Moon bombing

[sgreger1]

That was before Congress approved a blueprint last month for NASA that shifts the focus from a manned moon landing — as outlined under President George W. Bush — in favor of sending astronauts to near-Earth asteroids and eventually Mars. A return to the moon could potentially be a way station — something still to be decided — but the moon won't be an overall goal.

because we cant land there?

Not because we can't land there, because we have. The moon is too close to serve any real purpose as a waystation. It would have certain benefits, but the scientists believe it is an unecessary expense.


And Tom, they announced the water thing like last year lol. The moon has a LOT of water on there. The question is where it came from. There are several theories on it, but the moon being little more than a giant rock with almost no gravity begs the question of how it became covered in water. Either way, we are learning that the resources necessary for life are more abundant than we thought 10 years ago. It seems water is on every planet that isn't too hot, and I still think Europa's theoretically liquid oceans are the best place to search for life. If theres a plan filled with liquid oceans, there has to be some kind of life on it.




Also, I am a streamlink subscriber on coast to coast AM. If anyone wants my password so they can listen to all the back episodes of Coast to Coast AM commercial free, let me know via PM and i'll hook you up.



Tom: The writer of that book, the NORAD guy who predicted the October 13'th thing was on 2 nights ago and gave a great interview. He answers a LOT of questions we asked on this board and it was interesting at the very least. Get the password from me and go listen to it while your at work, it was really good and explains his viewpoint a lot. It's easier for me to guage someones credibility when listening to them as opposed to just reading their words.

[tom502]

I listened to that Fulham interview and it was pretty good, the same stuff is in the book. I also listened to some of Michael Horn as guest, you might wanna check those out. He's been on a few times.

[BadAxe]

Well if we ever become the first people to actually go to the moon and land on it, maybe we can do something with that water. But we still need to prove we can actually go to the moon.

[devilock76]

I consider time travel to the past impossible. At least in the form of being able to change something in the past due to the massive paradox it would cause. Even on a basic level if a person goes back in time to change something, say right a wrong, they would make it so their present self did not have to experience that wrong. Well if their present self never had to experience that wrong than what reason would they have to go back in time to fix the wrong that does not exist from their perspective.

Ken

[tom502]

Read this very interesting article:

http://www.rense.com/general92/spt.htm

The Moon is artificial.

[timholian]

Read this very interesting article:

http://www.rense.com/general92/spt.htm

The Moon is artificial.

Jeff, earlier this year, David Icke visited the idea that the moon is not a heavenly body but that it is some sort of construct * a hollowed out planetoid. I let this idea sit for several months, but this morning decided to look into it a bit. On of the things Icke mentioned * something I had never considered * is that what are the chances that the moon just happens to exactly cover the sun during an eclipse? (the odds are astronomical)

<<< From the article

I stopped reading at this point. Its called perspective. I can cover the whole sun with merely my hand.... the odds are astronomical.... except they arent.
From my understanding and without using google, the moon was formed by an asteroid hitting the earth, early in its evolution, causing the crust to take orbit around the earth eventually forming the moon we see today. *Of course its theory*
But I tend to stop reading an article when its clear the author has little knowledge as to simple scientific fact of perspective.

Anyone remember this "I crush your head!" Using thumb and forefinger?

[tom502]

No... I don't see it like that. It's the size of the moon and it's location that makes it the same size as the sun, in the sky. When I see the sun, maybe it's like the size of a quarter, but if I pick up a book, the book is bigger than the sun. But when we have an eclipse, the sun and moon in the sky are the same size. The article explains it's because the distance of the moon and sun which makes it like that, and says that is unique compared to other planets.

[sgreger1]

Well if we ever become the first people to actually go to the moon and land on it, maybe we can do something with that water. But we still need to prove we can actually go to the moon.

*Facepalm*

Lol, it's like an entire decade of US history just eludes people entirely.

Give it up people, we have more evidence that we went to the moon than most events. It would be easier for me to prove we went to the moon that to prove that tomorrow will be Wednesday. Get over it.

Ive still yet to see even one piece of evidence that even begins to suggest we didn't gop, and on the other side there is a gigantic mountain of evidence that we did go.

[sgreger1]

<<< From the article

I stopped reading at this point. Its called perspective. I can cover the whole sun with merely my hand.... the odds are astronomical.... except they arent.
From my understanding and without using google, the moon was formed by an asteroid hitting the earth, early in its evolution, causing the crust to take orbit around the earth eventually forming the moon we see today. *Of course its theory*
But I tend to stop reading an article when its clear the author has little knowledge as to simple scientific fact of perspective.

Anyone remember this "I crush your head!" Using thumb and forefinger?

Yah for real man. I mean maybe moon conspiracies would be more believable if MOONS WERE ABUNDANT ON ALMOST EVERY ****ING PLANET. I cannot believe we are still in an age where we are debating the existence of the moon for god's sake, this is insanity.


If anyone has any evidence that any of these things are true than bring it forward. Literally this is worse than flat earthing, flat earthers had a basis for their assumption, as the world appears relitively flat. they were just guessing based on what they observed. But this would be like people looking out onto the horizon and assuming the earth was a giant spiral, there's not even the slightest hint of evidence that should point you in the direction.

[tom502]

Maybe someday we will develope a craft that can withstand the Van Allen belts, and land on the moon. It would very interesting.

[Roo]

Intelligent life on Earth is no less circumstantial or coincidental than those characteristics of the moon listed in that article. Sounds like the guy never pondered the idea that the perfect conditions for intelligent life and the perfect size/distance ratios of earth and moon might just be the same thing. Who is he to say that the size and position of the moon are too coincidental? Compared to what?

[sgreger1]

Maybe someday we will develope a craft that can withstand the Van Allen belts, and land on the moon. It would very interesting.

Tom the Van Allen belts are easy to withstand. The ****ing scientist who discovered them said it would not cause any problems for humans passing through, that it would only be as much radiation as getting an xray. You do realize that you have no basis, not 1 real scientist who actually believes the van allen radiation belt would kill someone, right? It's like saying "If we could just fiure out a way to make "flying machines" than someday maybe we could travel across continents". It's just completely off base to make this claim, no one says the Van Allen belts are a problem, that was just completely made up and has no basis in fact, science or reason considering even Van Allen himself says it would not be any barrier or difficult to get through without harming someone.

[sgreger1]

Intelligent life on Earth is no less circumstantial or coincidental than those characteristics of the moon listed in that article. Sounds like the guy never pondered the idea that the perfect conditions for intelligent life and the perfect size/distance ratios of earth and moon might just be the same thing. Who is he to say that the size and position of the moon are too coincidental? Compared to what?

We are dealing with a universe that is aking to a giant math equation. A math equation so long, with so many variables, that there is really no concept of coincidence or impossible. With that many chances to play out different ways, almost anything is possible.

Exactly like you said, the odds of intelligent life forming are mathematically near impossible, yet we know it to be true. Just in our own solar system we see lots of statisticly impossible things that have occured. Either a created made it like that or we live in a universe so vast that these things are not so impossible.

It is magical to think about but not some kind of basis to assume the moon is made of cheese.

[tom502]

Then why does the shuttle have to not wander out more than 200 miles from Earth? I read it was the radiation.

[devilock76]

Then why does the shuttle have to not wander out more than 200 miles from Earth? I read it was the radiation.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/970630a.html

And to answer the shuttle does not have to ( I cannot find a reference to that) but it is an orbiter obviously why orbit in a radiation field if you don't have to?

Ken