Is the Moon a Mothership ?

Originally posted by Anunaki10

Originally posted by buddhasystem
A lot of my experience and knowledge comes from measuring stuff and doing actual experiment, not from reading some New Age cr@p books, which explain how the Great Pyramids are nuclear reactors, or power stations, and how they act as "crystals" (bleh).

From about 35:15 into this www.exohuman.com... conference about 'Starchildren' , Mary Rodwell mentioned about a 5 year old child >>Two little anecdotes i will tell you is a 5 year old child in Australia, his mother was talking about the pyramids, and he got very angry with her when she said that slaves placed these huge stones by physical hard work when they built the pyramids, and he said [url=http://www.exohuman.com/wordpress/2011/02/new-human-starchildren-indigos/]>>No mommy! You got it all wrong! You don't know! Because i was there! They changed the density structure of the objects large and small, and they levitated the stones into place, and they placed a 'Crystal' on the top of the pyramids so they could communicate with other worlds! The informations are in the Sphinx i haven't found yet.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
this is so 1995.

search function

use it

If you believe all information readily accessible through google,
your thinking is very 1995. Get over it.


And Buddhasystem, your trolling is one reason that this forum has degraded.

I wish there was a flag post so that I could click it for every one of your posts.

You have contributed nothing to this conversation, just hatred of others.

reply to post by ThreeDeuce


Sorry, I just show the door. It's up to people on whether or not they want to open it.

At least it's a interesting read, yeah?

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Well, if your so smart Mr. scientist, then tell me this, how do you build a spaceship, mainly a model of a UFO?

Make the hull out of AlON.
Transparent Aluminium
A company called Surmet makes it.
It has armor characteristics.

reply to post by Phage


Gibberish to you, but not to me.

Declare him all you want, but it's impossible to hide the truth once people know it and have seen it.

reply to post by TauCetixeta


Karl Schappeller.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FreedomCommander

 

It would be more useful to address the points I made:

1) Why does your source not consider the true source of tides which is gravity gradient?

2) Why does the fact that the force of gravity acts through matter violate the law of conservation of energy?

3) Why does your source ignore the inverse square law and declare that the Moon must have a greater surface gravity than the Sun?

The inescapable conclusion is that your source is an idiot.

edit on 12/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I have to agree with Phage.
He knows his science.
It is what it is.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by TauCetixeta

 

Karl Schappeller.

I'm sorry but Phage is right. Karl has it all wrong.
Yes, the Germans jumped ahead but not with this crazy thing.
When you see the real thing you will laugh out loud.
There is a relationship between electrostatic energy and gravity that has been
suppressed.

Forget about Karl and go down a different road.

Try Thomas Townsend Brown.

reply to post by TauCetixeta


It's because I said somethings that are threatening to his view of things that he decided to take offense.

But don't worry, he''s not the first that had his views threatened. That author warned all the reader about those kinds of people, He also warned that they don't have a very high Brunler number.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by TauCetixeta

 

It's because I said somethings that are threatening to his view of things that he decided to take offense.

But don't worry, he''s not the first that had his views threatened. That author warned all the reader about those kinds of people, He also warned that they don't have a very high Brunler number.

That's not it.
Phage takes offense to gibberish.
Trust me. He knows what he is saying.

Think of a solution more simple with fewer moving parts.
Think of something more elegant.
In an emergency it has to be able to run on batteries. ( DC Power)

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FreedomCommander

 

It would be more useful to address the points I made:

1) Why does your source not consider the true source of tides which is gravity gradient?

2) Why does the fact that the force of gravity acts through matter violate the law of conservation of energy?

3) Why does your source ignore the inverse square law and declare that the Moon must have a greater surface gravity than the Sun?

The inescapable conclusion is that your source is an idiot.

edit on 12/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

1. Because to consider the popular view of it would be a orthodox act and wouldn't make sense at all.

2. Gravity only has a limited penetration, I believed you missed that.

3. Because it doesn't make sense to him, instead of sweeping a paradox under the carpet, like most orthodox scientist do, he shows it into the light. He takes it apart, piece by piece and then finds what makes it tick. Using the Inverse Square law would be no less of saying that your world is only made of a fantasy math than reality.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

I see.
He rejects reality and substitutes his fantasy. Got it.

You didn't answer any of the questions.

reply to post by TauCetixeta


But what he's saying is no short of this.

"Never utter these words: I do not know this therefore it is false. One must study to know; know to understand; understand to judge"

reply to post by FreedomCommander


You're going the wrong way. Stop.
Try this: Positive and negative energies react in an annihilation process.

reply to post by Phage


You never read his book, did you?

reply to post by FreedomCommander

No.
That's why I asked you to explain it for me. In your own words. You didn't do that. You just said, in effect "because he says so".

reply to post by FreedomCommander


Just do me a favor and take a break.
Christmas is very soon. Stop arguing with Phage.

Go check out Thomas Townsend Brown for a while.
He played around with dielectric plates.

reply to post by Phage


I show the door, it's up to people on whether or not they want to open it.

reply to post by TauCetixeta


Brown? That guy, Cater, mentions him.

Took his work and broke it down, found that Electrons are more likely to be attracted to Protons than vice versa.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

How noble of you.
The trouble is if your quoted excerpts are any indication, that door leads nowhere.