphere which is why it is so hard to make out any of the western features. By the time the blast wave reaches the east coast it only vaporizes the water which is why we have the Mares left as an outline.

I think that movie is a good representation, only I don't know if something hits us or we just pop.

The biggest problem I see with this theory other than the fact that the maria aren't such a great match for Earth even today, is plate tectonics on the Earth.

The moon hasn't changed much, but once the Atlantic ocean didn't even exist on Earth and all the continents were together so the Earth would have looked completely different in the past. So not only does it not match today, but it wouldn't have matched 200 million years ago either, nor 400 million.

reply to post by ArMaP


Hey Armap thanks for your reply. I see what you are saying about the pixel size. Makes sense.

Ok, I just tried pinning a place on earth in Google Earth but when I jumped to the moon the spot I had pinned had moved considerably. It is still close but not exact so I see what you are saying.

I have a couple close up shots of some features on both the moon and earth that are very similar to one another. I'll try to post those here in a bit to see what you guys think.

Let me ask you a question. Why is the moon Grey? Why is it not brown or some other color? Why Grey and black? I've always thought that the only thing that could make a foot print like on the moon would be ash. What do you think?

Also, do you know of anything that could "shrink" a planet? I would imagine, seeing as how everything seams to expand and contract at some point or another that planets, just like a star will eventually shrink. Take the gas giants for example as the gas within the atmosphere cools it will condense thus becoming heavier causing it to fall towards the center. The more mass at the center combining becoming more dense would eventually solidify
Maybe it took a Jupiter size planet to become an earth like planet. What is your take on that?

thanks again armap

Peace

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
The earth is hit by something on the pacific side something like this...
...

This obliterates everything on the western hemisphere which is why it is so hard to make out any of the western features. By the time the blast wave reaches the east coast it only vaporizes the water which is why we have the Mares left as an outline.

I think that movie is a good representation, only I don't know if something hits us or we just pop.

The biggest problem I see with this theory other than the fact that the maria aren't such a great match for Earth even today, is plate tectonics on the Earth.

The moon hasn't changed much, but once the Atlantic ocean didn't even exist on Earth and all the continents were together so the Earth would have looked completely different in the past. So not only does it not match today, but it wouldn't have matched 200 million years ago either, nor 400 million.

Hey Arbitrageur thank you for your post.

When you talk about the continents together are you talking about a Pangaea type scenario or a growing (expanding) earth scenario?

I myself lean towards the expanding earth theory. I used to believe the Pangaea model, but i think that is because that was the only scenario available to me in school. I had never heard of the expanding earth till about a year or so ago. Once I saw the model of how the earth grew along with the age of the sea beds, how the core samples get younger and younger towards the rifts it became a no brainer for me. Plus I had never even thought about the possibility of the pacific side being able to fit together with Australia, japan and the other Asian countries.

What do you think about the tectonics? Growing earth or Standard model?

Thanks again...Peace