Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > David Icke: Research & Media > Human Race Get Off Your Knees

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-10-2012, 04:31 PM   #381
believenothing
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 3,420
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default getting back on topic...

As mentioned previously, the moon as a disc observed from Earth is the same size as the sun as a disc observed from Earth. This is what makes a total eclipse possible. As also mentioned, it's not always a perfect fit resulting in annular eclipses.

The reason why this is mentioned when discussing the moon being a possible artificial satellite is because it's a statistic miracle and completely unique in our Solar System. It's not proof that the moon is artificial or hollow or a spaceship, etc, but it does make you wonder if something intelligent placed it in that position to do just that. But what purpose would it serve in that position other than the rare occasional eclipsing of the sun?
believenothing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 04:41 PM   #382
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by believenothing View Post
As mentioned previously, the moon as a disc observed from Earth is the same size as the sun as a disc observed from Earth. This is what makes a total eclipse possible. As also mentioned, it's not always a perfect fit resulting in annular eclipses.

The reason why this is mentioned when discussing the moon being a possible artificial satellite is because it's a statistic miracle and completely unique in our Solar System. It's not proof that the moon is artificial or hollow or a spaceship, etc, but it does make you wonder if something intelligent placed it in that position to do just that. But what purpose would it serve in that position other than the rare occasional eclipsing of the sun?
the only thing miraculous about it is that there is witness to it. in the past the moon was closer so this effect would not occur, like wise in the future it will be further away and also will not occur. any point in the universe would probably have some statistical miracle what about the earth being the exact right distance from the sun to support life, also a miracle. other planets have eclipses also, not so unique to earth.

Quote:
All four giant planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) can experience eclipses, since they all have substantial moons and the Sun appears small from them. Eclipses are most common on Jupiter, because its moons orbit in the same plane with the Sun. There are many nice spacecraft photos that show dark shadows of the moons on Jupiter's disk. Unfortunately, since none of the giant planets have solid surfaces (all of their outer parts are composed of gas), one cannot stand on them and watch the eclipses. But their moons have solid surfaces and offer spectacular view. Moons of Jupiter experience eclipses once per each orbit, and those around Saturn can regularly see the Sun being eclipsed by Saturn's rings before and after the regular eclipse.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=442
__________________
The Person
The Common Law
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 04:45 PM   #383
sniper13x
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pacific NW, USA (Radiation anyone?)
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by believenothing View Post
As mentioned previously, the moon as a disc observed from Earth is the same size as the sun as a disc observed from Earth. This is what makes a total eclipse possible. As also mentioned, it's not always a perfect fit resulting in annular eclipses.

The reason why this is mentioned when discussing the moon being a possible artificial satellite is because it's a statistic miracle and completely unique in our Solar System. It's not proof that the moon is artificial or hollow or a spaceship, etc, but it does make you wonder if something intelligent placed it in that position to do just that. But what purpose would it serve in that position other than the rare occasional eclipsing of the sun?
To me the most fascinating thing about the moon is its craters. The depth of the craters defy logic, they don't match the circumference of the craters. The moon really is one odd ball.
sniper13x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 04:51 PM   #384
indolering
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 3,092
Likes: 79 (59 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by believenothing View Post
As mentioned previously, the moon as a disc observed from Earth is the same size as the sun as a disc observed from Earth. This is what makes a total eclipse possible. As also mentioned, it's not always a perfect fit resulting in annular eclipses.

The reason why this is mentioned when discussing the moon being a possible artificial satellite is because it's a statistic miracle and completely unique in our Solar System. It's not proof that the moon is artificial or hollow or a spaceship, etc, but it does make you wonder if something intelligent placed it in that position to do just that. But what purpose would it serve in that position other than the rare occasional eclipsing of the sun?
Being a proponent of the spaceship theory of the moon's origin, I feel the moon was positioned in orbit around Earth. Exactly why it was placed where it is requires broad speculation. But I suspect that it has something to do with the geometry of the Earth/Moon/Sun system. And it's placement would probably be advantageous to the ETs involved in carrying out their purpose for being here. Icke believes that the ETs responsible for the moon are a malevolent group intent on exploiting Earth and its inhabitants, and I agree. Further, considering that Saturn may play a significant role in the subjugation of Earth, the moon's relationship in space with Saturn is probably also a factor in its placement.
indolering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 05:07 PM   #385
indolering
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 3,092
Likes: 79 (59 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper13x View Post
To me the most fascinating thing about the moon is its craters. The depth of the craters defy logic, they don't match the circumference of the craters. The moon really is one odd ball.
The depth of the craters is truly anomalous. But the spaceship moon theory explains it well: the metallic hull which protects the moon from bombardment prevents the meteors from penetrating any deeper, and also explains why some of the craters are convex at the bottom of the crater.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
the only thing miraculous about it is that there is witness to it. in the past the moon was closer so this effect would not occur, like wise in the future it will be further away and also will not occur. any point in the universe would probably have some statistical miracle what about the earth being the exact right distance from the sun to support life, also a miracle. other planets have eclipses also, not so unique to earth.



http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=442
If this were the only anomaly associated with the moon, we wouldn't be having this discussion - I would agree that it's merely a coincidence. But the many anomalies of the moon mitigate against it being a natural construct. For a complete list of the remarkable 'coincidences' of the Earth/Moon/Sun system, see Who Built The Moon by Knight and Butler.

Last edited by indolering; 01-10-2012 at 05:17 PM.
indolering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 05:30 PM   #386
sniper13x
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pacific NW, USA (Radiation anyone?)
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by indolering View Post
The depth of the craters is truly anomalous. But the spaceship moon theory explains it well: the metallic hull which protects the moon from bombardment prevents the meteors from penetrating any deeper, and also explains why some of the craters are convex at the bottom of the crater.



If this were the only anomaly associated with the moon, we wouldn't be having this discussion - I would agree that it's merely a coincidence. But the many anomalies of the moon mitigate against it being a natural construct. For a complete list of the remarkable 'coincidences' of the Earth/Moon/Sun system, see Who Built The Moon by Knight and Butler.
Good post! Here is a treat for you, i love watching this guy's videos they are fascinating and entertaining.

Likes: (1)
sniper13x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 06:29 PM   #387
believenothing
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 3,420
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jon galt View Post
the only thing miraculous about it is that there is witness to it. in the past the moon was closer so this effect would not occur, like wise in the future it will be further away and also will not occur. any point in the universe would probably have some statistical miracle what about the earth being the exact right distance from the sun to support life, also a miracle. other planets have eclipses also, not so unique to earth.



http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=442
Again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by believenothing View Post
As mentioned previously, the moon as a disc observed from Earth is the same size as the sun as a disc observed from Earth. This is what makes a total eclipse possible.
No other planet in our solar system has comparable eclipses. A total eclipse of the sun by Earth's moon viewed from Earth is unique in the solar system because the two discs are the same size to the observer. Hypothetically, if you were observing a solar eclipse from Ganymede's shadow on Jupiter, Ganymede's disc would be larger than the sun's disc. It's still an eclipse, but it is lacking that specific and unique aspect.

Was the moon closer in Earth's ancient past? How would they even know such a thing short of inventing a time machine? That's a guess based on their data that it is annually moving 3.8 cm away right now. Viewing the past through the window of the present, much like the majority of people view history. I know they claim to have measured it with lasers and what not, but 3.8 cm is negligible. And speaking of negligible, wouldn't leaving shit on the moon have a negligible impact on its overall mass? Maybe it moved a negligible amount due to the human-added negligible mass.

How come the planets aren't usually included in their tidal equations? I've seen the sun even excluded before which is absurd.

Our solar system is off the beaten path in it's orbit around the galactic core taking some 200 million years or so to make a complete orbit. There could be all sorts of goodies encountered as specific intervals depending on it's position. Maybe something spaced 60 million years apart corresponding with extinctions? That's just a guess.

They also assume our solar system has been stable and in it's present configuration for quite some time and all of human history. But there are ancient myths and historical accounts of some very odd celestial accounts. Why were Shamash, Helios and Sol originally names of Saturn? Why did ancients worship what we see as a slow moving star less impressive than Jupiter and Venus? The various craters are evidence of something hellish in our Solar System. Interesting that Jupiter's 4 major moons have less craters. Also interesting is the mares, evidence of volcanism on a supposedly 'dead' object.

Earth itself has evidence of comet/meteor impacts and within human observation. Possibly the real cause for the dark ages in Western Europe. The flash frozen Siberian mammoths are proof of something catastrophic and sudden.

The reason I mention this is because they are variables. You can't predict the unpredictable and you can't calculate an object's past based on the present because it doesn't account for the variables.

And that part about the Earth-Sun distance miracle thing is an urban myth. The 'habitable' zone for Earth-like life as we know it is anywhere from Venus to Mars. Certainly not all life as we know it would survive, but there would still be life. Probably even human life. If we were in a miracle position with another miracle being the sun/moon size eclipse thing, that's one too many statistical miracles for me.

The reason why Venus is so hot is because it barely rotates. It's axial title it almost horizontal, it's retrograde rotation takes over half of a Venusian year for one Venusian day to pass, it has no magnetosphere. Mars is very cold, but it barely has an atmosphere. The markings where water existed on the surface strangely haven't been covered by planet-wide dust storms. Was the water there is relatively recent history? They claim Venus had water at one time, although I don't know how they could be sure of that. What happened to these planets? I think eventually we'll come to find that life is a normal part of many planets regardless of the extreme conditions and water-based life will become to be viewed the same way Earth-centered universe is today. Jury's still out for life on Mars.

Last edited by believenothing; 01-10-2012 at 09:17 PM.
believenothing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 08:46 PM   #388
leon11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 1,535
Likes: 48 (27 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by believenothing View Post
I'm not ignoring it. Moment of inertia TELLS US NOTHING of the moon's internals. I see this argument used all the time to prove the moon isn't hollow AND that it has a liquid core. It doesn't prove either. The hollow moon theory doesn't just claim the moon is hollow, it claims there is stuff inside there too. Everything from water to civilization depending on the theory.

Just an fyi, I don't personally think the moon is hollow. Even if it were a 'spaceship moon' it doesn't need to be completely hollow. Just partially hollowed out.



And I don't disagree with that. That's why I said "This is a statistic miracle. Maybe not impossible, but pretty incredible and unique to this planet."

If my position appears to be ignorant and prejudiced, I just want to defend the ignorant part - I'm not ignorant, I understand it quite well. Prejudice yes, but I have a good reason. There is strong evidence that psychopaths dominate nearly every non-artistic field there is. Everything associated with power in our society anyways. That includes religion for obvious reasons and it absolutely includes science, hence political science.

One of the the psychopath's greatest tactics is what I call the spider web of rhetorical lies. Throw enough complex and unrelated concepts at somebody or combine small scale superficially related empirical experiments (like they do for climate change) and people will believe you. Because they are too ignorant to understand and the argument is convincing. Ashkenazi are traditionally and historically a religiously-biased merchant class of pathological liars. Psychopathy might well be in their genes. It's not surprising they dominate genetic studies. Their disproportionate domination in law is a good example. Lawyers use the same rhetorical tricks. They are also good bullshitters.

A group of good bullshitters can poison the well and convince the majority to follow a lie. Eastern Europeans did just that in the mid 20th century by infiltrating academia and steering it in a communist direction based on falsehoods. Science was affected the same way. Sure there is legitimate science, but if relativity is bullshit then a lot of astronomers and theoretical physicists have been following a dead end chasing after ghosts.

Is the moon a spaceship? Maybe. Maybe not. It's definitely unique in our solar system. If the skeptics didn't abnormally act like skepdick commission salesmen psychos when 'debunking' these 'pseudoscientific' theories, I would be more trusting. When they rely on manipulative rhetorical trickery to get their point across, I have a problem with that for good reason. Virtually all debunking groups/websites/magazines specializing in skepticism use these same manipulative rhetorical methods. If truth is self-evident, they don't need to deceive people to tell it. It's bad enough they specialize in skepticism because of the confirmation bias which comes along with it.
Bravo sir! I especially appreciated the line I made bold. nice.

The reply was weak too as far as Im concerned

I'll stay out of this debate now, but very interesting to read

Last edited by leon11; 01-10-2012 at 10:46 PM.
leon11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2012, 12:26 AM   #389
indolering
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 3,092
Likes: 79 (59 Posts)
Default

.
Here's a recent article about the satellites which recently were sent crashing into the moon. Scientists insist that the moon is not so strange a satellite and that it used to be part of Earth. This theory was quashed decades ago by the Apollo data. But they have no alternative theory so they tenaciously cling to this ridiculous hypothesis.


Grail Gravity Satellites Slam Into Moon



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20761903

The US space agency's (Nasa) Ebb and Flow gravity mapping satellites have ended their mission to the Moon.
The duo were commanded to slam into a 2km-high mountain in the far lunar north.
The deliberate ditching avoids the possibility of an uncontrolled descent on to locations of historic importance, such as the Apollo landing sites.
Nasa's deep-space radio-tracking system confirmed the loss of signal from the satellites just before 22:30 GMT.
Afterwards, it was announced the impact site would be named for Sally Ride, the first female American astronaut who died earlier this year. Ms Ride's educational programme had run the outreach cameras on the spacecraft.

The satellite twins returned some remarkable data during their operational mission, which got under way in March. Their maps of the subtle variations in gravity across the Moon's surface are expected to transform many areas of planetary science.
"Ebb and Flow have removed a veil from the Moon and removing this veil will enable discoveries about the way the Moon formed and evolved for many years to come," said principal investigator Prof Maria Zuber from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US.
Together known as Grail (Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory), the pair hit the flank of the lunar-nearside mountain about 3km and 30 seconds apart.
The peak - located at 75 degrees North latitude close to a crater named Goldschmidt - was in darkness at the time.


The Sally Ride Science organisation ran the "Moonkams" on the Grail satellites
Being only the size of washer-driers, and having completely depleted their fuel tanks, the pair were not expected to produce any sort of impact flash visible to Earth observers.
That said, another of Nasa's missions at the Moon, its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), was looking out for the crashes.
If it was lucky, LRO's ultraviolet imager might have seen some volatile materials being driven off the surface by the heat from the impacts. The orbiter will also image the site in a couple of weeks to see if it can discern any new craters.

Deep views

The Grail mission has produced the highest resolution, highest quality global gravity maps for any planetary body in the Solar System, including Earth.
The mountain (red) represents the partially buried rim of an old impact basin
The gravity differences the satellites have measured are the result of an uneven distribution of mass across the Moon.
Obvious examples at the surface include big mountain ranges or deep impact basins, but even inside the lunar body the rock is arranged in an irregular fashion, with some regions being denser than others.

Much of the twins' data has yet to be analysed but already scientists are getting some tantalising new insights into the Moon's structure and history.
"One of the major results that we've found is that the lunar crust is much thinner than we had believed before, and that a couple of the large impact basins probably excavated the Moon's mantle, which is very useful in terms of trying to understand the composition of the Moon as well as the Earth, because we actually think that the Earth's mantle has a similar composition to the Moon's mantle," said principal investigator Prof Maria Zuber from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US.

The gravity data also shows the lunar body's top-most layers to be far more fractured than anyone had previously suspected. These pulverised and porous materials that coat the surface bear witness to the brutal battering the Moon received in the first few hundred million years of its existence.
In addition, Ebb and Flow found evidence for great lava-filled fissures just under all this impact debris.
Scientists have really only just begun to delve into the Grail gravity data
These dykes, some hundreds of km long, appear to reach deep into the Moon, and may hint at an early expansion phase in its history when the hot body expanded outwards, before eventually cooling and contracting.

Grail data will be critical in tying down ideas for how the Moon came into existence. The dominant theory calls for a giant impact billions of years ago between the Earth and a Mars-sized object which threw material into space that ultimately coalesced into the familiar body we recognise in the sky today.
Some scientists have argued that Earth may once even have had two moons which later merged - although the Grail data could have sunk this idea.
"We have looked for evidence of the second moon and we have not seen any of the suggested characteristics of the internal structure of the Moon that would be consistent with the idea of a second companion," said Prof Zuber.
"That in itself does not rule out that idea at this point. We and others can look at this in more detail, but nothing jumps out in that regard."
indolering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2012, 12:34 AM   #390
indolering
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 3,092
Likes: 79 (59 Posts)
Default

.
Brief analysis of previous article....

Quote:
The deliberate ditching avoids the possibility of an uncontrolled descent on to locations of historic importance, such as the Apollo landing sites.
This claim seems absurd. The chances of hitting a previous landing spot are remote. There are more pressing reasons for destroying these satellites which they're not telling us.


Quote:
The satellite twins returned some remarkable data during their operational mission, which got under way in March. Their maps of the subtle variations in gravity across the Moon's surface are expected to transform many areas of planetary science.
"Ebb and Flow have removed a veil from the Moon and removing this veil will enable discoveries about the way the Moon formed and evolved for many years to come," said principal investigator Prof Maria Zuber from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US.
The mapping of gravitational variations is the only function of these satellites? That seems unlikely. Aren't most of these missions designed to achieve as much as possible? We mapped gravitational anomalies decades ago and have yet to explain these adequately – now they're telling us that these more detailed maps will give us some idea of why these anomalies exist? This makes no sense and only highlights the ongoing subterfuge of this whole moon business. They bravely proclaim that these data will 'transform planetary science' – utter balderdash. Their theory of the moon's origin was discredited back in the 70s when the data was returned from Apollo - the moon is nothing like the Earth and could never have been part of Earth.

Quote:
"One of the major results that we've found is that the lunar crust is much thinner than we had believed before, and that a couple of the large impact basins probably excavated the Moon's mantle, which is very useful in terms of trying to understand the composition of the Moon as well as the Earth, because we actually think that the Earth's mantle has a similar composition to the Moon's mantle," said principal investigator Prof Maria Zuber from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US.
The moon's mantle is much thinner than Earth's and its composition is much different. This is all mindless speculation designed to fool us into thinking these frauds are actually accomplishing something worthwhile with the billions of dollars they spend. They're trying to convince us that the moon is a dead satellite which used to be part of Earth and that its presence is really not so anomalous as it appears. All lies. The moon is a veritable freak of celestial nature and its origin is far from 'natural'.
indolering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2012, 04:46 AM   #391
moving finger
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Down in the basement, working for the government
Posts: 3,721
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by indolering View Post
.
Brief analysis of previous article....



This claim seems absurd. The chances of hitting a previous landing spot are remote. There are more pressing reasons for destroying these satellites which they're not telling us.
The other reasons are that they are losing altitude and there is not enough fuel to continue. They also hope to analyse the dust plume.

Quote:
The mapping of gravitational variations is the only function of these satellites? That seems unlikely. Aren't most of these missions designed to achieve as much as possible? We mapped gravitational anomalies decades ago and have yet to explain these adequately – now they're telling us that these more detailed maps will give us some idea of why these anomalies exist? This makes no sense and only highlights the ongoing subterfuge of this whole moon business. They bravely proclaim that these data will 'transform planetary science' – utter balderdash. Their theory of the moon's origin was discredited back in the 70s when the data was returned from Apollo - the moon is nothing like the Earth and could never have been part of Earth.
Just because they don't do what you think they should do means that aren't doing what they are designed to do? They're specialist satellites designed to do a specific job. They also took some cool pictures and lots of them. The data produced by them greatly expands on the previously sketchy knowledge of lunar mascons, and blows the hollow moon 'theory' out of the water. Apollo data gave a good account of the moon's internal structure. It is not hollow.

Quote:
The moon's mantle is much thinner than Earth's and its composition is much different. This is all mindless speculation designed to fool us into thinking these frauds are actually accomplishing something worthwhile with the billions of dollars they spend. They're trying to convince us that the moon is a dead satellite which used to be part of Earth and that its presence is really not so anomalous as it appears. All lies. The moon is a veritable freak of celestial nature and its origin is far from 'natural'.
It actually says the earth and lunar crusts are similar in composition. This is not mindless speculation, it is conclusion based on scientific experiment, rational discussion and data collection. 'They' are not trying to convince 'us' of anything, they are trying to answer the same questions you are asking: "what is the moon?", except they are doing it properly, not just googling stuff and then making it up.

Last edited by moving finger; 19-12-2012 at 04:47 AM.
moving finger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2012, 04:51 AM   #392
omegatau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 687
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

The moon could be hollow to some extend, due to the possibility that it could've had a core which cooled down, hence the weak graviatation of the moon which is in corelation with its mass.
omegatau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2012, 08:03 PM   #393
indolering
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 3,092
Likes: 79 (59 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moving finger View Post

Just because they don't do what you think they should do means that aren't doing what they are designed to do? They're specialist satellites designed to do a specific job. They also took some cool pictures and lots of them. The data produced by them greatly expands on the previously sketchy knowledge of lunar mascons, and blows the hollow moon 'theory' out of the water. Apollo data gave a good account of the moon's internal structure. It is not hollow.
Fine, I have no idea what they were designed to do - it's nice they took some pictures - I hope they're better than most of the black and white stuff they've released....
The data concerning mascons returned by Apollo were not that sketchy - they even pinpointed the center of each mascon which were, incredibly, all located in the exact center of the respective maria. As far as I know, NASA has never explained these findings, but they make sense according to the spaceship moon theory. The concentration of mass at the center of the maria are the result of the machinery located below the maria required to pump molten, metallic, lunar 'soil' to the surface in the effort to repair damage caused by meteors.
I'm not aware of evidence which discredits the idea that the moon is hollow - certainly the Apollo data did nothing of the sort. In fact, even after all the Apollo evidence was in, many scientists continued to speculate that the moon may well be cavernous within. Moreover, I know of no NASA explanation which addresses the low specific gravity of the moon.

Quote:
It actually says the earth and lunar crusts are similar in composition. This is not mindless speculation, it is conclusion based on scientific experiment, rational discussion and data collection. 'They' are not trying to convince 'us' of anything, they are trying to answer the same questions you are asking: "what is the moon?", except they are doing it properly, not just googling stuff and then making it up.
Yes, the article says the crusts are similar but I dispute this claim. The moon rocks, which I believe are authentic, clearly displayed radical differences in composition and structure. For NASA to claim that they are similar is, to me, disingenuous.
Yes, I google articles but I don't make stuff up - that's NASA's department. I've read Don Wilson's books (Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon, etc.) and Who Built The Moon - with evidence such as this I don't need to make stuff up to show that NASA are liars.
indolering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2012, 11:39 PM   #394
simulacra
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 111
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by indolering View Post
The depth of the craters is truly anomalous. But the spaceship moon theory explains it well: the metallic hull which protects the moon from bombardment prevents the meteors from penetrating any deeper, and also explains why some of the craters are convex at the bottom of the crater.



If this were the only anomaly associated with the moon, we wouldn't be having this discussion - I would agree that it's merely a coincidence. But the many anomalies of the moon mitigate against it being a natural construct. For a complete list of the remarkable 'coincidences' of the Earth/Moon/Sun system, see Who Built The Moon by Knight and Butler.
Have a look at Mercury when you get chance instead of the pseudo science books with made up quotes and idle thoughts from the 60s before we went and misinterpretations of sound bites during. Mercury has lots of the same craters, they don't have hydraulic rams and manufactured outer crusts made by aliens.

These books and people you're referencing are nonsense.

David icke fell victim to this, believing the sound bites he's just read, throwing out names of so called Russian scientists without checking them and looking into other planets, how the eclipse works etc. Isaac Asimov is largely a sci fi writer, Shcherbakov and the others published stuff in magazines featuring out there speculation before the moon missions. Leading up and around the time of the moon, there was much speculation about the moon as there was no data, and no data at large in those days. It went from made of cheese to being where we came from to aliens. If you take a look back in that era the russians have many articles like this made for a number of subjects and variety of reasons. Someone much later cherry picks a few and suddenly people hear Russian scientist and take it without checking who or what context and not taking into account the era just before the data was in.

Really was a cringe moment when David Icke referenced this tosh in front of the wembley crowd. He's repeating tosh, sci-fi and old theories.

Last edited by simulacra; 19-12-2012 at 11:42 PM.
simulacra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2012, 12:34 AM   #395
indolering
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 3,092
Likes: 79 (59 Posts)
Default

@ simulacra:

Are you the second string debunker? At least put forth some evidence on your behalf instead of a photo of Mercury. I seriously doubt you've read any of the books I've referenced - I'm sure movingfinger hasn't. You're entitled to your opinion and to put your faith in NASA. David Icke and I are not alone in supporting this hypothesis - greater minds than yours have verified the anomalies of the moon and have no answers. Neither do you.
indolering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2012, 01:22 AM   #396
simulacra
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 111
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

How is a quote from 60s sci fi mag verification?

And David Icke was quite honest about the whole moon thing, he googled it and all these Don wilson book quotes and similar pop up. If you read them without checking you may think "ooh might be something in this" ooh scientist oohh.

As I said way back. When we don't know something we often come up with magic, aliens or fun fantasy by scientists who go over the possibilities. Digging these up is not science and is desperately trying to find anything, no matter how tenuous to support your book.

Saturn much like the moon has been run a muck by the same types of scammers. The Hexagon shape, must be Satan or signs of Aliens, scientists don't know how its formed, ooohhhh, must be some stargate then or other ancient mystical mumbo jumbo like some alien base etc that david and many like hoegland.

Guess what, its non of the above and likely natural.

Time and again, like the flat earth, where blood comes from, how fire is created, what lightning is, science comes in and the fairy story is shelved, the so called magic aliens is reveled to be nothing of the sort. You should do some research on even older theories. I could compile a book on theories from not long ago about the nature of fire but it would get laughed. people understand now fire is not magic. People don't have much inclination to get involved in the science of space and can easily be swayed by pseudo science, much like people of the time got swayed by odd theories on phenomenon like fire and lightning.

In the future people will laugh their butt off at people in this era who are gullible to swallow this stuff you promote, just like we look on in amusement to how they thought 100-300 years ago.

And bit off topic but, many today love to think ancient egyptians hold the keys, are ahead of us in tech and understanding of the earth, come up with energy lines yet they make sacrifices to keep the river flowing. They even tore down their buildings and dragged them for miles without realizing the river changes its break over so many years and could easily be diverted one way or the other. They didn't need to kill people or tear down buildings yet people don't know this. They thought the gods had punished them when it was a simple explanation in the land.

Have you checked out Mercury yet, look familiar? do you conclude its another alien spaceship? Perhaps its the spare incase the moon conks out?

Last edited by simulacra; 20-12-2012 at 02:02 AM.
simulacra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2012, 07:30 AM   #397
sniper13x
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pacific NW, USA (Radiation anyone?)
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Hmmm a long shelved account comes out of retirement and just happens to post on a thread like this. Amazing that they would be compelled to poo poo a theory with such affirmation and conviction that you can't possibly think they could be making anything up right? They must know what they are talking about since they insulted your position and structured theirs like there possibly can't be an alternative. Not suspicious at all

Last edited by sniper13x; 20-12-2012 at 07:32 AM.
sniper13x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2012, 10:15 PM   #398
maccoy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 746
Likes: 12 (9 Posts)
Default

It's made of Cheese and the Aliens on it are just Cheese mites.
maccoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2012, 08:38 AM   #399
serpentine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,053
Likes: 1,166 (721 Posts)
Default

Recent gravity mapping of the Moon.



http://i.livescience.com/images/i/00...jpg?1354740981
serpentine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-12-2012, 01:02 AM   #400
simulacra
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 111
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper13x View Post
Hmmm a long shelved account comes out of retirement and just happens to post on a thread like this. Amazing that they would be compelled to poo poo a theory with such affirmation and conviction that you can't possibly think they could be making anything up right? They must know what they are talking about since they insulted your position and structured theirs like there possibly can't be an alternative. Not suspicious at all
To which account are you referring to?
simulacra is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:03 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.