Is the moon artificial?

[M-Albion-3D]

In my close observation of many MRO high resolution images of Mars, I've noticed a glitch or what appears to be a glitch or "seam" in several images. At first I took no notice of them believing the seams were where the images had been joined together from the transmission phases but then I noticed these seams/joins were only visible in anaglyph mode. This gave the appearance that....what I was "seeing" was in fact, a layered facsimile and NOT a true surface condition, very odd indeed. OK, this sounds a little weird I know but then, I came across this discovery by Crrow777.

Later in another thread, I will post some images of this MRO Martian surface condition I mention above for a comparison. Anyway, here's an interesting perspective on the moon which may be pertinent to this thread.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9jK5Nq08r1g

[aviators]

Apparently 8 people have captured the moon wave 19 times. WOW !
Get your cameras out. Another opportunity is coming up.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MRkmPyGvznU

[aviators]

Moon light is colder than moon shade. Try this experiment for yourself.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8iWLRMVjHUg

Also some researchers are reporting.
1. Moon light will increase a brush fire while sun light will decrease a fire.
2 Moon light will spoil food while sun light will preserve food.

Although I have not seen any proof of these 2 yet.

[Helvetic]

Some recent moon footage from John Lenard Walson

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZkCZ50YFzM0

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ih8URf2dTkQ

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PZUZosu4iOY

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=QrmoIiE0y00

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=e4JazRqXKl0

[Inversion]

The moon's rocks are slightly older than the earth at 4.5 billion years. Some of the other names for the moon are Nanna, Sin, Su'en, Kingu & Dilimbabbar. I've read it was originally in orbit around Tiamat. It's destruction is placed at 500,000 years ago. The moon moves away from the Earth at one inch per year and would have moved 7.89 miles since it's original positioning considering the rate has been constant. The astronauts detonated explosives on the surface of the moon at it rang like a bell. This implies there's a hull beneath several hundred feet of debris. The material they pumped out of it's interior formed the black areas on the surface.

[lunaflare]

When I contemplate the moon, I think to a line from a ballad written by English poet and writer, Alfred Noyes (17/18th century).

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/171940

From the first stanza of, "The Highwayman".

The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas

Yes, a galleon is a ship...or ..perhaps, one could interpret, a (space)-ship.
Interesting that Noyes was also a science-fiction writer and an avid sky-watcher...
Most likely a high degree Freemason too

[Sierra]

1. Moon light will increase a brush fire while sun light will decrease a fire.

Probably because as the air heats up, there is less oxygen to serve as fuel.

2. Moon light will spoil food while sun light will preserve food.

Yes, the heat dehydrates, and preserves, while night time air tends to be wet and humid, thus spoilage.

[aviators]

Brian Mullin shares some thoughts about our moon and some future experiments .

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DHW4vuatnmU

[Nick Matkin]

Posted by aviators (here)
Moon may be very close to earth. 3 -5 thousand miles away. NOT 240,000.

What a strange thing for anyone to consider, since the moon's distance has been confirmed by bouncing radio signals off it since 1946 and measuring the delay. It is done on a daily basis by radio amateurs for various reasons (see EME communications), and any discrepancy in size or distance would be noted!

Seems some folks are so naive that they really believe NASA and governments have a monopoly on this sort of information.

Regarding the moon's composition (the rocky surface confirmed by the above reflections) - wouldn't its gravity be 'all wrong' if it was substantially hollow, or made of anything other than rock?

And one only needs to read a decent astronomy book to understand why it keeps the same side facing earth and why this is caused by tidal lock. (There is no 'dark side' by the way. Just think about it...)

[aviators]

Posted by Nick Matkin (here)

Posted by aviators (here)
Moon may be very close to earth. 3 -5 thousand miles away. NOT 240,000.

What a strange thing for anyone to consider, since the moon's distance has been confirmed by bouncing radio signals off it since 1946 and measuring the delay. It is done on a daily basis by radio amateurs for various reasons (see EME communications), and any discrepancy in size or distance would be noted!

Seems some folks are so naive that they really believe NASA and governments have a monopoly on this sort of information.

Regarding the moon's composition (the rocky surface confirmed by the above reflections) - wouldn't its gravity be 'all wrong' if it was substantially hollow, or made of anything other than rock?

And one only needs to read a decent astronomy book to understand why it keeps the same side facing earth and why this is caused by tidal lock. (There is no 'dark side' by the way. Just think about it...)

Would be most interested in seeing how amateurs calculated the moons distance and what data they collected.

[Nick Matkin]

Posted by aviators (here)

Would be most interested in seeing how amateurs calculated the moons distance and what data they collected.

That's a fair question and easy to answer. It's how radar works! Anyone can research this. But in this specific example look up "amateur EME experiments".

But briefly:

Speed of light/radio waves is 299,792,458 metres per second. (Measured fairly accurately by various elegant experimenters starting in 1849.)

Send a very short radio pulse at a specific time. It travels out, in this case all the way to the moon. It hits the moon where most of it is absorbed, but some is reflected back. Record the exact time of the arrival of the reflection, which is 2.4 second at perigee and about 2.7 seconds at apogee.

Divide this time by two, (say 1.2 seconds) and multiply this by the speed of light: 1.2 x 299,792,458 = 335,975,949.6 metres, km or 208,765.78 miles.

The example is the minimum approximate distance (perigee), rounded slightly for convenience.

For anyone familiar with radio, the timing measurement is not particularly difficult. It's the amplifying the extremely weak reflected signal sufficiently to make the measurements which is the hard part.

If there is a suspicion that amateurs are incapable of doing this, and it's all figures cooked up by NASA, I say this: the method - even in a crude sense - would easily show an inaccuracy of about 10 percent, so any suggestion the moon is not where it is would soon be confirmed by these guys (mostly guys!) doing this all over the world. Anyway, it's not done to measure the distance - we know that - it's done as a form of experimental communication, done almost solely as a difficult technical challenge.

If you doubt the technical competence of these amateurs, I suggest contacting them and examining the equipment being used. Simply sending and receiving Morse code lunar reflections gives a pretty precise distance measurement!

I think this is another example of how data about the Earth, moon, sun, solar system, etc. is not all under the control of NASA or 'The Government' or anyone else because there are hundreds of thousands of competent amateurs all over the world in all fields of science and technology constantly looking to re-define constants, exchanging data and all wanting to make new discoveries - which occasionally they achieve. Unfortunately the 'Conspirasphere' is awash with individuals completely oblivious to this knowledge.

[aviators]

Thanks Nick Matkin. Have been doing a little digging on EME.
This is interesting indeed. Nice graph around the 10 min mark.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=L5E2ntIxAsc

[Nick Matkin]

Thanks aviators. That's a new one on me - I didn't know HAARP had been involved in EME experiments. (Perhaps someone can come up with a sinister explanation as to why...!)

EME reflections are usually done on VHF, UHF or microwave frequencies (30 MHz to 10 GHz) as it is much easier to use antennas that can focus the energy, and these frequencies don't suffer significant ionospheric attenuation. I guess HAARP has the power to overcome these losses, even when using their much lower HF 6 to 7 MHz frequencies in this experiment.

It's also a nice example of gathering data from well equipped and well trained amateurs to confirm the results - apparently 550 amateur sent in reports after this experiment.

Anyway, nice find and thanks for posting.

[Peace of Mind]

Posted by Foxie Loxie (here)
Do we have any definite proof that our Moon is an artificial satellite? Just trying to piece together all the things I have learned!

To be as honest as possible....none of us know what it is, we just like to imagine we know what it is. Definite proof will require personal examination and experience with this object. All we can do here is speculate. So, be careful and mindful of making that often repeatable mistake of turning assumptions into facts...as you will just be keeping yourself busy and distracted with meaningless contemplation.

Peace

[Solon]

Posted by aviators (here)
Brian Mullin shares some thoughts about our moon and some future experiments .

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DHW4vuatnmU

There is no proof that the Moon or even the Sun are visible from outside of Earths atmosphere. All light and heat experienced on Earth are generated in Earths atmosphere, including moon light. NASA will not perform the simple experiments to prove it, but Neil Armstrong said quite clearly that from cislunar space, the sky was black. nothing is visible. The greatest scientific fraud of all time and nobody can see it.

[Nick Matkin]

The Hubble Telescope is outside the atmosphere. Faked images?

[TargeT]

Posted by Solon (here)
There is no proof that the Moon or even the Sun are visible from outside of Earths atmosphere. All light and heat experienced on Earth are generated in Earths atmosphere, including moon light. NASA will not perform the simple experiments to prove it, but Neil Armstrong said quite clearly that from cislunar space, the sky was black. nothing is visible. The greatest scientific fraud of all time and nobody can see it.

Posted by Nick Matkin (here)
The Hubble Telescope is outside the atmosphere. Faked images?

THOUSANDS of faked images? not to mention all the other imagery.


Knowing how light works,why would anything be anything but MORE visible outside of the atmosphere?

Why would interaction with the atmosphere change the nature of light's propagation?

Why have we not shown this to be true with terrestrial vacuum chambers? ( we have some BIG ones)... this just doesn't make any sense at all.

[avid]

Moon will be made of cheese next.....
JLW videos are fascinating, innocent and open to discussion. Helvetic usually doesn't promote nonsense...
Nick, my radio-consultants friends are all 'at-sea' at the moment, there is a huge argument over HAARP, and linked-in technologies. There is also the radar/nexrad implementation affecting the geo-engineering actually proven effects on our locales in most points globally.
Then there is the anomalous incoming niggling doubts of something which is almost here, almost admitted, but putting a 'toe' in the controversial hot-water is almost tantamount to 'credibility suicide'....
I love the dedication of those who go above and beyond the strait-jacketed 'common-purpose' education, to get us to reality, the truth, no matter what...

[Cidersomerset]

I just saw this article......



Moon used to spin 'on different axis'

2 hours ago
From the section Science & Environment


llustration of the shifted axis of rotation Image copyright James Tuttle Keane

The scientists suggest volcanic activity generated the "wander"

The Moon used to spin on a different axis and show a slightly different face to the Earth,
a new study suggests.Using data collected by Nasa's Lunar Prospector mission in the late
1990s, scientists spotted two hydrogen-rich regions near the Moon's poles, probably
indicating the presence of water ice.The icy patches are opposite each other - the line between
them passes through the middle of the Moon - so it appears that this used to be its spin axis.

The work appears in the journal Nature.

It describes a gradual wobble, or "true polar wander", adding up to about a six-degree shift altogether.

A likely explanation for this shift, which the researchers suggest took place over several billion years,
is volcanic activity in a region called the Procellarum.This swathe of territory includes most of the Moon's
dark patches that are visible from the Earth. Volcanoes and associated geological activity would have
made it warmer and lighter than the rest of the Moon.According to Matt Siegler, from the Planetary
Science Institute in Arizona, and his colleagues, that drop in density produced enough wobble to explain
the two "palaeopoles" they detected in the Lunar Prospector data.

"The Procellarum region was most geologically active early in lunar history, which implies that polar
wander initiated billions of years ago," they write.

illustration of the location of the ancient poles Image copyright James Tuttle Keane

The presumed icy patches are opposite each other, nearby the present lunar poles

Dr Siegler and his colleagues discovered the hydrogen-rich patches in data from the Lunar Prospector's
neutron spectrometer: measuring the neutrons bounced off the Moon's surface by incoming cosmic rays.
That hydrogen signal is taken to indicate the presence of water ice, which can - and does - exist in
permanently shaded craters at the Moon's poles. Precisely why it has persisted in these regions, which
have now drifted away from the poles and into sunlight, is a mystery.

The researchers suggest it may have been buried by asteroid impacts, but this will require further investigation.

Previous studies have suggested that the Moon may have wobbled around to an even greater extent
- perhaps as much as 35 degrees.

The lead author of one of those earlier papers, Ian Garrick-Bethell from the University of California Santa
Cruz, wrote in a comment piece for Nature: "A key goal will be to reconcile these many stories of the
changing orientation of the Moon, and to determine what density changes drove it to wander."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35883576

[Solon]

Posted by Nick Matkin (here)
The Hubble Telescope is outside the atmosphere. Faked images?

Hubble uses still classified Military technology, first developed for the ICBM program. Why do you think no other space capable nation has a telescope in space? Why do you think NASA will not let these talented groups put a conventional telescope in space?

Testbed Paves Way for Amateur Space Telescope

Telescope Alpha" is only the first step in a much more ambitious plan. The League hopes to convince NASA to attach a telescope 14 to 16 inches in aperture to the International Space Station sometime between 2008 and 2010. Controlled remotely by a team of amateurs on the ground, the envisioned telescope would concentrate on "taking pictures of the universe that interest the whole human race," notes imaging expert Richard Berry, who is coordinating efforts to gain NASA's approval. "All of the images and data from the ISS-AT would be available for use in the classroom and as a basis for observing proposals from educators and their classes.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astro....ctwAYxsY.dpuf
Sounds like it was a wonderful project.

The Amateur Space Telescope project got its start in early 1979 when a handful of enthusiastic students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Troy, NY realized that they could build their own space telescope using off-the-shelf hardware and launch it as a payload on the soon-to-be-introduced Space Shuttle. The AST would be the amateur (and much less expensive) equivalent of NASA’s Hubble Space telescope (HST) then under development.

http://www.drewexmachina.com/2014/04...ace-telescope/

@TargeT

Knowing how light works...

You don't, nobody really does, except the Military. And the Vatican, which is where the technology originated, and was developed by Les Officine Gallileo, now owned by Finmeccanica. The Vatican still has much of its pension funds in the company. And if you want to go anywhere in space, you need a Star Tracker, which even if you could afford, they would not sell to you without an extremely thorough vetting. It uses similar science to Hubble and the ICBM star sensors.
http://www.finmeccanica.com/en/-/150...ficine-galileo