Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

reply to post by ArMaP

Apparently people forget that a tuning fork is not hollow.

A tuning fork is built with the same idea as a bell in mind. It is made up of solid cylinders perhaps, but as in my previous post it’s got that space between the two prongs that actually make that pitch, due to what material the prongs are made out of, the weight, etc.; thus a hollow space IS used to accurately measure pitch with tuning forks.

reply to post by Kyobosha


Aight fancy numbers good job making me look bad haha!

reply to post by OmegaLogos


I do like your explanation

However I do have to say, the picture that started that thread by Anubis which Phage debunked or so….
That picture is a real close up of the head of the earth, why would we see any significant section of any continent, especially if the piture is taken from the pacific side.

Phage’s own picture has photographical inaccuracies and edits in it.

Anyway, if on google earth you go look at say the south pole, there is a BIG obvious circle edited out of google earth. Google space will give you louzy pictures of the tops and bottoms of other planets as well.

Just to tie this all back together with the topic of the thread, common point is that the government is not honest to us with almost everything; why is it a security threat to see what really is on the moon, or unedited pictures of our own planet? Whoever it was that said or asked that sanders1967’s findings can be found on any picture…. I highly doubt. There probably are a few important pictures out there however that I think so happened to catch some craft or humanoid that aren't supposed to be revealed to us just yet that will obviously be edited.

Originally posted by Kyobosha
NASA scientists have even said the moon rings like a bell. This is because seismic data from moon quakes have produced movement for longer than 10 minutes at times. This is highly uncharacteristic for a solid sphere.

But is it uncharacteristic for a solid sphere as big as the Moon, made of the same material?

Maybe when the bible was written, a bell was the closest object to compare it to...

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that or why you wrote it.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Kyobosha
NASA scientists have even said the moon rings like a bell. This is because seismic data from moon quakes have produced movement for longer than 10 minutes at times. This is highly uncharacteristic for a solid sphere.

But is it uncharacteristic for a solid sphere as big as the Moon, made of the same material?

We may think of the Earth as a solid sphere, but in fact the solid crust is only a few km thick under which there is essentially liquid rock or magma.

The solid part of the Earth's crust is so thin you can barely see it here:

www.diercke.de...


Compare that to the moon cross section where the solid part is quite deep:

www.nasa.gov...


Earthquakes generate two types of waves, P waves and S waves, as described here:

en.wikipedia.org...

S waves can only travel through solids, and not through liquids. So of course when the solid part of the moon extends to probably 72% of its depth (source: www.nasa.gov...), while the solid part of the Earth's crust extends to perhaps 1% of it's depth, of course the S-wave propagation characteristics should be completely different on the moon compared to the Earth, as a result of this dramatic difference.

This may have something to do with the moon "ringing" longer than the Earth; it's more solid than the Earth, which contains proportionally more "liquid rock" than the moon. And if you ever look at lava flowing out of a volcano, the molten lava just doesn't look like it would be a very good conductor of sound, meaning if you hit the lava with a sledgehammer, you wouldn't expect to hear as much ringing as you would if you hit a solid rock instead.

That's great work OP! It's much appreciated. However, it still leaves room for argument.

You know what's really doing it in for NASA? The fact that they want Gary McKinnon so badly.

reply to post by 1967sander

On the video i had issues with, what starting at 4:57, didn't see anythere there, but loved the rest.
Having done some video work, its possible, just can't wait until we can prove it.

reply to post by Human_Alien

That's great work OP!

Guessing the entire thread has not been read, yet? The OP used software inappropriately, and came up to an invalid conclusion, based on a pre-determined confirmation bias.

You know what's really doing it in for NASA? The fact that they want Gary McKinnon so badly.

Source? Specifically, the source that shows "NASA" want McKinnon, and not the FBI....or the U.S. military.....

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Kyobosha
NASA scientists have even said the moon rings like a bell. This is because seismic data from moon quakes have produced movement for longer than 10 minutes at times. This is highly uncharacteristic for a solid sphere.

But is it uncharacteristic for a solid sphere as big as the Moon, made of the same material?

How many rocks have you come across that ring like a bell? It isn't made of perfect glass or one material like stainless steel in the case of a tuning fork.



The Moon's crust is a mixed composition of mineral types.

The Moon's mantle is supposed to be composed a heterogeneous composition of oclinopyroxene, olivine, orthopyroxene and smaller amounts of other minerals. The lower mantle is supposedly partially molten.

The Moon's core is estimated to be mostly molten iron on the outside and solid iron and a littly nickol in the centre.

Why would it ring more than Earth?

reply to post by PrimePorkchop


No evidence of WHAT?

The only "evidence" I provided in this thread was photos that prove the astronaut was holding a camera, thus why the OP was incorrect in his evaluation of that aspect (that the reflection was a cutout). I did that packaged in as an example of how to be effectively skeptical as opposed to your approach (which is "utilized" by a great number of people here).

Are you sure it's I who is seeing what they want to see?

Namaste

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
We may think of the Earth as a solid sphere, but in fact the solid crust is only a few km thick under which there is essentially liquid rock or magma.

In fact the upper mantle is more solid than that. It behaves like an extremely viscous liquid (as does glass) but is mostly "solid". It is molten where there are volcanoes because there is a magma chamber there beneath the crust which has risen from deeper within the Earth.

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
We may think of the Earth as a solid sphere, but in fact the solid crust is only a few km thick under which there is essentially liquid rock or magma.

In fact the upper mantle is more solid than that. It behaves like an extremely viscous liquid (as does glass) but is mostly "solid". It is molten where there are volcanoes because there is a magma chamber there beneath the crust which has risen from deeper within the Earth.

edit on 9/11/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

That's true.

However it still doesn't exactly refute my point that you have to go much deeper in the moon to find a comparable extremely viscous liquid, and that the acoustic properties of the moon will be expected to differ significantly as a result. I did oversimplify a bit for brevity and I consider your correction/clarification to be quite valid.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I'm definitely still confused by the acoustic properties bit. I'm not saying it can't be due to the higher proportion of solid but surely vibrations still have a greater area to travel through on Earth.

This is a bit sad as I have a Geology A-Level but can't remember this or wasn't taught it properly (which is more likely).

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Kyobosha
NASA scientists have even said the moon rings like a bell. This is because seismic data from moon quakes have produced movement for longer than 10 minutes at times. This is highly uncharacteristic for a solid sphere.

But is it uncharacteristic for a solid sphere as big as the Moon, made of the same material?

Any vibration lasting that long is in a solid sphere is uncharacteristic of what we see here on earth.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that or why you wrote it.

Just responding to your post and the post you replied to there. Tuning forks weren't around when the bible was written so just thought I'd say maybe a bell was the closest thing they could use to explain a phenomenon. You can only explain stuff as good as what you know.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Kyobosha
NASA scientists have even said the moon rings like a bell. This is because seismic data from moon quakes have produced movement for longer than 10 minutes at times. This is highly uncharacteristic for a solid sphere.

But is it uncharacteristic for a solid sphere as big as the Moon, made of the same material?

We may think of the Earth as a solid sphere, but in fact the solid crust is only a few km thick under which there is essentially liquid rock or magma.

The Earth's lithosphere is more than a 'few' km thick and this portion of the Earth does propagate S-waves.

S waves can only travel through solids, and not through liquids. So of course when the solid part of the moon extends to probably 72% of its depth (source: www.nasa.gov...), while the solid part of the Earth's crust extends to perhaps 1% of it's depth, of course the S-wave propagation characteristics should be completely different on the moon compared to the Earth, as a result of this dramatic difference.

True, S-waves don't propagate through liquids BUT p-waves can. These waves are the fastest traveling waves that reach sensors first. They also transform into a different wave when moving between mediums.

This may have something to do with the moon "ringing" longer than the Earth; it's more solid than the Earth, which contains proportionally more "liquid rock" than the moon. And if you ever look at lava flowing out of a volcano, the molten lava just doesn't look like it would be a very good conductor of sound, meaning if you hit the lava with a sledgehammer, you wouldn't expect to hear as much ringing as you would if you hit a solid rock instead.

One thing though, the seismic data that leads scientists to say it rings like a bell occurs in shallow quakes that are only 20-30 km deep. This depth should experience s and p-waves on either the Earth or the Moon. Also, lava may not be a good conductor of 'sound' but it still transfers energy. These waves propagate as compression waves through a liquid, however the waves are transverse waves through a solid. I think its interesting to note that both air and liquid transmit waves as compression waves... Frankly though I wouldn't expect the rock to ring like a bell. The reason they compare the Moon to a bell is because the waves resonate for an extended period of time unlike a solid object or rock.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
We may think of the Earth as a solid sphere, but in fact the solid crust is only a few km thick under which there is essentially liquid rock or magma.

In fact the upper mantle is more solid than that. It behaves like an extremely viscous liquid (as does glass) but is mostly "solid". It is molten where there are volcanoes because there is a magma chamber there beneath the crust which has risen from deeper within the Earth.

edit on 9/11/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

That's true.

However it still doesn't exactly refute my point that you have to go much deeper in the moon to find a comparable extremely viscous liquid, and that the acoustic properties of the moon will be expected to differ significantly as a result. I did oversimplify a bit for brevity and I consider your correction/clarification to be quite valid.

You are absolutely correct that if both the Earth and the Moon were solid you would have to go further to find a comparable highly viscous fluid. Heck even if the were hollow, it is likely as well since the Earth is larger (considering Newtons law of cooling and other factors). Any idea why though the waves wouldn't resonate similarly when they are shallow (20-30km) deep? At that depth you would expect the Earth and the Moon to have similar properties... (Not exactly the same though given the different composition of solids).

Kyo

reply to post by Pimander


Frankly I don't fully understand it either. Maybe there is a simple explanation but I find the comparison interesting. There is just a whole lot that we don't know about our universe as well as our own planet. What if a lot of the hypotheses in quantum physics are true. What if we weren't told the whole truth about what happened on the moon. It's all possible, and that's the beauty of ATS, being able to discuss what could be possible.

Kyo

Originally posted by Kyobosha
Any vibration lasting that long is in a solid sphere is uncharacteristic of what we see here on earth.

Yes, but as we have only seismic data from Earth and a little from the Moon, the only thing we can be sure is that they are different.

Tuning forks weren't around when the bible was written so just thought I'd say maybe a bell was the closest thing they could use to explain a phenomenon. You can only explain stuff as good as what you know.

What I don't understand is the Bible connection.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Kyobosha
Any vibration lasting that long is in a solid sphere is uncharacteristic of what we see here on earth.

Yes, but as we have only seismic data from Earth and a little from the Moon, the only thing we can be sure is that they are different.

At last. That's how far I got but no further. I'm not the only one who hasn't grasped the rest of the "explanation".

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
reply to post by PrimePorkchop

 

No evidence of WHAT?

The only "evidence" I provided in this thread was photos that prove the astronaut was holding a camera, thus why the OP was incorrect in his evaluation of that aspect (that the reflection was a cutout). I did that packaged in as an example of how to be effectively skeptical as opposed to your approach (which is "utilized" by a great number of people here).

Are you sure it's I who is seeing what they want to see?

Namaste

edit on 9-11-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)

Yes, actually, i'm positive that it's not "i" who is seeing what they want to see.

This thread is one of the biggest proclamations ever to be made by a CT'er and nay a shred of evidence to back i up.

Numerous requests of the OP him or her self and not a single response.

You claim you proved he was holding a camera, yet I even find your evidence of that extremely flaky (and to that matter, irrelevant)

There is no proof at all in this thread, yet there are people still drooling over it like they were on death row and this was what they requested for their last supper.

A big bowl of non sense.
Served with a nice glass of Kool-Aid.

They're slurping it all up.