UFO Fleet 2013 Starting From Alien Moon Base ?

[Pimander]

Give me a single tangible piece of evidence that the Moon was placed there.

[Edward]

Give me a single tangible piece of evidence that the Moon was placed there.

Well in very ancient cultures they talk about two moons.  So if that is/was the case this moon we have must of came from somewhere.


Edward

[Pimander]

Well in very ancient cultures they talk about two moons.  So if that is/was the case this moon we have must of came from somewhere.

Surely that would mean one of the two is no longer there or is no longer visible?  If there was two Moons and the stories aren't symbolic of course.

Yes the Moon "came from somewhere."  That isn't evidence it was put there by aliens (or whoever).  I'm talking the real thing now - actual evidence.  A tangible verifiable fact.

[Pimander]

how can We accurately measure the moon's mass?

Gravity as a force is proportional to mass.

Gravity causes acceleration in proportion to its mass.  [The acceleration caused by Earth can be measured by measuring the acceleration of free fall due to gravity.]

Using the acceleration of free fall (math here which I'll spare you) we can calculate the Earth's mass.

The Moon does not really orbit the Earth.  The Earth Moon system actually orbits a common centre of mass (barycentre).  As we know the mass of Earth and we know where the barycentre is (actually in Earth but not the centre) we can calculate the mass of the Moon based on where the barycentre is*.  It is basically the point where their masses cancel out (more math).


http://scienceprojectideasforkids.com/2010/barycenter-of-the-earth-moon-system/

So we know the mass of the Moon.  No guessing.  Real evidence.  No BS!

I'll probably regret posting real science but there you have it.


The barycenter (or barycentre) is the point between two objects where they balance each other. For example, it is the center of mass where two or more celestial bodies orbit each other. When a moon orbits a planet, or a planet orbits a star, both bodies are actually orbiting around a point that is not at the center of the primary (the larger body). For example, the Moon does not orbit the exact center of the Earth, but a point on a line between the center of the Earth and the Moon, approximately 1,710 km below the surface of the Earth, where their respective masses balance. This is the point about which the Earth and Moon orbit as they travel around the Sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_%28astronomy%29

[Amaterasu]

Pim, how can You tell that the mass is low density throughout and not a shell of high density with a hollow space within (with a relatively thin coating of low density)?

How do You know that there are no mechanisms affecting the gravitational dance?

I'm not saying this is true, but that I can make a good case.

Also, there are the ancient report, as Edward points out, of two moons...but also reports of a time there was NO moon.  I gather (but have not verified) that the two moons were here before the no-moon segment of the history.

So...  Though there is no "proof" (whatever THAT might be) that the moon was moved here, there are also things like The Terra Papers which give that as a specific.  The moon is an AR ship, according to the Papers.

I seem to recall coming across some Sumerian texts that also spoke of the moon as a vehicle - but don't hold Me to that.  It was a while ago and I could be misremembering.

[zorgon]

Gravity as a force is proportional to mass.

The book presents new concepts in the study of gravitation. A new equation for the gravitational force is introduced, which is the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law and which has been verified experimentally to very high precision. The equation is F = a.A, or force = acceleration Area. The book also presents equations for the sequential distances of the planets from the sun and of satellites from the centers of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, with correlation coefficients upwards of 0.99, concluding that gravitation is quantized. A simple and useful equation for eccentricity is presented as the ratio of the sum of perturbations to the gravitational force of the sun. It is shown that Kepler's second law is not a general law; i.e., equal areas are swept in approximately equal intervals of time only near aphelion and perihelion. There is now confusion between the concepts of "force" and "energy." In the last chapter of the book, new units are introduced to clarify the two concepts. Any equation containing "mass" relates to the concept of "energy". Force is independent of mass.

Pari Spolter, Gravitational Force of the Sun

Dr. Spolter exposes the fundamental mathematical errors in both Einsteinian and Newtonian theory with such elegance and ease that even a mathematical recalcitrant like myself was inspired to recall my high-school mathematics (last used in anger 20 years ago!) to follow her working out. No, I am not making this up: I voluntarily engaged in strenuous mathematics for my own enjoyment!

"Gravitational Force of the Sun" is very focused. Dr. Spolter successfully knocks the pins from under two great, unchallenged theories of science by reviewing the original documents that Newton wrote and examining the mathematics and assumptions that Einstein and Newton used. I have seldom before read a more thorough hatchet job. She must be a relentless researcher with prodigious memory and intellect.

[Pimander]

Pim, how can You tell that the mass is low density throughout and not a shell of high density with a hollow space within (with a relatively thin coating of low density)?

There are no known forces in the universe that would create a body as large as the Moon that is "hollow".  In the absence of tangible evidence that it is hollow, I'd say that we are just saying it is hollow.  I could say the sun is a big egg that kicks out heat but I'd be talking out of my ass without real evidence.

How do You know that there are no mechanisms affecting the gravitational dance?

We know the mass of the Moon and Earth would give us the orbital dynamics we observe, therefore there is no mysterious"other force" at work.

I'm not saying this is true, but that I can make a good case.

Go on then, make a good case.  However many Moons we have had in the past, produce evidence that the Moon is a towed into position or hollow.

Also, there are the ancient report, as Edward points out, of two moons...but also reports of a time there was NO moon.  I gather (but have not verified) that the two moons were here before the no-moon segment of the history.

That is an interesting story.  It may be true that there have been different numbers of satellites in the past.  That is not evidence that Luna was towed there by aliens, there could be a host of other reasons.  Also the myth/legend may or may not be symbolic rather than literal, we just don't know.

Any tangible evidence would be handy.

So...  Though there is no "proof" (whatever THAT might be) that the moon was moved here, there are also things like The Terra Papers which give that as a specific.  The moon is an AR ship, according to the Papers.

The Terra papers?   Do they contain any evidence or are they more stories?

I seem to recall coming across some Sumerian texts that also spoke of the moon as a vehicle - but don't hold Me to that.  It was a while ago and I could be misremembering.

A comet is a vehicle for whatever it carries.  Does that make it a space ship or mean it is towed by aliens?  Without evidence that say it is, what would you say?



Amy, the density of the Moon isn't as low as you seem to be under the impression.  For example, it has a Density of 0.605 of Earth's.  Compare that to Pluto (0.317) or Saturn (0.125) and it starts to look less incredible.  If it was formed from similar rock to Earth's Mantle then 0.605 is not so strange and just indicates that the Moon likely has a lot less Nickel and Iron in its core.  The Moon has a similar density to Mars (0.713).  Unless you also think that all these planets are hollow but have no evidence for that either. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/planet_table_ratio.html

There is NO REAL EVIDENCE THAT THE MOON IS HOLLOW THAT I AM AWARE OF.  THAT IS WHY NONE OF YOU CAN POST ANY.  Even if we cannot say for sure what is inside the Moon we have no reason to suspect it is hollow other than somebody saying it might be (even if there are bases inside caves there). 

[deuem]

To Ed,

I managed to download the hi-res from UT and look it over. I also saw the typical comments of moon birds. I don't understand at this moment why the Orbs or Moon birds have no color in my process. Is it they are actually in space and have no atmospheric interference hence no color glow. Could be. If they are starting from the surface they must be very large. I could calculate that over some time. The paths they are taking are not straight, sort of hap-hazard. the paths should be traced if possible. Flight paths of each one. Anyway I have most of the video saved.
Deuem

[1Worldwatcher]

Howdy Pim and the rest here!!

I ,for one can not buy into the "Hollow Earth/Moon Theory" either.

We have discussed many times the Earth Quake activity and then laid the ground of discussion as too understand with in the confines of data presented with in the USGS website for deductive analysis as if it is following these known lines of the 'Ring of Fire' postulated and the possibility that the 'Ring of Fire' may be something more of a 'Accepted Understanding' and there by altering or eluding us to improper deductive mathematics for too truly and confidently confirm these events for future same case scenario's.

Mr. Lear and Mr. Zorgon are fundamental with in their analysis, I believe because there is no other proper negated explanation for the physics behind it. I also understand that they are revered as 'Experts' of the topic such as "Bases on the Moon' and confide with in their understanding and the evidences that have been produced there by showing this may well be the fact. I too was a researcher forthese bases, have a rather small library compared to these two Gent's, but it is evident, there is something going on the Lunar surface, and humanbeing's can't make the claim to fame it is us. So, there lies another conundrum of the whole case scenario being explained easily and/or readily "These things on the Lunar surface weren't done by us, so who is left too take the  credit? ET's." There is way too much evidence supporting these claims, and we know we didn't do it 100%, or as ShotInTheDark would say "00%" LOL JK SITD!!! HA ha ha ha!!

Even though I believe there to be or were inhabitants with in or on the Lunar satellite, and do personally think that there is good reason too not speculate but openly accept these deductions to be true, I have still seen absolutely no tangible evidence supporting it was 'Towed' into it's current resting place. And as far as I can tell, the Computer simulation that was done by a researcher o f"How did the Moon come too be" has a very profound explanation that holds true thus far as being the answer. Sorry, don't remember the Computer Programmer's name and I couldn't share that information with you if I had it. "My PC Sux!!!" LOL 

The Ancient writings discussion and topic is of interest, this is due to the fact that they usually used true case scenarios for story retelling, but, there again, the metaphorical interpretations leaves us on the Cusp of understanding what is being reiterated as a fact based incident or history. Seems as if there are going too different accepted interpretations, as a species, this is the common ground of the whole interpretation concepts. As we are showing here, today as well. One thing that can be admitted with the whole Ancient Alien and acclimated Satellite is that the before mentioned computer simulation would support this event as being a possible factual event, there by supplying both Ancient Civilizations reiterated tales and new age sciences meeting on a common ground for deductive reasoning and verifiable proof of there being an event 'Creating' our closest natural satellite. IMHO.

As for the 'Hollow Earth Theory' I can not even fathom how or why one would think or accept it was truly a 'Livable' hollow place? As so many topics of scientific and sometimes esoteric explanations, this has too be by far the most 'Unimaginable' case scenario in all of science research for discussion. It has came too my attention over different topics of discussion, namely 'Green House Effects' that the Earths core is very Dynamic and quite inhospitable for anything like a 'Hollow Earth' too actually exist, or anything too exist with in those kinds of environments.

During these topics of discussion , after bringing the "nuclear reactor" information into such discussions leads right to rebuttals such as "SO, There is a Sun at the center of the Earth," once the topic reaches scientific analysis and theories. I only say this because we have never truly ventured to the center of the Earth and there by being a 'Theory' in retrospect. Even  though I respect these peoples views for what they truly believe to be true and fact based, I am with in the thought preempted ideologies that without such adventures scientific research i.e. Journey to the center of the Earth, as depicted by the Barrowman's Science fiction tale/book, and with the pilot supposedly visiting the place personally on a flight over the North pole ( Can't remember exact expedition or who this was.) along with others throughout history that have tried to postulate that this is a 'True' place, and ever since the 1800's being dismissed by science as being nothing but articulated pseudosciences at best, we have again allowed ourselves too be swayed by some form of written word into the gullability of the true understanding of what really lies with in these associated belief ideologies, there by thwarting the truth from it's true postulation and perspectives of understanding.

Either way,if and when the day comes to make these journey's to these 'Fantastical' places and take the initiative as a science oriented species to the degree it needs to be taken, then and only then will we get answers of these questions once and for all. After all, we live in a society that seems to have the echelon's of monetary wealth backing such endeavors such as 'Tunnels for Turtles' and 'Atmospheric Chemical Spraying' (Multiple reasons here) we are going to remain the gullable until such scientific conundrums are resolved.

Pimander:

I truly enjoyed your explanation of the Baricentre and the use of it there of and for deductive reasoning. This, too is something that has come up in discussions over and over again. It is important to not over look our understanding with in the applied mathematics, as we 'Currently' understand them anyway, for 'True/True' resulted explanations and theoretical explanation's of such quagmires of misinterpreted information.
The case being, we are a civilization that seemingly have too openly accept the 'True/False' for verifiable argumentative purposes or too show our personal accepted ideologies out weigh true science, and at times, the variables that counterdict this from being factual. One would be amazed, that in such forums as our Humble Peggy of how easy it is to reiterate using these exact same twists of conversation to give explanation, no matter how convoluted they seem too be from on side of the table to the other. Even some sciences are far reaching into the Aether for explanation, but one thing is absolutely clear "We are a people of Great conceptual minds with in the PRC Group." and that for me speaks volumes with in such topical discussions.

The Contributing Group:
AS for you here that take these 'Hypothetical' and 'Theoretical' possibilities to absolute heart for their contributions into such sciences, please understand that I am not bashing nor hindering you too think differently or titling you as less than myself. I just can't see any merit in the 'Acceptance' of such unreachable deductive science fiction based personified pseudoscience related 'Belief' systems.

If TPTB would afford the thought into furthering our understanding of what lie beneath our feet, we may have the answers we all long for and that being with acclimation of possible new understandings and scientific growth with absolutes for 'True' and Irrefutable understanding of the matters at hand. After all, PRC is here for all of us too enjoy and discuss, but more so, I find it a place of learning and sharing of such information as we speak here, though individually divided as it may seem, respect runs rampant and justly so, for we all have the same goals "Truth".

With Great Respect,
1Worldwatcher

 

[Pimander]

I ,for one can not buy into the "Hollow Earth/Moon Theory" either.

Well done for backing a winner. 

[A51Watcher]

Give me a single tangible piece of evidence that the Moon was placed there.

Recently John mentioned a book - 'Secrets of Our Spaceship Moon' by Don Wilson,

that he found compelling regarding many of the Moon's mysteries.

I think this book is where a lot of this speculation originates Pim.


Don finds that the answer to most of the mysteries all point to one explanation - the Moon is a constructed vehicle towed into place.

Example - he finds it suspicious that the full moon covers the entire orb of the sun within 1% as viewed from earth.

And that one side always faces us.

He finds it beyond the pale of chance that this would occur naturally.


He does a pretty good job of collecting all the various oddities and mysteries of the moon into one place and takes a shot at explaining them.


Free ebook download for those interested here -

http://www.ebook3000.com/Secrets-of-Our-Spaceship-Moon_86457.html 

[Pimander]

As I said in my earlier post, there are legitimate mysteries regarding Luna.  However, it is a bit of a joke to invoke aliens every time we don't understand something.  It's no different to saying the lightening is caused by Zeus' being angry, or saying,  "it was the Gods wot did it!"  You can say it but you are just speculating rather than actually trying to find out the truth.

Example - he finds it suspicious that the full moon covers the entire orb of the sun within 1% as viewed from earth.

And that one side always faces us.

The book I metioned earlier, Who Built the Moon, looks at similar mysteries and postulates that humans from the future built the Moon.  Both books just invoke speculation in the absence of evidence.  I simply accept it is a mystery until we know why.  In fact the facing Earth thing could happen from baryocentric (is that a word?) effects I suspect.  I think it can happen due to "phase locking".  In fact it is common.

How does this happen? Well, the Moon makes one revolution around the Earth about every 29 days, and that's what causes the Moon phases. But the Moon also rotates once every 29 days also. Because of this, the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth:

We call this "being locked." We're not the only system like this, by the way. Both of Mars' moons, Phobos and Deimos, always have the same side facing Mars. All of Jupiter's, Saturn's, Uranus', and Neptune's moons are locked to those planets as well. And in a really weird case, Pluto and its largest moon, Charon, are locked to each other, so that both always show one another the same face:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2008/04/29/why-do-we-only-see-one-side-of-the-moon/

The common centre of gravity remains where it is only if the bodies are pretty spherical with a central centre of gravity (Earth) or if the object faces the baryocentre (Moon) keeping its centre pointing towards the baryocentre.  Hope that explains.

[Amaterasu]

There are no known forces in the universe that would create a body as large as the Moon that is "hollow".  In the absence of tangible evidence that it is hollow, I'd say that we are just saying it is hollow.  I could say the sun is a big egg that kicks out heat but I'd be talking out of my ass without real evidence.

Sure there is a force that could create a body as large as the moon that is hollow.  It's called Consciousness.  There is just as much evidence that the moon was constructed by Consciousness as there is that it was constructed by random matter agglomeration.  Actually...  Via historical records, there is more evidence that it is a construct of Consciousness than there is that it was a "natural" formation.

Just sayin'.

We know the mass of the Moon and Earth would give us the orbital dynamics we observe, therefore there is no mysterious"other force" at work.

Unless...  (Possible scenario) The mass of the moon was calculated based on the dynamics (in which case, the mass stated may be off by a wide margin if gravitational manipulation is involved), and because the mass number is an average, does NOT prove mass distribution within the body.

Like I said, a thick shell of lead coated with sand enclosing hollowness will have a similar mass as a solid body of sand.

Go on then, make a good case.  However many Moons we have had in the past, produce evidence that the Moon is a towed into position or hollow.

I have more proof in the form of historic record than You have...  Just sayin'.

That is an interesting story.  It may be true that there have been different numbers of satellites in the past.  That is not evidence that Luna was towed there by aliens, there could be a host of other reasons.  Also the myth/legend may or may not be symbolic rather than literal, we just don't know.

No, but neither is it proof it wasn't.  And like I said, there is more evidence in historical record that it was than that it wasn't.

Any tangible evidence would be handy.

As there is no tangible evidence either way (but for historical record), I agree evidence would be handy - on either side of the question.

The Terra papers?   Do they contain any evidence or are they more stories?

Depends on who You ask.  If You ask Robert Morning Sky, the information was given to His grandfather by Bek'ti, an ET His grandfather rescued.  And to Him (and Others), it is evidence.  But to Those who doubt what Robert wrote, it is not.  [shrug]

You might want to read them: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Terra_Papers.html

Also, I constructed a glossary:  http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=1310.0

A comet is a vehicle for whatever it carries.  Does that make it a space ship or mean it is towed by aliens?  Without evidence that say it is, what would you say?

Silly question and rather strawmanish, eh?  We are not discussing comets; We are discussing the moon and its specific situation/origin.

Amy, the density of the Moon isn't as low as you seem to be under the impression.  For example, it has a Density of 0.605 of Earth's.  Compare that to Pluto (0.317) or Saturn (0.125) and it starts to look less incredible.  If it was formed from similar rock to Earth's Mantle then 0.605 is not so strange and just indicates that the Moon likely has a lot less Nickel and Iron in its core.  The Moon has a similar density to Mars (0.713).  Unless you also think that all these planets are hollow but have no evidence for that either. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/planet_table_ratio.html

These are AGGREGATE densities.  Like I said, ANY of those bodies could be constructed hollow with a very dense shell - or solid and constructed of lesser density materials, whether similar to an Earth substance or not.  I have no opinion one way or another about the hollowness or solidity of other bodies, but have historical record and reports from Morning Sky to suggest the moon - and ONLY the moon - is a construct, a ship, a Consciousness creation.

There is NO REAL EVIDENCE THAT THE MOON IS HOLLOW THAT I AM AWARE OF.  THAT IS WHY NONE OF YOU CAN POST ANY.  Even if we cannot say for sure what is inside the Moon we have no reason to suspect it is hollow other than somebody saying it might be (even if there are bases inside caves there). 

Equally, there is no evidence that it ISN'T hollow.  That is why none of YOU can post any.  [shrug]

[Somamech]

Everything is pretty Hollow... and in some case's Hallowed when it comes to the Vatican LOL

If for example location X  had a once nice spring water source dry up one can only assume that there would be a Hollow somewhere in that system.  The Hollow may not appear to be what we might expect, but with rock movement in general Hollow could be more defined with "Path's of Ease". 

The Moon has Lava Hollows according to Nasa.  Yet Nasa cannot show us them close up.  The only Close up Point and Shoot Pic's we have of the Moon are the American Flag... God Bless America and all but when I travel I like to take pics of area's which don't look like my home country   

[Anynonmouses]

I get a kick out of the folks who assume they know the specific density of celestial bodies. There are only speculative assumptions on which such calculations are made, and whichever specimens of rock are analyzed for the positing of speculative assessment, the whole exercise disregards the likelihood that the rock in question does not represent the spectrum of minerals within the celestial body.

Bottom line--everyone is wrong for speculating. Enough speculation already...let's get on board a spaceship and go see for ourselves with resonant imaging technology, drilling apparati and crews of people willing (or robots) to drill all the way to the center of the object and THEN we'll have a look see.

My hunch is that it is hollow, like the earth. The Plejorans say both are hollow. I don't have their word directly, but others I find credible in their interactions with Plejoran ETs do report this. If we suddenly find out that both are hollow, or even just the earth, well, then--won't those who insist (based on flawed data) that the earth and/or moon is solid look silly? To me they already do, but silliness is cute sometimes.

Put water in a balloon and spin it. What happened? That's right--all of the liquid material tends to travel outward from the center. Try starting with common sense and so forth in assessing such things. There is no solid OR liquid core. The solids (tectonic plates) and liquids work against and within one another until an opening is found to relieve the "outage" pressure, and voila! We have volcanoes.

I hope that helps clear this up.

Peace and Love,
JD