Is the Moon a Mothership ?

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
...Scientific fact is only limited to the lab while those that get out, experience fact themselves. Believing is doing.

So do it, believer.

"Experience facts for themselves"? Wait....

...Weren't you the person who questioned why an astronaut would need a rover to travel several kms while carrying 50 extra pounds (that's "on the moon pounds") of spacesuit, plus carrying picks and shovels, plus carrying bags of Moon rocks? All while wearing a bulky space suit?

Have you ever "EXPERIENCED" trying to hike several km while carrying 50 extra pounds of stuff? If you have, I doubt you did so in a bulky suit that constricts your movement.

It isn't a coincidence that until the first rover was sent with Apollo 15 that the astronauts did not venture very far from the LEM.

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Phage

 

reply to post by FreedomCommander

 

You can construct things in vacuum - NASA has a robotic arms which does that all the time. As for gravity... As far as I know, the Moon has enough gravity that Aldrin and Armstrong were able to drive in a moon Jeep without flying into outer space.

But what about from the ground up? I mean, going in my mind, it's hard to do so, since you have a lot of restriction.

As for the jeep/rover, there is enough to drift. Which says a lot of things.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


Do you mean, you think there might not be enough gravity to build from ground up? I think there's enough. I mean, why would construction need more? Wouldn't lack of gravity reduce structural stress?

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Phage

 

reply to post by FreedomCommander

 

You can construct things in vacuum - NASA has a robotic arms which does that all the time. As for gravity... As far as I know, the Moon has enough gravity that Aldrin and Armstrong were able to drive in a moon Jeep without flying into outer space.

But what about from the ground up? I mean, going in my mind, it's hard to do so, since you have a lot of restriction.

Yes. It would be very difficult for a person to construct a building "from scratch" on the moon due to the lack of an atmosphere. As I said before, that's why a smart person (or smart alien) would use modular construction techniques, and use pre-fab buildings (or string together pieces of building) instead of trying to build a building the traditional way.

In an earlier post you talked about seeing buildings on the Moon, and calling that evidence of a breathable atmosphere. Can you please tell me more about these buildings you are talking about and why do you think these buildings (if they do exist) were built "from the ground up".

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

There is a difference between scientific fact and up-close experience fact.

Yes, scientific fact is objective, i.e. does not depend on figment of imagination. The size of the moon is the same, regardless of what your visual perception tells you. That's the difference between science and "experience", as you call it.

Scientific fact is only limited to the lab while those that get out, experience fact themselves.

You are missing out on quite a lot of knowledge this way. You can't experience the mass of the electron, or the energy of a nuke. And speaking, to "limited to the lab", sheesh, what nonsense. When we bounce radio waves off Venus, where the "lab" in that?

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
It would be very difficult for a person to construct a building "from scratch" on the moon due to the lack of an atmosphere. As I said before, that's why a smart person (or smart alien) would use modular construction techniques, and use pre-fab buildings (or string together pieces of building) instead of trying to build a building the traditional way

I can't say I agree. With advances in robotics, lack of atmosphere is secondary. Given a stable source of energy, anything's possible. If you don't have appropriate building materials, you can mine for these or synthesize the compounds you need. Taken to the extreme, you can melt most rocks, porous or not, and just cast blocks of building material. It's not even SciFi.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
It would be very difficult for a person to construct a building "from scratch" on the moon due to the lack of an atmosphere. As I said before, that's why a smart person (or smart alien) would use modular construction techniques, and use pre-fab buildings (or string together pieces of building) instead of trying to build a building the traditional way

I can't say I agree. With advances in robotics, lack of atmosphere is secondary. Given a stable source of energy, anything's possible. If you don't have appropriate building materials, you can mine for these or synthesize the compounds you need. Taken to the extreme, you can melt most rocks, porous or not, and just cast blocks of building material. It's not even SciFi.

You're right. I should have clarified that it would be difficult for humans to build a building from scratch on the Moon "now", with our technology.

I think freedomcommanders's point is that he saw some pictures that show purported buildings on the Moon (although I don't know which photos he means); therefore, according to him, there must be a breathable atmosphere, because someone/something had to construct those buildings.

I suppose though, using your argument, advanced aliens could construct buildings "from the ground up" on the Moon without a breathable atmosphere by using advanced robotics. However, I think I am getting way ahead of myself, considering I don't even know what buildings he is talking about

reply to post by FreedomCommander

Rules say you can't build anything on a surface that has no air.

Which rules? Seriously, which rules? Why do you avoid this question?

Originally posted by ConspiracyMatt
I think maybe some people just want to believe.
Myself personally, I think the Moon is a big rock. Maybe that's why the governments have shown no interest
in it for so long?
We have been there, collected some rocks, dumped a flag. Then left.
The moon is similar to a party at T.G.I Fridays = No atmosphere

No. They went to the moon repeatedly for many years and many missions.

If there was no credible atmosphere and structures there, then why would they do that?

And richard hoagland proves the brooking institute knew about the monuments well before man walked on the moon, and there is a national security clause in NASA's charter defining it as an adjunct of department of defense, meaning they can classify ANYTHING THEY WANT and the general public would be none-the-wiser.

The photos shown to the general public are not worth the paper they were printed on. They were faked, but the originals god knows where they are hidden are real. People do not spend billions of dollars, a decade of planning and studying of occult knowledge by the inside-crowd(masons) just for the heck of it. There is almost always a good reason for everything.

Yes man went to the moon and yes they found stuff. Richard Hoagland and John Lear know what they are talking about. I think Richard Hoagland is more knowledgeable though, just my opinion. Check out their websites.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Hoagland? You sure? Ok. Lets make this easy
Here he is perpetuating yet another hoax about the Moon
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's more of his unending nonsense.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

If I may draw your attention to the Moon's surface, there are buildings there. Rules say you can't build anything on a surface that has no air.

If you would be so kind to explain to everyone here, how is it possible for building to exist on a desolate surface with no air?

First of all, which buildings are you talking about? Can you be more specific? I know people have made claims of buildings on the Moon before, but I haven't seen proof positive of this.

Secondly, and hypothetically, why can't buildings exist where there is no air? If someday humans colonize the Moon and build Moon bases (which I think could certainly become a reality someday), those moon bases would be considered "buildings", but they could be put there whether there was air or not.

edit on 12/19/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

And people would breath HOW? Even if we assume people need breathing apparatus such as oxygen tanks, WHERE will they refill them FROM? Are they gonna take another shuttle flight back to earth just to refill their oxygen tanks?????

Come on. Yes there are monuments there and no you do not build stuff on the moon unless you have gauranteed an oxygen supply and a rather normal atmosphere. Lack of atmosphere suggests vacuum conditions and there is no proof for that. It does not even make sense what you are suggesting, just parroting NASA misinformation.

A government that is not even capable of running social security. And stupid people believe them!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Oxygen can be recycled pretty efficiently. It can also be extracted from lunar rocks as can other consumables.
www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Oxygen can be recycled pretty efficiently. It can also be extracted from lunar rocks as can other consumables.
www.nasa.gov...

You cannot recycle it perpetually though. There needs to be a domestic source of oxygen which can only come from a planet that has a credible atmosphere. I am not saying the moon's atmosphere is totally breathable, I am saying it probably contains a respectable amount...enough to capture it, filter it and recycle it.

Extracted from lunar rocks? Maybe you are confusing oxygen with helium 3 which the moon is said to have vast quantities of and is worth mining for.

reply to post by swan001


No, it's not a gravity thing, I'm just going off orthodox's view on things, that's all.

Unorthodox views, they would say, "Well, let's build. Every terrestrial rock out there anyone can live on without a suit of any sort."

What I'm saying here is, orthodox isn't being nice and telling the truth.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I maybe going off someone else's work here, but I have no where else to go.

It's up to you whether or not to know.

This is a deep hole, and finding the end of the hole isn't easy.

Once your past a certain point in the "hole", you drop all of the ideas you were taught and start fresh.

Wish to start fresh? Read a book by Joseph H. Cater by the title of Awesome Lifeforce, this guy will give you a more detailed version of what I'm talking about.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


But there is more to the story than there seems.

If our planet is breathable, what says that others are not?

Who told us that other planets are not breathable?

Who said that we are to stay on Earth?

How old is the human race?

So many questions, and it sorrows me why they haven't been answered with honesty.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


There is no need.

So far that I have read the accounts of it, the air there is breathable and there is another account of Armstrong's experience.

He, along with Aldrin didn't see the stars when they were in outer space, when they got to the moon, they saw them.

Rules say that light can only be seen clearly from far off distances when diffracted or broken down into a lower frequency.

So, to point out if the Moon does have a atmosphere, to see the stars you need a atmosphere.

ALL planets in our solar system have moons (sans Venus). What the hell makes OURS any different than theirs? It's just a satellite, like all the other planetary satellites. Unless you all want to believe THOSE are "artificial" too? I swear...

reply to post by FreedomCommander

So, to point out if the Moon does have a atmosphere, to see the stars you need a atmosphere.

Space must be filled with atmosphere or do the STEREO sats carry their own atmosphere to see the stars?

ETA: What's your source for this one?

Rules say that light can only be seen clearly from far off distances when diffracted or broken down into a lower frequency.

The Hubble must be quite a "rulebreaker".

reply to post by Ben81


I don't believe it is.. BUT it would make a great sci fi movie imo love the idea!