They're not clever, right? So how do they know not to? Sometimes it'll be the brightest thing around - but we've never heard of the first moth on the moon. Maybe they fly at warmth - I don't know. Anyone?
133647
there is no concrete answer
205224
Think about it, kiddo. Do you know how far we are from the nearest star? It would take generations of alien pilots on an uncertain journey to reach Earth. \n\nInterstellar flight is impractical, especially since they would have no way of knowing we would even be here.\n\nWhat you "came to know" was just another conspiracy theory pumped out by UFOLOGISTS or, as they are more commonly known, morons. \n\nUnless you see physical evidence of something so implausible, then you're just wasting your life on this stuff.
634325
"...was nasa lying about neil armstrong going to the moon?..."\n\nNo, definitely not. It's unbelievable how many people prefer to accept the half-baked, erroneous "proofs" that show men never landed on the moon to the undeniable scientific facts that prove we did. Take the time to read the facts on this non-governmental website ==> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html\n\n"...the technology is much greater today than 1965, so why cant we go up there again?..."\n\nYes, our technology has greatly advanced since 1969, but at this time we simply don't have the necessary hardware to put men back on the moon---no Saturn-like boosters, no life-support systems required for manned lunar voyages, no lunar landing equipment, etc.,. It's true that we could build all the necessary equipment, but a number of factors discourage further manned lunar exploration--the space race is over, the American public has lost interest in the moon, and NASA's budget is far below the levels needed to ramp up again for manned lunar flights.
261704
They have actually landed on the moon. Discovery Channel proved it, and the cost for shooting this all in studio was very high as compared to actually going on the moon. !!!!
273151
of course what you have seen is real and dont let any one to tell you otherwise.however there is debate among ufologist and et socities that black triangular ships are us secret military ships.this technology was given to them by a race of aliens called greys,however new evidence is suggesting this technology along with the design for stealth bomber(F117) was given to them by a race is called annunakies,i was lucky enough to see pleadian scout ship on two different ocasions.i can provide you with some clear pictures of ufo,and few race of ets who are well known to our open minded scientist.as far as NASA,they are fully aware of them and if you wish provide me with an email address so i can send you a few picture along with nasa footage of ufos from international space stations.a lot of scientists in nasa are fully aware of this.but information in this regard is being suppresed by big guys,if you are interested buy an ordinary telescope and spend a few nights watching moon.im sure you will see with your own eyes more than enough evidence of their existance,do a little bit of reaserch about et bases on the moon.keep wondering,you are in a right direction,may peace and love be upon you and your family
515146
Well, thye always could I suppose, its nice and warm, well protected, dark and hidden...all the conditions are right......\n\nHowever I still dont know where this rumor started, I mean it is possible that it has happened, but to be common placed is very hard to believe. I have been studying spider behaviours now for about 3 years, and have never heard of such a thing actually happening. I think its a little far fetched.\nJust like the whole "we eat 7 spiders in our sleep" very unrealistic. even thinking of how anyone would know this is rediculous, what kind of study do they do to acquire this info? its rediculous!\n\nI personally dont believe it, I mean I love spiders, and never kill them when they are in my house, there are a few here and there, but I wont start checking my ears for eggs anytime soon.......
413138
I have often seen them. The moon light will show upper atmospheric pollution that may be caused by large fires,this was a banner year for brush fires.  As I write a large Volcano in Italy is spewing ash. In short anything that would give off a significant amount of pollution.  if you remember the date it was, go to the library and research the newspapers for calamities on that date. A fine mist can magnify the moons light.  I remember seeing pollution rainbows from the oil wells that were set burning in freeing Kuwait from Iraq.
378311
Well the sun is forever burning,I don't think it would cool down at any point in time.\nI think thats how it is I'm not really sure,ether way they'll burn to a crisp.\nFried monkey!Thats a new one.lol
412271
Moths cannot bite. They have long tongues which they use to suck nectar. They are totally incapable of doing you any harm.
14493
Trolling is a good term. However, I will make room for those who are genuinely confused or want our take. I do agree with the insulting assumption of being brain dead. My mentor has an IQ of 180 and publishes great articles that really make you think.\n\nRegarding NASA...\n\nThe scientist, Dr. Henry Morris, stated that NASA scientists expected the moon to have about 22 feet of "moon dust" on its surface. Objects in space are said to attract cosmic "dust" at a rate determined by the density of their atmosphere and the "age" of the object. They used a formula to determine the thickness of the moons dust, and they assigned the age variable with "millions of years" for the age of the moon. The Lunar Lander (LEM) was then designed with flat feet and high legs so it wouldn't sink into the "moon dust". The 1969 landing jarred Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin when the LEM hit hard on the surface with just a few inches of moon dust. Dr. Morris then used NASA's own formula and worked it backwards based on the moon's correct "inches of dust", and recalculated the moon's age. Using NASA's own formula, the moon was calculated to be 7000 years old. The mathematicians who's genius got us to the moon and back came up with the formula. They just started from a false premise, that the world and it's moon are millions of year old instead of thousands. You can be a scientist and still be inaccurate if your variables are based on unproven theory. So why make the same mistakes with our children and give them inaccurate variables to calculate their hypothesis?
661143
Just about all of your questions are addressed at the source below.\n\nTo me, you just seem to be trolling. If you read the article, it gives possible explanations under "Theoretical problems".\n\nYou're not some miracle thinker who's "thinking outside the box." Solar astronomers know what they're talking about. They don't just say, "Oh! Gee! We were totally owned by this Yahoo! kid!" Please. They're also okay not knowing things. That's why they study: to figure things out.\n\nBut I suppose you think the sun is really powered by an alien civilization's equivalent to a battery, and by controlling solar wind they were able to cause 9/11. Right?
154540
yeah men, pointing itself, no dust over the legs on landing, no proves at all, and we already know that with the tecnology of the 60 it will be a surprise if they could be able just to hit the moon with the rocket, actually, many years later still Nasa was proving materials to suport speed over MATCH, and plus the space clothes...for God sake...really...the most expensive and bad movie ever...
38272
Yes, they walked on the moon. And yes, some people insist they did not--that it was all a huge conspiracy. You seem shocked at this, but remember, there are still folks maintaining that the Earth is flat or only 6,000 years old. (In fact, the flat-Earthers are one of the groups claiming the moon landing is a hoax--after all, the astronauts took photos showing a round Earth, and they know that isn't true, so it must be a hoax!) You don't actually expect evidence to convince people like this, do you? Any piece of evidence that we could present would simply be, to them, a part of the conspiracy. A good conspiracist can incorporate any piece of information into the big conspiracy without even blinking. \n\nThere have been several books written to promote this claim, and more articles. There was even a movie with a similar plot, Capricorn One, starring O.J. Simpson, among others (1977). The difference was that in the movie, the fake landing was for Mars, not the moon. One group of flat-Earthers actually claims O.J. was framed by the government for exposing the fake moon landings through his part in this movie! As Peter Huston, the writer and skeptic who mentioned this to me, deadpanned, "Apparently, the government moves slowly on framing its enemies."\n\nBob Mulford, of the Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York, wrote a short article for the group's newsletter, The WHY-Files, discussing a recent book claiming the whole thing was a hoax. Apparently a reviewer in a technical magazine aimed at radio astronomers actually gave the book a more-or-less positive review! He noted that the reviewer bought into one of the author's arguments, saying it was obviously a hoax because the photos brought back by the astronauts showed their footprints in the moon's soil. The author claimed (and the reviewer apparently agreed) that dry sand doesn't leave footprints, and since we all know there is no water on the moon, that proves these photographs must have been faked on a movie set here on Earth. \n\nMulford points out in his article that the Moon's surface is not covered with beach sand. He notes: "On the earth, sand comes from rocks ground to small pieces by the ocean, or from rocks that were weathered by freezing water. In fact, a little thought shows we should not expect the Moon to be like an desert on the Earth. The astronauts reported that the Moon was covered by an extremely fine soil which compacted easily. They likened it to talcum powder. This soil was produced by a rain of micrometeorites that the Earth's surface is protected from by our atmosphere. It is easy to do an experiment that shows that this type of surface would leave nice footprints. I didn't have any talcum powder, but I did recently produce a large pile of fine dust from sanding spackling compound used to patch a plaster wall. It leaves nice footprints." Mulford adds: "Incidentally, if the Moon walks actually were a hoax carried out in an earthly landscape that looked like the Moon, it would have been done in a dry desert and we wouldn't see footprints in the photos." In other words, the author of that book provided evidence against himself rather than proving the moon landing was a hoax! \n\nIn 1994, the Fortean Times had an article calling the moon landing into question. The article began, "The idea that we went to the Moon--and that we were successful in our Apollo endeavours--is so firmly embedded in the cultural lives of most people on this planet, that to voice the opinion that this might be untrue smacks of paranoia." I can't argue with that! The article goes on to claim, "In actual fact, mankind has no proof at all that we ever set foot on the Moon, other than the photographs that NASA has elected to publish." Which is simply untrue. We have the photos, the video, the audio, the testimony of all the men and women who worked on the various projects, the samples brought back, e
88044
as it is not possible to post pics i would assume that u understand\n1.Since the Moon has only one light source, the Sun, the shadows must be in line. But in this cases, it looks as if there are multiple light sources in moon, which is not possible.\n \n2.The foreground of many images of the astronauts on the Moon are filled in with light, while the shadows remain absolutely black, again proving that there are multiple light sources. \n\n3.There are no stars in the background from pictures taken on the Moon. \n\n4.In some images, a huge light source can be seen reflected in the astronaut's visors. This has to be a very bright, nearby source. There  is no possibility of external light source in moon\n\n5.How could NASA take TV images of the LM ascending on Apollo 15, 16, and 17 if there was no one on the Lunar surface to man the camera? \n\n6.There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures. Any  film exposed to 250° would indeed melt at that temperature\n\n7.The LM engine was very powerful. How come it did not leave a crater below the spacecraft? Why didn't it kick up any dust when it landed?\n\n8.The footprints left by the astronauts are proof that the Moon landings are fake. This one is also essentially a two pronged argument. First, the Fox show charged that the LM engine was so powerful that the upper layer of dust should have been blown away around the LM, so there should not be any footprints. Others have charged that the footprints should not be there since in the absence of water as a bonding agent, they should not maintain coherent shapes and sharp outlines\n\n9.There is no dust on LM footpads. -- According to Kaysing and Fox, this is the strongest evidence that the Moon landings are faked. They allege that with the swirling dust from LM descent engine, the foot pads should be covered with dust\n\n10.The pictures below show that flags are waving. And they never will. The flag was on the airless Moon, just as we all knew\n\nTHERE ARE MANY MORE ISSUES ON THIS, \n\nBUT \n\nTHOSE ARE TOO TECHNICAL FOR US. \n\n  \n\n…..NEIL ARMSTRONG WAS NOT THE FIRST PERSON TO LAND ON MOON\n\ncheck the refrences on these sites
269947
Do UFO's Exist? In that there are unidentified flying objects yes. Are they piloted by E.T.'s? NO!
100600
[sigh] I, too, have never seen an aurora. But I greatly enjoy the many photos of them featured at Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD: a fabulous website that everybody would already know about in the ideal world!
587684
u heard it wrong .. by the way have did u really hear it from someone.? how stupid can someone to say you something like that.\n\nIf they are pregnent, and if there is an eclipse they say it is not good to see the sun. and doesnt have to be religion thing it is scintifical no to see them