# What is our Moon?



## Spartan27 (Nov 17, 2006)

What is our Moon...."looking though a high powered telescope..one can see flashes of light every now and then".....what going on?


----------



## Paige Turner (Nov 17, 2006)

Silly Spartan,

You can't post this kind of stuff on the internet.

If it _was_ a massive conspiracy and cover-up, the agents would be kicking your door in at this very moment.



… Spartan?


----------



## Spartan27 (Nov 17, 2006)

I know very silly...but thought that statement was funny. People have a tendancy to believe anything that is said.....I saw that statement doing a search to help my child with a book report on the 1969 moon landing..Just think how I felt trying to explain to a 10 year old what a conspriacy theory is....


----------



## dwndrgn (Nov 17, 2006)

...isn't it a giant ball of cheese?


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 18, 2006)

dwndrgn said:


> ...isn't it a giant ball of cheese?


 
Well, if it is, it certainly isn't "green" anymore....


----------



## SpaceShip (Nov 18, 2006)

Just wait a cotton-pickin minute there j.d.  You might just have that wrong.  I mean, the man who used to live in it - the one that visited Norwich - _he_ told me it definitely was!  Please be kind enough to let me have the web address to prove your point!  Only then _might_ I believe you.


----------



## BookStop (Nov 18, 2006)

Slightly off subject, but...do you  think the moon could be a navel? Watch out for giant space bunnies!


The original inhabitants of Mexico called themselves the "Mexicas". The word 'Mexico' is identical in several languages, such as Mixtec, Otomi, Pame, and Tarasco. In "Nahuatl" (the language of the "Aztecs/Mexicas") it is the combination of three words: 
1. _Metx(tli)_ - 'moon'
2. _xic(tli)_ - 'navel'
3. _co_ - 'in'

This gives Mexico a meaning of "In the navel of the Moon". Since the postions of the lakes, upon which Mexico City was founded, are shaped like a rabbit and correspond to the same pattern on the moon, thus:
Mexico = The Rabbit's Navel"


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 18, 2006)

SpaceShip said:


> Just wait a cotton-pickin minute there j.d. You might just have that wrong. I mean, the man who used to live in it - the one that visited Norwich - _he_ told me it definitely was! Please be kind enough to let me have the web address to prove your point! Only then _might_ I believe you.


 
Might have been when he was there, but it's had time to age since then.... 

Don't have a web address, but I could refer you to S. Baring-Gould's *Curious Myths of the Middle Ages* on the subject..... Oh, and does anyone know about the actual spectrographic analysis that was supposedly done on that very subject? I've run into references to it, dating back to Heinlein's *Rocket Ship Galileo*, but I've never actually seen anything on it to help find the research... _that _must have been an interesting project to get funding for......


----------



## Urien (Nov 18, 2006)

The moon (I have read) is the smaller survivor of a massive planetary impact. The Earth was the larger survivor. Some argue that the Earth's moon is a binary planetray system as the moon is so large relative to the Earth; other moons are much smaller relative to their planetary bodies. 

Want to know the real truth? The moon is the demented cyclopean eye of a god trapped forever in a frozen dimension.

Or it's a pizza pie.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 18, 2006)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> Want to know the real truth? The moon is the demented cyclopean eye of a god trapped forever in a frozen dimension.
> 
> Or it's a pizza pie.


 
That's _amore_... (You didn't seriously think I could pass that one up, did you? )


----------



## Urien (Nov 18, 2006)

Sometimes I wonder whether the entire universe isn't in fact made up of various Italian foods. Mostly pasta.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 18, 2006)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> Sometimes I wonder whether the entire universe isn't in fact made up of various Italian foods. Mostly pasta.


 
As Jerry Cornelius would say: "Tasty!" 

Okay, okay ... I'll be good now... I promise..... (must be this fever I'm running....)


----------



## Urien (Nov 18, 2006)

Should the "eater of worlds" find our universe I fear the worst.


----------



## Hawkshaw_245 (Nov 18, 2006)

Moon? What moon? All I see is the Mothership.


----------



## leaf (Nov 19, 2006)

well the flashes of light are metorights that are crashing into the moon. because the moon dont have a dense atmosphear it cant burn up the metorights so they crash into the moon and make a creater and a flash of light.


----------



## SpaceShip (Nov 20, 2006)

P'raps thats why the Moon has such a shocked look on its face all the time.  I mean, if you had a meteorite about to crash into you, you'd have a great big 'O' for a mouth as well, wouldn't you?  Oh, and nice to meet you leaf.  Welcome to the Chronics.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Nov 20, 2006)

I think it's a......huge Pringle! Ah, what I wouldn't give to be able to reach it and eat it all.
Or perhaps it's a big round cake. Again with the reaching and the eating.
Or maybe it's a big monster that's biding it's time and one day it will strike out with it's big moon tentacles and pull us all out to space where we'll sufocate and our heads will explode in one big bloody/brainy mess! Woot!


----------



## Paige Turner (Nov 20, 2006)

What a strange person.


----------



## Harpo (Nov 21, 2006)

Tis the Eye of  the Cosmic Joker, in its eternal cycle of cheeky winking every twenty eight days, making us all spill our drinks - even the oceans slop over the edges because of the moon.


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 10, 2007)

If you can get a copy of the book (now out of print) called: "OUR MYSTERIOUS SPACESHIP MOON," by Don Wilson, published by Dell in paperback, you will discover that the moon is hollow with a alien civilazation inside...This is no theory....Buildings have been seen inside some of our moon's craters, as well as mining equipment. ( You can get oxygen from rocks.)

Don Wilson also wrote the companion book: "SECRETS OF OUR SPACESHIP MOON," where he gives the main proof of this coverup....

There is also the book: "SOMEBODY ELSE IS ON THE MOON," by George H. Leonard, published by McKay Publishing. (Also out of print)  AbeBooks: New & Used Books, Textbooks, Rare & Out of Print Books   may have copies of these three books......

In the above book, Leonard has pictures that he obtained from a friend at NASA showing the mining equipment and other strange objects with track trails they have left on the moon's surface...

I am 59 years old and have been a student of the UFO controversy for 40 years, so take my word for it, these books will open your mind to what the powers that be don't want you to know.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 10, 2007)

Moebius

One of the last things that NASA did as part of the Apollo program was to crash a lunar module into the moon and 'listen' to the vibrations produced.

I can assure you the the moon is NOT hollow.

I think it is far more likely that people want to make money by selling books on completely spurious and unscientfic UFO conspiracy theories to people like you than that the powers (whoever they are) don't want us to know things (for reasons beyond me). 

These people a frauds laughing all the way to the bank with YOUR money. 

Read some truely sceintific books on a variey of subjects. The first things that you realise is that the authors and people they quote are usually highly qualified in their field and very rarely do they obtain pictures from 'friends' at NASA.

* Only now, after typing all this, do I realise that you are going to tell me that the Apollo program was a hoax.* _There should be a smilie showing some guy hitting his forehead with the palm of his hand. Any chance Brian?_


----------



## Pyan (Mar 10, 2007)

I do know it's a lot closer and smaller than we are led to believe - and I have proof!
Uncensored picture of Apollo landing - before _*they*_ covered it all up!


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 10, 2007)

Unfortunately, that's the problem with such conspiracy theories. They're like Pyan's chart on the difference between the scientific method and faith: they ignore all hard evidence to the contrary in favor of sheer speculation and flummery.

As Ellison has noted in one of his articles, that's the thing: such "sci-fi" ideas (which is why I also draw the line between "sf" and "sci-fi") are designed to keep people from understanding how things work, and therefore perpetuate a lack of empowerment in making decisions or in even having a say in making such decisions. The more people can be flummoxed, the easier they are to control. This isn't necessarily a conscious thing -- I don't believe there's some great big conspiracy out there sitting back deciding to do this in most instances (though in some there apparently are) -- but it's something both governments and con artists learned long ago, and it's a learned, almost instinctual behavior to preserve the power they hold rather than allowing any of it to go elsewhere.

When people actually look into the facts, the science behind things, and understand the processes, the interrelationships, and the ways in which they can or cannot be manipulated or controlled... then it rocks the boat, and uncomfortable questions get asked, and people have to do their jobs... including us all.

So I'm with Mosaix on this... look into the genuine science with an open mind, and you'll find that the vast majority of the conspiracy stuff simply holds up about as well as a mass of candy-floss in the rain... and for about the same reason: it's all hot air.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 10, 2007)

Dang it Pyan - you're going to give the game away - and I was going to make money out of that book!

Now you've spoilt it, I'll just have to get a propper job!

BTW did you know my real name was Erik von Danniken?


----------



## Pyan (Mar 10, 2007)

j. d. said:
			
		

> it's all hot air.


Same as 9/11 - when I started browsing the Web about it, I couldn't believe (a) the way people distorted the facts, and denied the amount and veracity of evidence collected by accident investigators and other professionals, and (b) just how _many_ people were prepared to believe that the government of the US would kill so many of their own to give themselves an excuse for their foreign policy.
Unbelievable!


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 11, 2007)

Read the books I listed first before you make up your mind on what you know to be the truth....And by the way, when that lunar module crashed into the moon, the moon rang like a bell for 36 hours, proving it was hollow...Nasa even sent sound waves through the moon to test the speed of the waves...They found out that the sound waves traveled at the speed they would for metal....Oh did I fail to mention that the moon has a steel hull of titanium...If you want proof about all this Don Wilson's 2 books will give that to you.....(Can you handle the truth?) 

You two gents sound like you work for some dis-information agency at Downing Street by the way you want to belittle what I've said...I noticed that you are both over 50 years old, so maybe you are too old to accept anything that would upset your preconceived notions on what you have been brought up to believe...I guess you can't teach an old dog you tricks as they say....

And if you think 911 wasn't an inside job, then I really know you gents are working for MI-6 or whatever.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 11, 2007)

Um, you might want to do your arithmetic again there. Pyan, at least, isn't over 55; and I'm certainly not. (Yes, mosaix is, but last time I checked, age wasn't exactly a guarantee of being closed minded... and certainly not of being a supporter of a conservative conspiratorial government agency -- I refer you to ... let's see ... Harlan Ellison, Robert A. Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Clark Ashton Smith, Joanna Russ, Ray Bradbury........)

As for the claims you make... they just don't hold water. Again, far too many holes in this stuff, and it's the same sort of conspiracy thing that's been bruited about since I was a kid at least... and been shot down by people as varied as Asimov to Sagan to ... oh, blazes, _pick_ a name. The fact of the matter is that none of the things you've claimed here have any support from the scientific community, nor from any other source except those who buy into such conspiracy theories, or make money off of same. That's it.

"Steel hull of titanium"? What the....? Ever hear of spectroscopic analysis? Measurement of specific gravity? Libration? _Tides????_ Incidentally, the shockwaves registered for an hour, not 36 hours. And seismic observations since have made it quite evident that the moon is not hollow. Were it hollow, the effect on orbiting vehicles would have been vastly different, not to mention the results of all the seismic observations made over the years... or the effect on tides, or the lunar orbit itself.... If you're interested in a genuine scientific article on the subject, I refer you to an early one:"New Seismic Data on the State of the Deep Lunar Interior", by Y. Nakamura, D. Lammlein, G. Latham, M. Ewing, J. Dorman, F. Press, and N. Toskoz, from _Science_, Vol. 181, no. 4094 (July 1973), pp. 49-51.

Seriously, you should go back to basic physics here, and start by scrapping all the preconceptions of the conspiracies, and simply look at how the physics works. Then go back to these books you're touting and look at them with a critical eye against the accumulated scientific knowledge of the past several thousand years. I think you'll find that they simply are about as useful as a sieve for gathering water.....

Look, I was curious about such things growing up... I was sceptical, but I found the ideas really fascinating, so I went looking for answers from the genuine scientific evidence, not from pop-culture mavins (though I read some of those, as well). And ... it's just bunk. Period. It's a scam. There's no genuine science here. Anywhere.

I really don't mean to offend, but this sort of thing is so incredibly easy to pick apart that it's not even funny. It's simply painful. And... seeing this one dragged back up without anything more than a few changes in phrasing after this many years, and not one smidge more evidence... very tiresome....


----------



## Dave (Mar 11, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> I really don't mean to offend, but this sort of thing is so incredibly easy to pick apart that it's not even funny.


I for one found it funny, I was falling off my chair when I read that Pyan and Mosaix were secret agents.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 11, 2007)

Dave said:


> I for one found it funny, I was falling off my chair when I read that Pyan and Mosaix were secret agents.


 
Ummm, yes.... I'd meant the other aspect of this. That one was about as far off-beam as you can get. I'm afraid most government agents would get hives just thinking about either of them in that capacity....

Hmmmm. Maybe we should drop a bug in someone's ear then....


----------



## Pyan (Mar 11, 2007)

Moebius Tripper said:


> I noticed that you are both over 50 years old, so maybe you are too old to accept anything that would upset your preconceived notions on what you have been brought up to believe...I guess you can't teach an old dog you tricks as they say....


I was always under the impression that age brought wisdom - who ever heard of a young wise counsellor?
_*You can't beat the laws of physics*_, MT, no matter how hard you want to believe that *they *are keeping the truth from you. As jd says, tides _alone_ would rule out the" hollow titanium moon" theory - it wouldn't be massive enough to affect the ocean worth a gnat's backside.
Anyway, you don't need to go to the Moon for such an idea: try this- Agartha


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 11, 2007)

Yes, the Hollow Earth and Hollow Moon theories were both, from my reading, quite popular with the Nazis at one point ... as well as several other groups, of course. But it all comes down to simple physics; and no matter how neat, romantic, or fascinating an idea it may be... no matter how much wonderful fiction may have been written around the idea... in the end, it's just that. A neat idea, but without any basis in fact ... no more real than the "Feejee mermaid"....


----------



## mosaix (Mar 11, 2007)

Moebius Tripper said:


> Read the books I listed first before you make up your mind on what you know to be the truth....And by the way, when that lunar module crashed into the moon, the moon rang like a bell for 36 hours, proving it was hollow...Nasa even sent sound waves through the moon to test the speed of the waves...They found out that the sound waves traveled at the speed they would for metal....Oh did I fail to mention that the moon has a steel hull of titanium...If you want proof about all this Don Wilson's 2 books will give that to you.....(Can you handle the truth?)
> 
> You two gents sound like you work for some dis-information agency at Downing Street by the way you want to belittle what I've said...I noticed that you are both over 50 years old, so maybe you are too old to accept anything that would upset your preconceived notions on what you have been brought up to believe...I guess you can't teach an old dog you tricks as they say....
> 
> And if you think 911 wasn't an inside job, then I really know you gents are working for MI-6 or whatever.



OK Moebius much of what you've said is just downright silly and by the way I don't _want_ to belittle what you have said - it's just unavoidable. 

I won't take what you say about my age as an insult. One of the advantages of being in my 60's is that I have seen enough charlatans come and go to recognise them with ease. However, I always make the mistake of assuming that the next generation will be educated and intelligent enough to see them coming. You are the proof that I am, sadly, wrong.

But the silliest thought rattling round in your head right now is that the intelligence services of the UK would employ a left-wing atheist. 

Anyway, all friends here - you are entitled to your opinon. But don't expect them not to be challenged when you post them on here. The average Chronicles poster is way, way more intelligent than the authors of the books that you mention here, maybe not as rich - but that's your doing, not ours.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 11, 2007)

Dave said:


> I for one found it funny, I was falling off my chair when I read that Pyan and Mosaix were secret agents.



AJYWB USTNQ LWTEB HHVKS


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 11, 2007)

mosaix said:


> AJYWB USTNQ LWTEB HHVKS


 
*sigh* Et tu, mosaix?

*SMACK!*


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 12, 2007)

How do you explain, with all due respect gentlemen, those pyramids on Mars? And the city of Cairo, Egypt was named from the old Arabic, or has the same meaning, (Mars.)  And by the way, I am a Yank (age 60 in April).....And what about Mr. Pope and his ufo books? He worked in your government....

And did you ever hear of the British astromomer, H.P. Wilkins? He discovered a city in one of the craters of the moon, (Cresendi Crater) the spelling is wrong I know, but check it out.....And what about the 3,000 lights coming from the moon around 1864-1869...They were not from gas eruptions either....
And by the way, I was in the U.S. Air Force from 1966-1970...So don't try and con me into believing UFO's do not exist...Just ask the Apollo astronaunt, Gordon, who saw a whole armanda of them when he was in the Air Force....And I could give you hundreds of other sightings...Ever read the 7 books of Sitchin: "The 12th Planet," series?

If you watch the video that Richard C. Hoagland made: "The Moon/Mars Connection," and his other video: "The Monuments of Mars," you will see the 30,000 foot high dome that still has a few glass panes left in it...He gave this slide lecture in front of the University of Ohio....He is a science reporter who once worked for CBS News.....

And please read the book by Don Wilson, "Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon." In that book he gives the entire evidence that 2 Russian scientists came up with in their study of the moon's many mysteries....Then you can get back to me and really let me have it....That is if you are still not convinced by the facts that will speak for themselves....Cheerio old chaps!


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 12, 2007)

Moebius Tripper said:


> How do you explain, with all due respect gentlemen, those pyramids on Mars?


 
Good grief! What bloody pyramids? All I see are a bunch of weathered rock formations of exactly the sort you get in an open environment where sand is moved about by any wind!!! It abrades the rocks in just that sort of way, for pity's sake! That's long been thought to be one of the reasons why the Egyptians build pyramids in that fashion... it provides less wind resistance than a solid block, and therefore lasts longer. But the "pyramids" of Mars show no sign whatsoever of artificial manufacture. None. Simple weathering over eons would do those things quite nicely, thank you.



> And the city of Cairo, Egypt was named from the old Arabic, or has the same meaning, (Mars.)


 
Once more... run that by again? I'm assuming you mean Al-Qahirah (as it's usually transliterated), which means "Vanquisher" or "Triumphant"? But that name is really quite recent (dating to 969 A.D.) and was in honor of the then-emperor. As for any connection with "Mars" in any form... sorry, that's nonsense. There is "Masr", but again that's not etymologically connected to "Mars" in any way. It is also sometimes written "Misr", and is the biblical Mizraim ... again, no connection with Mars or Ares.

As for the rest of the claims... Again, I don't know why I'm bothering with this, but... A) No such structures have ever been seen by any astronomers and held up under questioning. There has always been an ulterior motive, usually connected with selling some sensational nonsense such as you're referring to, or to garner fame for themselves -- but not once has such a claim been backed by other astronomers anywhere in the world -- are you trying to say that all astronomers are either on the government payroll or being hushed up? Sorry. I'm afraid there have been too many mavericks in that field to make that viable, either.
B) No civilization could currently live on (or in) the moon. The moon isn't hollow; that's obvious from the reasons stated above. The effect on tides would preclude that, not to mention the fact that gases will leak in far too great amounts no matter what the material used to seal things if you're dealing with that huge a volume! Again, simple physics. And no one has even begun to explain how life would have developed there, had it done so independently (the environment is simply far too harsh) or how such a massive engineering feat could possibly have taken place without the whole bloody world noticing were it a project from earth. The moon's mass has also been measured far too many times, by far too many astronomers and astrophysicists, and wouldn't support such a claim. Again -- are you saying that that many people are part of this conspiracy?

D) Again, lights from the moon? Gas eruptions? Odd that I've never seen anything from that period mentioning anything of the sort... and I've read a fair chunk from that period.....

E) UFOs... Unidentified Flying Objects. Of course UFOs exist... but that's just it -- they are unidentified, and seen under conditions where errors are quite common and easily made. Until I see some genuine evidence that holds up under scrutiny, I'm not buying alien spacecraft... the likelihood of any lifeform making it the vast distances between us and habitable planets (should any such actually exist, which is still an open question -- certainly none do within our solar system) is extremely minute. Not only physically, but psychologically, the difficulties with such a flight are such as to make the possibility microscopically small. I'm not saying it's impossible... but the probability is somewhere very close to zero and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Also "Open-mindedness becomes a fault with it fails to take into account the fundamental probabilities of things." Occam's razor is still among the most useful and beneficial tools in existence.

F) The "dome" you speak of -- Hoagland in general -- is simply nonsense. Period. Here we have not simply one grand conspiracy, but an entire bushel of conspiracies. Ever check into the history of conspiracies -- I mean the real thing? They don't tend to last. The more people involved, the more things leak out, the more evidence can't be fixed, etc. And for any of these conspiracies to work, you'd literally have to have hundreds of thousands of people doctoring evidence daily, even hourly. It simply doesn't wash. The "face" on Mars hasn't held up under scrutiny; the "cities" on the Martian landscape I've dealt with above....

Ach! It's all so tiresomely nonsensical and melodramatic, and not one reputable scientist is in support of any of this -- not one single bloody one! I'm sorry, but someone (most likely several) would be at least open-minded enough to reserve judgment. I've known a fair number of people who are in that field. A more curious bunch you're not likely to find anywhere... and they'd love for this stuff to have a basis in fact. They'd be like kids with carte blanche in a toy shop. But that's just not the case.

Again... my suggestion is to clear your head of this nonsense for a while, look into the genuine science, then go back to it and see how well it holds water. At that point, I'm afraid you'll find that this is at best tabloid journalism, at worst an ugly con job.

And, yes, scientists are capable of being involved in such... the difference is: _peer review_. If it has anything to it, it'll be supported. If not, they'll tear it to shreds. These have all been torn to shreds ... repeatedly.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 12, 2007)

Moebius Tripper said:


> How do you explain, with all due respect gentlemen, those pyramids on Mars?



Easily - there aren't any.



> And did you ever hear of the British astromomer, H.P. Wilkins? He discovered a city in one of the craters of the moon,


No he didn't



> And by the way, I was in the U.S. Air Force from 1966-1970...So don't try and con me into believing UFO's do not exist...Just ask the Apollo astronaunt, Gordon, who saw a whole armanda of them when he was in the Air Force....And I could give you hundreds of other sightings...Ever read the 7 books of Sitchin: "The 12th Planet," series?


The point about Unidentified Flying Objects is that they are unidentified - we know they exist - so what? What are you saying that they are?



> If you watch the video that Richard C. Hoagland made: "The Moon/Mars Connection," and his other video: "The Monuments of Mars," you will see the 30,000 foot high dome that still has a few glass panes left in it...He gave this slide lecture in front of the University of Ohio....He is a science reporter who once worked for CBS News.....


Nonsense. Any dome 30,000 feet high would not be self supporting.



> And please read the book by Don Wilson, "Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon." In that book he gives the entire evidence that 2 Russian scientists came up with in their study of the moon's many mysteries....Then you can get back to me and really let me have it....That is if you are still not convinced by the facts that will speak for themselves....Cheerio old chaps!


Your idea of 'facts' and mine are not the same. I advise that you visit the NASA website. There you will find detailed maps of both the surface of the moon and the surface of mars. There are no pyramids and no cities.

Alternatively, and fraudsters always hate this one, go and look for yourself. Get a good quality telescope and examine the crater on the moon where this city is supposed to exist. I have spent years with mine looking at the moon, I can assure you there are no cities.


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 12, 2007)

I quote from Don Wilson's book: "OUR MYSTERIOUS SPACESHIP MOON," from
Page 113:
"Even conservative estimates of expected results indicate that meteors 10 miles or more in diameter-larger than most that have hit Earth- should have penetrated to a depth equal to four to five times its diameter. Yet the deepest crater we know of on the moon is the Gagarin Crater, which though 186 miles across, is less than 4 miles down. Most are like Clavius, which is a whopping 146 miles across but only 2-3 miles deep, and this despite the fact that all of Switzerland and Luxembourg could be placed inside it, it is so large. There is no question that whatever hit here should have gouged a great hole scores of miles deep. Why didn't it?.....(A steel hull of titanium, that's why!!!) "The shallow craters, Vasin and Shcherbakov insist, would perhaps be strange to a normal satellite, but the Moon is a "remade" world with an inner and outer shell of "armour plating."
   They note: "if one assumes that when the meteorite strikes the outer covering of the Moon, this plays the role of a buffer and the foreign body finds itself up against an impenetrable spherical barrier. Only slightly denting the 20 mile layer of armour plating, the explosion flings bits of its 'coating' far and wide.
   "Bearing in mind that the Moon's defense coating is, according to our calculations, 2.5 miles thick, one sees that this is approximately the maximun depth of the craters.

FACTS ABOUT OUR MOON: Tremors are conveyed through the Moon through its outer layers at an unbelievable rate of 6 miles per second-thirteen times faster than a rifle bullet. This is the speed of sound through metal. 

   Other studies from different data come to a similar conclusion: that metallic material exists in a large amount in a layer just under the outer rock surface of our Moon. The highly regarded lunar journal THE MOON, an International Journal of Lunar Studies points to three such studies: Sonnett's (1971), Urey's (1971), and Murphy's (1971). They all point to a metallic layer inside the Moon. Sonnett postulated a three-layered structure for the Moon similar to the Soviets', a special feature of which was "a thin conductivity layer ... which has been suggested to be Fe (iron) metal" or a similar alloy.

I could go on and on with fact after fact from this book that our Moon is a hollowed out alien world where minning operations are going on even now...

If any of the more younger viewers of this "post" are reading this, do yourself a favor and get a used copy of this book....It will open your eyes to what was discovered about our Moon that the news media was never told....
Out of the thousands and thousands of photos taken of our Moon, why is it that only a small handfull were ever released to the public?

And remember, some of the Moon rocks brought back to Earth were older than our sun...


----------



## Dave (Mar 12, 2007)

Moebius Tripper said:


> And remember, some of the Moon rocks brought back to Earth were older than our sun...


Where are you getting these "facts" from? All of the Moon rocks are catalogued and dated and analysed and you can easily check them at the Universities that hold them.

I really don't know why anyone is still replying to this nonsense only I wanted to add to something JD said because it sparked a memory. When I was in my teens I did a weekend course on 'ancient chinese astronomy'. The ancient chinese were way ahead of us in many respects but especially in regards to astronomy. They were even way ahead of the arab astronomers who followed in their footsteps. They made very detailed observations that we can still use today and these are even more useful to us because of the time that has passed. If there had been any kind of alien industrial processing going on, on either the Moon or on Mars they would have certainly seen and noted it down.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 13, 2007)

Moebius Tripper said:


> I quote from Don Wilson's book: "OUR MYSTERIOUS SPACESHIP MOON," from
> Page 113:
> "Even conservative estimates of expected results indicate that meteors 10 miles or more in diameter-larger than most that have hit Earth- should have penetrated to a depth equal to four to five times its diameter. Yet the deepest crater we know of on the moon is the Gagarin Crater, which though 186 miles across, is less than 4 miles down. Most are like Clavius, which is a whopping 146 miles across but only 2-3 miles deep, and this despite the fact that all of Switzerland and Luxembourg could be placed inside it, it is so large. There is no question that whatever hit here should have gouged a great hole scores of miles deep. Why didn't it?.....(A steel hull of titanium, that's why!!!) "The shallow craters, Vasin and Shcherbakov insist, would perhaps be strange to a normal satellite, but the Moon is a "remade" world with an inner and outer shell of "armour plating."
> They note: "if one assumes that when the meteorite strikes the outer covering of the Moon, this plays the role of a buffer and the foreign body finds itself up against an impenetrable spherical barrier. Only slightly denting the 20 mile layer of armour plating, the explosion flings bits of its 'coating' far and wide.
> ...



Moebius, there are many reasons why I can't take what you post seriously but the most obvious is your continued use of the term 'Steel hull of titanium'. That is wrong, the statement doesn't make sense. Here's an exercise - find out why it is wrong, if you can't there is no hope. I would love you to tell me which book you found it in. 


As to the large meteorites hitting the Moon. There are many places where this has happened. They are called seas or _maria_. The amount of energy released by these meteorites was enough to crack through the crust, the resulting lava flow filling in what would have been the crater. Look at the moon, there are areas where there are fewer craters, where the surface is smoother, this where the giant meteorites fell. Mare Ibrium at a diameter of 700 miles is the largest of the 14 that face the earth. Big enough for you?

BTW the Apollo missons visited the maria and found it basaltic rock similar to lava found in Hawaii and Iceland. Not quite sure where lava would come from if the Moon was hollow. 

Also, I have to say that any metorite that generated enough energy to travel all the way through the moon would hardly notice a 'steel hull of titanium, even if it was 20 miles thick. It would vapourise'. By the way have you nothing more recent than publications 36 years old?

Do yourself a favour and read up on _Lunar Prospector_. The craft made extensive measurements of lunar gravity and of how the Moon responds when it passes through the earth's magnetosphere. The data, combined with information on the Earth's tidal forces indicates that the present day moon has a partially liquid, iron-rich core about 435 miles in diameter.

An alternative piece of advice to the young (and old). Whatever fact article / book you read:

1) Check on the qualifications of the author.

2) Make sure that the article / book has been peer reviewed. Check on the qualifications of the reviewers.

3) Check the contents of the bibliography in a similar fashion.

4) Check on the age of the document and look for revisions or further research. Genuine scientists change their mind when the evidence so indicates. Fraudsters never do.


Well that's me done. I don't intend to waste any more time on this.


----------



## Pyan (Mar 13, 2007)

mosaix said:


> Well that's me done. I don't intend to waste any more time on this.



Nor me.
I don't expect I'll be able to dent MT's utter belief in his theories, and I know he won't shake mine in science, so I'm leaving this here.


----------



## Urien (Mar 13, 2007)

I find MTs theories fanciful, but I don't think we should rain too hard on his parade. We extend courtesy to those who believe in a magical being in the sky who controls and knows everything, and they in turn politely hear us out.

MT's theories are if anything, (IMO) less fanciful.


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 13, 2007)

I leave you two gentlemen to ponder this from the book by Don Wilson, and I quote from page 199:

           "This is the beauty of the Soviet spaceship theory. It is comprehensive! It answers all the problems and puzzles; solves all the mysteries and enigmas, dissolves all the lunar contradictions and difficulties. It is the perfect solution, for it fits all the evidence! And that evidence, as we have seen, turns out to be proof that our Moon is a hollowed-out spacecraft, artificially transformed from a ball of rock into a metallic inside-out world

FOR ONLY THE "SPACESHIP" MOON MAKES UNDERSTANDABLE:

1. Why the Moon is a freak world-too big and too far out to be the natural satellite of Earth.

2. Why the Moon could have a synchronized, almost perfectly circular orbit.

3. Why the craters of the Moon are so numerous and so strangely shallow.

4. Why the Moon could have a great bulge on its far side, which never faces the Earth.

5.Why the Moon has such great internal strength.

6. Why the Moon, so bereft of iron in general, has a rich band of iron and other metal in an inside layer.

7. Why some Moon rocks are older than Earth and even our solar system.

8.Why lunar rocks lying near each other can have such varying ages.

9. Why lunar soil can be a billion years older in general than rocks lying about it.

10. Why the Moon's composition is so different from Earth's.

11. Why the Moon seems to have been made "inside out."

12.Why the maria and mascons can exist.

13. Why the maria have so much metal content of a highly refractory nature.

14. Why the Moon can have pure metal particles including iron that does not rust!

15.Why the Moon has heavier material that flowed to the top, apparently against the laws of nature.

16. Why the Moon has evidence supporting both hot-Mooners and cold-Mooners, indicating the Moon must have been hot and at the same time proving it never could have been.

17. Why the Moon has evidence of tremendous heating and melting and yet is relatively cool today.

18. Why the Moon vibrates like a huge gong, conveying tremors great distances and even completely around the Moon.

19. Why the Moon appears to be a huge rubble pile.

20. Why the Moon has the 'shakes" periodically, with swarms of seismic activity.

21. Why the Moon seems to have such a low density and peculiar lightness, in that it gives every evidence of being partly or wholely hollow.

22. Why seismic waves travel so fast through an extremely hard inner layer, indicating a metal shell under its rock crust.

23. Why the Moon produces identical seimic waves of internal disturbances.

24. Why the Moon can be so precisely in the position it is so that viewed from Earth it is equal in size to the Sun's disk, each canceling the other out during eclipses, thus making possible such a unique phenomenon.

In addition to all this, the spaceship theory also makes understandable such lunar enigmas as:

!. How the Moon could have been captured by Earth or should we say, how the Moon captured the Earth, yet ended up with its unexplainable circular orbit.

2. How the Moon can be where it is, not in the usual satellite orbit around our orb's equator, but instead following strangely an orbit closer to the Earth's own orbit around our Sun.

3. How the Moon can sustain its great lopsidedness.

4. How the Moon could have melted on its surface such elements as titanium and zirconium that have tremendously high melting points. 

5. How the Moon can have so much radioactivity in its upper layers.

6. How the Moon can have internal vibrations and tremors that last for hours.

7. How the Moon can have internal disturbances at unheard of depths.

8. How the Moon can affect the magnetic needle of a compass, even if ever so slightly.

9. How the Moon can have indications of being extremely rigid at great depths and yet seemingly have other properties and evidence to indicate it is warm.

10. How the Moon's outer crustal surface could have been melted so rapidly.

11. How can there be so much metal in the Moon's maria, even pure processed metal!

12. How and by what forces the Moon could have had such significant redistribution of its crustal materials.

13. How the Moon could have come to have a strong remanence without a molten core.

14. How the Moon can be a dry-as-dust world and yet have occasional huge clouds of water vapor.

15. How the Moon can be volcanically dead and yet have had hundreds of
strange glows and lights and moving objects on its surface in the past several centuries.

16. How the Moon can be a hollow shell yet not collapse (due to its great metallic shell).

17. How the moon can spawn so many seeming natural contradictions of data and findings.

BECAUSE IT IS, IN FACT, AN INTERNALLY ARTIFICIALLY TRANSFORMED WORLD-A SPACESHIP WORLD!

READ THE BOOK REST OF THIS BOOK IF YOU STILL HAVE A CLOSED MIND.


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 13, 2007)

In April 1781 no fewer than 1600 observations of strange lights were made in the crater Plato. Birt, an English astronomer, deposited at the Royal Astronnoical Society accounts of over 1500 sightings of lights, moving objects, and changes in light intensity on and around the crater Plato as well.
Most of these took place in what was then known as "the Incredible Decade of the 1870's.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 13, 2007)

For anyone interested in finding out how to sift through such pseudoscientific claims, I suggest looking up the following book; it's both informative and enjoyable to read:

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Despite the criticisms of his handling of Korzybski, Gardner's book has yet to be properly answered by conspiracy theorists or pseudoscientists, while nearly all his criticisms of their claims have stood up over nearly a half-century. The reasson? Two words: "Peer Review", something pseudoscientists simply don't allow. They work outside it because their claims simply have no validity, something that quickly becomes apparent once they are put under rigorous scrutiny.

As for Birt's sightings... while I've seen one reference to "White spots on moon, 'lighting'" under his name in a scientific site, every other mention I've come across is a pseudoscientific site. Without seeing his report on this, I'd be hesitant to take anyone's word for it that any of the above is correct. The report listed, by the way, is from 1870, not 1781 nor 1871. And again we have the problem that I see no reports from any other astronomer to support this. Without such, it's making a mighty big leap to claim that it was anything other than such a natural phenomena as a shower of meteors impacting the surface.

Be that as it may, the claims you make above are -- again -- full of fallacies, misstatements of the genuine science, and outright fabrications -- all of which have been exploded time and time again in numerous ways. Again, I suggest dropping this limpet-like clinging to a single idea and looking at the peer reviews of such things. That's how science advances -- by submitting claims to peer review for study and testing. The fact that every reputable scientist out there is able to dispose of these claims with such small effort by comparing them against the genuine testable facts, should amply indicate that -- at the very least -- the science of these claims is seriously flawed, even without outright imposture (and I'm afraid I lean much more toward the latter alternative, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 13, 2007)

If you want more sightings of moving lights on the moon,  I can give you more.

How about this one: "For instance, in 1843 Johann Schroeter recorded unexplainable changes in a six-mile crater named Linne. This German astronomer made hundreds of maps of the Moon over many years. Over a lifetime of observations, the crater Linne gradually disappeared. Today Linne is just a tiny bright spot with little depth or height, a small pit surrounded by whitish deposits. What happened? No one knows for sure. (It should be noted that NASA photographs taken by Apollo 15 reveal that Linne today is a tiny crater one and half miles across. The mystery of what astroomers observed has remained just that-a mystery.

July 1821 - The German astronomer Gruithuisen reported seeing "brilliant flashing light spots" on the Moon. "Blinking' or  "flashing" lights are reported scores of times in this report.

April 12, 1826 - Black moving cloud over the Sea of Crisis (reported by Emmett) . Interestingly, this is the same area where modern-day astronomers reported seeing a bridgelike structure suddenly appear in 1954, where none had been detected before. Is it coincidental that lights and other inexplicable lunar "events" have been reported in this area dozens of times?

Februrary 1877 - A fine line of light like "luminous cable" drawn west to east across Eudoxus Crater. The light was observed to last one hour. The average time "lights" lasted, according to the study, was over 20 minutes! They could hardly have been meteors flashing against the hard lunar surface, as some scientists claim.

July 4, 1881 - "Two pyramidal luminous protuberances appeared on the moon's limb ... They slowly faded away ..." What could this have been?

January 31, 1915 - Seven white spots arranged like a Greek gamma. What could this have been? Scientists do not know.

April 23, 1915 - A narrow, straight beam of light in the crater Clavius.

June 14, 1940 - Two hazy streaks of medium intensity, much complex detail. Seen in the crater Plato, where thousands of lights have been reported.

October 14, 1940 - Three brilliant points of light on the wall of "Darwin." Cited by Moore, one of the scientists who prepared the report.

May 24, 1955 - "Glitter," suggesting electrical discharge, sighted near the Moon's south pole. The well known scientist Firsoff was the observer.

September 8, 1955 - Two flashes from the edge of Taurus. Coincidently (?), this is where the astronauts of Apollo 17 were sent  (Taurus-Littrow area).

September 13, 1959 - The area of Littrow was "obliterated by a hovering cloud." Could this have been a UFO?

June 21, 1964 - A moving dark area sighted by several observers in the area south of Ross D. It was observed for 2 hours 1 minute!

July3, 1965 - Pulsating spot on the dark side of Aristarchus; seen for 1 hour 10 minutes.

September 25, 1966 - Blinking lights in crater Plato seen by several observers for minutes. Some described the lights as "reddish patches." Also seen the same day, red lights in Gassendi for 30 minutes. A month later (October 25) in the same place, "red blinks" were again seen by several astronomers.

September 11, 1967 - A "black cloud surrounded by violet color (where the first mission to the Moon was to be sent) by a "Montreal group" of astronomic observers, according to this NASA report.

This is just a sampling of what is contained in this study. It was compiled by Jaylee M. Burley of the Goddard Space Flight Center, Patrick Moore of the Armagh Planetarium in Ireland, Barbara M. Middlehurst of the University of Arizona Planetarium and Barbara L. Welther of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. Apparently NASA was impressed by the study - impressed that in fact these reliable reporters were actually seeing what they were reporting - for soon thereafter NASA carried out Operation Moon Blink, a search for explainable lights and "happenings" taking place on the Moon. It was done in conjunction with cooperating observatories around the world, and in a short time Operation Moon Blink reported ten more such inexplicable lunar phenomena, three of which were confirmed independently and separatey by observers outside the program. In fact, by August 1966 ten Moon Blink stations had detected twenty-eight lunar events! (Lunar Luminescence, Grumman Research Report.)


----------



## mosaix (Mar 15, 2007)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> I find MTs theories fanciful, but I don't think we should rain too hard on his parade. We extend courtesy to those who believe in a magical being in the sky who controls and knows everything, and they in turn politely hear us out.
> 
> MT's theories are if anything, (IMO) less fanciful.



I see where you coming from on the MVS but there are some subtle differences. Belief systems are just that - based on belief. Science doesn't enter into it. The belief cannot be proven nor dis-proven. 

MT's theories _can be dis-proven_. He could _do it for himself_ with some research if he wasn't as closed minded as he accuses others of being. 

Science is on our side with this one MVS. And as for his theory on the shifting of the poles by 2012 and the Earth standing still for 3 days - well we only have to wait don't we? I thought the only thing about 2012 was the Olympics in the UK. Now I can look forward to reviving that thread. 

I don't think we have rained on his parade overmuch. Apart from the obviously ludicrous "steel hull of titanium" and Pyan and me being Government Agents  I think we have rebutted what he has to say with sound counter-argument and I think we all have a responsiblity to do so.


----------



## Urien (Mar 15, 2007)

Nonsense Mosaix, you're just an evil agent of the government conspiracy.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 15, 2007)

Blast your hide AVS you're too clever for me!


----------



## Pyan (Mar 15, 2007)

*I think our cover is well and truly blown, Agent Mosaix!*


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 15, 2007)

pyanfaruk said:


> *I think our cover is well and truly blown, Agent Mosaix!*


 
Well, then, gents, I suppose that means you can get rid of those boring old charcoal-gray suits and shades, and go back to wearing double-knit polyester bell-bottoms!


----------



## Urien (Mar 15, 2007)

"... and go back to wearing double-knit polyester bell-bottoms! " JD

Arrgh the CIA from the seventies, their most evil period.


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 15, 2007)

Rebutt this:

Herschel, that musician-turned-astronomer who discovered the planet Uranus, saw during a total eclipse about 150 very bright spots scattered over the surface of the Moon   

Why is it that some scientists claim that Moon rocks have been found which were dated up to 7 and even 20 billion years of age?

Why did one Nobel prize-winning scientist and leading lunar expert claim that certain elements found on the Moon indicate that the Moon is much older than Earth but that he cannot explain how it got here?

Why were rocks that were dated 4.4 and 4.6 billion years old called "the younger rocks on the Moon" by leading lunar experts?

Why do great amounts of argon 40 found in lunar samples lead scientists to conclude that the Moon must be at least 7 billion years old - almost twice as old as our own Sun and Earth?

Why does the lunar soil appear to be a billion years older that Moon rocks? And why is this on the surface seemingly impossible? Why does the Spaceship Moon theory dissolve this "impossibility"?

Although NASA scientists claim agreement that the moon is no more than 4.6 billion years of age, still, according to Harvard's "Sky and Telescope," a highly respected astronomy journal, the Lunar Conference of 1973 revealed a moon rock that had been dated 5.3 billion years old. Shockingly, this is nearly a billion years older than the oldest estimate ever given to Earth and the solar system itself. 

Two Apollo 12 Moon rocks have been dated at 20 billion years of age. 

Other evidence tends to prove the Moon is much older than Earth and therefore had to come from some other corner of the universe. Dr. D. Heymann, expert geologist at Rice Institute, who examined the lunar surface soil, said that scientists found "an unusually large amount of argon-40, an isotope of noble gas argon." Walter Sullivan, former science editor of the New York Times, said that the surprising amount of this argon gas in Moon samples has shocking implications for man's Moon. "The Moon would have to be 7 billion years old," Dr. Heymann figured, to account for an accumulation of argon-40...." The implication here, of course, is that our Moon has not always been circling our planet. (New York Times, January 7, 1970.) 

Dr. Harold Urey came up with similar findings based on different evidence furnished by returned lunar samples, Urey claims that certain elements have been discovered on the Moon which indicate definitely that the Moon is much older than our Earth. Writing in the technical science journal "Chemistry," Urey claims that "moon rock has been shown to contain xenon isotopes from fission of plutonium-244 which are not found on earth...." This "indicates that the moon is much older ," concluded Dr. Urey. (Chemistry, Februrary 1974.)

Even more surprising, some elements found on the Moon have never previously been known to exist here in their natural forms. The Argon National Laboratory reported at the Third Scientific Conference in Houston, Texas, that they found uraniun 236 and neptunium 237 in lunar samples taken by Apollo 12 and 14, elements never previosly found before in nature!


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 15, 2007)

If you do not believe the facts above from my last post, I would again tell you to read the book from which all of this scientific information is reported....This book, "Secrets of our Spaceship Moon," by Don Wilson, now out of print, but still available from  AbeBooks: New & Used Books, Textbooks, Rare & Out of Print Books    will quickly put to rest all of your outdated assumptions concerning what was not publicly reported about the Moon....

CASE CLOSED MY DEAR DR. WATSONS!!!


----------



## Dave (Mar 16, 2007)

Okay then Sherlocke, let us just for one moment take your word that we have all been lied to for decades, if not centuries, about the Moon, by everyone from NASA to Chelsea Pensioners, and let's assume that Don Wilson is as sane as anyone else from the asylum. 

I would like to know what do you actually think the Titanium hulled hollow Moon is? Where has it come from? Why is it here? Why do they not make contact? Why do they need so many flash-lights? And what are they doing with all that Uraniun 236 and Neptunium 237? Are they trying to poison Russian agents? And the big questions we all still would like to know, why do they anal probe rednecks and turn cattle inside out?

BTW Patrick Moore positively does not believe in aliens, so I don't know how you managed to work him into your proof.

And many people have seen things that weren't actually there - Percival Lowell's Martian canals, and your own pyramids of Mars - it usually comes from tiredness after long observations, together with a well known human need to see patterns within random associations - have you never seen the pictures of the Virgin Mary in an oil stain or a pizza topping? 

And finally, the Moon may be older than the Earth, but how can it be older than the Sun? (Oh yes, it flew here, I forgot.) And some rocks on the Moon are older than the the rest - they are called Meteorites. We have some of them on Earth too, though they do tend to burn up in our atmosphere.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 16, 2007)

Without getting into too lengthy a reply here, as we really do seem to be a loggerheads on this one, I think that one of the biggest drawbacks to your making a point on this, M.T., is lack of credible sources. You keep referring back to the same handful of cited sources, and even you list other things, you say that they are taken from these same sources ... and without further citations for people to follow up.

Now, that's a dangerous route to take in science -- especially when the sources you cite are well-known for promulgating pseudoscientific ideas in huge numbers, which have been refuted over and over again by numerous credible sources. We need something else. If there are other reports, then these writers should have information on how to track that information down. If you present extraordinary claims, you can't expect to believed without presenting extraordinary amounts of evidence to back them up... especially when those claims fly in the face of basic physics (the hollow moon with the titanium shell -- which defies spectroscopic evidence, would be far too low for known gravimetric readings, would have a vastly different tidal effect, etc.; the enormous glass dome which would collapse under its own weight; the claims that the moon's orbit is nearly a perfect circle when it is actually an eccentric ellipse even further from a true circle than that of the earth around the sun; etc., etc., etc.). Couple the extreme claims; the fact they do go against every other observation by reputable scientific observers (and even amateurs); the lack of specific citations so that they can be followed up and checked out; the lack of peer-review; the fact that these are people known to promulgate such fantastic baseless speculation (rather than saying "we have some anomalous observations; what are the most likely answers" and begin with those which are most probable, taking into account all the other data we've gathered on the subject over the centuries) -- put all these and other factors together, and what you have is simply bad science; or, more properly no science, but pseudoscience.

(And no, I'm not going to waste my money on buying one of these books. I'm not particularly inclined to even look them up at a library, but that at least is much more reasonable than to expect me to put down my hard-earned cash and waste my time on something that simply goes against every other source out there.)

So -- if you have some genuine, peer-reviewed sources to back up any of these incredible claims, bring them in. But expect them to be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other claims... which means they'll be put through the mill (as they should be -- that's how one separates the wheat from the chaff with scientific, as well as other, ideas).

And remember -- scepticsm is a virtue. It means you're more likely to be standing on solid ground when something is confirmed.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 16, 2007)

pyanfaruk said:


> *I think our cover is well and truly blown, Agent Mosaix!*




Well, looking like that, you don't exactly merge into the background do you, Agent Pyan.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 16, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Without getting into too lengthy a reply here, as we really do seem to be a loggerheads on this one, I think that one of the biggest drawbacks to your making a point on this, M.T., is lack of credible sources. You keep referring back to the same handful of cited sources, and even you list other things, you say that they are taken from these same sources ... and without further citations for people to follow up.
> 
> Now, that's a dangerous route to take in science -- especially when the sources you cite are well-known for promulgating pseudoscientific ideas in huge numbers, which have been refuted over and over again by numerous credible sources. We need something else. If there are other reports, then these writers should have information on how to track that information down. If you present extraordinary claims, you can't expect to believed without presenting extraordinary amounts of evidence to back them up... especially when those claims fly in the face of basic physics (the hollow moon with the titanium shell -- which defies spectroscopic evidence, would be far too low for known gravimetric readings, would have a vastly different tidal effect, etc.; the enormous glass dome which would collapse under its own weight; the claims that the moon's orbit is nearly a perfect circle when it is actually an eccentric ellipse even further from a true circle than that of the earth around the sun; etc., etc., etc.). Couple the extreme claims; the fact they do go against every other observation by reputable scientific observers (and even amateurs); the lack of specific citations so that they can be followed up and checked out; the lack of peer-review; the fact that these are people known to promulgate such fantastic baseless speculation (rather than saying "we have some anomalous observations; what are the most likely answers" and begin with those which are most probable, taking into account all the other data we've gathered on the subject over the centuries) -- put all these and other factors together, and what you have is simply bad science; or, more properly no science, but pseudoscience.
> 
> ...



JD you are to be congratulated on your infinite patience.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 16, 2007)

mosaix said:


> JD you are to be congratulated on your infinite patience.


 
Thanks, mosaix... though I was thinking the same thing about your responses.... 

Besides, after the link M.T. brought in about the cave.... hey, that sort of thing's an "in" with me.....


----------



## Urien (Mar 16, 2007)

There is a great hole in the Amazon basin, inside some 38 miles down live the Sweetreets, part human part Twinkie.

Twinkie bars originated from Heinreich Von Fluffelbaum, who explored the chasm in 1897. This is all found in "Cannibalism under duress" Poofelfluger press, Hamburg 1899.

Von Fluffelbaum moved to the US in 1909 to work with the infamous John McNonsense at Chicago. It was here that they theorized the Sweetreets were refuges from a tropical and doughy climate. That's right they came from Venus.

The whole Venus connection can be read in Jerze Slipperwitz's book "Venus: Natures bakery" Kaiser Soze press, Budapest 1911.

The Venus connection was suppressed by agents of the evil Pilsbury Dough company and its predecessors.

The Sweetreets are working on conquering the earth through excess sugar, they plan to give everybody diabetes. Their plans are well advanced.

The obesity epidemic anybody? I rest my case.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 16, 2007)

Andrew... I stand in awe.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 16, 2007)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> There is a great hole in the Amazon basin, inside some 38 miles down live the Sweetreets, part human part Twinkie.
> 
> Twinkie bars originated from Heinreich Von Fluffelbaum, who explored the chasm in 1897. This is all found in "Cannibalism under duress" Poofelfluger press, Hamburg 1899.
> 
> ...



AVS don't think that we will let this rest.

Fellow agent Pyan and I have for some years now been employed by the Sweetreets and the Pilsbury Dough Company to keep the lid on this. 

If you think NASA's "We landed on the Moon" conspiracy was sophisticated I have to tell you that they're mere amateurs when compared to Pyan and me.

Everytime the rumours have surfaced Pyan and myself have fought a hard reguard action of mockery, scoffing and poking fun at those that dared to hint at Venus's doughy past.

Our own area of speciality is mockery of the 'egg-white glaze hardened re-entry heat shields' of the Sweetreets spacecraft and their sugar-based high energy rocket fuel.

Anyway AVS that noise that you can hear is our agents breaking down your door. We need to find all your sources (sauces?) - we can't allow people to start taking this seriously.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 16, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Thanks, mosaix... though I was thinking the same thing about your responses....
> 
> Besides, after the link M.T. brought in about the cave.... hey, that sort of thing's an "in" with me.....



Yes but then you have to balance it with posts like this one:


http://www.chronicles-network.com/forum/178-seti.html#post816872


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 16, 2007)

Dave said:


> Okay then Sherlocke, let us just for one moment take your word that we have all been lied to for decades, if not centuries, about the Moon, by everyone from NASA to Chelsea Pensioners, and let's assume that Don Wilson is as sane as anyone else from the asylum.
> 
> I would like to know what do you actually think the Titanium hulled hollow Moon is? Where has it come from? Why is it here? Why do they not make contact? Why do they need so many flash-lights? And what are they doing with all that Uraniun 236 and Neptunium 237? Are they trying to poison Russian agents? And the big questions we all still would like to know, why do they anal probe rednecks and turn cattle inside out?
> 
> ...



***********************************************************8

The proof about what I am saying is in the book: "OUR MYSTERIOUS SPACESHIP MOON," by Don Wilson...

Instead of me answering you by constantly quoting from that book, you should do yourself a favor and buy it, if for no other reason but to make up your own mind about what is the real truth....

As far as the "Virgin Mary" is concerned, take a look at this web site where for three years, (1968-1971) she appeared on top of a coptic (Christian church) in Cairo, Egppt....Many photos were taken of her by hundreds of thousands of people...I wrote a novel about this....(Carl Jung, the great psychiatrist explained how and why people saw her...(Read his theory on archetypes.)

The Apparitions of Virgin Mary at Zeitoun Church, Egypt, with Real Photos

As to your question about who steered the Moon into its present orbit, I refer you to the classic book: "THE TWELTH PLANET," by Z. Sitchin....If you have not read this book or his six other books, then  you will not be able to hold a conversation with me or any other enlightened student of the "New Age."


----------



## Dave (Mar 16, 2007)

I just looked at the calendar... nope it's not April the First yet... you must actually be serious. Excuse me but I'm going to go bang my head against the wall for a while.


----------



## Pyan (Mar 16, 2007)

Move over, Dave, I'll join you!


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 18, 2007)

Hey, you guys are a riot...You are going to look mighty silly when the people who have read Don Wilson's two books start backing me up in what I have been trying to enlighten you about....I guess his books never were sent to any book stores in Britain, or you would have heard of them....

The reason why some of the Moon rocks were dated at 20 billion yeras old, older than our sun, is because the Moon came from an area in the center of our Milky Way Galaxy, were the stars are much older than the ones where our sun is. Of course your next question would be who are these people that are using our hollowed out moon as a spaceship?...The answer is the Mayans, who have a calender going back billions of years....There were some Apollo missions to the moon that actually were receiving radio transmissions in the Mayan language coming from the moon, believe it or not....And this is on the record books.

And what about Tesla receiving radio signals from Mars when he invented the radio? And yes he invented it, and not Marconi....Of course there is the telephone as well, that was first invented by a man from Staten Island, N. Y. by the name of Antonio Meucci..    Who really invented the telephone?

So if you gents don't know about this also, then I know you are way behind in your reading....And I still have a lot to say about who actually was the real author of the "so called Shakepearean plays"....And yes I am a Baconian, as well as a believer of the British Israelite theory....My first novel was all about this...Any Free Mason above the 10th degree would know about Bacon 
being the secret son of Queen Elizabeth the First...Just check out the statue of Shakespeare in Westminster Abbey....The ruff of the sleeve is a clue as well as to where his finger is pointing...It is a bust on the column of Queen Elizabeth the First and not of one of the characters in the plays....as well as the two other busts on the column being his real father, Lord Dudley, and Bacon's secret brother, the Earl of Essex...(Talk to a high ranking Mason about this.)

Now after you have laughed yourselves all to death by what I've said, get back to me...I would love to hear your outrageous comments....Tallyho!!!


----------



## mosaix (Mar 18, 2007)

MT I mentioned the possibility of you doing some basic research for yourself before - you didn't come back to me regarding the "Steel hull of titanium" - any reason why?

Anyway here's another topic for research. You constantly mention moon rocks that are 20 billion years old. Do some research on the *age of the universe. *


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 18, 2007)

I forgot this link of Mr. Meucci:   Antonio Meucci Revisited: an essay by Basilio Catania


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 18, 2007)

mosaix said:


> MT I mentioned the possibility of you doing some basic research for yourself before - you didn't come back to me regarding the "Steel hull of titanium" - any reason why?
> 
> Anyway here's another topic for research. You constantly mention moon rocks that are 20 billion years old. Do some research on the *age of the universe. *



*******************************************************

I thought you would bring that up....Hey, it's not me who is claiming those Moon rocks are 20 billion years old...It's those scientists.....Maybe you should ask them how old they think our Universe is?  And another thing you said, about how that dome on the Moon could possibly remain standing because of its height of 20,000 feet....Hey, don't you think that the civilization that built that dome would be thousands, if not millions of years ahead of us in technology?  Are you that close-minded to believe that they would not know more than our 7,000 year post flood world knows?

Even the people in our past history knew more than we do about such things as cement, for example....Take the construction of the Great Pyramid for instance...If you read the book by Davidovits, called "The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved," you will find out that the ancient Egyptians used a secret formula of cement to form the blocks of stone making up the Great Pyramid....The reason there is no "gaps" between the stones is because they used a three sided wooden mold..The open side was placed against the already formed block of stone that had hardened....   Amazon.com: The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved: Books: Joseph Davidovits,Margie Morris

Where I live in Florida, not too far from me, is a place called, "Coral Castle." The place is a regular "Stonehenge."  The man who built the place used a form of levitation based on "Standing Waves." He would coil a wire around a block of coral he had cut, and then attach the wire to an electrical box of some kind that was hanging from a tri-pod 50 feet high, and then turn it on....The "Standing Wave" that then was produced in the ground would then lift the coral block, which he then merely pushed into place...He was once observed doing this by some workmen there....No one to this day really knows how he did this feat of moving these huge blocks of stone....He even moved all of the blocks to another location by himself that was miles away...

index     (This is a beautiful web site.)

And this one:   Coral Castle of Ed Leedskalnin


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 18, 2007)

mosaix said:


> MT I mentioned the possibility of you doing some basic research for yourself before - you didn't come back to me regarding the "Steel hull of titanium" - any reason why?
> 
> Anyway here's another topic for research. You constantly mention moon rocks that are 20 billion years old. Do some research on the *age of the universe. *


*********************************************************

About that "Steel" hull of titanium.....What I meant to say was Titanium....I mentioned "steel" before the word titanium because of the similar hardness of the two metals...One tends to link them together if not corrected by someone as knowledgeable as yourself...Pardon my error.


----------



## Pyan (Mar 18, 2007)

Moebius Tripper said:


> Even the people in our past history knew more than we do about such things as cement, for example....Take the construction of the Great Pyramid for instance...If you read the book by Davidovits, called "The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved," you will find out that the ancient Egyptians used a secret formula of cement to form the blocks of stone making up the Great Pyramid....The reason there is no "gaps" between the stones is because they used a three sided wooden mold..The open side was placed against the already formed block of stone that had hardened....   Amazon.com: The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved: Books: Joseph Davidovits,Margie Morris



Actually, there appears to be some kernel in this one - I saw it in_ The Times, _and followed it up:

Solving the Mysteries of the Pyramids - Materials Science & Engineering @ Drexel University
Papers discussing Davidovits pyramid theory
_
" a beast but a just beast"_


----------



## Dave (Mar 18, 2007)

Moebius Tripper said:


> You are going to look mighty silly when the people who have read Don Wilson's two books start backing me up in what I have been trying to enlighten you about....


You know, I think I'm willing to take a chance on that!



Moebius Tripper said:


> Of course there is the telephone as well, that was first invented by a man from Staten Island, N. Y. by the name of Antonio Meucci..


Very rarely does any single person invent something completely original. New technology usually results from putting together several different existing things in a novel way, using something already existing in an original way, or making an improvement in an existing thing. For the purposes of Business Law however, patents are required. That is usually how the question of the inventor is settled. It doesn't have to be fair!



Moebius Tripper said:


> And I still have a lot to say about who actually was the real author of the "so called Shakespearean plays"...


Why doesn't that surprise me? Unfortunately, unless you have a time machine, this is something else you will not be able to prove. It is quite possible some of his plays were written by someone else, but even some of those he did write were ripped off. 'Romeo and Juliet' was based on an Italian poem, that was itself based on an earlier published story, that was itself based on an earlier story. Since plays were written for performance rather than to be printed, the earliest versions of his plays were pieced together by the actors themselves.



Moebius Tripper said:


> Even the people in our past history knew more than we do about such things as cement, for example....Take the construction of the Great Pyramid for instance...





pyanfaruk said:


> Actually, there appears to be some kernel in this one - I saw it in_ The Times, _and followed it up...


You can achieve a lot more with slave labour and no health and safety regulations, but you don't need to go that far away, just look at a few ancient Scottish burial mounds, and how the rocks interlock together. I've built a couple of Drystone Walls myself actually, they are much stronger, and they last far longer than those built with cement. But cemented walls can be built more quickly, at any time of the year, and they take much less skill (apologies to any bricklayers!)

However, I fail to see what any of this this has to do with proving the Mayans live inside the Moon. And while I admire your tenacity and the fact that you are still hanging in here, the increasing variety of different conspiracy theories that you throw out at us that you claim to believe in, makes it less likely for me to take you seriously.



Moebius Tripper said:


> Tallyho!!!


And I'm not even going to hold the fact that you are a native Esperanto speaker against you either. 



Moebius Tripper said:


> ...There were some Apollo missions to the moon that actually were receiving radio transmissions in the Mayan language coming from the moon, believe it or not....And this is on the record books.


*"Believe it or not"* - well that is the bottom line isn't it?

We are asking for some proof, but you seem to have a blind faith. However in this case, right here, you have some actual proof to share - Can you show us this "record book" in question? The radio archive must be held in some museum, or a transcription by someone with an unbiased reputation. I have a feeling the answer will either be a "no", or else a "read Don Wilson's book" again.


----------



## Pyan (Mar 18, 2007)

I thought the Drexler Uni study seemed ok, though, Dave - and it does have peer reviews.
Mind you, there is always the exception that proves the rule, I suppose!


----------



## Dave (Mar 18, 2007)

pyanfaruk said:


> I thought the Drexler Uni study seemed ok, though, Dave - and it does have peer reviews.



I agree, I thought I was agreeing with that possibility. I seriously doubt that the Pyramids could never be built today - too much loss of life or serious injury - and certainly not on time and under budget. The same would be true of Railroads, Ship Canals or any of those big engineering projects.

Many other things in this world still defy an explantion. There are certainly many puzzles out there yet to be explained. Some may have an off-the-wall solution to them. I am open to believing in weird explanations.

What I just can't see is that the Mayans live inside a hollowed out Moon, which they flew here from the centre of our galaxy. Nor can I see any reason why it should, or even could be kept from us by a government conspiracy.


----------



## Pyan (Mar 18, 2007)

Ah, sorry - re-reading your post, I see that!



> What I just can't see is that the Mayans live inside a hollowed out Moon, which they flew here from the centre of our galaxy.



Good job they kept the brakes in good nick, isn't it!


----------



## mosaix (Mar 18, 2007)

Moebius Tripper said:


> *******************************************************
> 
> I thought you would bring that up....Hey, it's not me who is claiming those Moon rocks are 20 billion years old...It's those scientists.....Maybe you should ask them how old they think our Universe is?



Why should *I* ask them, *you* read the book. It's up to *you* to verify what you read before believing it and trying to covert others to its teachings. 

To help with the process think about this. You have a book that quotes some scientists who say that there are some rocks 20 billion years old.

I don't know how old the book was but for some time now the consensus of scientific opinion is that the Universe is about 14 billion years old. There is one, recent, estimate at between 11.2 and 20 billion years. But even if we assume that this last one is accurate, it takes billions of years for rock to form in a newly created universe.

So 20 billion year old rocks are not possible. Anyone reading a book that claimed that they were should start to think twice about the credibility of the book and the 'scientists' quoted. 

To be honest you can quote as much as you like and post as many links as you like but intelligent people, with a bit of knowledge, just aren't going to waste their time following them up as long as you include information that is demonstrably wrong.

About the dome. I see it has come down to 20,000 feet from 30,000 feet and that it is now on the Moon rather than Mars. My point was that I don't believe that a dome of 30,000 feet would be self supporting, even at Mars' .38 gravity. You can't escape the laws of physics, 1 + 1 = 2 no matter who you are or where you are in the universe.

One final point about your repeated dig regarding 'open' and closed' minds. You are fairly new to Chronicles and so probably not used to the codes of conduct that we adopt. We very rarely personalise our posts especially where an insult or slight is intended. Hence the lack of flaming, warfare and closed posts. This despite the fact that there are disagreements between us over such fundamental topics as politics, sport and religion. We would like it to stay that way.

I have to tell you that the people you will meet here on the Chronicles are probably the most open minded people _you will ever meet_. And that's probably the most accurate fact in this entire thread.

Let's just drop the 'opened' and 'closed' minded references shall we?


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 18, 2007)

Dave said:


> I agree, I thought I was agreeing with that possibility. I seriously doubt that the Pyramids could never be built today - too much loss of life or serious injury - and certainly not on time and under budget. The same would be true of Railroads, Ship Canals or any of those big engineering projects.
> 
> Many other things in this world still defy an explantion. There are certainly many puzzles out there yet to be explained. Some may have an off-the-wall solution to them. I am open to believing in weird explanations.
> 
> What I just can't see is that the Mayans live inside a hollowed out Moon, which they flew here from the centre of our galaxy. Nor can I see any reason why it should, or even could be kept from us by a government conspiracy.


******************************************************

Z. Sitchin's book, "THE TWELTH PLANET," has all the answers on the Mayan connection and the Moon.....That book is one of the most widely read books in the world.....as well as his other six books....You need to read his books so you don't look "out of touch" with what is being discovered on almost a day to day basis in the world of ancient history and modern science....As to why some of this new knowledge is being kept hidden from the public....the U.S. had a study done by a "Think Tank," The Rand Group, and was told by them that if the public was told about such things as "the Moon being a base for an alien civilization", it would tend to cause too much panic leading to  governments to topple in the world, as well the world's stock markets.

So NASA will "airbrush out" all objects on the Moon that show any resemblance to being "man-made."

Now I know you have read or heard of the science fiction writer, Isaac Asimov...Well according to him, and I am quoting him from the book, "OUR MYSTERIOUS SPACESHIP MOON," "the Moon should not be orbiting our planet Earth!" Many scientists in modern times have come to regard the Moon as a cosmic freak of nature. Why? Because by all cosmic laws, they point out what Asimov said. Why do they assert this? Simply because our satellite seems to be too big for our planet earth. It is a whopping one-fourth of our planet's size, and proportionately is the largest satellite that we know of orbiting any world. For though a satellite of Jupiter, for instance, is actually larger in size, the Jovian satellite Ganymeade is only one twenty-seventh the size of the planet it circles.

Not only is our Moon too large, but scientists also point out it is actually too far out in its orbit to be a natural satellite of our planet. Isaac Asimov, who is a scientist in his own right, asks: "What in blazes is our Moon doing way out there?" He goes on to say, "It's too far out to be a true satellite of the Earth. It's too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible." (Asimov on Astronomy, Doubleday, 1974.)

Scientists in general would agree. But most remain confounded by this conundrum. Our Moon should not be there in circular orbit around our Earth, and many insist it should not be there period! Not perhaps as a natural world, but an artificially "steered" world, yes. Grudgingly all scientists must admit that the problem disappears in light of the Soviet spaceship theory.

Isaac Asimov concludes that our Moon is not, as is commonly believed, the true satellite of our planet. He claims that if it were "it would almost certainly be orbiting in the plane of the Earth's equator and it isn't." 

There are still other powerful reasons why the Moon cannot be a true satellite of Earth, insists Asimov. He claims the Moon should not be orbiting our planet because of what he calls "tug of war" ratio.

"The Sun attracts the Moon twice as strongly as the Earth does." (Asimov on Astronomy.) This ratio of the Moon's size and distance in relation to the Earth and to the Sun indicates that it should have been gone long ago. The Sun should have won this tug of war and pulled the Moon away, but somehow it hasn't.

Asimov claims that our so-called natural Moon gives every indication that it is not a true satellite of ours. He also rejects the possibility of its having been captured. This seems to lead to the horns of a dilemma, as he himself points out:
   "But then if the Moon is neither a true satellite of the Earth, nor a captured one, what is it?" (Asimov on Astronomy.)

   Asimov tries to slip off the horns of this dilemma by postulating that the Moon is really a planet in its own right. The problem here is that all the evidence that our Apollo and the Soviet flights indicates that our Moon is too different in make-up to be a double planet, so this does not appear to be the correct theory either. Further, if evidence that the Moon is older than the Earth is correct, then it must have come here from somewhere else in the universe. That brings us back to the only other possibility (aside from the spaceship theory) : namely, that the Moon was captured. And this leads us back to the problem of how it ended up in its present orbit.

   Surprisingly, more and more scientists, despite all these difficulties, are now (1979) considering this theory that the Moon and our Earth somehow evolved separately, far from each other, and our Moon somehow came to be captured by Earth. But this is hard to accept, not only because of the previously raised objections but also because of the unique, strange position the scientists find the Moon in today. And here we may discover another hint that indicates that our Moon did not "just happen" to fall into a chance orbit around our planet.


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 18, 2007)

By the way, the dome is on the Moon, not Mars...If you watch Hoagland's video I mentioned, you can see the dome still standing with a few of its glass panes still intact....I can't help it if you have not seen this video and do not believe a dome exists there.....I have not watched the video for a long while, so the height of this dome may be even higher than I mentioned, be it 20,000 or 30,000 feet high....I will watch it again and get back to you about its actual height.....I wish you had watched this video, because it is so incredible and you will never be able to say there is no dome on the Moon after you have seen it with your own eyes....


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 18, 2007)

Here is one of the web sites about the video by Hoagland...You can still buy it from Ebay...

Hoagland's Mars/Moon


----------



## mosaix (Mar 18, 2007)

Moebius Tripper said:


> By the way, the dome is on the Moon, not Mars...If you watch Hoagland's video I mentioned, you can see the dome still standing with a few of its glass panes still intact....I can't help it if you have not seen this video and do not believe a dome exists there.....I have not watched the video for a long while, so the height of this dome may be even higher than I mentioned, be it 20,000 or 30,000 feet high....I will watch it again and get back to you about its actual height.....I wish you had watched this video, because it is so incredible and you will never be able to say there is no dome on the Moon after you have seen it with your own eyes....



No MT the dome isn't on the Moon either. Some simple research (again) proves it. I, and millions of people like me, have astronomical telescopes. I can look for myself. And guess what? I can see Mons Huygens, at 4700 metres high, the highest mountain on this side of the Moon. Now if I and others can see that, don't you suppose we could also see a dome 20,000 feet high? Forget the video MT - go out and look _for yourself_. 

It's just occurred to me! I suppose some guy from NASA could come round to my garden, just as I was looking at the Moon and in some sneaky way and for a reason that escapes me for the moment, hold up a photo of the Moon in front of my telescope with the dome airbrushed out. Those NASA guys are really clever - they could be doing it to everyone with telescopes! They must even have done it to Christiaan Huygens in the 1600's when he was looking at the Moon!

On the other hand some guy may have just made it up and forged a video (if NASA can do it anyone can and apparently, according to some people, NASA do it all the time) so he could make a bit of money out of folks instead of getting a proper job. 

Hmmmm....... now let's see. Which is the most likely?


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 18, 2007)

Moebius Tripper said:


> Z. Sitchin's book, "THE TWELTH PLANET," has all the answers on the Mayan connection and the Moon.....That book is one of the most widely read books in the world.....as well as his other six books....You need to read his books so you don't look "out of touch" with what is being discovered on almost a day to day basis in the world of ancient history and modern science....As to why some of this new knowledge is being kept hidden from the public....the U.S. had a study done by a "Think Tank," The Rand Group, and was told by them that if the public was told about such things as "the Moon being a base for an alien civilization", it would tend to cause too much panic leading to governments to topple in the world, as well the world's stock markets.
> 
> So NASA will "airbrush out" all objects on the Moon that show any resemblance to being "man-made."


 
I'm sorry, M.T., but this is complete nonsense. Z. Sitchin's books, for example... Yes, I've heard mention of them, but I've neither met nor encountered on the 'net anyone (until you) who had read them ... with the exception of one professor who taught a course on "Pseudoscience" -- basically, examining such claims and showing how they don't hold up under scrutiny. And, unlike the things you've done so far, he could provide tons of sources for you to look things up... not a handful, with vague "some scientists say" or even naming a person but neglecting to say where to locate it. He could give full bibliographic information, so you could look up the source yourself, and examine _all_ the evidence, pro and con, and make up your mind accordingly. This is something I still don't see you doing, despite our repeated requests you do so. If it's in Wilson's or Sitchin's books, then they should provide information on where to locate the original source from which they quote. That's a sign of good scholarship, good science, and good reporting. If they don't, that in itself is a sign that they're at best sloppy at doing their research, and most likely to be playing fast and loose with sources, not giving accurate quotations, fudging facts, and in general playing a badger-game. So... as I've said before, until I see some sources outside of known promulgators of pseudoscientific nonsense, I'm not inclined to put any weight on this; especially given that all of the scientific sources I've encountered in my 40+ years of reading on these topics go completely against all of this. Not _one _backs any of this up.

And "air-brushing out"... *groan* Do you seriously believe NASA -- or any other body -- can prevent people from seeing things for themselves? Or -- as I asked before -- are you saying that every single astronomer in the world that doesn't agree with Mr. Wilson and his ilk are part of the conspiracy? I've known a few astronomers. I know others who know hundreds of them. None of them put any credence in this stuff, and the study of such things is their field of expertise! As I said before, they'd love for some of this to be true! They'd be happier than a kid in a candy store! You wouldn't be able to shut 'em up about it with a staple-gun. They might not get any sleep, they'd be so excited, but they most assuredly wouldn't keep quiet about it. Scientists are, as a group, notoriously ill-mannered when it comes to listening to authority figures. Generally they have to have extreme pressure brought to bear on them, or they will talk. Sharing of information is, after all, how they learn what is vital to their livelihood, as well as that which is vital to them as people who are driven by a "need to know". So any theory that says that they're all on NASA's payroll -- or the U.S. government -- is horse-puckey. And that still wouldn't explain how the scientists in all the other nations are kept quiet about all this....

As for the quotation from Asimov... Where did that one come from? I'd be especially curious about that, as I've read huge chunks of Isaac's work, both fiction and non... and nowhere can I recall running into such a statement. And Ike was very ireful when someone would use his work to support pseudoscientific nonsense, as he had no patience for the stuff himself, being a genuine scientist who expected things to be put through severe peer-review. So, again, we have Wilson's quoting Asimov... but from where? What was the context? What was the source? Please provide such information, and then I'll be happy to look it up. But so far, all we're getting is quotations from these two writers, without any information on primary sources. _*That just won't do!*_ That's not proof... that's sheer candy-floss, without some substantial backing.

An example: I recently quoted from a book on *Science and Creationism*. Now, any one of those chapters that dealt with scientific fact (rather than the occasional piece of journalistic opinion, such as that by H. L. Mencken, for example), provided complete bibliographic information with which to look up the original source. In some cases, the section providing such information dwarfed the chapter itself! Good grief, even in literary research (which I do quite a bit of), you have to provide information on sources! Bibliographies may be a pain to compile at times -- especially when you have massive amounts of source material -- but without that, there's no way provided for someone to check on whether you're giving them the straight information or not. And that is simply bad science, bad scholarship, and flat-out dishonesty. If it's important in literary matters, how much more important it is when it comes to a controversial scientific idea! Again, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!" So far, I've seen _no_ evidence! I've seen _claims_, but no _proofs_! And I know darned good and well that some of the things claimed by these two you quote so fervently are simply *not physically possible*. That being the case, why on earth should I waste my time with reading their work? If there is so much that I _know_ (not _believe_, but _have proof_) is nonsense, how much credence can I put in _anything_ they say?

So... some reputable sources, please. Not promulgator of pseudoscience who have no standing with the scientific community, and who don't provide full disclosure for you to look up the facts yourself... but those who have actually done the work to allow the reader to check on them, and make sure they're not being sold a bill of goods.

Incidentally... a lot of the Jovian satellites are bodies that were captured by Jove's gravity (same with Saturn and Neptune). From my understanding, the matter of our moon was from the earth itself, rather than a body captured by, or even a body formed at the same time from the same sources.

While these are a bit simply explained models, they provide plenty of information to refute the claims you're making, and they provide enough information to look up original sources:

NOVA Online | To the Moon | Origins

The Origin of the Moon

And one that gets into more of the details:

Origin of the Moon (Cameron)




> Not only is our Moon too large, but scientists also point out it is actually too far out in its orbit to be a natural satellite of our planet. Isaac Asimov, who is a scientist in his own right, asks: "What in blazes is our Moon doing way out there?" He goes on to say, "It's too far out to be a true satellite of the Earth. It's too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible." (Asimov on Astronomy, Doubleday, 1974.)


 
Now, I'll have to look this up again, but, as I recall... this is taken out of context, and leaves off his continuing to address this question... with the result that he posits other possible origins for the moon (based upon the science of the time) ... but nothing even remotely approaching what you're claiming here; simply that (as already noted) the "capture" theory didn't hold up... which was not particularly news to anyone in the scientific community. (This reminds me of the fact that the entire structure of the "Cthulhu Mythos" was based on August Derleth's -- either deliberate misreading, or faulty memory -- quoting of a "black magic" passage from a Lovecraft letter ... a passage that Lovecraft never wrote, but which was cobbled together from a passage from a letter to Farnsworth Wright of Weird Tales, and a letter by H. S. Farnese about what he perceived Lovecraft's mythology was about. Taken out of context, it sounds authoritative; but when one sees the full text, it makes hash of Derleth's model of the mythos. So, too, this quote from Isaac. On the face of it, it seems to support; look at the full quotation, and you'll find it does anything but....)



> Scientists in general would agree. But most remain confounded by this conundrum. Our Moon should not be there in circular orbit around our Earth, and many insist it should not be there period! Not perhaps as a natural world, but an artificially "steered" world, yes. Grudgingly all scientists must admit that the problem disappears in light of the Soviet spaceship theory.


 
Again, from the evidence that's out there by literally thousands of sources... this doesn't hold up. They are anything but "confounded". They have questions -- that is a part of any scientific theory: to question and test and refine -- but I've seen no reputable scientists that go along with the spaceship theory... from here or Russia (or anywhere else, for that matter). Only fringe theorists tend to have anything to do with it, and they are hardly representative of the considered opinion of the majority of the scientific community.



> Isaac Asimov concludes that our Moon is not, as is commonly believed, the true satellite of our planet. He claims that if it were "it would almost certainly be orbiting in the plane of the Earth's equator and it isn't."
> 
> There are still other powerful reasons why the Moon cannot be a true satellite of Earth, insists Asimov. He claims the Moon should not be orbiting our planet because of what he calls "tug of war" ratio.
> 
> ...


 
Again, I must disagree with you on this last. If anything, I'd say it's quite the opposite -- the impact theory still holds the greatest acceptance, though there are some unanswered questions and (possible) problems there that have not yet been resolved. Still, it has answered the existing actual evidence quite well in most respects ... certainly much, much better than the theory you're proposing. As for Isaac's work... I just checked, and the library around here no longer has a copy of his Asimov on Astronomy. However, it does have four other books by him on the subject, of more recent writing; and -- as Isaac tended to look at the most recent information and take it into account when writing on a subject -- this is much more likely to answer the current query.

As with Dave, I admire your tenacity, but I do wish you'd provide more sources for these claims; something that could be looked up and examined beyond the work of those who are definitely out on the fringes. Something by respected scientists or scientific writers would be much more beneficial to your argument than to simply keep referring to this very narrow base... which are, in turn, tainted by their known propensities. So please, think about broadening your base of references here. It's likely to make for much more fruitful discusssion....


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 19, 2007)

First of all, Hoagland showed his films to the United Nations, which if you had read the link about him, explains this....Do you actually believe that the member nations of the U.N. would waste their time watching Hoagland's films on the Moon and Mars if the films weren't true....

The dome is on the Moon...One of our satellites even hit the thing and suddenly went dead...Hoagland explains about this on his video: "THE MOON/MARS CONNECTION.....That dome could even be seen reflected on the visor of Mitchell's helmet...Do you think the U.S. would spend millions of dollars to go the an area of the Moon where nothing existed? I am referring to the "Sea of Tranquillity."   The fact that the U.S. has not been back to the Moon for all of these years should tell you that they found what they were looking for...(THE DOME!) amoung other man-made artifacts....

You want reputable sources? How's this:  Dr. Sean C. Solomon of M.I.T. claims that a study of the gravitational fields of the Moon indicates that it could be hollow. Solomon concludes his study, which was published in Volume 6 of the technical periodical The Moon, An International Journal of Lunar Studies:
   "The Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the Moon's gravitational field...indicating the frightening possibility that the Moon might be hollow." (Pp. 147-65.)
   Frightening? Yes, because if the Moon is hollow it must have been artificially  hollowed out by some alien intelligence - and that would neccessarily make it a spaceship!
   Without question, if it could be established as fact that the Moon is really hollow, it would be the greatest discovery in the history of science and the most fantastic that man has ever made.

Here's another reputable source: "Is the Moon Hollow?" This happens to be the title of a chapter in "OUR MOON," one of the most authoritative books ever written on the Moon, by H.P. Wilkins, former head of the Lunar Section of the British Astronomical Association. It was published in the fifties, more than two decades before two Soviet scientists postulated their hollow-Moon theory.
   Dr. Wilkins (who died at the beginning of the Space Age), one of the world's leading lunar experts, claimed that the Moon could very well be hollow - at least to a great extent. As Wilkins pointed out in the thirteenth chapter of his fine book, "Our Moon: "Everything points to a more or less hollow nature of the crust of the Moon  within some 20 or 30 miles of the surface ."


----------



## Dave (Mar 19, 2007)

Moebius Tripper said:


> ....Do you actually believe that the member nations of the U.N. would waste their time watching Hoagland's films on the Moon and Mars if the films weren't true....


I would doubt that a whole member nation watched the film, not without a very big cinema. But I'll do it for expenses and a free lunch! 
I'm trying to persuade my father in law to stop going to these timeshare presentations, but I think he is a glutton for punishment.


----------



## The Ace (Mar 19, 2007)

Am I the only one here who thinks that The Moon is a big ball of solid rock which reflects sunlight ?


----------



## Happy Joe (Mar 19, 2007)

Nope! You are not alone...
I believe this thread indicates that; Reality, like beauty, often resides in the mind of the beholder.

Enjoy!


----------



## mosaix (Mar 19, 2007)

The Ace said:


> Am I the only one here who thinks that The Moon is a big ball of solid rock which reflects sunlight ?



Actually Ace, its got a partially liquid, iron rich core.


----------



## Moebius Tripper (Mar 19, 2007)

###

                                   30


----------

