30-07-2012, 10:41 PM
|
#301 | |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,269
|
Quote:
@ alvaro_slash: you suggested that every planet has a satelite, this is not the case . Mercury and Venus have no moons, perhaps this is due to their proximity to the moon and any satellites that may have existed have been tugged away. Mars has two moons. Jupiter is known to have 64, and Saturn at least 60. Uranus has 27 and Neptune 13. The total number of moons in our solar system is therefore at least 167. The dwarf planet Pluto is accompanied by Charon, which is more of a coplanet than a moon, due to its relative size. So, how many of these moons behave like Earth's satelite, are of comparative size when compared to their parent planet? If, as you claim one other moon in the solar system behaves like Earth's satelite, then there are 2 out of 167 moons that behave the same way. WoW  Yet strictly speaking Pluto doesn't have a moon And then again, strictly speaking, Pluto isn't a planet - it's just the one of the largest (and perhaps most easilly recognisable from Earth) member of the Kuiper belt  Ok, lets cut this to the chase. An artificial satelite, one that is placed into orbit around a parent planet, doesn't necesarily fit the generic definition of a space-ship - but still it is artificial. Scientists tell us that the moon is an off-shoot from planet Earth, there are a few hypotheses put forward, but basically they tell us that the moon and Earth were once one planet. It is a remarkable coincidence then that the Earth gave birth to a moon that when viewed from Earth is percieved as being relitively the same size as the sun is in the skies, and that when she passes in-front of the sun they are viewed as being identical sizes: this trick of perception is remarkable, i'm guessing that no other planetary moon exhibits this phenomena? Science tells us that the moon: A) errupted from the Earth due to an impacting force B) errupted from the Earth due to rotational properties and unstable mantels during Earth's earliest stages of formation C) the moon was captured by Earth's gravitational pull D) that the Moon and Earth condenced at the same time The only real theory which supports the fact that the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth are A and B. But, how old is the moon, can it be dated from archaelogical records, paintings or drawings, historical accounts? That is the clincher, right there - where is the oldest record of the moon from history? Last edited by zhiba; 30-07-2012 at 10:46 PM. |
|
|
|
|
31-07-2012, 12:10 AM
|
#302 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pacific NW, USA (Radiation anyone?)
Posts: 1,072
|
Quote:
I know from dealing with the "establishment" that you'll never change the consensus, it has too much money and prestige involved. Science is as dogmatic as religion, perhaps worse. You are dealing with "academics" who've dedicated multiple decades of their lives to a topic, they won't let you prove them wrong without a fight even if they are wrong. So its up to you individually to come up with your truth. There is only 1 truth, anyone who tells you otherwise is a con man. Fortunately for us, Icke isn't the first person to propose this theory of the moon being an intruder in to our solar system, its been around for a long time. Its hard to find evidence, but it is out there. Icke also references his information really well, I suggest you see if your library has his book "Human Race Get Off Your Knees" and research on your own. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
|
31-07-2012, 06:25 AM
|
#303 | ||
|
Inactive
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 266
|
Quote:
Quote:
So now, it turns out that our moon is man made because the size of it is just similar to a single one of 165 others moon? So to be considered a moon, all of them should match the exactly same size? We certainly would be pleased to know more about this fact, with some nice valid grounds. I have nothing more to say regarding your questions, you Iīve said many times here, I donīt believe that science so far have all the questions for the aswers, and I really donīt think they have told us the whole truth, and itīs my personal belieft that they do hide information from us. For the time I īve been around here, I got say itīs been a weird experience. People close to me think Im the crazy one, believing in aliens, conspiracy theories and corrupted systems. However, around here Im a blinded person, that trully follows science and worships NASA! Letīs be clear about something, the point is, you are cleary thinking Im some kinda of skeptical person, but thatīs not the case. The things is, this kinda of stuff doesnīt work the way you guys want to. To able to even accept a theory, valid sources of informations and hours of extensive research must be presented, and at least one solid evidence must be presented. And things that you judge very obvious and used as Illusion to hide us the truth, most of them really are. But letīs face it, this moon subject is far to be true. We are grown up people already, come on. This is absurd. I am not saying that whatīs been told to us is the ultimate truth, but if the moon is a spaceship, we would know that for a long time Zhiba. The information we have now, is more solid, they do have enough evidence to support, we can check it and see itīs reability, there are theories from others scientists, physics and mathematical studies that confirms this. And what do we have regarding the opposite? I say not enough. Sniper is starting to get what Im saying, and bolded what he said, Itīs hard to come up with evidence. And it really is, we are begginners dealing with things inside our planet, imagine outside! But sniper, I never go that, believing in my instinct only to credit or discredit information, that would make me a skeptical minded person. And I think thatīs the kind of person you guys claim that I am, the kind of person you donīt like, but itīs the style of receiving information that you apparently became! I hope Im wrong! But we have a hell of a controversy here, donīt you think? I really think, Im sorry, there should be , some sort of embarassement regarding this,mainly for Zhiba. All I did was asked some simple and pertinent questions, and very obvious ones I suppose. And all I have said regarding information about the subject wasnīt anything more than common sense, things we already know since we were like 9 or 10 years old. And Im very serious. Sorry, with no offense, but support something like this sounds very immature, and sorry, trying to mock things that are really already proven, itīs very silly. I wonīt go further into this subject anymore, itīs just childish, Im gonna finish this up with a very strong criticism against David Icke, and itīs not the first he had done this. He sometimes forget how things should be done, and starts somewhat losing the sense of things! Itīs just like the episode at TV, where he claimed to be the son of god and he knew that Britain would disappear. This could happen to anybody, lose your mind, after researching so much our obscure history as human beings and secrets regarding our history, but unfortunatelly, due to this kind of thing, thatīs the reason people donīt take him seriously, and with all the respect, I wonīt blame them. Now sniper, I do believe some of the academics are like that, but itīs not about fighting them. Itīs about trying to understand things, and present some clear evidence, people need to see things discovered, or something very reliable. And yeah, somebody else attacked mathematics, but if you want to prove things, you are going to need it. Itīs the only mean human beings have to calculate distances, routes and orbits outside our planet, but Im sorry, things works like this when you are trying to prove something exists in space. Spirits wonīt help you out on this( this wasnīt for you Sniper). If you read my posts, I do reference Ickeīs researches, mainly in human history and secret societies origins, itīs top class. |
||
|
|
|
|
31-07-2012, 06:33 AM
|
#304 | |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,269
|
Quote:
No, no. no, not 'just because' and as for 'man made' - ? C'mon, really? Whoever even mooted that idea? Re-read what i said in my post about reading and researching the information that the researchers are presenting. Analyse it critically. And then make your own mind up. It's no good reading what i've written and not getting it. Last edited by zhiba; 31-07-2012 at 06:35 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
31-07-2012, 06:56 AM
|
#305 |
|
Inactive
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 266
|
Iīve readed what you said, and you donīt seem to understand what my point is. The thing is, what "science" told us so far is way more concrete than the theory discussed at this thread, and the things you said to analyse. I īve seen enough of this, I have researched this and there are no valid grounds, Im sorry man. Itīs more than making your own mind, this is just way from reality, canīt even been called as merely speculation. Itīs silly. I canīt be more direct than this.
|
|
|
|
|
31-07-2012, 07:33 AM
|
#306 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pacific NW, USA (Radiation anyone?)
Posts: 1,072
|
Quote:
I've said all I plan to say to you, good luck on your soul searching. |
|
|
|
|
|
31-07-2012, 08:09 AM
|
#307 | |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,269
|
Quote:
It's a lot easier to accept the generic background, without questioning, because one question leads to another leads to another...... It's the same with 911, the official line is that a bunch of guys armed with knives and cardboard cutters stormed the cockpits of four planes blah blah blah. No-one thinks to ask why pilots and air crew, many of whom were military trained, gulf war and Vietnam vets, trained in anti-terrorist scenarios, no one asks why they surrendered their planes to these guys carrying knives. It's easier not to ask, just ignore the obvious questions and carry on, along your way. When realities are challenged, and what are considered un-shakable truths questioned, its easier just to ignore what shakes us, and what makes us uncomfortable. Of over 170 moons in our solar system, none of them are of a comparable size to their parent bodies as Earth's satellite is to Earth, of relative size to the sun in juxtaposition so as to seem the same size in the sky, this Goldilocks zone eh? I saw David talk in Briton a few years ago, and the things he offers certainly raise questions to the validity of scientific theories..... One of the things which struck me was that when the US TV network went digital, they effectively stopped transmitting all the analogue TV stations over certain frequencies. This effectively freed those frequencies up, cleared all the back-ground noise and allowed us to observe the universe without that frequency blocking our view. Now, just consider what frequencies the moon is blocking from our view....... If it weren't there, just what would we be aware of? If you're ever lucky enough to view the night sky away from terrestrial and ambient lights - from somewhere out in the country, or from on the ocean, away from the light pollution of city street lights etc - man that sky is breathtaking. Once you see the heavens without the frequencies that light pollution creates, the sky is awe inspiring. The moon broadcasts on a frequency, take that frequency away and just consider what we would be aware of - not just from a physically observable standpoint, but from a spiritual awareness....... That is some thing to consider. 
Last edited by zhiba; 31-07-2012 at 08:14 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
31-07-2012, 08:21 AM
|
#308 |
|
Inactive
Join Date: May 2012
Location: In a Billion Galaxies
Posts: 1,052
|
The star wars trilogy actually contains a wealth of information.
In interview with an alien, the alien said that the screen around the earth is controlled by a certain hidden "bunker" on earth, however to turn that technology off is extremely difficult. It's the same "theme" for star wars, where the Death Star could only be destroyed if the little house/base could be destroyed. Movies certainly are there to tell us the truth, even in small ways. |
|
|
|
|
31-07-2012, 10:16 AM
|
#309 | |||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 2,434
|
Quote:
The moon was formed about 4.5 billion years ago slightly after the earth. this has been shown by the carbon dating of lunar rocks. The only origin theory is impact theory as this would account for the lack of heavier metals in its composition as it was formed from the earths crust. After impact much of the heaver materials would have fallen back to earth. Also analyst of moon rock shows similar composition to that of earth in terms of oxygen bonds. I agree that the moon is unique, my comparison to Pluto was more to demonstrate that it is not imposable for a planet to have a large satellite relative to its size as indicated on the first few pages of this thread, with claims that the moon defies celestial mechanics, the fact that the moon is there suggests that it is not. In terms of uniqueness and relation to other moon, all moons are unique as are all the planets there is few similarities between any of the solar bodies. You are comparing the earth moon relationship to planets like the gas giants. Also mars and mercury are considerably smaller that the earth. Venus may be a similar size im not sure but Venus and mercury are closer to the sun which I would imagine would have an effect on any potential satellites. Lets looks at the other moons for a second: lo is 100x more volcanic than earth despite being 1/10 its size having eruptions up to a high of 50km Europa, Enceladus and Triton may have liquid water and may potential be able to support microbial live, although covered with ice.where as titan has rivers of liquid hydrocarbons. one of them (i forget which) has ice volcano spewing ice in to space. All these moons would be considered wonderful and unique, to any intelligent life on their host planets. Does this point to a creator? the earth in its self is unique, an anomaly in the solar system with just the right conditions to support life, ie atmosphere composition, place in solar system, geology, liquid water and a moon that tilts it giving the seasons, just right to support a gia ball of life. The most amazing thing about it is that there are people here to witness it. As would be the case at nearly every point in the universe. like wise if the earth was any different then there would be no witness to it. The fact that there is life at all in the universe is an anomaly, why is the universe so "fine tuned" ie the forces of nature to allow stars to form, that create not only the planets but the actual elements for life? Does all this point to a creator? The solar eclipse thing, the moon is not always at the right distance (not mentioning that it was once closer so full eclipse would not occur,or that in the future they will not occur) its orbit varies just on special occasions is it in the right place at the right time. again this would have no significance if there was not witness to it. the universe is an amazing place, it is the only subject that makes me feel like a kid with wonder, can i prove any of the above independently , no. i just feel that the scientific explanation is more wonderful than the creator hypothesis. interesting discussion tho. Also i dont know the first recorded mention of the moon, does it predate the mention of other celestial bodies? is the first recorded mention of any celestial bodies indicative of when they formed? Quote:
Quote:
There also seems to be a tendancy to see every thing that is not explained/ not understood to either have a creator that is not human or is evil I would say that the persute and interest in science is the exact opposite, how many opposing scientific theories are there, none which are taught, fe how much depth does school go in to relativity, QM, and there various interpretations. look up Einstein bore debates to see how much disagreements there is between theories. do philosophers like Kant and Hagel fall under this category of drivel, because mainstream accepts them as genus? if anything my interest in science has taught me to question everything, i want to know not only how but why stuff is as it is.
__________________
A + Ω = 0= ∞ We are the result of a universe trying to understand itself - Neil deGrasse Tyson, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXByRjJnN2A A universe from nothing - Lawrence Krauss Last edited by jon galt; 31-07-2012 at 12:24 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
19-08-2012, 01:44 AM
|
#310 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: on a cliff in the Himalayas
Posts: 2,386
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-09-2012, 03:35 AM
|
#311 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: on a cliff in the Himalayas
Posts: 2,386
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-09-2012, 08:35 AM
|
#312 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 396
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-09-2012, 12:51 PM
|
#313 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,319
|
for some strange facts about the moon read:
who built the moon? - from Amazon.com and our mysterious spaceship moon - by Don Wilson - also from amazon.com and also secrets of our spaceship moon - by Don Wilson - from amazon.com Icke is certainly not the first, by a long shot, to propose that the moon is 'artifical' - an artificial planet. some who have suggested this theory would surprise you, as they are reputable scientists. i suggest you read these books. the moon is weirder than you think or than you've been told thats for sure. think about it = if it WAS artificial; adn if it WAS a base for those who control our planet...would they tell you in school about it? or at university? or would they take every possible measure to ensure large nos of people didn't find out about this... including propaganda, psychological tactics (e.g. ridicule etc) etc... |
|
|
|
|
29-09-2012, 12:55 PM
|
#314 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,319
|
actually while we're on the subject, some scientists beleive that phobos and diemos - the moons of mars, are hollow satellites too...
and if you look at earth from space, it just doesn't look right/natural to me... the continents look a bit too 'perfect'... i just wonder if slartibartfast might have built Norway's fjords after all? (hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy) (and of course there are those hollow earth theories keep popping up...) |
|
|
|
|
29-09-2012, 01:02 PM
|
#315 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,319
|
  
|
|
|
|
|
29-09-2012, 03:39 PM
|
#316 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 135
|
Raven black
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-09-2012, 06:58 PM
|
#317 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 3,189
|
Quote:
In Zoroastrianism, the moon is "Noah's Ark" and after the primeval 'bull' is killed, its chihr (seed) is saved by the moon where is becomes to the prototype for all life. A crescent moon does kinda look like an ark.... The moon is a 'remnant' of Gavaevodata, the primeval bull. Here is what I think. This image:  Is found all over the world in ancient times. The Turkish/Islamic crescent and star is a variation of this. This is not the moon, but a planet which used to be visible from the Earth in ancient times. This image is usually in the same sky as the sun and moon. This was found somewhere in Germany:  It's a mistake for these "historians" to refer to a 'sun boat', they have no real basis to assume or make that claim. Something else was seen in the sky. It's not there anymore. |
|
|
|
|
|
29-09-2012, 10:15 PM
|
#318 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pacific NW, USA (Radiation anyone?)
Posts: 1,072
|
Quote:
If Icke is correct and the moon is a spaceship, it makes sense. The arrival of something like that to our solar system would definitely affect planets and orbits. From what i've read over the years Saturn was like a 2nd sun in our system when being viewed from our planet, the red dwarf/red kachina, and this is what was worshiped in all these sun cults. Its what is still worshiped today by all the abrahamic cults in one form or another. |
|
|
|
|
|
30-09-2012, 07:41 PM
|
#319 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 19
|
moon = giant spacecraft
No it fucking isnt :d
|
|
|
|
|
30-09-2012, 07:56 PM
|
#320 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 750
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
|
|
