Is the moon artificial?

[TheChosen]

In order to understand what I will be writing here we need to look at earth history. It is well known from many sources that before the flood and before the 'fall of man', life on earth used to be much longer. Why is this so and why did it change?

The biggest difference between the times before the flood and after the flood was that there was no Moon at that time in orbit around Earth. There is a wealth of new information coming on this subject so you are free to research it before we go any further as I realize this is a difficult concept to grasp but the numbers are staggering once you understand them and pretty much provide mathematical proof that the moon was an artificial insert into our program. We have also already established that the number 25640 is an extremely important number which gives us the number of rotations the earth must make around the sun from the beginning of one cycle until its end. Since the universe is inherently fractal and each successive body is a fractal expression of its previous higher level, this means that this number will apply on all the levels of creation. What I am trying to say (already explained in the book on my site to which you can find the link in my signature) is that the sun is the next fractal expression of the galaxy, the earth of the sun, the human of the earth etc.

The situation on earth before the flood was that the fractal expressions were in their natural order, the sun was an expression of the galaxy, the earth of the sun and the human of the earth. This meant there was a clear mathematical connection by the evolutionary cycles of all these three expressions. But before we understand what happened back then, we need to understand how this reality is structured right now. To begin with this we need to understand what is an anomalistic month, which length is exactly 27.554 days. In very simplified terms an anomalistic month is the time it takes for the moon to make one orbit and be in the 'exact' same position in reference to earth, even though it may be slightly different as reference to the sun, stars or any other body. It is the relationship of moon vs earth that we are most concerned with here.


http://www.accimt.ac.lk/images/anomalistic.jpg

First lets do the simple version of how the moon hacked into the human life with mathematical precision as I understand many people will have trouble digesting the more complex one:


Before the fall: Average human life span: 930.5 years
After the fall: Average human life span 72.02 years
Decrease by a factor: 12.92
Anomalistic months in a year: 12.92

It can be very clearly seen that the decrease of human life was EXACTLY the same as the factor by which our earth year was carved up by Moon years (the time the moon makes a full rotation in an anomalistic way). In the very simplified terms, humans continued to live 930 years, but instead of earth years they began to live moon years for the simple fact that now their 'fractal parent' was the moon and not the earth.

Ok, now that we have some overview and direct connection let's see how we came with those numbers and how the human average life span today fits with the cycles of the moon and the greater cycles of the earth, sun and galaxy. The 25640 number in its very core means rotations of one body around the body of its next level of fractal expression.


The situation today:
25640 rotations of a human around the earth center takes exactly 72.02 years, which is an average life span of humans today
25640 rotations of the moon around the earth, takes exactly 1984.54 years as calculated using an anomalistic month, which is very significant as huge major events seem to happen every 2000 years since the moon has been in orbit.
25640 rotations on the earth around the sun is exactly 12.92 multiplied by 1984.54. This means that the moon goes through 12.92 cycles during the time the earth has one cycle. Of course the significance of the humber 13 is immense as given by many ancient sources such as the Maya and Toltec.


Now the situation before the moon came into orbit:
25640 rotations of a human around the earth took 72.02 years but since there was no moon to impede human connection to earth, this was not a human cycle but the real cycle was exactly 12.92 times bigger (as can be seen today by the relationship of moon vs earth). This gives us the number of 930.5 years (which is accepted as the average life span of humans before the fall from several sources such as bible texts, the law of one channeling, other ancient books etc)
More so extremely important was that one major earth cycle of 25640 rotations of the earth around the sun, contained exactly 27.554 human cycles (which is the factor of moon rotation around the earth compared to a single rotation of earth)


http://blog.2012pro.com/wp-content/uploads/SB2.jpg


The cycles of the earth with the Sun:
254 000 000 million years is the time the sun makes one rotation around the galaxy center.
If we carve this into 360 degrees (again a very significant number) we receive that each degree takes 705 555 years
If we divide each degree by the factor of the moon which is 27.554 we get approximately 25640 (the number is approximate as the period the sun turns around the center of the galaxy has not been measured in exact terms by modern science but I believe we can receive this number by multiplying 27.554*360*25640 = 254 334 441.6)
This last paragraph shows us that the chosen fraction of 27.554 for the moon was calculated in exact terms relative to much higher cosmic mathematics and was designed to interfere not only with our connection to earth but to the sun and galaxy itself.


Moon cycles today:
We established that one moon cycle takes 1984.54 years. Let's see what happened for the last three moon cycles as unfortunately we don't have much information to analyze any further.
40th century BC: One look at wikipedia and we see that many important events are associated with this century. Not the least that freemasons regard it as 'year zero'.
20th century BC: Again don't take my word for it and take a look at wikipedia. Many important events are associated with this century and its roll over to the 20th BC. Most notably the beginning of the major 'prophets' in the bible. As dubious as the background of the forces behind those prophets it is clear that this was an important temporal marker for them
Year Zero: If we take the birth/death of Jesus at 0-50AD (again a very important temporal marker for the forces behind the creation of his persona), and take it as the end/beginning of a moon cycle once we add 1984.5 years to it we get to present time and the very obvious end of one cycle and the beginning of another with a little twist. This is the LAST cycle of the moon where according to our natural laws it must come to a close of its major cycle and experience DEATH. Just as those early humans experienced death at 930 years of age.

In very simple terms, all this calculation means one thing. That the moon took the place of humans as natural fractal expressions of the galaxy/sun/earth and is currently moving through its very last cycle. Subsequently the humans and all other life on earth was degraded by one level of its respective fractal expression and was effectively plugged out of the galaxy/sun/earth/human fractal and plugged into the moon field which produced directly measurable and observable effects.

Fractal tree before: Galaxy -> Sun -> Earth -> Human -> Animals -> Insects -> Trees -> Elements
Fractal tree after: Galaxy -> Sun -> Earth -> Moon -> Human -> Animals -> Insects -> Trees -> Elements

[Wood]

The theory is interesting but I have two questions.


Before the fall: Average human life span: 930.5 years
After the fall: Average human life span 72.02 years
What is your source for the average life span numbers, with that accuracy? How does the theory explains the rising life span that seems to be correlated with better diet and healthcare? Nowadays the life span ranges from above 80 years in some western countries to less than 45 in some african countries (I am using my memory here but the actual figures should be close to these). The life span should keep rising in the future even without further scientific advances, just due to poor countries getting closer to rich countries. The moon theory seems to imply that the world before the 'fall' was in a similar state as the world now, with huge regional differences due to factors not related to the theory (diet, healthcare).

[Fredkc]

Hi Chosen, I d'loaded your book for a later look. Interesting ideas.

Wood;
There has been a completely unsubstantiated idea rattling around in my head for some time.
Has to do with something called "the firmament" in the O.T. It does not appear to consistently describe the earth, or the heavens (stars, etc)

And then there are references to the flood being the heavens opening, and the firmament pouring down upon the earth. Oddly, the term firmament appears right along in Genesis, and Ezekiel, and then poof! Mentioned no more. Could this have been either a hollow sphere, or even a vaporous cloud of moisture surrounding the earth?

Something along these lines could well have served as a "radiation, and magnetic shield", and losing it would have had an affect on our longevity. Interestingly this also appears to coincide with a change in this. Not by years, or decades, but hundreds of years.

Yes, I know the Bible is forever trashed as a possible source of historical data; but. as allegorical information, I think it's underrated. "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day" kind of thing.

Anyway, it's one of those things I ponder about once a year, so I thought I would hatch it here.

Fred

[TheChosen]

Of course with bad malnutrition or exceptional care you can change your programmed life span to a certain very limited point but the point I am making here is that it takes huge difference if your DNA is programmed for about 70 years of life or 930 years of life.. I just took the averages of human life span on the internet which is in the range of 72 years (granted some say its 70 some say its 76.. but in the end it is an average so it can't be told quite that exactly and since we have such a huge difference of 900 hears or so , plus or minus 5 doesn't change things too much).. The accuracy of the numbers was explained later in the post.. isn't it extremely coincidental that 25640 days translates into 72.02 years?

As for the average of the before the fall life span I took it from bible texts explained on the internet and the law of one channeling. In no way does this imply that the world before the fall was in a similar state as the world now

The averages of large samples of human bodies from very diverse backgrounds are great for discovering inherent programming in the DNA.

Btw this is not a new theory .. David Icke broke the ice on this one with his new book which is even more so based on other people's research that the moon is not natural.. It goes into great detail about the fall of manking. I just provided the numbers and details that fit the picture presented by David in his latest book

[Wood]

Don't take me wrong, from what I've been reading about the moon I suspect it is there to control us in some aspects (I am thinking of mental control). I am questioning the very direct relationship between the moon and our longevity when there are so many other factors involved. I believe our shorter life spans might have something to do with our diets, in particular with feeding on external energies rather than on our own, but then the need to do so might come from inhibition of our inner energy using the moon :)
And of course I have no proof of that.

Apart from the direct link with our longevity backed with (IMO) weak data, I have found the OP very interesting.

[Fredkc]

PS: there is a very interesting chapter in Ingo Swann's book re. the moon. it being artificial/hollow/etc.

Even Carl Sagan has chimed in on it.

Fred

[kriya]

Great website and thank you for making your book free. It looks very interesting!


Love,

Kriya

[LindyLou22]

Remembering an Edgar Cayce reading where he told a person not to allow moonlight to shine on his face while he (or she) was sleeping, I tried to find a reference. Instead I found this, which I thought is interesting. Here's the first and last paragraph of that section regarding Toth.

http://www.edgarcayce.org/ps2/egyptian_gods_as_metaphors.html


As the rays or godlings went forth, some lost their connectedness to the great Ra. They moved too far into darkness. Their light dimmed. The darkness overcame them. Their faces turned away from the original light. All they saw were the shadows of life. They needed help. Some power needed to help them recall the original light, the original way, the original purpose. This was the power of the moon god Thoth, or Hermes in Greek. This power reflects the light to all things that have turned away from the direct light.

.....

Throughout the dark night of the souls, the moon helps remind them of the continual existence of the true light. Despite the darkness, the sun has never moved. We have moved. If one looks at the moon and intuits the source of its light, then one knows the sun still exists, the creator still exists, and will look to the returning dawn.

[LindyLou22]

By the way, what was going on with that "nuclear test" that was supposedly done on the moon? The one where they claimed to be looking for evidence of water.....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasas-mission-to-bomb-the-moon-2009-06

[TheChosen]

I believe our shorter life spans might have something to do with our diets, in particular with feeding on external energies rather than on our own, but then the need to do so might come from inhibition of our inner energy using the moon


Thats exactly what is being suggested. With the moon being injected as a 'middle man' between the energy link between human - earth much of that energy was blocked and the human body was forced to feed on less efficient sources of energy. I believe that this was a factor of 12.92 resulting in the same factor of longevity decrease (and many other abilities that the pre-moon human had)

[Operator]

By the way, what was going on with that "nuclear test" that was supposedly done on the moon?

It wasn't nuclear ... it wasn't even a 'bomb' ... : The two-ton Centaur rocket qualifies as a space-based kinetic weapon

[shiva777]

think about the implications of this on the world religions,pagans,new-agers etc who have worshipped the moon as a benevolent goddess and a manisfestation of the Divine Feminine(it was said to be created by the "Gods")now which "gods" is the question,negative ET's may be the answer....when in fact the moon is an artificial construct put there in order to harness us to our physicality in unnatural ways...things are going to get really interesting when such thingsw become more public and ancient beliefs are exposed as deceptions...the moon is just the tip of the iceberg in that respect

If you are interested in how our ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM has been artificially altered in it's angular rotations check out the Ashayana Deane videos on proj Camelot or get her "Voyagers" book...explains the mathematical relationships of all the planets and how they are supposed to be and how they are now

she explains it briefly here...it is explained much more deeply in other work of hers ...shows how it all fits together

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK2vWZE8noU&feature=player_embedded

Icke has only just clicked to this major puzzle piece..check out his "moon matrix" material

[Victoria Tintagel]

Posts:201 Re: The moon is artificial indeed
Quote: Don't take me wrong, from what I've been reading about the moon I suspect it is there to control us in some aspects (I am thinking of mental control).
Hi Wood, isn't the moon having an influence on the fluid in our body/brain that is connected to the hormones, shaping our emotional state? It's common knowledge that 9 months pregnant women go into labour during full moon and people go mad, by being pushed a little to far by the influance of a full moon, filling police stations. It's fascinating stuff, the history of earth and moon. I wonder how the theory of the moon, being ripped apart from the earth, has it's background. It's stated by Rudolf Steiner, the Austrian founder of the Antroposophy and visionary in the late 19th century. Also I dwell on the subject of density of earth and moon, before the fall, as density is related to dimension/vibration. Who knows, before the Fall/Flood of Atlantis? how life was experienced and how (or if) physicality existed. Rudolf Steiner stated that we used to be one being with human, animal, plant and mineral aspects, within in a less solid state as we are now. By progressing through millenia, we have externalised our mineral, plant and animal aspect and had to eat them to sustain our physical body. The one source of energy that feeds mineral, plant, animal and human body is the Sunlight: plants use light to transform dioxyde into oxygen and we breathe the other way around. Animals, from bacteria to wurms, from insects to cows, eat plants and are eaten by other animals and humans eat mineral, plant and animal. We all end as compost to feed plants and so the cycle goes on. Maybe life on earth was quite different, before the fall/flood?

[Majorion]

It is well known from many sources that before the flood and before the 'fall of man', life on earth used to be much longer.
May I ask for those sources?

And, do you know of any evidence there ever actually were a pre-moon era?

[TheChosen]

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/why-did-man-live-longer-before-flood-of-noah-than-after-it.html

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?category=Earth+History&start_row=60#Life+Span

as for evidence.. check the books and research of Hancock with which DW made an interview couple of weeks ago

[Majorion]

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/why-did-man-live-longer-before-flood-of-noah-than-after-it.html

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?category=Earth+History&start_row=60#Life+Span

as for evidence.. check the books and research of Hancock with which DW made an interview couple of weeks ago

Holy texts and channeled materials are hardly considered reliable sources to form the basis for a scientific theory, and it appears to be almost completely founded on those sources. I was actually asking if there were any 'scientific' sources or evidence, of any kind, which would support the artificial-moon theory. And to be honest I don't find Wilcock a credible source of anything.

[TheChosen]

First of all, I said Hancock .. not DW .. DW only made an interview with him. He has researched and written several books on ancient pre-flood civilizations using scientific methodology http://www.grahamhancock.com/

As for the moon check the following book for 'scientific' facts http://www.amazon.com/Who-Built-Moon-Christopher-Knight/dp/1842931636

[3optic]

So far these leads seem to dead end quickly when trying to corroborate credibly. I can't deny the quality of fascination, however..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I4GcxeS9Ho

Hancock Interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvNEVvHgOOY

The Antimatter Radio Show

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=8C6fS9V8pXk&feature=related

[Grizzom]

Sounds like fractal bumper cars to me?

How bout Fractal tree after: Galaxy -> Sun -> Mercury-> Venus -> Earth -> Moon -> Human -> Animals -> Insects -> Trees -> Elements

I really like the artwork but your theory is hard to swallow even with a open mind. :confused:

It'll be a hit with the new-age freaks for sure, just add some fairies and butterfly's. ;)

[shiva777]

can you prove to me that the scientific data disseminated by the scientific pawns of the "powers that be" about the moon being natural are accurate?...no?

....many scientists know that free energy technology is here and proven to work,they know we have scientific technology that can cure cancer,change salt water in to pure water quickly and cheaply,technologies that allow teleportation...etc,etc..but none of this is accepted science in mainstream scientific circles,these scientists get ostracised for not towing the line of accepted truths....do you watch any of the proj Camelot videos?...if you do why do you expect accepted mainstream science to tell you the truth about such reality changing facts as the moon possibly being a controlling artificial satellite?...to me the most important role proj camelot serves is that it addresses issues that are out of the ordinary..such as the moon possibly being artificial...for many people it is probably just entertaining and more mind candy but for others it may get them to ask the BIG questions about life and spirituality and to do their own practice and investigations in to spiritual issues

this,of course,doesn't prove that the moon is natural or not natural...but if you do a little research of your own you will find that the moon is an incredibly mysterious place and these questions need to at least be considered...

Icke explains some of his research here but if you really want to know USE the internet and employ your own discernment..remember it's just a small piece of the puzzle which may lead to bigger revelations...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj1SHU22oDM&feature=related

also realise that our science is still incredibly primitive and can't detect the underlying physics of our reality...in the near future science and spirituality will meet in much more intimate and provable ways...as explained by Ashayana Deane and others



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj1SHU22oDM&feature=related

[Majorion]

can you prove to me that the scientific data disseminated by the scientific pawns of the "powers that be" about the moon being natural are accurate?
Apparently, the same authors who contend the moon is artificially constructed are using that same scientific data to support their theory. You are suggesting the scientific data shouldn't be accepted accurately, well these theories would be completely baseless then.

[greybeard]

Apparently, the same authors who contend the moon is artificially constructed are using that same scientific data to support their theory. You are suggesting the scientific data shouldn't be accepted accurately, well these theories would be completely baseless then.

I agree with you Marjon.
Where is any credible scientific evidence?
and who are these powers that be that are to be blamed for everything?
It seems there is an agenda to remove God from creation bit by bit therefore de-powering faith. Then who needs God anyway?
I do.
It would appear that the suggestion is that Aliens are more in control of evolution and everything else. than God.
Are we to be led to believe that everything that goes wrong is to be blamed on a faceless "Powers that be"
Faceless label is the tool of propaganda.
If something cant be proved its because the Powers that be have tampered with the evidence--- Oh yeah.
Why cant the moon just be the moon?
Made of green cheese is as good a story.
Chris

[3optic]

Majorion, I found a clip from a Coast to Coast interview with Christopher Knight and Alan Butler discussing the anomalies that relate to the Moon and it's orbit. It seems to be a good starting point.

at 7:25

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=ajTUzCdurto&feature=related

[Majorion]

Thanks optic, I listened, but having read an overview of the book I feel familiar enough with the whole argument, and it is an interesting idea to explore, but what an enormous difference when a title says "the moon is artificial" rather than simply beg the question "is the moon artificial?". The authors believe time-travelling humans, for one purpose or another; built the moon and placed it in a particular timeline. I am simply pointing out the reality that nothing 'factual' points to the moon being artificial other than the suggestion of the authors, my inquiries were only directed to those members who seem unaware of the distinction between facts and mere interpretation-of-facts, one member even refuted the scientific data that would technically form the basis of the entire theory.

[onawah]

This is a very interesting thread which I haven't had time to fully explore as yet
Interesting list of observations at this link
http://www.phils.com.au/moon.htm
which begins with:
"STRANGE MOON FACTS
Compiled by Ronald Regehr.
" The Moon is the Rosetta stone of the Planets."
>Robert Jastrow, First Chairman, NASA Lunar Exploration Committee<
After hundreds of years of detailed observation and study, our closest companion in the vast universe, Earth's moon, remains an enigma. Six moon landings and hundreds of experiments have resulted in more questions being asked than answered. Among them - "
etc.
and more here:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/46roslin_gate/01archives/BadMoonRising.htm

All evidence appears to me to be pretty well documented, taken from scientists, astronauts, NASA, etc. and the questions and mysteries surrounding the Moon's origin, age, composition seem quite valid

[Majorion]

but I recall reading somewhere that the Moon has scientists very puzzled because it is older than Earth and the composition is different ...

The table in this link (http://www.permanent.com/l-apollo.htm) compares lunar to earth composition, with respect to key elements.

Also this pertinent article is worth a read: Moon and Earth Formed out of Identical Material (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Moon_and_Earth_Formed_out_of_Identical_Material.html)

[3optic]

What an enormous difference when a title says "the moon is artificial" rather than simply beg the question "is the moon artificial?". ... my inquiries were only directed to those members who seem unaware of the distinction between facts and mere interpretation-of-facts, one member even refuted the scientific data that would technically form the basis of the entire theory.

That is an excellent point. Well worded. Can we assume the title is deliberately sensationalized to sell book copies? I would like to see more critical thinking and cross referencing on these topics. I also think there are enough questions raised and I can't reject the theory out of hand.

The Jeffrey Grupp audio clip was interesting but I'm not partial to the Moon landing hoax theory.

[onawah]

Near the end of this section of John Lear interviewed by George Noory, he mentions the Moon being towed into place
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm6HEMvD6KU&feature=related
Richard Hoagland gets into the discussion here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKxgQsG8bKQ&feature=related
Velikofsky's theory that the Moon was not in our solar system at specific dates is discussed.
The moon ringing like a bell is discussed by John Lear and an object discovered by NASA deep below the Moon's surface, and more here about the Moon being towed here and the device used to tow it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc-kB_PahsM&feature=related
re other moons brought here, all planets in our system are inhabited, 6 mile high tower on Moon,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxW--LUieF0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G2-PJO0-Is&feature=related

John Lear recommends the blog of "Sleeper" on abovetopsecret.com
and the site
http://www.thelivingmoon.com
Lots of very interesting stuff! I don't know if everyone would consider this "scientific proof", but I think we're pretty much agreed on this forum that TPTB aren't really very forthcoming with that, no?

[RedeZra]

And then there are references to the flood being the heavens opening, and the firmament pouring down upon the earth. Oddly, the term firmament appears right along in Genesis, and Ezekiel, and then poof! Mentioned no more. Could this have been either a hollow sphere, or even a vaporous cloud of moisture surrounding the earth?



vast vaporous mists of moisture

the waters above

floods the Earth

for forty days and nights

so the oceans are born

and the covenant of the rainbow

[bettye198]

I had thought that the Moon was artificial because the Annunaki during Atlantis era blew it up. A moon from one of the other planets, Saturn? was tractored in. Evidently much has been written that it is a haven for ET's underground. We did not conquer the Moon.

[Fredkc]

Sorry this took so long, but it took me a while to find it again.

This is from the Ingo Swann book on remote viewing, and the moon:

http://fredsitelive.com/images/post/post3/zingo.jpg

[Majorion]

Fred, is that Penetration?

Anyway, note that Earth displays the same bell-like ringing or reverberations as the moon:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/tectonics-05g.html

Bet Swann didn't mention that.

[Dale]

Here's a pretty interesting theory.

I've been collecting information, interviews, and data; and recently, I've come across some surprising data about the solidity of our moon.

Ingo Swann describes a bit of the situation in his book "Penetration."

I also hear that David Icke wrote an entire book on the moon, and what it is doing here, earlier this year.

But here are a couple of the facts. I'm running out of time tonight, so please feel free to add the rest in your comments:

-In 1969, as the crew of the Apollo 12 sent a portion of their landing module crashing downward toward the surface of the moon, the satellite "rang like a bell" for nearly an hour.

-In 1962, Dr. D. C. Solomon made a statement in regards to the Lunar Orbiter experiments. He commented on "The frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow."

Having read much of Charles Fort's works, as well as various reports from modern day astronomers, I am well aware of "luminous anomalies" occurring within the moon's craters. Also, I am aware of the density differences between our planet and the moon, and the age differences between the two bodies, and the strange formations scattered about the surface of our satellite. However, a "hollow moon" theory is relatively new to me, and it's implications are staggering, to say the least.

Let's think back to what Carl Sagan once said about natural satellites:


"A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."

If, indeed, our moon is hollow; then everything we know about it, and everything we think we know about it, could well be entirely wrong.

I'm not convinced that our satellite is hollow, but I'm open to the possibility that it could be.

What do you all think? I have the feeling that I'll be back at the library :p

[MiguelQ]

i thought there was a topic for this opened already? if not , ignore

[Dale]

There are a couple "moon" threads already, but none directly relating to the "hollow moon" theory. I am trying to figure this "moon business" out, especially after Phobos was found to be slightly hollow.

[Luke]

Scientists are catching up , new thing : http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19342-shrinking-moon-may-explain-lunar-quakes.html (Shrinking moon may explain lunar quakes). So we have: (1) problems with inadequate mass for size (2) masscons /neg-mascons suggesting cavities or at least non-uniform geological makeup (3) and now actual observed contraction of moon, in range of 100 meters, in "short time" (polish article did not mentioned "short" as in geology or human life) . And we are talking just what official science is acknowledging.
Now hollow earth theory is not something I subscribe to, but hollow moon / moon as base/spaceship ... I find it plausible.

[Operator]

Interesting thread ... see where this goes



-In 1969, as the crew of the Apollo 12 sent a portion of their landing module crashing downward toward the surface of the moon, the satellite "rang like a bell" for nearly an hour.


I remember this being said about the take-off ... but I have my doubts that Apollo technology made it to the moon anyway. (I do NOT say we didn't go to the moon).

Besides that I have some question marks around the physics of this phenomenon. The relative weight, impact and/or energy impacting on the moon (even if it is hollow) by the Apollo LEM
is so little that I can hardly imagine it would excite the moon, unless resonance is involved. But then it would be a very fortunate hit if this was all by coincidence.

So where is this 'knowledge' really originating from ?

[neptuneforce]

The Moon is definitely hollow!!! When light manifests into form it is expressed either as a Vortex (Feminine / Absence of a solid center) or a Cortex (Masculine / Presence of a solid center) just like the I-Ching lines..... This is knowledge a mushroom entity empowered me with & I'm condensing what I've learned to help with everyone's expansion.

[yuhui]

I have also heard the hollow moon in <The Andromedan Compendium> By Alex Collier

"The Moon is hollow. It contains huge underground facilities built by ET's and later humans from Earth. There are seven openings into the Moon's crust, and the underground bases. Conservative scientists have wondered why so many craters seem so shallow, despite their size."
The Andromedans say, it's because much of the surface was built on top of a metallic shell of a circular space crest; or " A War Carrier ", as the Andromedans describe it. An example of a shallow, but large crater would be the crater Gagarin. This crater is roughly 185 miles across, but is only 4.5 to 5 miles deep. Based on the impact and size across the craters welt on the surface, the depth should be 4 to 6 times that deep. In fact, all the craters are the same; they are too shallow. They defy known science.

See the Our Moon's Forbidden History
Link: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/andromeda/esp_andromedacom_1aa.htm#Our%20Moons%20Forbidden%20History

[conk]

I'm sure you've seen the video taken on a fly by over the moon, showing a puff of 'smoke' coming from something that sprang up from the surface. Considering the scales, it must have been huge. Some kind of exhaust from the internal machinations?

[Kulapops]

Hollow ? You mean like a giant Ferero Rocher ?? With a soft ganache centre perhaps ?

I too read the 'rang like a bell' comment somewhere, (John Lear?) and subsequently read somewhere else that this was not an accurate quote and it did not happen.

Actually, this was one of the first times I remember thinking to myself, 'how can you believe anything you read?'

Someone says with complete authority that it 'rang like a bell' then someone else says this did not happen.

Personally I agree with operator. If you throw a grain of sand at a BELL even, would it ring like a bell? I doubt it.

Shall we have a bit of fun with maths ? How about volume of a hollow moon, say 100m thick

Vol = 4/3 PI r2 3 - 4/3 PI r1 3 where r1 and r2 are the inner and outer diameters

= 4/3 * 3.14 * 3476 000m 3 - 4/3 * 3.14 * 3475 900 3

= 1.75925 x 10 20 - 1.759099 * 10 20

= 1.518 x 10 16

Now Mass = Volume x Density So.. what shall we make the moon out of ? Iron ? that's 7.86 Kg/m3

So if it was say, a hollow death star space station for example, it would weigh around 100 000 000 000 000 000 kg

Say a round 100 thousand billion tons (UK billions) . And how many tons did the apollo craft weigh ??

So you see, a grain of sand hitting a bell is not far out. You'd need good ears for that one

:)

Note if it was made of cheese.. this figure would reduce to approx 18 thousand billion tons... If it was made out of cardboard, around 8 thousand billion tons

If the skin was only 10 metres thick..this brings it down nicely to 15.18 x 10 15 or 9 thousand billion tons for iron

[Kulapops]

Hmmm.... no further comments ? I quite enjoyed this little sum...

Is it the prospect of actual maths and actual science that drives away comment?

I know.. unverifiable speculation threads wins out over common sense every time :)

Well, that and gossip and bickering, those are pretty popular too. Do I need to call someone a name to light a fire on this thread ? ;)

Dale.. I thought you'd be back at least for comment....

Perhaps I could go the other way with my calculations.. if the moon only weighed several hundred tons... or maybe even a thouasand... it would ring... then we could work out how thck the skin would be....

But seeing as the moon is probably a lot heavier, this might explain why this thread is sinking, sinking, sinking

:)

Best wishes...

what exciting news do we next have to peruse ?

[JamesB]

I'm new to this forum (been just browsing for some time) so if this info has already been posted then forgive me, but there are two great books to read along these lines for anyone who might care to check them out (and hasn't already):

- Who Built the Moon?, Christopher Knight/Alan Butler
- Our Mysterious Space Ship Moon, Don Wilson

[Kulapops]

That's one heavy spaceship !

[JamesB]

That's one heavy spaceship !

In more ways than one :whistle:

[Dale]

Dale.. I thought you'd be back at least for comment....

Hello, and I do apologize. No final thoughts from me, as I tend not to be mathematically gifted.

I highly appreciate your contribution of logic and reason to this thread; I had started it a couple months back (nearly forget I started it!) and was hoping to hear a good bit of science from both sides of the spectrum.

I do suppose I can come up with a bit of a final thought.

In my opinion, the moon is not entirely hollow, though it contains many cavernous regions. Much like Mar's moon, Phobos, had been recently shown to have. Throughout recorded history, many interesting reports have surfaced, providing a possibility that activity may be occurring on the lunar surface; though I haven't the slightest on who, or what, may be up there!

[Kulapops]

Thanks for returning Dale. I thought I'd try to help you with your research.

I must admit, I hadn't thought about this logically till I read Operator's comment. Thanks Operator. The notion of the moon 'ringing' is highly poetic.. but when you look at the sums.. it's highly improbable

The first FACT that people are unlikely to have in their heads is that the moon is 3476 000 metres in diameter

Any object that size is going to be very heavy , whatever it is. Even if it was a sheet of paper. To construct a spacheship 3 million metres in diameter is probably beyond the desire of most races.

Just thinking what the parking charge is on that thing already ??!!!

K

[HURRITT ENYETO]

It appears that force equivalent to 11.5 tons of TNT could make the moon "ring like a bell"
Quote from article below:

It occurred at 8:09 p.m. EST, April 14. The S-IVB struck the Moon with a force equivalent to 11 1/2 tons of TNT. It hit 85 miles west northwest of the site where the Apollo 12 astronauts had set up their seismometer. Scientists on Earth said, "the Moon rang like a bell."
http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/pg15.htm

Another interesting piece on the moon:
http://keelynet.com/unclass/luna.htm

Hurritt

[Hiram]

I don't know if the moon is hollow....but it almost certainly shouldn't be there according to known science. Its a mystery.

With regards to the moon "ringing like a bell" that was a figure of speech used by NASA geologists at the time to describe the fact that there were geological tremors from one side of the moon to the next for the few hours after the moon was struck by the satellite. That was strange.

The Moon is the largest satellite in proportion to its host planet in the Solar System (not including Pluto and Charon).

The Sun is around 93 million miles from Earth, the moon a bit under 300 thousand miles--Millions of our moon could fit into the the Sun so different are they in size....and yet the distance is such, that the moon covers the surface of our sun in Eclipse to a degree of perfection that is almost inexplicable.

The moon circles the earth in an almost perfect circle, with very little variation. There is close to no elipse. This is not consistent with a gravitationally "captured" body. That would have to be an elipse. The moon revolves once per orbit around Earth...such that the same side faces this planet at all times. Incredibly strange.

So the explanation our brilliant scientists came up with was that the moon was once part of primordial earth and that some sort of impact broke it free of this planet...and placed this huge chunk into a circular orbit around Earth. That would make sense except that the composition of lunar rocks doesn't seem to match the oldest known rocks on the Earth.


There is much more about how strange our moon is....

My guess: Maybe not a spacecraft but possibly towed into place when this garden/zoo was being set up in the first place.

Just a Theory:)

[Teakai]

Maybe the moon is a giant mothership.

Why do we only ever see one view of it - doesn't it rotate? Maybe I need to do some googling.

[Carmody]

The moon should definitely NOT be facing the earth the way it does. IIRC, the shape and the level of deformation of the planet (moon) rules out a mis-centered mass, which is what it takes to have one side face us, with no rotation. The two things do not agree, whatsoever.

Either the moon is artificial or it was manipulated by someone....to be as it is today.

Besides the potential size matching and gravity lensing effect. Ie, if the moon resonates then the earth does so with it-and vice-versa. Matched resonances.

[Hiram]

Maybe the moon is a giant mothership.

Why do we only ever see one view of it - doesn't it rotate? Maybe I need to do some googling.

The Moon Does rotate...it just rotates on it's axis one time...perfectly...as it orbits the Earth. Therefore the same side faces the planet Earth at all times. Its difficult to describe verbally but you can mimic it quite easily with a tennis ball.

Carmody is quite correct that there is no current scientific explanation as to how its there at all--no plausible one anyway.

[Teakai]

The Moon Does rotate...it just rotates on it's axis one time...perfectly...as it orbits the Earth. Therefore the same side faces the planet Earth at all times. Its difficult to describe verbally but you can mimic it quite easily with a tennis ball.

Carmody is quite correct that there is no current scientific explanation as to how its there at all--no plausible one anyway.

Thanks, Hiram. I can't picture what you're saying, though - I'm going to have to go and find an animation.
:)

[Ross]

Thanks, Hiram. I can't picture what you're saying, though - I'm going to have to go and find an animation.
:)

Hold a tennis ball, or similar, (a tomatoe or orange would do), in your hand, hold it still and stand still, then, rotate your body with your feet, in a circle. The ball follows your movement but stays still in your hand. This is the rotation that Hiram is talking about.

Ross

[Teakai]

Hold a tennis ball, or similar, (a tomatoe or orange would do), in your hand, hold it still and stand still, then, rotate your body with your feet, in a circle. The ball follows your movement but stays still in your hand. This is the rotation that Hiram is talking about.

Ross

Thanks, Ross - but what I don't understand is that if the moon rotates on it's axis, then all sides of it should face the earth at some time during its trip around the earth - shouldn't it?

:lol: I do remember that lesson at school - but I didn't get it then either :)

[Carmody]

glue a string to a ball. Spin the ball, on the string, around your head.

The ball is connected to the string and always has the same side, the string side, facing you. The ball does not 'roll' in the air.

It's the same as cat spinning. When you are hanging on to the cat's tail, spinning it around your head - you are always looking at the cat's ass. (deadpan delivery)

[Teakai]

glue a string to a ball. Spin the ball, on the string, around your head.

The ball is connected to the string and always has the same side, the string side, facing you. The ball does not 'roll' in the air.

It's the same as cat spinning. When you are hanging on to the cat's tail, spinning it around your head - you are always looking at the cat's ass. (deadpan delivery)

So then the moon doesn't rotate (or spin) on its axis at all? It just goes around with it's axis in a fixed postion relative to the earth (the string tied from me to the cat) on it's orbit around the earth?

Have I got that right?

[Carmody]

you got it. Nothing we know of does this, except for the moon. That, however, requires that the moon have an offset mass at it's center and overall offset, dictated by it's shape. One that is so offset (from a perfect sphere) that the physical deformation would be notable, yet the moon does not have that required shape, at all.

[Teakai]

you got it. Nothing we know of does this, except for the moon. That, however, requires that the moon have an offset mass at it's center and overall offset, dictated by it's shape. One that is so offset (from a perfect sphere) that the physical deformation would be notable, yet the moon does not have that required shape, at all.

Hmmmmm, so it could be a giant spaceship after all?

And thanks muchly for the astronomy lesson.
BTW - my cat hates you :lol:

[Ross]

It's the same as cat spinning. When you are hanging on to the cat's tail, spinning it around your head - you are always looking at the cat's ass. (deadpan deli

Am I the only one whos laughing...good one!

[Ross]

So then the moon doesn't rotate (or spin) on its axis at all? It just goes around with it's axis in a fixed postion relative to the earth (the string tied from me to the cat) on it's orbit around the earth?

Have I got that right?

sure do. :cool:

[bluestflame]

maaybey they ran out of fuel 150, million years ago and got lost hitch hiking with a jerry-can to go get more

I rekon the moon was a carrier

[morguana]

I don't believe that the moon is anything other than what she is, a stoney satellite lifeform, this is based on a friend working for a space agency and from folk that worked at the space science dept (friends of ex, who is a physicist). She isn't hollow from what I. Can gather, nore a death star (from star wars) there are lots of theories surrounding Luna, most of the more off the wall ones seem to circulate on the net. In my eyes if you want to know about her then go into a meditative trance and ask her yourself, she, it appears to have been made when the earth became. One of the main reasons she appears older is due to not having the same tectonic activity as the earth. The earth slowly renews herself there for geological dating can be hard, Luna doesn't.
m

[witchy1]

It's the same as cat spinning. When you are hanging on to the cat's tail, spinning it around your head - you are always looking at the cat's ass. (deadpan delivery)

ROFL - laughing my t*** off - I wont ever forget that lesson. You should have been a teacher Carmody

[Koyaanisqatsi]

When part of the Apollo shuttle was released and crashed to the moons surface, scientists here on earth noted that the moon, "rang like a bell for hours"........what else might explain this?

[str8thinker]

It's the same as cat spinning. When you are hanging on to the cat's tail, spinning it around your head...

When I suggested this to my cat, he glared at me with big yellow eyes and hissed "Just try it...". I backed off and the subject was never raised again.

[Teakai]

OK - I've got the moon thing sorted. It's a hollowed out planetoid.

This is from David Icke - and I do like Icke.

[Hiram]

I didn't really list theories about the moon.

I merely listed some of the more freakishly coincidental and remarkable qualities that are scientific facts. To some people, the fact that the moon is thousands of times smaller than the Sun, and yet it is the perfect distance from the planet Earth to perfectly cover the sun...and I mean perfectly cover it...during an eclipse........well to some that is just coincidence.

Coincidence is not part of my experience in this plane.

To some, the fact that it orbits in a circular orbit, a fact that rules out it being a captured body, and all but rules out it being a chunk of the earth that was knocked about...well some people shrug and believe this too is a coincidence.

I don't believe in coincidence.

I think these two facts alone let us know there is more to the story than Luna just being a stony satellite.

[conk]

What if the spinning cat is Shroedenger's and you have your eyes closed? Would there be an infinite variety of views? ;

[vipersocks]

Hi Avalonians;) This is my first post, and as an avid reader of this Forum for what seems like forever, I would like to conclude that the Moon as I understand it is a geode purely and simply! Speculation as to whether life exists there should be conducted by the peeps that already call the moon home!

[Hiram]

Hmmmmm. Vipersocks, Okay I'll bite.

Whatsoever do you mean "peeps that already call the moon home"? Dare I speculate as to moon bases etc? heh heh.

Oh.....and you are very welcome here my friend.

[lorien]

I just tried to find, but could not, some pictures that show deep pitch black holes in the moons surface. So deep that you can not see the bottom. Some of them are multiple miles across. Makes you wonder what is down there.

[witchy1]

Welcome vipersocks. can i ask from what sources have you obtaned that opinion? Not disagreeing at all, just like to have all the facts before I make up my own mind
Cheers

[morguana]

Thank you k for taking the time and effort to work out this.....
Have checked calculations and you are correct,
any one else sat down and worked this out?
m



Hollow ? You mean like a giant Ferero Rocher ?? With a soft ganache centre perhaps ?

I too read the 'rang like a bell' comment somewhere, (John Lear?) and subsequently read somewhere else that this was not an accurate quote and it did not happen.

Actually, this was one of the first times I remember thinking to myself, 'how can you believe anything you read?'

Someone says with complete authority that it 'rang like a bell' then someone else says this did not happen.

Personally I agree with operator. If you throw a grain of sand at a BELL even, would it ring like a bell? I doubt it.

Shall we have a bit of fun with maths ? How about volume of a hollow moon, say 100m thick

Vol = 4/3 PI r2 3 - 4/3 PI r1 3 where r1 and r2 are the inner and outer diameters

= 4/3 * 3.14 * 3476 000m 3 - 4/3 * 3.14 * 3475 900 3

= 1.75925 x 10 20 - 1.759099 * 10 20

= 1.518 x 10 16

Now Mass = Volume x Density So.. what shall we make the moon out of ? Iron ? that's 7.86 Kg/m3

So if it was say, a hollow death star space station for example, it would weigh around 100 000 000 000 000 000 kg

Say a round 100 thousand billion tons (UK billions) . And how many tons did the apollo craft weigh ??

So you see, a grain of sand hitting a bell is not far out. You'd need good ears for that one

:)

Note if it was made of cheese.. this figure would reduce to approx 18 thousand billion tons... If it was made out of cardboard, around 8 thousand billion tons

If the skin was only 10 metres thick..this brings it down nicely to 15.18 x 10 15 or 9 thousand billion tons for iron

[lightblue]

Actually, this was one of the first times I remember thinking to myself, 'how can you believe anything you read?'


but equally - how and why believe anything you have read?


.

[Kulapops]

, just like to have all the facts before I make up my own mind
Cheers

Hello again peeps... your friendly neighbourhood K here....

Your post made me smile though... because I thought I'd have a go at approaching this from a factual perspective (that is the simple equation of volume of the difference of two spheres) I chuckled to see how everyone totally ignored this like a pork chop at a bahmitzvah. Then we go off topic for a few pages and I'm pleased to see at least Morguana referencing my calculation again . Thanks Moggie ;)

No one has disputed my estimate for the probable mass/weight of a moon being even as little as 10 metres thick. Given such a moon would have a mass of around 10 thousand billion tons if it were made of iron...and ok.. even if it were made of tin foil it would still be thousands of millions of tons. Well, given this, can you imagine what the mass of the other 3475 900 metres of rock/cheese/tinfoil would weigh?

I think in the earlier calculation , the smaller sphere was 1.5 x 10 20 m3 This is a colossal amount of material to remove. Ok.. if you're being imaginative you could always involve some alien technology lets say a dissolve-o-ray that would remove all of this stuff in seconds... but I thought it would be fun to stick to what we know for now.

I doubt that the moon is hollow and this is because life is not as exciting as you think it is, where you think it is.. yet it is far more amazing where you don't expect it ;)

Much love...

K

P.S. Lightblue.. I think we can believe that classical maths and physics are to be believed up to a point... I should elaborate and say we cannot easily believe 'testimony' that we read (my opinion)

[lightblue]

P.S. Lightblue.. I think we can believe that classical maths and physics are to be believed up to a point... I should elaborate and say we cannot easily believe 'testimony' that we read (my opinion)


what's that point?

what do you know about the non-classical maths and physics?


always tricky to advise what's to be believed in..except for your own self only... :yu: l

.

[Kulapops]

Yes. I quite agree Lightblue... each to their own. If someone wants to believe the moon is hollow, that's up to them, I won't rain on their birthday party. However, I'm submitting a calculation based on known facts.. as we understand them in classical physics. To deny this is a bit like denying gravity exists (quote from Wiki)

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. (Separately it was shown that large spherically-symmetrical masses attract and are attracted as if all their mass were concentrated at their centers.)

This is why.. if you take a box of museli and shake it up and down.. all the flakes will rise to the top and all the nuts will end up at the bottom. This isn't the Weetabix fairy doing this...

Anyway.. scientists are forever making mistakes and pretending they know everything. I for one made a mistake in that calculation. I could say deliberate mistake here ;) but the truth is I used the diameter in the equation and not the radius.

I could rework out the maths. . but I learned enough from the first posting to know that no one is really that bothered...people's beiiefs are an even stronger force than gravity.

I think it's highly unlikely the moon is hollow. Planets are dense at their centre.. this is what gravity does... for any large object, dense matter will be drawn to the centre... look at the gas giants even, or the rings around saturn. I don't know for sure, but sturcturally, there's a chance a body as large as the moon might just collapse under its own weight. Certainly the gravitational effect of the earth on the moon would possibly cause distortions .

I think a bigger question here is, why would people want to invest that the moon is something other than it is? Like David Icke's Hypno ray theory ? I think we just love faith in things we can't know. Makes life more, shall we say, exciting? I believed in Father Christmas for quite a while... made christmas so much more ... entertaining.

P.S. Any kids reading this... he does exist by the way.....let someone prove to me that he doesnt' ;) (oh and a hollow moon thesis on my desk by monday morning too :) )

[Hughe]

Hello again peeps... your friendly neighbourhood K here....

Your post made me smile though... because I thought I'd have a go at approaching this from a factual perspective (that is the simple equation of volume of the difference of two spheres) I chuckled to see how everyone totally ignored this like a pork chop at a bahmitzvah. Then we go off topic for a few pages and I'm pleased to see at least Morguana referencing my calculation again . Thanks Moggie ;)

No one has disputed my estimate for the probable mass/weight of a moon being even as little as 10 metres thick. Given such a moon would have a mass of around 10 thousand billion tons if it were made of iron...and ok.. even if it were made of tin foil it would still be thousands of millions of tons. Well, given this, can you imagine what the mass of the other 3475 900 metres of rock/cheese/tinfoil would weigh?

I think in the earlier calculation , the smaller sphere was 1.5 x 10 20 m3 This is a colossal amount of material to remove. Ok.. if you're being imaginative you could always involve some alien technology lets say a dissolve-o-ray that would remove all of this stuff in seconds... but I thought it would be fun to stick to what we know for now.

I doubt that the moon is hollow and this is because life is not as exciting as you think it is, where you think it is.. yet it is far more amazing where you don't expect it ;)

Much love...

K

P.S. Lightblue.. I think we can believe that classical maths and physics are to be believed up to a point... I should elaborate and say we cannot easily believe 'testimony' that we read (my opinion)

We can't figure out what's inside the moon and the core structures just by calculating moon's mass with the data from NASA or Astronomy body.
All the mass calculations as I know, maybe there is a different way, for satellite or planet like Earth is treated as point mass. It means, a point of mass by Issac Newtons' principal.
Newton proved that even a hollow sphere can be treated a point of mass at the center.

Even the Moon's actual gravity became questionable since the Apollo missions by Moon researchers.

There are different tools to understand the internal structure of the Moon.

[Kulapops]

P.S. It's not just the moon that has synchronous rotation with the earth... so nothing too special there....

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980218b.html


The Question
(Submitted February 18, 1998)

The Earth's moon orbits the earth with one side always facing the Earth. Do other moons orbit their respective planets in the same manner?


The Answer
Most of the satellites in the solar system rotate synchronously like our moon (see http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/luna.html). An example of one that doesn't is Saturn's moon Hyperion. Its rotation is actually chaotic. You can find out more about it at http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/hyperion.html
Also, http://www.solarviews.com/eng/data1.htm#orb

, which is a table of orbital and rotation periods, among other things.

Damian Audley and John Cannizzo
for Ask an Astrophysicist

[Kulapops]

We can't figure out what's inside the moon and the core structures just by calculating moon's mass with the data from NASA or Astronomy body.
All the mass calculations as I know, maybe there is a different way, for satellite or planet like Earth is treated as point mass. It means, a point of mass by Issac Newtons' principal.
Newton proved that even a hollow sphere can be treated a point of mass at the center.

Even the Moon's actual gravity became questionable since the Apollo missions by Moon researchers.

There are different tools to understand the internal structure of the Moon.


As I understand it.. this is not speculation of the moon's composition, or it being treated as a point mass. Yes, surely you could treat it as a point mass for gravitational computations.. but that's not what's being discussed here. That is, why would it "ring like a bell"? Is that because it is hollow? I have merely pointed out a potential mass for even a hollow moon would be many orders of magnitude greater than that of an impacting spacecraft. Even if you take a collossal impact velocity into account in that momentum - it seems unlikely that would be enough to make the whole satellite vibrate. . .

It would be interesting to know if there are any data relating to any hollow heavenly bodies. I think it would be rare for that to occur naturally, and as I said, if you're going to hollow out a rock 3476 Km across... that's a lot of rock to remove...

I'd be interested to see some scientific data on hollow astronomical bodies if anyone has any...

K

[bashi]

Lear is right:

Between 1969-72 Apollo astronauts were placing seismometers on
the Moon, and the first "moonquakes" were registered.


Unloading:
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/320/alsepunloading.jpg (http://img51.imageshack.us/i/alsepunloading.jpg/)

Placing them:
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/6199/alsepunloading2.jpg (http://img51.imageshack.us/i/alsepunloading2.jpg/)




More than four seismometers were deployed.
Now, the findings are quite interesting:

There were basically three sources of seismic signals identified:
– “Controlled source” (Original NASA term)
– Meteorite impacts
-- Moonquakes – tidally-triggered, shallow and deep

There were strange signals received which repeated themselves periodically about every month. These signals were explained as possible “geo-tidal stress symptoms”.
This version can be easily challenged, as the moon should have for long balanced itself, as it is always showing the same side to Earth.

The impact/quake signals had long reverberations of ~ 60 minutes duration.
Here some examples:


http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6412/moonquake2.jpg (http://img405.imageshack.us/i/moonquake2.jpg/)

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1553/moonseismogram2.jpg (http://img88.imageshack.us/i/moonseismogram2.jpg/)


The ALSEPs were collecting data for about 8 years and then NASA switched them off, allegedly to save money. That ended somehow the discussion about the seismic signals.

Does anybody know that the Moon's centre of gravity is 2-3 km off balance?

.

[Kulapops]

Thanks for the interesting info Bashi...

It's great to read some more info around the story.

That there is seismic activity at the impact site is totally believable, as is the thought that you could measure this at another location further away. But how much? When some say it 'rang like a bell', one imagines he whole moon visibly shaking... and one could imagine the idea occuring that it must be very flimsy, light, or hollow for something like that to occur.

One can understand how a metaphor that the moon 'rang like a bell' could be applied to the detection of a clear sesmic signal at the impact site.. there being little other seismic activity recorded before or after. This might be the most likely conclusion for the expression: 'data was clearly/easily recorded '

It's a shame.. or significant? that there is no scale or magnitude on the Y axis of those graphs. So do we have any idea what magnitude of seismic activity was recorded ? If this showed something close to a high magnitutde earthquake on the Earth, that would be intersting indeed. Do you have any further seismic information Bashi? Some numbers would make interesting reading...

K

[bashi]

The shallow quakes are the more stronger ones, between 2-4 on the Richter-scale.

Here the different quakes:

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/6128/moonseismogram4.jpg (http://img249.imageshack.us/i/moonseismogram4.jpg/)

Here a rough graph about the periodicity:

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/1959/moonseismogram7.jpg (http://img189.imageshack.us/i/moonseismogram7.jpg/)


As can be seen, a second periodicity sticks out, with a 206 days period.
The published timeframe is only ~18 months.

.

[Kulapops]

Thanks Bashi...

[Carmody]

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. (Separately it was shown that large spherically-symmetrical masses attract and are attracted as if all their mass were concentrated at their centers.)

Except for the point that it is a theory and not a law. Law is a societal stricture thing and has no place in scientific theory. And that there are no facts in existence, of any kind. Well, one: the fact that there are no facts. Nothing else. Zip. Nada.

And then we add in that Even Einstein's equations show that the planets do not stay in position, at all, if his gravitation equations are use. A small difference between observation and theory shows that his works do not accurately apply. That the planets would simply fly off in different directions, if his were in use.

Then we get to the 'electric universe' model and the idea of Gravity as a PUSH. Which Einstein agreed could be the case when he said, "I may have gotten the sign wrong". When done that way, then... gravity works. A push against dimensional intrusion differentials.

[bashi]

The seismic signals indicate that the inner structure of the moon is "plastic" or semi-molten, not hollow.
A particular waveform, the S-wave, can travel only through solid matter. Liquid or plastic matter absorbs it.
The quake signals from the dark side were not showing S-wave form, thus leading to the conclusion:


http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7097/mooncrustb.jpg (http://img406.imageshack.us/i/mooncrustb.jpg/)


But there are other Moon mysteries...

[Hiram]

If you read my earliest post on this thread, I had said the the "Rang like a bell" was a figure of speech to describe the regular tremors (seismic activity) heard at multiple locations around the moon after the impact.

If you take that statement literally, then yes, it seems quite fantastical and mathematically implausible. If you understand that it was a simile used to describe some anomalous seismic activity, then it makes better sense.

Also, if you take "Hollow Moon" to mean just that, that it is completely Hollow like a basketball, once again an argument can be made that this is ridiculous.

If you take the statement to mean that it is full of caverns, with large voids and possible artificial underground structures which might possible collapse quite easily with seismic activity--well then once again this would make better sense.

There is also no good explanation for a circular orbit aside from accretion...and any captured bodies should have an eliptical orbit.

With this being said I have never heard a good "scientific" hypothesis as to how the moon came to be where it is, why it is this perfect distance to appear the exact same size as the sun in our skies, and why such a large body is orbiting such a similar sized body (Earth) proportionally.

Additionally, there are many ideas as to why there is much evidence for vulcanism in the moon,--large areas of lava-flows on the surface et cetera. But its difficult to come up with a model that will hold-up with the other ideas planetary geologists have come up with as to the moons nature.

To my understanding, they can't decide if the moon is geologically "dead" or "alive-dynamic" and a geologically dynamic moon does not fit in with the current models. Yet the evidence is there.

I have heard many "Unscientific" explanations for why the moon is there. I am sure that to all but very few of us...these things will remain a mystery for the time being.

[morguana]

Your posts here folks have been a delight to read, love to have meat on the bones as it were (not that I eat meat :) ), thanks bashi and Hiram for the info/ideas you have both posted.
m

[truthseekerdan]

Moon Secrets Revealed - John Lear & Richard Hoagland

John Lear is the son of the famous inventor of the Lear Jet. He is a Lockheed L-1011 Captain and is highly regarded in aviation circles. He has flown over 150 test aircraft and has won every award granted by the Federal Aviation Administration. John also holds 18 world speed records and has worked for 28 different Aircraft Corporations. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, John began coming forward with some startling revelations concerning the subject of aerial phenomena and Unidentified Flying Objects.

Lear returned for a discussion about photographic evidence for cities and mining operations on the moon. He said that mining operations for such substances as helium-3 have been going on for years, and that antigravity ships, secretly launched from Antarctica, arrive at the moon in only one hour's time. He cited a poster known as "sleeper" (blog) at the abovetopsecret.com forum as one of the sources for his information.

Lear also argued that the moon was towed into its current orbit by a huge electromagnetic vehicle, and that vehicle can be seen in a photo taken of the moon crater Tsiolkovsky. He also believes that the moon contains a breathable atmosphere, as evidenced by photos showing smoke or vapor coming from the surface.

Joining the conversation during the third hour, Richard C. Hoagland concurred with Lear that there are artificial structures on the moon, yet he suggested they may be ancient rather than new. If there is mining that is taking place there, it could be for the "retro-engineering of ancient technology," said Hoagland, who added that he does not think the photographic evidence supports the notion that the moon has an atmosphere. During the last hour, Lear took questions from the listeners. (http://www.thelivingmoon.com) Enjoy!

AOeTycHrUvA

Playlist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOeTycHrUvA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL)

[Zillah]

David Icke on the moon - posted today on his site - enjoy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFuPL3wz4Qs&feature=player_embedded

[bennycog]

nice summation there kula...
we all would definitely agree maybe the ringing theory is put out to pasture. ( maybe it was more like a !clunk! whenit landed) it is not one i took in to heart anyway.. but the discussion should continue on the hollw theory..

[bashi]

Yes the man in the moon…

Hiram: This "Rang like a bell" is not necessarily a figure of speech:
The Moon has a very unusual structure: Its crust is heavier and harder than the inner layers (if there are)
This made the Moon swing in fact like a bell. Here some pics:



http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/9545/mooncrustc.jpg (http://img823.imageshack.us/i/mooncrustc.jpg/)


It accounts for the long time (~1 hour) for some quakes to subside. Of course you need good ears…

The very fact that the ALSEPs were switched off (on budgetary reasons!) should make us think. These machines had radioactive decay batteries, which could have allowed them to run for centuries. So why switch them off? If there is no money to process and interpret the data, let it just get recorded for maybe later.
What might be the reasons to switch it off? The ALEPs were sending the data openly back to Earth, thus it was readable for everybody. It seems something was inside the data which made it necessary to switch the ALEPs off, just to keep a lid on it.
The NASA found a way to listen into the Moon without having guests:
The Apollo astronauts left laser reflectors on the surface (as well as seismometers)
and through modern interferometric methods they can now exclusively listen to the greys coughing…

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/9792/reflectometer.jpg (http://img824.imageshack.us/i/reflectometer.jpg/)

They found that the moon is slowly drifting away from Earth. Actually is the Moon receding due to tidal torques at a rate of ~4 cm per year.
Then they calculated how old it should be, by just going back in time:
The Moon must only have formed ~1.5 Billion years ago!

This result does not fit at all into the data, which clearly indicates an age > 4.5 Billion years.
So - to fit all in - they (the scientists) assumed that the Earth should have been more heavier in ancient times: Something had “evaporated”, thus causing the Earth to become lighter. This nonsense was discussed seriously as a possible reason for the discrepancy. See here:
The “evaporation” theory allows to manipulate (Q) the time to match with 4.5 Billion years.


http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/9752/moonseismogram5.jpg (http://img64.imageshack.us/i/moonseismogram5.jpg/)


But this theory does not explain that the required rotational speeds of the moon an Earth are not matching with the actual ones.
Even if they can somehow explain that away, what this implies is:
The Earth and the Moon have developed out of the same parent-body. If so, then the chemical composition of the two bodies should be similar.
But the Moon has a markedly different chemical composition than Earth:
For example
1. The potassium-uranium ratio
- is for Meteorites 1:60000
- is for the Earth 1: 10000
- is for the Moon 1:1000 to 1:2000 only

2. The Iron content is much higher in the basalts of the Moon than on Earth
3. The Nickel content is lower on the Mon-basalts than on Earth-basalts. This strongly suggests a different origin of the Moon-basalts than the origin of Earth-basalts
4. Moon rocks contain Xenon isotopes from the fission of Plutonium 244, which are not observed in terrestrial rocks.
5. Uranium 236 and neptunium 237 were discovered in lunar rocks. These elements are not found in nature on Earth
6.The age of the moon rocks:
Here a quote from a publication: “The youngest Moon rocks are virtually as old as the oldest Earth rocks. The earliest processes and events that probably affected both planetary bodies can now only be found on the Moon.”

What they don’t tell you is this: The Earth is 4.4 Billion years old; the age of oldest meteorites (meteoroids that survive the plunge to Earth) is 4.56 Billion years, but the age of oldest moon rocks show an age >5 Billion years! The moon dust is even older than 7 Billion years!
As this would prove that the Moon is not from this solar-system, they now adjust by saying that the error-probabilities allow the Moon to be 4.5 Billion years old.
How nicely it all fits now! ;)
Some still say the Moon was an exoplanet, captured by the Earth. Thus the Moon’s age can be explained, but not the orbit. Almost any captured body will move in a highly elliptical orbit.

7. The Greek authors Aristotle and Plutarch, and Roman authors Apolllonius Rhodius and Ovid all wrote of a group of people called the Proselenes who lived in the central mountainous area of Greece called Arcadia. The Proselenes claimed title to this area because their forebears were there "before there was a moon in the heavens." This claim is substantiated by symbols on the wall of the Courtyard of Kalasasaya, near the city of Tiahuanaco, Bolivia, which record that the moon came into orbit around the Earth between 11,500 and 13, 000 years ago, long before recorded history.

So what do we have: A BIG Moon which is obviously from far, far away, which moves in an impossible orbit. For me it looks like someone placed it there…

[Wesly]

I was told by ETs as a child that it was a tool to record time travel and time lines.

[Hiram]

Bashi,

You have given texture and detail to my crude splashes of paint. I hold the exact same hypothesis. Since mainstream science will not accept that as a possibility, then it will have to remain a "mystery" for now.

They will not even accept the true histories of the people of the Earth. They are not true scientists in that they try to bend the science to fit their hypothesis. In true scientific fashion, one tries to disprove the hypothesis.

[Carmody]

I work, to some degree, in the world of mechanics, vibration, electromagnetic, and..specifically now, resonance, resonance control, energy transfer and translation systems, electromagnetic resonance control, materials science,..and molecular considerations and design tied to those facets, along with the MHD (magnetohydrodynamic) aspects of complex electrical function.

Due to the placement and the position and shaping of the great pyramid, it could almost be said as being used as a vibration control device for energetic egress. to gate energies from the earth or to damp the energies of the earth. The converse can also be true, it can also be used, like one of Tesla's 'earthquake machines' to excite the planet. Or to simply gate that energetic field of the earth.

Regardless, it can be seen as a vent or an energy/energetic linkage/gate type device. Whether it is for energetic control, venting, translation, amplification, acceleration....who knows. It might even be possible to see it as some sort of 'tuned ionizer spray tip'. An Ionizer tip that is designed to have a specific sort of energetic type of interaction. An interaction that could be the same as any of the possible noted effects and energy relation aspects.

One thing for sure is that it is definitely a tuned matched complementary resonant device, placed in the exact correct global position and polarization orientation. I'm curious how that connects to the moon, position and placement wise. I men VERY curious. I mean 'linchpin in the potentials presented by critical thinking-hypothesis' kinda curious.

For the moon, you see, is connected (relates to), to the earth, in VERY similar ways. Which means there is a relation but the moon/pyramid positioning relationships need some looking at.

It may even be that the two act as a pair.

One creates a polarized ionic kind of field, possibly a scalar temporal field of some sort... around the earth (The Great Pyramid) and the Moon...possibly... shapes it.

It could even be that the moon complimentary resonance and design matching parameters are there in order to oscillate the earth...and that is used to create the energetic field that the Pyramid then vents off the earth to form a scalar/dimensional field related with and to the Van Allen belt.

You have to charge an ionizer into a high level static differential... before you can use the specifically matched ionizer spray tip.... to gate the differential field in the proper way that the ionizer system in question is....designed to do. The point of that facet of this hypothesis... is that pyramids, in the mechanical sense of energetic charge-'gating of oscillating fields'...acts much like a diode and thus is a PUMP/(flap valve) of sorts.

(sidenote: one of my first personal recollections of direct observation and MIB type experiences was directly following my posting on a forum, about 6 years back, about the Pyramid being a giant temporal pump.)

But, from my experiences in these given fields combined, they tell me that one of these scenarios has more truth to it than many might want to be possible.

If you add the age of the pyramid to the age of the moon according to the Greek Proselenes, you get complimentary creation dates, to some degree.

As an example, it is possible to see time, mass, gravity, etc as particle level vibrational charge and oscillation differentials. Voltage polarization has considerable amount to do with resonance and capacity to energize or oscillate. Think of the frog levitation in the tube trick from a few years back. this was done with intense oriented and polarized magnetic fields, IIRC. Static electricity can and does do similar things. The 'space antenna' attempt a few years back had it's wire system explode from static differential potential (Voltage differentials) on one of the shuttle flight tests of that device.

This oscillation of a potential field (voltage field) falls straight into Kozyrevs findings on weight changes in objects, which is indicative of scalar or dimensional fields. Which means it is automatically temporal change/differential as well. From what we know about dimensional aspects, regarding spirituality, we get straight into dimensional differences and dimensional differentials regarding spirituality.

BTW, this also indicates that the chemtrails are doing something to that polarized charge field, with regard to disturbing the creation or actions of that said field.

Joseph Farrell wrote a series of books on a similar subject, methinks, but I have yet to read them. I'd better do so. I have one of the books in that series, so I'd better get to it.

If any of the above it true, it is interesting to note that the earth's oscillating field and it's intensity ....right now...is dropping to zero. We're getting close to the zero point regarding the earth's field, at this time.

for some it may not work, with regard to acceptance of it well enough to contemplate the possibilities, but..we appear to be, with this potential set of data..we appear to be complementing the hypothesis and statements, in the basics at least..of David Wilcock. And some others, in their own way.

It's a hypothesis and the evidence is circumstantial, but interestingly enough, it's there ---and it's based on known effects and known considerations.

[Foxie Loxie]

Do we have any definite proof that our Moon is an artificial satellite? Just trying to piece together all the things I have learned! :waving:

[DeDukshyn]

By "artificial" do you mean crafted by beings or do you mean "not natural" as in, the moon is / was a foregn entity and became picked up in Earth's orbit?

When I was in school I was taught the moon formed from the earth when both where still liquid molten gaseous whatever, but now they say the moon was formed by another planet colliding with earth, something that is reflected metaphorically in Sumerian texts, as I read about in the 90's in a book by Alan Alford.

Other theories suggest it is hollow and made from titanium; many interesting odd, and wide ranging theories with our moon.

I find it interesting that "craziness" or major changes in psyche are attributed to the moon, such as werewolves, and even the term "lunatic" has a base word of Luna which is the name of our moon. I also find interesting that women's menses, when cycling correctly has the exact same timeframe as lunar phases ... all very interesting.

It is clearly not a natural satellite of the Earth, this is for certain. Compare Earth's "twin" planet Venus ... no moon, compare Mars' moons ... small asteroids barely worth mentioning ... our moon rival's the grandness of most of the gas giants moons ... it makes little sense that we have our moon as we do, unless you start speculating, hence all the interesting theories that have come out.

Sorry I don't have anything proper to present you, just my musings. I do believe there are reports of the moon ringing like a bell after the US crashed one of their satelites into it -- not sure how that would be verified though, unless the have seismic sensors there, which they may.

I'm sure this thread will get the interest and links it deserves, its always a fascinating topic. :)

[ljwheat]

Do we have any definite proof that our Moon is an artificial satellite? Just trying to piece together all the things I have learned! :waving:

yes, very simple get your hands on a good pair of binoculars go out any night and sit and look with your own eye's,, and ask yourself one question... why is it that no matter how small or big --- every single crater only is so deep. the rings are big and small but the surface depth is the same. shallow crater's millions of them -- all with the same floor why?

[Bill Ryan]

.
What a great question. :star:

My comments...


There’s no ‘proof’ as such!



There may be something anomalous about the moon’s density. It doesn't seem to be as ‘solid’ as it ‘should’ be. See this (very interesting!) Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Moon_Theory






The Spaceship Moon Theory, also known as the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory, is a hypothesis that claims the Earth's moon may actually be an alien spacecraft. The hypothesis was put forth by two members of the then Soviet Academy of Sciences, Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, in a July 1970 article entitled "Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?"

Vasin and Shcherbakov's thesis was that the Moon is a hollowed-out planetoid created by unknown beings with technology far superior to any on Earth. Huge machines would have been used to melt rock and form large cavities within the Moon, with the resulting molten lava spewing out onto the Moon's surface. The Moon would therefore consist of a hull-like inner shell and an outer shell made from metallic rocky slag. For reasons unknown, the "Spaceship Moon" was then placed into orbit around the Earth.

Their hypothesis relies heavily on the suggestion that large lunar craters, generally assumed to be formed from meteor impact, are generally too shallow and have flat or even convex bottoms. Small craters have a depth proportional to their diameter but larger craters are not deeper. It is hypothesized that small meteors are making a cup-shaped depression in the rocky surface of the moon while the larger meteors are drilling through a five-mile thick rocky layer and hitting a high-tensile "hull" underneath.

Additionally the authors note that the surface material of the moon is substantially composed of different elements (chromium, titanium and zirconium) from the surface of the Earth. They also note that some moon rocks are older than the oldest rocks on Earth.

They postulate that the moon comprises a rocky outer layer a few miles thick covering a strong hull perhaps 20 miles thick and beneath that there is a void, possibly containing an atmosphere.

In 1975, Don W. Wilson published Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon in which he compiled what he considered supporting facts for this hypothesis.

In 1976 George H. Leonard published Somebody Else is on the Moon in which he reprinted numerous NASA photographs of the lunar surface and suggested that large scale machinery was visible in these pictures.



It’s even more anomalous that the Moon (as seen from Earth) is EXACTLY the same size as the sun. Many people have observed that that looks like ‘intelligent design’.



Camelot witness Henry Deacon (Arthur Neumann) stated here (http://projectcamelot.org/livermore_physicist_4.html) (and he had edited/corrected the page himself to ensure accuracy):





Incredibly, Henry stated that the one moon we have now is known to have been engineered into position eons ago. When we asked if this was done by our ancestors or by our creators, the answer came back "both".

[aviators]

Below are a couple of experiments you can do for yourself if you like.
let us know your results if you decide to do the experiments.:sun:
Both point to the moon being something quite different than our science textbooks say.
Moon may be very close to earth. 3 -5 thousand miles away. NOT 240,000
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8waPQe8_Gi8

Researchers are now showing moonlight is cooler than the moon shade.
What does this mean? Moonlight is NOT reflected sun light.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iMBUJQDzMys

BTW Both of these experiments can be duplicated. :cool:

[Hervé]

[...]
Researchers are now showing moonlight is cooler than the moon shade.
What does this mean? Moonlight is NOT reflected sun light.
[...]

I have to conclude those researchers are not taking lunar eclipses into account and are jumping to nonsensical conclusions...

[Bluegreen]

We have the Director of NASA saying it is easier to explain its absence rather than its presence
We have reports from 1962 Russians that it is much older than Earth
And of course it rang like a bell when the astronauts jettisoned their lunar module
lnCLCFfBklk
33012

[giovonni]

Greeting's Loxie

Here's something you might find interesting though a bit dated - I first posted this 7 years ago back on 02-10-2009,
on the original Project Avalon forum ... on the What does it mean - column ...

Titled

Michael Tellinger's the mysteries of the Moon~ from high strangeness to innuendos

***

Michael Tellinger is the author of "Slave Species of god", a book that presents shocking new evidence suggesting that humans were created as a less intelligent species some 250 000 years ago. Since it was first published back in 2006. Michael Tellinger has started a monthly newsletter, where he sends out information of the latest discoveries regarding the topics he talks about in his book.

Michael's site
here http://www.slavespecies.com/index.asp

This thread will examine the many mysteries and facts concerning the planet Earth's closest heavenly cmpanion. It also will look into the high strangeness of it cosmic makeup, and the probable possibility of it having a low density, but breathable (air)atmosphere ~ too the innuendos ~ that the Moon ~ is really an artificial body ~ placed here by off planet beings?


Updated 2/16/09
Note~ Parts 1, 2 and 3 are now posted below.


From: Michael Tellinger

WHAT really happened on the MOON? Astronauts reveal encounters with ETs and UFOs.

Part 1

After reaching the Holy Grail of space exploration, NASA suddenly and unexpectedly stopped all moon missions after Apollo 17. WHY?

While most westerners have in some ways been shielded from UFO stories by the major media groups over the past several decades, the people in the USSR have been far more exposed to these ideas. To the average Russian, UFO and alien stories are not strange at all. Russian television dedicated much of its airtime to programmes surrounding sightings and abductions and other interaction with so-called aliens. It is therefore not surprising that there are more recorded sightings of UFOs and aliens in the old USSR (Russia and its new brothers) than any other country. If my memory serves me right, at the height of its TV exposure and popularity there were an average 90,000 reported sightings per annum in the USSR , and consequently discussed on television. It is as a consequence of this openness towards this subject, that in October 2007 the Russians most likely blew the lid off this dungeon of secrecy so closely guarded by NASA.

There seems to be some weird agenda and a completely different mindset in the West regarding the existence or proof of other advanced beings in the universe. Many government agencies in the West have done all they can to suppress such information to the best of their ability. Why? The answer is more complex than we would ever imagine.

By the 29th October 2007 astronomers have discovered 251 new planets, most of which were discovered between 2005 and 2007. This means that if this rate persists, these planetary discoveries will grow exponentially to several million new planets in the next decade. So, with the help of science and astronomy, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to argue the idea that we are all alone in this universe.

The past two decades have seen a number of US and Russian astronauts confess to seeing UFOs and even ETs while in space or on the surface of the moon. While this kind of information should be making headline news, as it holds serious implications for our safety as a species on a planet called Earth, it has been relegated to the "fine print" of global news. Again we need to ask, why?

Gordon Cooper was one of USA 's first astronauts. One of the original seven Mercury astronauts, Cooper orbited the Earth for a record 34 hours, which took him on 22 orbits in the spacecraft Faith 7, in May 1963.

In his post-NASA career, Cooper became known as an outspoken believer in UFOs and repeatedly claimed that the US government was covering up its knowledge of extraterrestrial activity. In 1985 Gordon Cooper delivered a message to the UN in New York , during a discussion on UFOs and ETs. The speech was based on his own personal experience of UFO sightings in space and the additional testimony of other Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts. The panel was chaired by then UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim. Cooper died on the 4th October 2004 at age 77.

"I believe that these extraterrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets, which are a little more technically advanced than we are on Earth. I feel that we need to have a top level, coordinated program to scientifically collect and analyze data from all over the Earth concerning any type of encounter, and to determine how best to interfere with these visitors in a friendly fashion.

We may first have to show them that we have learned how to resolve our problems by peaceful means rather than warfare, before we are accepted as fully qualified universal team members. Their acceptance will have tremendous possibilities of advancing our world in all areas. Certainly then it would seem that the UN has a vested interest in handling the subject quickly and properly.

I should point out that I am not an experienced UFO professional researcher - I have not as yet had the privilege of flying a UFO nor of meeting the crew of one. However, I do feel that I am somewhat qualified to discuss them, since I have been into the fringes of the vast areas of which they travel. Also, I did have occasion in 1951 to have two days of observation of many flights of them, of different sizes flying in fighter formation, generally from west to east over Europe . They were at a higher altitude than we could reach with our jet fighters....

If the U.N. agrees to pursue this project and lend the credibility to it, perhaps many more well qualified people will agree to step forth and provide help and information."

This kind of evidence simply highlights the probability that there is a huge cover up to keep such information from the mainstream population. Whatever the reasons for the cover-ups by global powers, which includes the mainstream media, raises some profound questions.

And while NASA has always claimed that the findings of lunar and space expeditions have never been held secret, it is curious to note that Dr. Farouk El Baz, one of NASA's foremost scientists admitted, "not every discovery has been announced".

Nearly all the astronauts were military officers who were governed by an extremely strict code of conduct which included being silenced under orders. As time erodes their loyalties and their conscience caught up, along with the inevitable ageing process, these space cowboys started spilling the beans.

Apollo 14 astronaut E. MITCHELL had this to say:

"I'm convinced there's life throughout the universe. It's just a question of how developed. Are they a few thousand years ahead of us? It doesn't take much."

The Canadian reports that according to transcripts of the technical debriefing following the Apollo 11 mission, astronauts Armstrong, Collins, and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin told of their encounter with a large cylindrical UFO, even before reaching the moon. Aldrin officially presented his encounters with extraterrestrials on CNN's Larry King Live.

"The first unusual thing that we saw I guess was one day out or pretty close to the moon. It had a sizable dimension to it". He further said the Apollo crew first thought the object was the Saturn 4 booster rocket (S-IVB) but he added, "We called the ground and were told the S-IVB was 6 000 miles away."

Aldrin described the UFO as a cylinder, while Armstrong said it was "really two rings… two connected rings". Collins added, "It was a hollow cylinder. But then you could change the focus on the sextant and it would be replaced by this open-book shape. It was really weird."

But even stranger was the experience of Aldrin and Armstrong after they reached the moon. According a story on the 20th July 1969 published in the San Bernardino Sun-Telegram, the astronauts saw eerie lights inside a crater near the point where their lunar module was due to touch down the next day.

Armstrong described a mysterious bright light on the inner wall of crater Aristarchus, located north of their flight path on their first sweep around the moon. "It seems to have a slight amount of florescence to it. The area in the crater is quite bright" he remarked. Aldrin confirmed his description, "That area is definitely brighter than anything else I can see. There doesn't appear to be any colour involved in it. It looks like an eerie sight."

On The Oprah Winfrey Show on the 19th July 1991, Mitchell hinted that all information regarding UFOs has not been released. "I do believe that there is a lot more known about extraterrestrial investigation than is available to the public right now…and has been for a long time... it's a long, long story. It goes back to World War II when all of that happened, and is highly classified stuff."

In 1978 Gordon Cooper wrote a letter to the ambassador of the Mission of Grenada to the United Nations supporting a UN initiative to study UFOs. Cooper stated that astronauts "are very reluctant even to discuss UFOs due to the great numbers of people who have indiscriminately sold fake stories and forged documents, abusing their names and reputations without hesitation. Those few astronauts who have continued to participate in the UFO field have had to do so very cautiously. There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane."

Cooper had an encounter with a UFO on the ground at Edwards Air Force Base on May 2, 1957. Cooper gave this account of the incident in 1993: "I had a crew that was filming an installation of a precision landing system we were installing out on the dry lake bed, and they were there with stills and movies, and filmed the whole installation and they came running in to tell me that this UFO, a little saucer, had come down right over them, put down three gear, and landed about 50 yards from them, and as they proceeded to go on over to get a closer shot of it, it lifted up, put the gear in, and disappeared in a rapid rate of speed."

"And so I had to follow my directions as a military (officer?)... I had to look up the regulations on who I was to call to report this, which I did, and they ordered me to immediately have the film developed, put it in a pouch, and send them by the commanding general's plane to Washington , which I did. And that was the last I've ever heard of the film."

No public report regarding this incident has ever been lodged, and although the event was listed in the Project Blue Book index, a full report and clear photos are suspiciously absent.
In a 1996 interview Cooper dismissed all conventional explanations for his experience and this is what he had to say. "Well, I figured it was somebody coming from some distant place to visit us."

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence was presented by Christopher Kraft, who was Director of the NASA tracking base in Houston during the Apollo moon missions when he revealed the following conversation, but only after he left his employ at NASA. Kraft stated that there was 1.) a public… and 2.) a secret private A.S.A. radio frequency between the moon and Mission Control and that the conversation below took place during a mysterious two minute interruption in public transmissions.

Once again the unexpected hand of technology intervened as proof of this conversation, when hundreds of independent civilian radio-ham operators with powerful VHF equipment reported hearing the transmission from the Apollo 11 crew, independently from each other thousands of miles apart on Earth. It is further reported that Soviet radio operators also picked up the conversation and published it in Moscow shortly after the event.

ASTRONAUTS NEIL ARMSTRONG and BUZZ ALDRIN speaking from the Moon:

"Those are giant things. No, no, no ... this is not an optical illusion. No one is going to believe this!"

MISSION CONTROL ( HOUSTON ): "What...what...what? What the hell is happening? What's wrong with you?"

ASTRONAUTS: "They're here under the surface."

MISSION CONTROL: "What's there? Emission interrupted... interference control calling Apollo II."

ASTRONAUTS: "We saw some visitors. They were there for awhile, observing the instruments."

MISSION CONTROL: "Repeat your last information."

ASTRONAUTS: "I say that there were other spaceships. They're lined up on the other side of the crater."

MISSION CONTROL: "Repeat...repeat!"

ASTRONAUTS: "Let us sound this orbita ..... In 625 to 5... automatic relay connected... My hands are shaking so badly I can't do anything. Film it? God, if these damned cameras have picked up anything... what then?"

MISSION CONTROL: "Have you picked up anything?"

ASTRONAUTS: "I didn't have any film at hand. Three shots of the saucers or whatever they were that were ruining the film."

MISSION CONTROL: "Control, control here. Are you on your way? Is the uproar with the UFOs over?

ASTRONAUTS: "They've landed there. There they are and they are watching us."

MISSION CONTROL: "The mirrors, the mirrors...have you set them up?"

ASTRONAUTS: "Yes, they're in the right place. But whoever made those space ships surely can come tomorrow and remove them. Over and out."

There is an unconfirmed report documented by Steve Omar, that when Buzz Aldrin opened the door after landing on the moon, he immediately saw a transparent ethereal being staring at him from outside. Another mysterious radio message from the moon was broadcast on French public television only once, after which it was censored. That transmission appeared to be a mysterious, but clearly spoken alien language.

Famous French historian and author Robbert Charroux published the transmission which has been covered-up and suppressed in the US . It originated from US astronaut Worden who transmitted it to NASA, but expert linguists have been unable to translate the message since. Or have they?

The Moon is truly a mysterious satellite trapped in Earth's orbit. Scientists are still at odds about the origins of this heavenly body. Virtually every aspect of the moon is very curious indeed and forces us to examine it in greater detail and with more of an open mind than ever before – when we consider writings by ancient civilisations of planet Earth before it had a moon!

My next article will look at more transmitted conversations between astronauts on various Apollo missions; some Moon Facts; and Russian views on all of this. In the meantime here is a fascinating website to explore.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/


Part 2

STRANGE MOON FACTS
The mystery of the moon keeps growing

After months of research and digging up information about our mysterious satellite the moon, I am once again reminded how important it is to keep an open mind at all times. Just when I thought I had a pretty good idea about the moon, its history and its relation to Earth, my research and the relentless work of many other nosey scientists dishes up a real feast of information to consume in small, digestible bite-size chunks.


The first chairman of NASA's Lunar Exploration Committee, Robert Jastrow, said that "the moon is the Rosetta stone of the planets." Let's hope it allows us to decipher as much of our human history as the Rosetta stone did for Egyptology. And so far, it certainly seem that it can.


I urge you to set aside all you ever thought you knew about this planetary satellite and allow yourself to imagine the most bizarre set of possibilities. As I scratch for historic and new information about the moon, I keep discovering such incredible new material that it forces me to reconsider all I thought I knew. There is certainly a lot more to the moon than meets the eye on the first, second and third inspection. So before we carry on with the story of the Astronauts and their experiences on the moon here are some fascinating facts about the moon – just to shake things up a little.


This information was compiled by Ronald Regehr; a researcher and scientist in the defence industry and NASA. His main attribute seems to be that he is an out-of-the-box thinker. I extracted and edited some of the more juicy bits of info to tickle your fancy.


1. Moon's Age:
Is much older than previously expected and maybe even older than the Earth or even the Sun. Earth's age is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old at the most by some scientists – while various moon rocks were dated at 5.3 billion years old. What's more puzzling is that the dust upon which they were resting was at least another billion years older.

2. Rock's Origin:
The chemical composition of the dust below the rocks differs remarkably from the rocks themselves. This excludes the possibility that the dust resulted from the weathering rocks themselves. Where did the rocks come from? Somewhere else?

3. Heavier Elements on Surface:
On Earth and the composition of other planets, the heavier elements are normally found in the core while the lighter materials are concentrated at the surface. But not so with the moon. The abundance of refractory elements like titanium in the surface areas is so pronounced, that several geologists proposed that the refractory compounds must have been brought to the moon's surface in great quantity in some unknown way. They are adamant. They don't know how, but there is no other way for this to have happened!

4. Water Vapour:
On the 7th March 1971, lunar instruments that were positioned on the moon by the astronauts recorded a cloud of water vapour passing across the surface of the moon. The cloud covered an area of about 100 square miles and lasted 14 hours.

5. Magnetic Rocks:
Moon rocks are magnetised. This is very strange because there is no magnetic field on the moon itself. And it could not have originated from a "lose call" with Earth because such an encounter would have ripped the moon apart.

6. No Volcanoes:
Some of the moon's craters originated internally, yet there is no indication that the moon was ever hot enough to produce volcanic eruptions.

7. Moon Mascons:
Mascons are large, dense, circular masses, lying twenty to forty miles beneath the centres of each of the moon's large maria (dried crater-like ocean beds). Some scientists suggest that these are broad, disk-shaped objects, that could even be some kind of artificial constructions. Huge circular disks would not appear perfectly centred beneath each huge mare by coincidence or accident, they claim.

8. Seismic Activity:
Hundreds of "moonquakes" are recorded each year that cannot be attributed to meteor strikes. In November 1958, Soviet astronomer Nikolay A. Kozyrev of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory photographed a gaseous eruption of the moon near the crater Alphonsus. He also detected a reddish glow that lasted for about an hour. In 1963, astronomers at the Lowell Observatory also saw reddish glows on the crests of ridges in the Aristarchus region.

What is really fascinating about these events, is that they were observed to be identical in their activity and they occur precisely and periodically, repeating themselves as the moon moves closer to Earth. These are probably not natural phenomena.

9. Hollow Moon:
The moon's mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth's mean density is 5.5. What does this mean? In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, "If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere."

Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the moon's reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where is "simply a cavity."

MIT's Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote, "the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon's gravitational field… indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow."

In Carl Sagan's work Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."

10. Moon Echoes:
On the 20th November 1969, the crew of Apollo 12 jettisoned the lunar module ascent stage causing it to crash onto the moon some 40 miles from the Apollo 12 landing site. This created an artificial moonquake with startling characteristics. The moon reverberated like a bell for more than an hour. This phenomenon was intentionally repeated with Apollo 13, when they allowed the third stage to impact the moon. The results were even more startling. Seismic instruments recorded that the reverberations lasted for three hours and twenty minutes and travelled to a depth of twenty-five miles. This lead to the conclusion that the moon has an unusually light, or even no core.

11. Unusual Metals:
The moon's crust is much harder than presumed. The astronauts encountered extreme difficulty when they tried to drill into the maria. The maria is composed primarily ilmenite, which is a mineral containing large amounts of titanium, the same metal used to fabricate the hulls of deep-diving submarines and the skin of the SR-71 "Blackbird". What is even more puzzling, was the discovery of Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237 in lunar rocks (elements not found in nature on Earth). And a further surprise was finding rustproof iron particles. What?

12. Moon's Origin:
Before the moon rocks conclusively disproved all the common theories about the moon's origins, these were some of the theories.

The moon was believed to have originated when a chunk of Earth broke off eons ago (who knows from where, if the materials are not the same?).

Another theory was that the moon was created from leftover "space dust" remaining after the Earth was created. Analysis of the composition of moon rocks disproved this theory also.

Another popular theory is that the moon was somehow "captured" by the Earth's gravitational attraction. But no scientific evidence exists to support this theory. Isaac Asimov stated, "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 a nearly circular orbit around our Earth, are too small to make such an eventuality credible."

13. Weird Orbit:
Our moon does not rotate on its axis. We only ever see one side of the moon. There is what is known as the "dark side of the moon" that we have never seen from Earth. It is the only moon in the solar system that has a stationary, near-perfect circular orbit. Stranger still, the moon's centre of mass is about 6000 feet closer to the Earth than its geometric centre (which should cause wobbling), but the moon's bulge is on the far side of the moon, away from the Earth. "Something or someone" had to put the moon in orbit with its precise altitude, course, and speed.

14. Moon Diameter:
How does one explain the "coincidence" that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Again, Isaac Asimov responds, "There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion."

15. Spaceship Moon Theory:
As outrageous as it may sound, it is quite possible that the moon is a giant, intelligently designed spaceship, with a specific purpose. The facts lead us convincingly to such an insane conclusion. The only theory that is supported by all of the data, is that the moon is a gigantic extraterrestrial craft, brought here eons ago by intelligent beings, and there is no data that seems to contradict this theory.

(Thank you Ronald Regehr)


Part 3

Before we continue with this week's article I would like to remind you of one very important principle. Do not be swayed by promoters of mediocrity and narrow minded dogma. There is no doubt that you will meet hordes of them in your own quest for real and credible answers. Especially on the subject of the moon, because it is such an emotional and romantic symbol in most people's minds and carries countless historic links to activities of past civilisations.

This does not change the fact that the moon is indeed a very suspicious celestial body, because it does not follow the simple fundamental principles of the universal law of motion as outlined by Einstein in his space time theory.

One very important principle that may have been overlooked by Einstein, but highlighted in great detail by the brilliant physicist Nassiem Haramein and several others, is that everything in the universe spins. The "spinning vortex" principle, as seen at the centre of galaxies is now widely accepted as the motion that gives the universe its energy and allows us to explain previously cumbersome theories about why things happen in a specifically structured way throughout the universe. It seems to be - for now at least - a very good explanation of the mysterious 'dark energy' supposedly created by the dark matter that makes up about 95% of the known universe.

In a subatomic world the electrons spin around the nucleus just like the planets spin around the stars. The solar systems spin around the centre of their galaxies, but they also undergo giant spiral spinning motion as the solar system travels through space.

In other words, our sun and planets never return to the same place in space, as they hurtle trough space.

In a nutshell, everything that makes up the matter in the universe spins. EXCEPT OUR MOON. It is trapped in a near-perfect orbit around our planet with only one side of the moon ever visible to us. This is a phenomenon that is highly suspicious and requires a greater deal of scrutiny without emotional baggage to distract us. Some attempts have been made to convince the public that the moon actually rotates once for every time it orbits Earth, this has been disproved by many astronomers as a case of "bad astronomy". All you have to do is take the binoculars and look at the moon for a few days and you will soon realise that you only ever see the same section. Whether it is in the shade or in the sun.

And while great minds are still arguing about the actual origin of the moon and how it got caught up in Earth's gravitational field, we should be exploring beyond the so-called acceptable realms of science to see what we can find. There are planets in distant solar system of our galaxy that have been found not to spin or rotate on their axis. These are however all gaseous planets and not solid bodies. No other solid planets or moons other than our moon have been found, that do not spin.

There is so much compelling evidence of visual and even physical contact between astronauts, cosmonauts and ET's, that we can no longer deny it nor ignore it. It is also quite obvious is that NASA and other government bodies which include the UN, have sent very clear signs that they are not prepared to enter this debate in the public domain. This forces us to conclude that they are hiding something and will not reveal such information to the global population. This is nothing new and should not surprise us at all since this policy has been followed for many decades by seemingly omnipotent governments who have absolutely no interest in spreading knowledge and information.

In the next article we will cover numerous testimonies by cosmonauts dealing with ET contact. If you still have not worked out why the moon mission suddenly stopped with no plausible reason after Apollo 17, here is a fascinating article that appeared in the Russian newspaper PRAVDA on the 3rd October 2007. This certainly puts a whole new 'spin' on the moon mission's sudden demise.

ALIENS FORCED AMERICANS OUT FROM THE MOON

03.10.2007 Source: Pravda.Ru URL:
http://www.ufocasebook.com/aliensforced.html

One of Russia's central television channels, RTR, has recently aired a documentary about US astronauts who allegedly came across extraterrestrial civilizations. The film showed Russian ufologist Vladimir Azhazha and astronomer Yevgeny Arsyukhin telling that expeditions to the Moon launched within 1969-1972 allegedly came across UFOs.

The researchers state that flying objects of extraterrestrial origin were persistently spying on American Apollos. They said the expeditions to the Moon looked very much like a race and presented a film demonstrating a luminous object closely following an American spaceship. Records of communication between astronauts and the Mission Control Center were also included into the film but they were absolutely inaudible as they had been purposefully jammed by Americans. They expected that the expeditions would find something astonishing on the Moon and with the view of keeping their communication with the surface secret they encoded their messages to the MCC. When the records of communication were later deciphered it turned out that the US missions came across lunar bases, remains of space vehicles and deserted towns on the Moon.

The film stated that lunar creatures would not tolerate the presence of Earth dwellers for long. When Americans brought a dummy car to furrow Moon craters, the creatures living on the satellite began to demonstrate their furious protest against the US presence on the Moon. Filmmakers said that green dwellers of the Moon told Americans to go home as they wanted to keep secret the sublunar bases that they used to observe the life on the Earth. It was alleged that NASA was afraid of conflicting with a highly developed civilization and immediately stopped the program. Does the film sound believable?

In a couple of days, Americans demonstrated their documentary about the Apollo expeditions, In the Shadow of the Moon, with records of the flights to the Moon that were specially processed after the video archives of the Moon program had disappeared. Is it true that the archives were lost? It seems that the CIA wanted to wipe out tracks of a contact between US astronauts and extraterrestrials.

It is an open secret by the way that films demonstrating the landing of American astronauts on the Moon and Neil Armstrong's walk about the lunar surface were lost. What is more, records telling about astronauts' health during the flights to the Moon, information about spaceships and other 700 messages sent from the board of spaceships launched in the framework of the Apollo program are also missing. Before the late 1970s the films had been kept at the US National Archives then were moved to NASA and later disappeared at all. It took NASA officials a year to conduct searches of the films but they managed to find just not more than ten films. Will anyone believe that evidence of US's biggest triumph may so easily disappear from
the NASA archives?

An expertise of the Moon pictures demonstrated in the Russian documentary revealed that they were no ordinary photos but simply some daub. Deputy director of the Comparative Planetology Laboratory Doctor of geological sciences Alexander Bazilevsky says that experts are from time to time requested to conduct an expertise of this type of photos. The Lunar Orbiter stations shot the Moon surface, then developed films right on board the spaceships and telecast them to the surface. As a result of this film development any unexpected things or elements could appear on pictures, and it explains why one of the pictures showed in the documentary had the word 'spire'. In a word, none of the pictures demonstrated in the documentary can be the evidence of aliens' existence on the Moon.

This is strange that films with really important evidence can disappear from NASA. Several years ago, over 100 g of lunar soil and meteorites were stolen from the collection of the Johnson Space Center. And that was not the only incident of the kind there. A former NASA official explained that the unique films had been probably lost after they were several times moved from one place to another within the past forty years.

The NASA official who requested anonymity also told a really interesting story. When President Bush announced recommencement of the lunar program the National Aeronautics and Space Administration asked aged researchers who had taken part in the Apollo expeditions earlier to meet experts who were going to start a new mission. One of the aged researchers who came to the meeting had designed a device to measure lunar radiation. The device could measure radiation before humans landed the planet and could transmit information even when the Apollos were back to the surface. In the framework of the program heaps of records were collected. But when the program was no longer financed and stopped the bobbins with ciphered films were discarded. But the old engineer took the films and placed them to his basement where they are still being kept. Unfortunately there is no opportunity to decipher the films as a special device able to decode such records was also utilized when the program ended.

(Edited waffle).

NASA is going to conduct another mission to the Moon with a spaceship Orion resembling Apollo and stuffed with steroids. It is planned that four astronauts will fly round the Moon in 2018. If the project goes OK a landing module is to land the lunar surface in 2020.

Russia's ambitions as concerning Moon exploration are rather modest. A Russian astronaut may land the planet only as a member of a Chinese-Russian expedition. Chinese researchers are working on this project and invite Russia to participate in it as well.

IF you would like to receive Michael's ~ newsletter ~ go to his site below and sign up
here; http://www.slavespecies.com/index.asp

[aviators]

[...]
Researchers are now showing moonlight is cooler than the moon shade.
What does this mean? Moonlight is NOT reflected sun light.
[...]

I have to conclude those researchers are not taking lunar eclipses into account and are jumping to nonsensical conclusions...

Respectfully lunar eclipses is a topic for investigation but does NOT negate from people around the world investigating the cold light the moon produces. Perhaps a clue
that our moon is something different than what we've been told.

[aviators]

Do we have any definite proof that our Moon is an artificial satellite? Just trying to piece together all the things I have learned! :waving:

yes, very simple get your hands on a good pair of binoculars go out any night and sit and look with your own eye's,, and ask yourself one question... why is it that no matter how small or big --- every single crater only is so deep. the rings are big and small but the surface depth is the same. shallow crater's millions of them -- all with the same floor why?

Yes this has been noted before. Why does the moons craters look like they were all made from direct perpendicular hits.

[Jayren]

On many occasions with my dreams I see the moon as being hollow with a structure inside inhabited by beings. That's just my dream.

[Sérénité]

Great read, thank you everyone :)

It rules the moods and cycles of both us humans and the planet as a whole, yet we're not allowed back there again it would seem...I believe all is not what we are made to perceive...:alien: :ballchain:

[ghostrider]

The Plejaren say the moon is a fragment of a planet brought here by the destroyer comet from another universe, passing the the man made dimension door left open too long by their ancestors the old Lyrians\the ancestors of the sons of heaven...

[Cidersomerset]

Hi Foxie before the Camelot/Avalon era where I first came across many of these
theories , I did not think that much about it. I had heard of the 'Ringing like a bell'
statement from mainstream docs as I had always watched Horizon and other docs
and was influenced from them on the whole. Then one of the early interviews on
Camelot was with John Lear , who at first I thought was 'nuts' and had been in the
game to long and as he said about Bill Cooper ,I thought John was suffering
from 'UFO disease'. Many things John said felt a bit over the top . But the further
down the rabbit hole I have gone , they are not quite so inplausible....LOL

john lear - "the moon was towed into position"

SaoBQkT8dHg

Published on 29 Apr 2015
john lear on coast to coast am with art bell - the moon and "the human experiment."

[Cidersomerset]

The Spaceship Moon Theory, also known as the Vasin-Shcherbakov
Theory, is a hypothesis that claims the Earth's moon may actually be an alien
spacecraft. The hypothesis was put forth by two members of the then Soviet
Academy of Sciences, Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, in a July 1970
article entitled "Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?"

David does refer to this in this clip....


_SYA3lo_JS0


====================================================
====================================================
====================================================

5pfl4prGZIY

Uploaded on 4 Mar 2011


http://davidicke.livingfreeandwealthy...

David Icke speaks about the moon and the real truth behind it. He explains all the
anomolies regarding its size and postioning. David goes on to talk about how
humanity has been closed into a small box of possibily so when someone comes out
with truth which is outside that box it is highly ridiculed.

David Icke also talks about the legends and accient stories of the disaster events
which took place on this planet and how the the movement of the moon into its
current position in realtion to the Earth could of caused the geological shifts that
took place. The Africa shaman, Credu Mutwa, alos backs up this fact with the acient
legends within the Zulu culture.

[Cidersomerset]

In this interview David mentions a book he read Who built the Moon ?
by Alan Butler and Christopher Knight......I can only find one part of
Alan Butlers vid below.

David Icke- Who Built the Moon..interesting interview pt.1


XeWtaIAsX6k


David Icke- Who Built the Moon..interesting interview pt.2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i46ageDGL-w

David Icke- Who Built the Moon..interesting interview pt.3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ezLXHucsoQ



=========================================

Whats Wrong with the Moon Part 1

0lYqghSGtek

https://yt3.ggpht.com/-rloWY6Tab0A/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/59QqUtXS-P4/s88-c-k-no/photo.jpg

Alan Butler...

Published on 12 Jul 2013

Earth's Moon is one of the strangest objects in the solar system, even though astrononomers
play down its peculiarities. Come with me on a journey to examine just why, by the laws of
chance, the Moon should not exist at all.

[samildamach]

If we for one moment accept the moon is not natural and has been placed exactly were it is on purpose.
Is it then possible it's not the only celestial body foreign to are solar system.
In the tales from the dogon tribe they have handed down orally, stories from shaman to shaman of the nommos.these ancient aliens imparted astronomical knowledge of the serius star system before leaving again.the interesting part is that they claimed that the nommos stayed in our solar system and there ship was big enough to be a celestial body filled on the inside with water.
Robert temples book or a search on dog on are good sources of information I'd you want to know more of this mystery

[Cidersomerset]

If we for one moment accept the moon is not natural and has been placed exactly were it is on purpose.

As what usually happens as I was trying to find part 2 of Alan Butlers above vid,
I started watching another vid which was also linked to the Earth Moon relationship.


In the tales from the dogon tribe they have handed down orally, stories from shaman to shaman of the nommos

David Icke was suggesting this in his vids above..


Alan Butler on his new book Intervention: How Humanity from the Future Has Changed Its Past . He talks about the Moon Earth relationships and postulates
on who built the moon ? possibly future humans ? This a thought provoking
interview imo.


aVu6PPwSNqo

Published on 18 Dec 2012


Back in 2006, together with Christopher Knight I published my most unusual
book to date. The cover asked 'Who Built the Moon?' but despite such an
apparently provocative title it was no joke. Looking at our part of the solar
system with totally open eyes we turned our attention on just about the
most peculiar celestial body imaginable -- Earth's Moon.

Our previous research had led us to recreate the most potent and ancient
measuring systems used by our ancient ancestors. In Civilization One, we
had shown conclusively that people living as long as 5,000 years ago had
understood the true dimensions of the Earth and had created an integrated
system of measurement that spanned distance, time, volume and mass.
They had used a very specific unit of measurement, which has come to be
known as the Megalithic Yard. It was 82.966 centimetres in length and it
was a truly geodetic unit -- in other words it divided into the polar
circumference of the Earth in a known, logical and entirely planned way.

Civilization One proved to be a very popular book. Its implications took us
around the world and introduced us to a wealth of individuals who shared
our fascination with humanity's generally unappreciated and illustrious past.
As the saying goes, 'that might have been that', except for one niggling fact
that we could not get out of our minds. We had discovered, almost accidentally,
that the same simple but potent measurements that had worked so well on the
Earth, were just as applicable to the Moon -- our own companion in space!

The more we looked at the Moon, the greater was our sense of astonishment at
what has been described by astronomers as being the most unlikely planetary
body imaginable.

INTERVENTION: How Humanity from the Future has Changed Its Own Past by Alan
Butler, published by Watkins Publishing, Hardback (272 pages). Also available:
Civilization One: The World is Not as You Thought it Was and Who Built the Moon?,
both by Christopher Knight & Alan Butler, published by Watkins Publishing.
Alan Butler is an engineer, who became fascinated by history, and also became an
expert in astrology and astronomy. He has researched ancient cultures, pagan
beliefs and comparative religion and has published four successful books about the
Knights Templar and the Grail legend.

[Cidersomerset]

For balance I thought I'd have a look at some current mainstream 'THEORIES'
for that's what they are......


Universe Sandbox 2 - Creating Moon from Earth and Theia Collision

C-yK3Pmjd0Y

Published on 1 Feb 2016

Twitter: http://www.twitch.tv/whatdamath
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/whatdamath
Twitch: https://twitter.com/WhatDaMath

==================================================

The Moon was Formed by a Violent, Head-on Collision Between Earth and a Forming Planet

zZ-ZD6543sg

Published on 2 Feb 2016

The moon was formed by a violent, head-on collision between the early Earth and
a "planetary embryo" called Theia approximately 100 million years after the Earth
formed, UCLA geochemists and colleagues report.

Scientists had already known about this high-speed crash, which occurred almost
4.5 billion years ago, but many thought the Earth collided with Theia, at an angle of
45 degrees or more—a powerful side-swipe.New evidence reported Jan. 29 in the
journal Science substantially strengthens the case for a head-on assault.

"We don't see any difference between the Earth's and the moon's oxygen isotopes;
they're indistinguishable," said Edward Young, lead author of the new study and a
UCLA professor of geochemistry and cosmochemistry.Young's research team used
state-of-the-art technology and techniques to make extraordinarily precise and
careful measurements, and verified them with UCLA's new mass spectrometer.

The fact that oxygen in rocks on the Earth and our moon share chemical signatures
was very telling, Young said. Had Earth and Theia collided in a glancing side blow,
the vast majority of the moon would have been made mainly of Theia, and the
Earth and moon should have different oxygen isotopes. A head-on collision,
however, likely would have resulted in similar chemical composition of both Earth
and the moon.

"Theia was thoroughly mixed into both the Earth and the moon, and evenly
dispersed between them," Young said. "This explains why we don't see a different
signature of Theia in the moon versus the Earth."

Theia, which did not survive the collision (except that it now makes up large parts
of Earth and the moon) was growing and probably would have become a planet if
the crash had not occurred, Young said. Young and some other scientists believe
the planet was approximately the same size as the Earth; others believe it was
smaller, perhaps more similar in size to Mars.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-01-moon-hea...

Provided by: University of California, Los Angeles
http://www.ucla.edu/

The moon will always guide us through the night, gracing the night skies in never-
ending series of phases.

Images credit: Space.com, Getty images & NASA

Music credit: Lightless Dawn by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: http://incompetech.com/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Universe 105 - The Moon


bxvsAFbMLjo

Published on 3 Dec 2015

A look at the formation of the Moon; how it played a role in the evolution of life on
Earth; and the future plans of NASA to establish a permanent base on the surface.

===================================================



Solar System History: How Was the Earth & Moon Formed? - Full Documentary HD

ys5hmBkyvag

Published on 11 May 2015


--- ABDH Media - Space ---

It's astonishing what you can achieve with just a bit of gas and dust. Kate Ravilious
guides us through the birth of our solar systemIt all started with a tremendous
bang. Somewhere in our galaxy a star exploded, throwing out masses of gas and
dust. This supernova, as these explosions are called, happened about 5bn years
ago. The wreckage from the explosion then crashed into a nearby cloud of gas,
bringing together the ingredients for our solar system to form.Because the
explosion was so energetic it made the dust mixture very hot and things began to
cook. Little bits of dust began to cluster, making bigger and bigger lumps, and the
mixture began to pull together under its own gravity.

Eventually the central lump became so hot and dense that it started to generate its
own energy, igniting nuclear fires. This was the birth of our sun. The remaining
dusty mixture swirled around the star, fanning out into a disc.Gradually the sun
grew in size and the dusty disc cooled. Over millions of years the dust clustered
into grains, then lumps, boulders and eventually planetesimals - chunks of rock big
enough to have their own gravitational field. Some of these planetesimals became
the embryonic forms of the planets in our solar system today.

Slowly these rocky planets began to organise themselves, settling at a comfortable
distance from the sun and finding their own orbit. Earth found its path as third
planet from the sun. In the early days rocky pile-ups were still common, leaving
craters on the surface of all of the planets.One of these collisions, about 4.5bn
years ago, is thought to have very nearly destroyed the Earth, and was probably
responsible for our moon. A large planetesimal, about the size of Mars, gave Earth
a glancing blow, chucking a chunk of Earth's crust out into space. Some of the
planetesimal merged with Earth, while the ejected lump started its own orbit
around Earth and became the moon.

Read More: http://www.theguardian.com/science/20...



====================================================
====================================================

An amusing thought , if we did not go to the moon and collect samples
as some researches have speculated and earth rocks were used as part
of the deception then this quote from above would also be true ....LOL


The fact that oxygen in rocks on the Earth and our moon share chemical
signatures was very telling,

Obviously speculation on the authenticity of moon rock...LOL

Fake Moon Rock Confirmed

7ZO6JPsszrY

Uploaded on 28 Aug 2009
Alleged "moon rock" given by Apollo 11 crew to Dutch Prime Minister was a fake. It
has been confirmed to be nothing but petrified wood. NASA has no explanation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://static.bbci.co.uk/frameworks/barlesque/3.8.0/desktop/2.8/img/blocks.png

Page last updated at 08:28 GMT, Friday, 28 August 2009 09:28 UK

Fake Dutch 'moon rock' revealed

The piece of 'rock' supposedly brought back from the moon, seen in the
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 27 August 2009
The lump of 'moon rock' had been on display for decades

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46281000/jpg/_46281213_007855037-1.jpg
A treasured piece at the Dutch national museum - a supposed moon rock from the
first manned lunar landing - is nothing more than petrified wood, curators say.

read more...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226075.stm

====================================================

THE TELEGRAPH.....

'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake

A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has
turned out to be a fake.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01471/rock_1471511c.jpg
A piece of moon rock was given during a goodwill tour by the three apollo 11
astronauts. Photo: Getty Images

12:12AM BST 29 Aug 2009

Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of
thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at
£308,000, was in fact petrified wood.Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the
investigation, said the museum would continue to keep the stone as a curiosity.
"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We
can laugh about it."

The rock was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch leader, during a global tour by
Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin following their moon
mission 50 years ago.J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to
the Netherlands, made the presentation to Mr Drees and the rock was then donated
to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988."I do remember that Drees was very
interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything
about that," Mr Middendorf said.

Nasa gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in 1969
and the 1970s. The United States Embassy in The Hague is carrying out an
investigation into the affair.Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to
tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that
was borne out by tests."It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said
Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

[East Sun]

I know this is off topic, but who needs that weird music in the background or more specifically in the foreground or anywhere for that matter?
David Icke did not need it, so why add it?
I've noticed this time and time again with videos--give it a rest already................

[Curiosity]

[...]
Researchers are now showing moonlight is cooler than the moon shade.
What does this mean? Moonlight is NOT reflected sun light.
[...]

I have to conclude those researchers are not taking lunar eclipses into account and are jumping to nonsensical conclusions...

Not to mention we have technologies that measure distance by bouncing laser etc. of the surface of things.

[meat suit]

just to throw in a completely different angle...

If we are in a virtual reality as proposed by Tom Campbell, (click on my signature..)
then its possble that moon doesnt make sense as it isnt fully real or fully rendered...
the same could true for all the other stars, planets that we see.
like the background scenery in a computer game, often is only partly generated and may become clearer as you get closer...

[Frenchy]

33032 So many excellent contributions, it seems very little has been overlooked ! Foxie has certainly focussed our attention on a great basic enigma ! Credo's to Cider , Giovanni and others... All I can contribute is that Credo Mutwa's Shaman knowledge is so very akin to that found by a British ( Anthropologist ? ) who, thru' intermreters asked of Aborigine's, " Where they came from ? ", expecting a reply of somewhere in Indonesia, Asia, to be told, " they came from that star there, not the one you see, but the one behind it ! ) This was in around 1926, " Their " Star was not found until Radio Telescopes were created...

For what it's worth, imho , the photo of the object outside the vatican, refers to the Moon.... ? As we realise TPTB like to mock us by putting the info right under our noses ! ( Like the UN representation of the Earth, as their logo, and maps ! )

[aviators]

33032 So many excellent contributions, it seems very little has been overlooked ! Foxie has certainly focussed our attention on a great basic enigma ! Credo's to Cider , Giovanni and others... All I can contribute is that Credo Mutwa's Shaman knowledge is so very akin to that found by a British ( Anthropologist ? ) who, thru' intermreters asked of Aborigine's, " Where they came from ? ", expecting a reply of somewhere in Indonesia, Asia, to be told, " they came from that star there, not the one you see, but the one behind it ! ) This was in around 1926, " Their " Star was not found until Radio Telescopes were created...

For what it's worth, imho , the photo of the object outside the vatican, refers to the Moon.... ? As we realise TPTB like to mock us by putting the info right under our noses ! ( Like the UN representation of the Earth, as their logo, and maps ! )
Could you expand on this if you can. Regards...

[M-Albion-3D]

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

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


9jK5Nq08r1g

[aviators]

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


MRkmPyGvznU

[aviators]

Moon light is colder than moon shade. Try this experiment for yourself.
8iWLRMVjHUg
Also some researchers are reporting.
1. Moon light will increase a brush fire while sun light will decrease a fire.
2 Moon light will spoil food while sun light will preserve food.

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

[Helvetic]

Some recent moon footage from John Lenard Walson (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtHg0Cdx1PQ8xkkvnwGRMUQ)

ZkCZ50YFzM0

ih8URf2dTkQ

PZUZosu4iOY

QrmoIiE0y00

e4JazRqXKl0

[Inversion]

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

[lunaflare]

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

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

From the first stanza of, "The Highwayman".

The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas

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

[Sierra]

1. Moon light will increase a brush fire while sun light will decrease a fire.
Probably because as the air heats up, there is less oxygen to serve as fuel.


2. Moon light will spoil food while sun light will preserve food.
Yes, the heat dehydrates, and preserves, while night time air tends to be wet and humid, thus spoilage.

[aviators]

Brian Mullin shares some thoughts about our moon and some future experiments .
DHW4vuatnmU

[Nick Matkin]

Moon may be very close to earth. 3 -5 thousand miles away. NOT 240,000.

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

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

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

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

[aviators]

Moon may be very close to earth. 3 -5 thousand miles away. NOT 240,000.

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

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

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

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

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

[Nick Matkin]

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

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

But briefly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[aviators]

Thanks Nick Matkin. Have been doing a little digging on EME.
This is interesting indeed. Nice graph around the 10 min mark.
L5E2ntIxAsc

[Nick Matkin]

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

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

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

Anyway, nice find and thanks for posting.

[Peace of Mind]

Do we have any definite proof that our Moon is an artificial satellite? Just trying to piece together all the things I have learned! :waving:

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

Peace

[Solon]

Brian Mullin shares some thoughts about our moon and some future experiments .
DHW4vuatnmU

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

[Nick Matkin]

The Hubble Telescope is outside the atmosphere. Faked images?

[TargeT]

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





The Hubble Telescope is outside the atmosphere. Faked images?

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


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

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

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

[avid]

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

[Cidersomerset]

I just saw this article......

http://static.bbci.co.uk/frameworks/barlesque/3.8.0/orb/4/img/bbc-blocks-dark.png

Moon used to spin 'on different axis'

2 hours ago
From the section Science & Environment


llustration of the shifted axis of rotation Image copyright James Tuttle Keane
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/5462/production/_88920612_pressreleasefigure_2.png
The scientists suggest volcanic activity generated the "wander"

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

The work appears in the journal Nature.

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

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

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

illustration of the location of the ancient poles Image copyright James Tuttle Keane
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/7617/production/_88913203_pressreleasefigure_3.png
The presumed icy patches are opposite each other, nearby the present lunar poles

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

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

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

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

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

[Solon]

The Hubble Telescope is outside the atmosphere. Faked images?

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

Testbed Paves Way for Amateur Space Telescope
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/ISSAT-team_m.jpg


Telescope Alpha" is only the first step in a much more ambitious plan. The League hopes to convince NASA to attach a telescope 14 to 16 inches in aperture to the International Space Station sometime between 2008 and 2010. Controlled remotely by a team of amateurs on the ground, the envisioned telescope would concentrate on "taking pictures of the universe that interest the whole human race," notes imaging expert Richard Berry, who is coordinating efforts to gain NASA's approval. "All of the images and data from the ISS-AT would be available for use in the classroom and as a basis for observing proposals from educators and their classes.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/testbed-paves-way-for-amateur-space-telescope/#sthash.ctwAYxsY.dpuf
Sounds like it was a wonderful project.


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

http://www.drewexmachina.com/2014/04/16/vintage-micro-the-amateur-space-telescope/

@TargeT

Knowing how light works...

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

[lake]

Well I do not know but this is fun....ish?

Synopsis: During the construction of the universe, a young member of the Cosmos Corps of Engineers decides to break some fundamental laws in the name of self-expression. 16mins long or about that!

The Looking Planet
A8LRxIANzQs

[Spaceball Ricochet]

SailorMoon, I would question heavily that the Moon is indeed hollow..the density of Moon rock bought back to Earth suggests that it is anything but..and it's time to flatten the theory that the landing was a fake..too many people in the picture to carry it off..and no-one has blabbed! I think we have to think along realistic lines..maybe there are structures present..domes and surface tunnels but I remain a tad sceptical about that..but I cannot safely swear on anything!

[petra]

Bill, have you explored the mathematics and physics related to the orbit of the moon? Is the orbit of the moon a function of its mass? Maybe the math can determine whether the moon is hollow or not.

I'd like to learn more about the moon in general, so I'd like my question to be something like "Tell me everything you know about the moon!". That's not a question though, and kind of rude too! This is the question and answer thread... not "Let's interrogate Bill thread" :) Feel free to ignore this one, Bill!

I'm just suspicious of the moon. I get the impression that if we were to destroy the moon right now, earth would be doomed forever. Sounds like foolishness I know, but I can't help but pay attention to my foolish feelings.

[Frenchy]

Bill, have you explored the mathematics and physics related to the orbit of the moon? Is the orbit of the moon a function of its mass? Maybe the math can determine whether the moon is hollow or not.

I'd like to learn more about the moon in general, so I'd like my question to be something like "Tell me everything you know about the moon!". That's not a question though, and kind of rude too! This is the question and answer thread... not "Let's interrogate Bill thread" :) Feel free to ignore this one, Bill!

I'm just suspicious of the moon. I get the impression that if we were to destroy the moon right now, earth would be doomed forever. Sounds like foolishness I know, but I can't help but pay attention to my foolish feelings.

David Icke speaks of this book :- ' Who Built the Moon '

This I haven't looked at {yet ! } Who Built The Moon.com/ Alan Butler's site.

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

Now, the photo below is the object in St Peter's Square, Vatican, in a YT video, someone states that there's NO Information about the 'Sculpture', also stating there are two others, if I recall right, one at CERN, but I forget where third one is...

[petra]

Bill, have you explored the mathematics and physics related to the orbit of the moon? Is the orbit of the moon a function of its mass? Maybe the math can determine whether the moon is hollow or not.

I'd like to learn more about the moon in general, so I'd like my question to be something like "Tell me everything you know about the moon!". That's not a question though, and kind of rude too! This is the question and answer thread... not "Let's interrogate Bill thread" :) Feel free to ignore this one, Bill!

I'm just suspicious of the moon. I get the impression that if we were to destroy the moon right now, earth would be doomed forever. Sounds like foolishness I know, but I can't help but pay attention to my foolish feelings.

David Icke speaks of this book :- ' Who Built the Moon ' .....



I've heard of this! I've also heard the moon being described as a "giant electromagnet". That, combined with the correlations other people are noticing in regard to moon phases, are making me very suspicious of the moon. For example Tom Montalk was able to make this chart (http://montalk.net/moon) based off his experience of "hyperdimensional" attacks. I can't correlate anything, but the fact that he can, I find very suspicious.

I'd be interested to know the 'Why', or 'perceived why' moreso than the 'Who' though. The Why is surely more important than the who.

[Frenchy]

Just a small idea ;
If the moon is hollow, and therefore artificial, would this mean the alleged harmony with Womens periods, be either manipulated to follow Womens monthly cycles, OR could 'they' be using the Moon, to create cycles ? ?
{ My instinct tells me it's the former }.
P.C. note :-
So as not to offend the idiots running the UK, I specifically here refer to the
' Womens ' Periods, I think that's only fair, given the lack of Data on the Male periods... {T-I-Cheek ! } Standard.co.uk - schoolboys-to-be-told-they-can-have-periods-too-( David Cameron is chief Editor here ? )





Just imagine all the Anger, Red faces, indignation, { and that's just from the Gardening Community, who for Centuries have been going out with their Lanterns, then, lately, Flashlamps, to plant their ''Tater's and herbs ! ! }... :o

And, again, tptb using the Full Moon, as some kind of 'Pagan influence' , to attribute to 'crazy people ... Dear GOD, where would it end ! !

A very honest Auto-biography from David Niven.... years since I read it, but, I wonder now whether there are 'hidden clues ' there, when he speaks of Hollywood ...


Wasn't aware thirty years or so ago, but..... only today see David Niven, is he Winking or is that an early ' One-Eyed' signal... ? ?

[East Sun]

Davjd Icke met with Credo Mutwa (sp) an African Shaman and discussed the "hollow Moon". There is a video of their conversation

that is well worth checking out. It is totally believable and knowledge handed down verbally for countless centuries.

[petra]

I was told by ETs as a child that it was a tool to record time travel and time lines.

That's really interesting.
I feel like it's for communication, that's just a feeling though, nothing told me.
Maybe it could be for more than one thing!
I'm SO paranoid about the moon that it's making me laugh!
I like the moon.... I don't want to blow it up....
Ever since I heard someone say they felt like we should blow the moon up, I've been on edge, because I feel the total opposite way.

[Bill Ryan]

Ever since I heard someone say they felt like we should blow the moon up, I've been on edge, because I feel the total opposite way.

Just an astrophysical note here. :)

You can definitely stop worrying, because that'll never happen. Even in a Dr Strangelove script. If the moon were to be 'blown up', all civilization (and most life) would end on earth a few hours later, just as if one had exploded a hand grenade while not actually throwing it anywhere.

:focus:

[petra]

Ever since I heard someone say they felt like we should blow the moon up, I've been on edge, because I feel the total opposite way.
You can definitely stop worrying, because that'll never happen....


Ha ha :) I know it makes no sense!
Ever notice how telling people to "calm down" tends to make things worse? ;-) I'm just joking - you're not making it worse. I subscribe to the notion that the moon is "supposed to be there", because if it wasn't, we'd all be dead.

[rgray222]

Christopher Knight and Alan Butler wrote: Who Built The Moon?
Here are a few excerpts and conclusion from their book.

https://www.watkinspublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/1842931326.jpg

The Moon sits very close to the Earth yet it is widely regarded as the strangest object in the known universe.

The moon does not have a solid core like every other planetary object. It is either hollow or has a very low-density interior. Bizarrely, its concentration of mass is located at a series of points just under its surface – which caused havoc with early lunar spacecraft. The material the Moon is made from came from the outer surface of the Earth and left a shallow hole that filled with water and we now call the Pacific. This rock left the Earth to produce the Moon very quickly after our planet had formed around 4,6 billion years ago.

I came to write Who Built the Moon? with Alan Butler after we had finished Civilization One because our research led us to study the Moon very closely.

We had found that the superbly advanced measuring system in use over 5,000 years ago was based on the mass, dimensions, and movements of the Earth.

However, for thoroughness, we checked every planet and moon in the solar system to see if there was any pattern. Amazingly, it worked perfectly for every aspect of the Moon but did not apply at all to any other known body – except the Sun.

It was as though we had found a blueprint where the Moon had been ‘manufactured’ using very specific units taken from Earth’s relationship with the Sun. The more we looked, everything fitted – and fitted perfectly in every conceivable way.

The Moon is not only extremely odd in its construction; it also behaves in a way that is nothing less than miraculous. It is exactly four hundred times smaller than the Sun but four hundred times closer to the Earth so that both the Sun and the Moon appear to be precisely the same size in the sky – which gives us the phenomenon we call a total eclipse. Whilst we take this for granted it has been called the biggest coincidence in the universe.

Furthermore, the Moon mirrors the movement of the Sun in the sky by rising and setting at the same point on the horizon as the Sun does at opposite solstices. For example, this means the Moon rises at midwinter at the same place the Sun does at midsummer. There is no logical reason why the Moon mimics the Sun in this way and it is only meaningful to a human standing on the Earth.

Not only is the Moon an apparently impossible object, but it also has some unique benefits for us humans. It has been nothing less than an incubator for life. If the Moon was not exactly the size, mass, and distance that it has been at each stage of the Earth’s evolution – there would be no intelligent life here. Scientists are agreed that we owe everything to the Moon.

It acts as a stabilizer that holds our planet at just the right angle to produce the seasons and keep water liquid across most of the planet. Without our Moon, the Earth would be as dead and solid as Venus.

The conclusion of Who Built The Moon

We explain that we could not come to any other conclusion than the Moon is artificial. Because it is certain that it is 4.6 billion years old that raises some interesting points. Another factor was the obvious message that has been built into the Moon to tell us it’s artificial. The language of the message is base ten arithmetic so it looks as though it is directed to a ten digit species that is living on Earth right now – which seems to mean humans.

The question of why the Moon had to be built is easy to answer: To produce all life, especially humans. As to who did it – well that’s a lot tougher! We give the three possibilities we can think of, namely: God, aliens or humans. The only one of these that is 100% scientifically possible is the last one. Time travel is universally accepted as being physically possible and a number of scientists are close to sending matter back in time. We can envisage that machines could be built in the future that could be sent back to remove matter from the young Earth to construct the Moon – probably using mini black hole technology.

[sunwings]

David Icke goes into detail about the moon. When I speak to the sheeple about this topic I always use the quote below. Just contemplating what he said helps to open their minds to a bigger picture.

Robin Brett, a scientist from NASA stated, “It seems easier to explain the non-existence of the Moon than its existence.”

Here are 7 Irregularities that suggest Earth’s Moon was engineered and might be a giant hollow base:

1) The Moon seems engineered. On November of 1969, NASA intentionally crashed a lunar module that caused an impact equivalent to one ton of TNT on the Moon. The shock waves built up and NASA scientists listened to what was happening on the Moon. Strangely, after impact, NASA scientists said that the Moon rang like a bell and the reverberation continued for thirty minutes. According to Ken Johnson, supervisor of the data and photo control department, the Moon not only rang like a bell but the whole Moon “wobbled” in such a precise way that it was “almost as though it had gigantic hydraulic damper struts inside it.

2) The Moon has elements it should not have. In the 1970’s, Mikhail Vasin and Alexander Shcerbakov from the Soviet Academy of Science wrote an article called: “Is the Moon the creation of Alien Intelligence?” It was a very interesting article that asked some important questions. How is it possible that the surface of the moon is so hard and why does it contain minerals like Titanium? Mysteriously there are some lunar rocks that have been found to contain PROCESSED METALS such as Brass, the elements of Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237 that have NEVER been found to occur naturally. Yet there are traces of them on the Moon. Uranium 236 is a radioactive nuclear waste which is found in spent nuclear and reprocessed Uranium. More interestingly, Neptunium 237 is a radioactive metallic element and a by-product of nuclear reactors and the production of Plutonium. You have to ask the question: What is happening on Earth’s Moon? From where do these elements and minerals come from?

3) Earth’s Moon does not have a solid core like every other planetary object. Researchers are nearly 100 percent sure that the Moon is, in fact, hollow or has a very low-intensity interior. Strangely, the Moon’s concentration of mass is located at a series of points just below the surface.

4) The Moon is older than Earth. Our Moon is unlike any other satellite discovered in the known universe. Researchers know the Moon is 4.6 billion years old and that raises a lot of questions. This means that the moon is older than the Earth by nearly 800,000 years according to scientists.

5) Incredible orbit. Earth’s moon is the only moon in the solar system that has a stationary, nearly “perfect” circular orbit. It’s a fact that the Moon does not spin like a natural celestial body. In other words, our Moon does not share any characteristics with other moons found in our Solar System. If that isn’t strange enough, consider that from any point on the surface of our planet only one side of the Moon is visible. What is the moon hiding?

6) Lunar rocks and titanium. There are some lunar rocks that have been found to contain ten times more titanium than “titanium rich” rocks on planet Earth. Here on Earth, we use Titanium in supersonic jets, deep diving submarines and spacecraft. It’s unexplainable. Dr Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner for Chemistry said he was “terribly puzzled by the rocks astronauts found on the moon and their Titanium content. The samples were unimaginable and mind-blowing since researchers could not account for the presence of Titanium.

7) Precise position. If all of the above points do not get you to think differently about the Earth’s moon; here are some more interesting things about the Moon. What is keeping the moon in its nearly perfect position? The moon has a precise altitude, course and speed, allowing it to “function” properly in regards of planet Earth.

Simply put the Moon should not be where it is currently. Everything points to the possibility that Earth’s moon was in fact placed into its current orbit in the distant past. The Moon’s unnatural orbit and irregular composition raise hundreds of questions that neither NASA scientists, astronomers or geologists are able to answer today. Despite all efforts to understand Earth’s “natural” satellite, the truth is that we have very little information about the Moon’s origin and purpose. What do you think the moon is? A nearly perfect natural occurrence? Or do the Moon’s origins surpass human understanding?

https://www.ancient-code.com/7-irregularities-that-suggest-earths-moon-was-engineered/

[East Sun]

Credo Mutwa said it was "towed" to it's present location eons ago
and I believe he is right just because of who he is.

Check out David Icke;s interview of him on David's forum.

(Hope it's all right to mention this here, Bill} ************************8

[Bill Ryan]

Credo Mutwa said it was "towed" to it's present location eons ago


Interestingly, Camelot witness 'Henry Deacon' told us exactly the same thing.




Christopher Knight and Alan Butler wrote: Who Built The Moon?

Here it is:


http://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Alan%20Butler%2C%20Christopher%20Knight%20-%20Who%20Built%20the%20Moon%3F.pdf

[Sunny-side-up]

Well I do not know but this is fun....ish?

Synopsis: During the construction of the universe, a young member of the Cosmos Corps of Engineers decides to break some fundamental laws in the name of self-expression. 16mins long or about that!

The Looking Planet
A8LRxIANzQs

Thanks for posting this great film lake.
It is one of my favorite finds in the 'Dust' collection.

Maybe this is how it's all done out there ;)

A great film to broaden ones views on higher dimensional beings and how easy it all might be for them haha.

[Bill Ryan]

There are dozens of moon threads (do a search (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/search.php?search_type=1) with 'Moon' as the search term with results as titles) — but this one seemed the most appropriate for this video.

The video starts with an explanation of the moon's relative motion around the sun that makes it unique in our solar system. (I never knew this.)

And then go to 5:45 to see how a certain relationship of moons of moons of moons ('mini-moons') would describe an orbit in the shape of Homer Simpson. (Yes, really!)

The video soon heads towards some quite advanced math, but the start of it really is quite fascinating. :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS4H6PEcCCA

[amor]

Around 2009 when Jose Escamilla came out with his wonderful movie "Moon Rising," I scoured every small section of that video by stopping its motion. I viewed what appeared to me to be Giants in robes among TREES. In one particular section with is still viewable in "Moon Rising 1" on You tube.com, a scene shows what is described as the possible outlet for an atomic energy generator and to the right of that is what appears to be a huge cannon described as having a bore of one mile in diameter. Hardly noticeable to most people except scourers like myself, the far wall of this crater's depression shows a large number of people either lined up or walking in a line from a cave exit to the side of the crater holding up the cannon. The picture of the Atomic Energy Generator's Chimney is said to be two miles wide. That would mean that the people in the picture were EMENSE GIANTS.

In another view of Jose Camilla's film, "Moon Rising 2" (which is no longer on the internet for some reason...it was too convincing and revealing...is shown several human GIANTS, male and female in long gowns among TREES. I clearly saw bushes and trees in his video. However, I got a confirmation from a woman who worked at NASA (this is on Youtube.com) who spoke with another employee who was brushing out things from the photos taken on the Moon showing a UFO floating over "TREES." I inspected the cliffs to its left and deciphered tiny human forms among what appeared to be huge stone cliffs which in several located clearly showed the shape of a door portal, clearly rectangular.

Now if there are forests and trees there must be water, oxygen and clouds. On the subject of GIANTS, a great many very complete human heads and faces stared out at me as (corpses) being a part of the ground. These GIANTS may have been one or many more miles in height. Add this to the Alien, but human looking female corpses of ancient pilots found and removed from the moon by NASA, and you come away with the conclusion that one or more terrible wars occurred on the moon, leaving the structures of a previous civilization behind. I also viewed what appeared to be openings, like windows, in the faked rocks of the moon with human faces in what must have been those of Giants looking through them. There was also a scene of very tall humans around a pool. I think that Jose was stopped from showing his original video which was too explicit.

My conclusion from the above and other information is that the Moon is spying on earthlings. Possibly, we are some sort of experiment to be observed, to have horrible genetic tests torturing us and when they are through with that, they likely kill us all off and on to the next experiment. The Zulu Shaman Credo Mutwa says the Moon only moved into position thirty thousand years ago and the two main Annunaki, Enlil and Enki, were aboard. Put that together with the story that they created us 250,000 years ago. Something smells somewhere. This is my contribution to Avalon. Hope you read it and keep it.

[Nick Matkin]

An atmosphere on the Moon would be clearly detectable from Earth by any amateur astronomer with a small telescope by watching the Moon's atmosphere affect the light from stars as the Moon moved across the sky.

[Ron Mauer Sr]

If the mass of the moon were different (solid or hollow) would that change the trajectory or speed of the moon as it revolved around earth?

[Bill Ryan]

If the mass of the moon were different (solid or hollow) would that change the trajectory or speed of the moon as it revolved around earth?A technical answer: no, it makes no difference. Orbits depend only on mass, distance and angular velocity, not the size of the object. So whether it's small and dense or large and hollow doesn't affect the orbit at all.

[Satori]

If the mass of the moon were different (solid or hollow) would that change the trajectory or speed of the moon as it revolved around earth?A technical answer: no, it makes no difference. Orbits depend only on mass, distance and angular velocity, not the size of the object. So whether it's small and dense or large and hollow doesn't affect the orbit at all.

The question dealt with mass, not size.

What if the moon was small and hollow, or large and dense? Also, small or large—relative to what? Earth? Dense, relative to what? The moon as it is now? Which is what?

What about the effect of other celestial bodies on the moon?

[Mashika]

If the mass of the moon were different (solid or hollow) would that change the trajectory or speed of the moon as it revolved around earth?A technical answer: no, it makes no difference. Orbits depend only on mass, distance and angular velocity, not the size of the object. So whether it's small and dense or large and hollow doesn't affect the orbit at all.

The question dealt with mass, not size.

What if the moon was small and hollow, or large and dense? Also, small or large—relative to what? Earth? Dense, relative to what? The moon as it is now? Which is what?

What about the effect of other celestial bodies on the moon?

If the moon was compressed into a dot (by human terms) it would have the exact same effect as it does right now due to mass

If it was hollow, then we would have the math wrong, because by all measures it is not. And it would be very odd that it behaves in this way while not having the proper mass

But there's one thing, possibly. The moon could be hollow, but there's something inside that empty ball that is causing it to behave around the earth as if it wasn't hollow at all

[Ewan]

Surely Ron's question stated if the mass were different, all the answers seem to indicate the mass being the same? Or am I missing something, it wouldn't be the first time. :)

[greybeard]

If the moon was dragged into position it would have to have happened before humans arrived on Earth.
We are dependent on the movement of the oceans --tides-- for survival.
Im glad it is there, hollow or not.
Chris

[Bill Ryan]

If the mass of the moon were different (solid or hollow) would that change the trajectory or speed of the moon as it revolved around earth?A technical answer: no, it makes no difference. Orbits depend only on mass, distance and angular velocity, not the size of the object. So whether it's small and dense or large and hollow doesn't affect the orbit at all.

We may have to ask Ron Mauer if I answered his question. (Maybe not, if I somehow misunderstood it!)

[Ron Mauer Sr]

Let me put my question in a different way.

Let's hypothetically compare the orbit of two moons. One is significantly hollow the other is solid. If put into orbit at the same velocity and direction, would they share similar orbits?

[Bill Ryan]

Let me put my question in a different way.

Let's hypothetically compare the orbit of two moons. One is significantly hollow the other is solid. If put into orbit at the same velocity and direction, would they share similar orbits?If they have the same mass, then yes. :thumbsup: Mass, distance and angular velocity are the three variables that determine any orbit.

Neither size or density ("hollowness" or not) make any difference at all.

[Retief]

The orbital velocity is independent of the mass of the orbiting body. For a circular orbit v=sqrt(GM/r) G=gravitational constant M= mass of the body orbited (earth in this case) r =radius of orbit from center of mass of the orbited body. The moon and a cue ball have the same orbital velocity at the moon's orbit radius. Hopefully that helps.

[Satori]

Let me put my question in a different way.

Let's hypothetically compare the orbit of two moons. One is significantly hollow the other is solid. If put into orbit at the same velocity and direction, would they share similar orbits?If they have the same mass, then yes. :thumbsup: Mass, distance and angular velocity are the three variables that determine any orbit.

Neither size or density ("hollowness" or not) make any difference at all.

Isn't there a correlation at least between density and mass? A definition I found on the "internets" of density is: " Physics: degree of consistency measured by the quantity of mass per unit volume." But, perhaps to your point, a definition of mass I found is: "Mass, in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of force." Which, if I'm not mistaken, sounds similar to a definition of angular momentum, or is at least an aspect of it.

[Bill Ryan]

Let me put my question in a different way.

Let's hypothetically compare the orbit of two moons. One is significantly hollow the other is solid. If put into orbit at the same velocity and direction, would they share similar orbits?If they have the same mass, then yes. :thumbsup: Mass, distance and angular velocity are the three variables that determine any orbit.

Neither size or density ("hollowness" or not) make any difference at all.

Isn't there a correlation at least between density and mass? A definition I found on the "internets" of density is: " Physics: degree of consistency measured by the quantity of mass per unit volume." But, perhaps to your point, a definition of mass I found is: "Mass, in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of force." Which, if I'm not mistaken, sounds similar to a definition of angular momentum, or is at least an aspect of it.

There are three things you can measure on a ping pong ball, a bowling ball, or the moon. :)


size (diameter),
mass, and
density.

You'll see that if you know any two of those, the third can be figured out.

In the case of the gravitational equation (which determines orbits), the size and density don't matter or feature at all.

Of the above three factors, only the mass makes a difference.

(Angular velocity is independent of ALL those three, and is another factor in the equation. Angular momentum is the product — i.e. a multiplication — of the mass and angular velocity.)

What this means is that a hollow ping pong ball (with very low density), that was large enough, would have the same orbit as the moon — if it had the same mass. But because it's far less dense, it'd have to be really pretty huge. :)

[Bill Ryan]

In the case of the gravitational equation (which determines orbits), the size and density don't matter or feature at all.

This is a PS: (or maybe a footnote! :) )

I referred just now to the gravitational equation. That's very closely related to the orbital equation, and that needs an image to show all this clearly in a post:

~~~

https://kaiserscience.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/gravity-solving-a-uniform-circular-motion-equation.png

~~~

All you need to know here is what the symbols stand for — but they're kinda shown in the little diagram at the upper left.


m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects (like the Earth and Moon).
r is the distance between them.
vt is the velocity of the orbiting object.
F12 is the gravitational force between the two objects.
G is the gravitational constant, which as far as we know is fixed in the whole universe.

So what you can see is that only the mass(es), distance and velocity are factors here. Nothing to do with size, which (seen another way) is the same kind of variable as density.

That's because if you know the mass and size, you can figure out the density, and if you know the mass and density, you can figure out the size. So that's why (in these calculations) for a given mass, size and density influence in the same way — which in the case of this equation and this situation, is not at all.

:focus:

[Agape]

The NASA is to announce new exciting discoveries about the Moon from the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy today at 12 PM EDT ( 9 AM PST, 5.30 GMT ) in live teleconference here:



https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-announce-new-science-results-about-moon

https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive


Let’s hope it will further elucidate the topic


🌟🌟🌟

[Hermoor]

NASA is to announce new exciting discoveries about the Moon

I think they've found water there. I wonder if they used a PCR test for that too?

[TargeT]

If the mass of the moon were different (solid or hollow) would that change the trajectory or speed of the moon as it revolved around earth?A technical answer: no, it makes no difference. Orbits depend only on mass, distance and angular velocity, not the size of the object. So whether it's small and dense or large and hollow doesn't affect the orbit at all.

The question dealt with mass, not size.

What if the moon was small and hollow, or large and dense? Also, small or large—relative to what? Earth? Dense, relative to what? The moon as it is now? Which is what?

What about the effect of other celestial bodies on the moon?

If the moon was compressed into a dot (by human terms) it would have the exact same effect as it does right now due to mass

If it was hollow, then we would have the math wrong, because by all measures it is not. And it would be very odd that it behaves in this way while not having the proper mass

But there's one thing, possibly. The moon could be hollow, but there's something inside that empty ball that is causing it to behave around the earth as if it wasn't hollow at all

Actually the mass of the moon is "strangely low (https://www.universetoday.com/19728/mass-of-the-moon/)" and this was a strong science based foundation for the "hollow moon theory".

Also there were tests done in which we crashed objects into the moon and it "rang like a bell", this was in an attempt to recreate the phenomenon measured by seismology equipment on the moon (Moon quakes, they are called) (https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/15mar_moonquakes.html)


Anyway, more than enough there to warrant further exploration of the topic.

[Mashika]

If the mass of the moon were different (solid or hollow) would that change the trajectory or speed of the moon as it revolved around earth?A technical answer: no, it makes no difference. Orbits depend only on mass, distance and angular velocity, not the size of the object. So whether it's small and dense or large and hollow doesn't affect the orbit at all.

The question dealt with mass, not size.

What if the moon was small and hollow, or large and dense? Also, small or large—relative to what? Earth? Dense, relative to what? The moon as it is now? Which is what?

What about the effect of other celestial bodies on the moon?

If the moon was compressed into a dot (by human terms) it would have the exact same effect as it does right now due to mass

If it was hollow, then we would have the math wrong, because by all measures it is not. And it would be very odd that it behaves in this way while not having the proper mass

But there's one thing, possibly. The moon could be hollow, but there's something inside that empty ball that is causing it to behave around the earth as if it wasn't hollow at all

Actually the mass of the moon is "strangely low (https://www.universetoday.com/19728/mass-of-the-moon/)" and this was a strong science based foundation for the "hollow moon theory".

Also there were tests done in which we crashed objects into the moon and it "rang like a bell", this was in an attempt to recreate the phenomenon measured by seismology equipment on the moon (Moon quakes, they are called) (https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/15mar_moonquakes.html)


Anyway, more than enough there to warrant further exploration of the topic.


I remember reading about "the moon rings like a bell" but it was a misinterpretation of quakes, shallow quakes caused the seismometers to record signals that looked similar to a bell ringing, but that doesn't meant he moon is hollow, it just means that there could be a lot of caves and stuff like that at the upper level, and the seismometers recorded it like that

At the time this "rings like a bell" thing came up, no object crashed into the moon, those were recorded moon quakes, so of course the moon was ringing/vibrating

I do remember some misinfo about that time that NASA sent a satellite or rocket to crash on the moon, and then a lot of people started with the "it rang like a bell" and associated the two separate events into a single one, to allow for this theory to come up again. It just didn't happen like that, and those were two separate things, by decades

ETA: I thought this was like last year or so, but now i only see posts saying it was on 2009, anyways those were two completely separate events

https://www.space.com/lcross-moon-water-10-year-anniversary.html

[aoibhghaire]

In my early days, I was involved in ground observational research to carry out long term high resolution photography survey of the Moon.

In detailed analysis of the photos I found a shadow missing from one of the mountain tops when using an original reference photo taken previously. I speculated it may be due to a Moon quake.

To my pleasant surprise after informing NASA I got confirmation from NASA that one of there seismometers had recorded a Moon quake only a few days previously and therefore around that time frame. The quake must have been intense with the epicentre nearby the mountain.

[TargeT]

I do remember some misinfo about that time that NASA sent a satellite or rocket to crash on the moon,

We actually did it several times to study seismic reactions due to the excessive "vibrating" (aka ringing) of the moon that was observed naturally.


Several rocket stages utilized during the Apollo space program were deliberately crashed on the Moon to aid seismic research, and four of the ascent stages of Apollo Lunar Modules were deliberately crashed onto the Moon after they had fulfilled their function. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberate_crash_landings_on_extraterrestrial_bodies#:~:text=Several%20rocket%20stages%20utilized%20 during,they%20had%20fulfilled%20their%20function.)


But none of that means it's hollow, just interesting.

[avid]

Like the difference between limestone and basalt, some solid and not affected by water, some easily dissolved causing hollows in the environmental sub-structure. However, whatever is up there, please apply a similar principle.
Or the equivalent of burrowing entities?

[Mashika]

I do remember some misinfo about that time that NASA sent a satellite or rocket to crash on the moon,

We actually did it several times to study seismic reactions due to the excessive "vibrating" (aka ringing) of the moon that was observed naturally.


Several rocket stages utilized during the Apollo space program were deliberately crashed on the Moon to aid seismic research, and four of the ascent stages of Apollo Lunar Modules were deliberately crashed onto the Moon after they had fulfilled their function. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberate_crash_landings_on_extraterrestrial_bodies#:~:text=Several%20rocket%20stages%20utilized%20 during,they%20had%20fulfilled%20their%20function.)


But none of that means it's hollow, just interesting.

Dah, i'm mean i just wanted to say that the phrase "it rings like a bell" and the actual experiments, did not at all happen at the same time. So if a natural event caused the instruments to record it like that, and then artificial events were meant to reproduce, those are two different things

I'm just not wanting to merge two different things. Assumptions and all that always lead to bad stuff

[araucaria]

There are always two sides to any coin. When you create a concavity, you also create a convexity on the other side. When you dig a hole, you also build a mound. Given that the mound has the topsoil on the bottom and the clay on top, it can be seen as an upside-down hole. Since a hollow planet cannot be natural, it has to have been hollowed out by someone. Any artificial explanation would be bolstered if evidence were to be found not only of the hollowness but also of the pile of debris. It would be further bolstered if an explanation were to be found finding a use for both. This is what we find in Don Wilson’s 1975 book Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon, describing the ‘Soviet Artificial Moon Theory’ answering the question ‘Is the Moon a hollowed-out spaceship sent to orbit our Earth in the remote prehistoric past? Was it once inhabited by alien space travellers?’ A spaceship naturally has to be hollow on the inside, but it also needs to be hard and resistant on the outside. We have an endoskeleton (internal bone structure), as opposed to a crab’s exoskeleton (carapace). Turning a planetoid into a spaceship would then involve replacing an endoskeleton with an exoskeleton.

Page 97 reads as follows:

So though we know little, scientists have learned enough about our neighbor tom come to this conclusion: “The moon’s composition is not at all what it should be had the moon been formed in the present orbit around the earth.” The elements that make up its composition are simply too different.
In general, scientists are puzzled not only by the different elemental makeup, but also over why the moon is son strangely chemically zoned; its surface enriched in the refractory elements and its interior seemingly devoid of iron, yet the iron content seemingly plentiful in the maria, and in one layer beneath the surface.
The amount of refractory elements in the surface rocks is so pronounced that several geochemists proposed these materials were brought to the Moon’s surface in great quantity in some way. In such a theory, the highly volatile materials would be concentrated toward the interior. In fact, the Moon is so strange in this respect that Dr. D.L. Anderson, professor of geophysics and director of the seismological laboratory at Caltech, proposes that “the moon was made inside out.”
We suggest: If the Soviet theory of a hollowed-out world were correct, with the internal Moon materials brought to the surface during the process, the Moon, to our scientists, would seem to be made inside out. Also, the fact that the Moon is deficient in iron except in a layer under its surface, and rich in iron and titanium and similar elements in the maria, fits the Soviet theory that aliens used these materials in the formation of their “spaceship’s” inner hull, and the outer maria patchwork.Wilson goes into some detail about the moon ringing like a ‘huge gong’, and notably

the question of the mystifying speed with which vibrations travel through the Moon’s hard interior layer. As Wernher von Braun tells us: “The velocity (of seismic waves) seems to gradually increase down to a depth of about 15 miles – then there is a sharp increase. This increase can only be accounted for by a change to a denser material… At a depth of 40 miles, the velocity is estimated to be about six miles a second… No rocks examined thus far would under the actual pressures expected at a lunar depth of 40 miles transmit seismic impulses at speeds as high as six miles a second. (p.100-1)On the other hand, the intermixture of metals as described above averages out at precisely that speed… Basically then, if you have a hollow structure with a metal casing, you would actually expect it to ring like a bell, because that is literally what it is. :)

[silvanelf]

The appearance of "deep moonquakes" (500 to 750 miles below its surface) contradict the assumption of a hollow moon.

Emphasis is mine:

A new analysis of data gathered by the Apollo missions confirms that tidal stress – the gravitational pull of the moon on the Earth and of the Earth on the moon – is responsible for causing deep moonquakes, the lunar equivalent of earthquakes.

Seismometers placed on the moon during the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 16 missions revealed the moon experiences deep moonquakes about 800 to 1,200 kilometers (497 to 746 miles) below its surface roughly every 27 days. Since this is about the time it takes the moon to make a complete circuit around Earth, scientists suspected the moonquakes were a result of tidal stress, but their exact cause remained a source of debate.

-- snip --

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-moon-tidal-stress-responsible-deep.html

[Sarah Rainsong]

Hollow or not, if the moon is experiencing quakes, what does that mean for the moon? We get quakes because of things like magma movement and tectonic plates shifting. It results in things like volcanoes and mountains and canyons and cracks in the crust. What might quakes bring to the moon?

(I guess if it's a giant spaceship, we might be detecting the "whirring of machines" or something, so theoretically no effects on the moon... unless the spaceship is having some kind of technical difficulty--then I suppose all bets are off!)

But assuming it's some kind of natural structure... what then?

[silvanelf]

What might quakes bring to the moon?


I found an explanation ... I'm aware that the quote is from NASA and many people may claim that "NASA is always lying" and all that. But in my view the explanation about moonquakes is reasonable;


There are at least four different kinds of moonquakes:

deep moonquakes about 700 km below the surface, probably caused by tides;
vibrations from the impact of meteorites;
thermal quakes caused by the expansion of the frigid crust when first illuminated by the morning sun after two weeks of deep-freeze lunar night; and
shallow moonquakes only 20 or 30 kilometers below the surface.

The first three were generally mild and harmless. Shallow moonquakes on the other hand were doozies. Between 1972 and 1977, the Apollo seismic network saw twenty-eight of them; a few "registered up to 5.5 on the Richter scale," says Neal. A magnitude 5 quake on Earth is energetic enough to move heavy furniture and crack plaster.

Furthermore, shallow moonquakes lasted a remarkably long time. Once they got going, all continued more than 10 minutes. "The moon was ringing like a bell," Neal says.

On Earth, vibrations from quakes usually die away in only half a minute. The reason has to do with chemical weathering, Neal explains: "Water weakens stone, expanding the structure of different minerals. When energy propagates across such a compressible structure, it acts like a foam sponge—it deadens the vibrations." Even the biggest earthquakes stop shaking in less than 2 minutes.

The moon, however, is dry, cool and mostly rigid, like a chunk of stone or iron. So moonquakes set it vibrating like a tuning fork. Even if a moonquake isn't intense, "it just keeps going and going," Neal says. And for a lunar habitat, that persistence could be more significant than a moonquake's magnitude.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/15mar_moonquakes

[araucaria]

The appearance of "deep moonquakes" (500 to 750 miles below its surface) contradict the assumption of a hollow moon.
Not necessarily. We are not talking about 100% hollowness. Also, artificial structures–eg dams in China –are known to cause earthquakes … In addition, I described a ‘Soviet theory’, suggesting that disagreements may occur on ideological lines rather than just scientific. As I said, there are two sides to everything. Another thing the theory explains, or could explain, is the uniform depth of craters. The really huge ones–120-148 miles across–are no deeper than the much smaller ones: why? Some kind of armour-plating perhaps. Not necessarily the correct explanation, but a possibility, nonetheless.

I have no one to quote on where I could take this: below are a few thoughts of my own, pure speculation of course. If an alien civilization came here in a hollow moon, maybe they did so in order to upscale their technology and build a… hollow earth. Sounds crazy, and hollow earthers are decried even by people who talk about underground bases and underground cities. Nonetheless, there is some mileage in the idea. Take the pyramids: where did the stone come from? No one really knows, but there is plenty of talk, in another connection, of underground chambers. As above so below: as to which is the more important, generally speaking the overt is merely cover for the covert, here sending the pyramidologists on a wild-goose chase. Incidentally, the recent Louvre pyramid in Paris stands over an underground pyramid, the area leading to the museum.

Modern construction work seems to have got out of hand. Here in France, new housing estates are sprouting up all over the place. I sometimes wonder where all the sand, gravel and cement comes from. A few open-air quarries? Unlikely. And why? There must be a huge quantity of existing buildings being allowed to go derelict. You read of entire villages in Spain being emptied and put up for sale en bloc. And you read of entire cities being built in China for no one in particular. It almost seems as if the main priority was getting material out of the ground, building cities being the default way of disposing of it.

Or take the petroleum and coal industries. Why these outdated fossil fuel technologies have persisted and continue to persist long after better cleaner alternatives have been found suddenly makes sense if you see it in terms of primarily making space underground and making that space a safe place. For the same reason, obviously you would want to get the radioactive material out and out of harm’s way by burning it. Nuclear warfare would have got the job done so much more quickly, but at too great a cost, not in human lives or destroying the surface ecosystem, but in destroying the underground system in the process.

The whole idea of wholesale trashing of the planet makes a good deal of sense from this inside-out scenario seen from our external viewpoint, and it literally places the hell of Satanism in this underworld. The poet Paul Eluard wrote ‘the earth is blue like an orange’, presumably referring to its beauty and nourishing qualities through this surrealist clash of colours. However, what makes the fruit really orange in colour is the rind, namely the bitter discardable part protecting the edible fruit. There is an inherent contradiction here, since we now know that the blueness is on the outside. There are two mutually incompatible ways of inhabiting a planet. On the outside, blue skies and the blackness of deep space would appear to be too overpowering for some, who ‘get the blues’ living the way we do. On blueness and the underworld, see this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?112131-Bill-s-Picasso-story&p=1383303&viewfull=1#post1383303).

Hence the great battle of our time is ecology. One lifestyle destroys the ecosystem. The other, outward-looking approach turns it back on the earth’s inner resources, and in return can mine the endless resources of the universe. Humankind, as the sum of all the experiences we are talking about, has this choice to make. Seeing the Moon, not visibly hollow but certainly barren-looking, is a reminder of the two options. One day, when pollution has reached new heights, the sight will no longer be available.

[Ewan]

Modern construction work seems to have got out of hand. Here in France, new housing estates are sprouting up all over the place. I sometimes wonder where all the sand, gravel and cement comes from. A few open-air quarries? Unlikely. And why? There must be a huge quantity of existing buildings being allowed to go derelict. You read of entire villages in Spain being emptied and put up for sale en bloc. And you read of entire cities being built in China for no one in particular. It almost seems as if the main priority was getting material out of the ground, building cities being the default way of disposing of it.


Yes, only it is not a few it is hundreds. I searched the UK for two resources, limestone, at this site (https://www.aditnow.co.uk/Database/) and it returned 455 hits, with clay producing 244 results. When limestone is used to produce cement and clay for bricks they end up in buildings full of air pockets (rooms) and space between their neighbours. If you were to remove all that space and air pockets how big a hole would all those construction materials need?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IJs0oet7zrE/maxresdefault.jpg

An entire city could fit in that one when disassembled!

Most quarries are out of sight in rural areas, you you barely notice they are there. Quarries after useful life are invariably abandoned as holes in the ground, nature does its best to reclaim the area or over time they might fill with water.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GwaE7zVie8k/Wh72NBUY8xI/AAAAAAAAK1A/lFEBJfhVBnA-5Xy83aiBN7ddX6gaNsuHwCLcBGAs/s1600/01Quarry.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4PhbE6qAQts/maxresdefault.jpg

[silvanelf]

The appearance of "deep moonquakes" (500 to 750 miles below its surface) contradict the assumption of a hollow moon.
Not necessarily. We are not talking about 100% hollowness.

Here are some numbers ...
Diameter of the moon; 2160 miles
Radius equals distance between center and surface: 1080 miles
500 to 750 miles below the surface of the moon = between 330 and 580 miles from the center

Let's take 1/3 of the radius (360 miles) as a ballpark number ...
It would mean that one third of the radius is hollow, or just 4% of the volume of the moon ... that's just a "small" cavity.

We are not talking about 100% hollowness -- we are talking about 4% hollowness or less.

I think you are grasping at straws.

[Bill Ryan]

The appearance of "deep moonquakes" (500 to 750 miles below its surface) contradict the assumption of a hollow moon.
Not necessarily. We are not talking about 100% hollowness.

Here are some numbers ...
Diameter of the moon; 2160 miles
Radius equals distance between center and surface: 1080 miles
500 to 750 miles below the surface of the moon = between 330 and 580 miles from the center

Let's take 1/3 of the radius (360 miles) as a ballpark number ...
It would mean that one third of the radius is hollow, or just 4% of the volume of the moon ... that's just a "small" cavity.

We are not talking about 100% hollowness -- we are talking about 4% hollowness or less.

I think you are grasping at straws.Yes, I agree. It's not hollow like a giant tennis ball! :)

But there may be large cavities there (natural or otherwise!) — maybe near the surface crust rather than at the center.

[araucaria]

Thank you Ewan for trying to demolish one part of my little argument. :) That’s perfectly all right, I was only toying with a few ideas; I have no horse in this race. So you find one whopping quarry to account for one city. How many cities are there in the world? And where are the corresponding quarries? Ah yes, they disappear into the landscape, how very convenient ;) On the other hand, the sinkhole phenomenon suggests that there are also plenty of places for people to suddenly disappear into the landscape! And on yet another hand, it is strange that most of the world’s lakes are in places where historically very little building seems to have taken place (e.g. Canada).

Still, maybe you are right, and Atlantis was not just a giant artificial sinkhole, but a whole continent that was dug out for building purposes and afterwards became flooded.

Silvanelf, let me take your figures. The Moon’s volume, 4/3 * pi.r^3, works out at 5276669286 (5 billion) cubic miles! 4% of that comes to 211,066,771 cu mi. Unless I’m mistaken, supposing for convenience that, if inhabited, the ceilings were a mile high, which of course they wouldn’t be, then the cavity would measure… 211 million square miles, which is 211 million times larger than the City of London. 4% is your figure: I would put it much lower, and still end up with something unimaginably huge.

While on the subject of your figures, I would note that the Moon’s diameter, 1080 miles, is ‘suspiciously’ a harmonic of the precession cycle: 1080 being 1/24th of 25920 years, 1/10th of the Babylonian cycle of 10,800 years, 1/400th of the Hindu cycle of 432,000 years. Why is it such a neat figure? Compare with the fine structure constant 1/137 (137 is a prime number) which works out as 0.0072992700729927 – recurring but not very neat.
This leads me to Maurice Chatelain, a Nasa engineer who worked on the Apollo program and discovered the ‘Niniveh constant’ of roughly 6.3 million years (but a precise numbers of seconds!) into which every other astronomical figure is divisible. This figure is date-stamped to 64,800 years ago. This comes to 195,955,200,000,000 – nearly 200 million million – seconds, a figure found on… a Sumerian clay tablet. All the solar system cycles, which are messy in terms of solar days or tropical years, work out as whole number fractions of this number. For example, lunar standstill happens exactly 333,608 times in that period. This can mean one of two things. Either the Moon was locally produced, or if it is an alien body, then at some not recent stage, it became fully assimilated, possibly by mimicking the earth (one rotation = one orbit).

Talking of messy numbers, Maurice Chatelain’s major claim as a serious scientist is the way he combines huge amounts of messy numbers into something coherent. Most importantly, the many units of weight and length around the world in various periods can all be brought down to fractions of the degree of latitude at any given point. So for example, one degree of longitude (east-west) is a constant that produces a variable distance on the ground depending on latitude (north-south): closer to the equator, one degree is much longer than on say the 45th parallel, and becomes next to nothing at the pole. Hence our ancient weights and measures presuppose a) knowledge that the earth is spherical and b) where you stood in relation to that sphere, hence identical units at great distances.

I may have more to say later about Maurice Chatelain’s thoughts on the idea of the Moon being the fourth such earth satellite, but this will do for now.

[Lunesoleil]

you asked for the moon, don't quit

Edgar Cayce's universe extract p.410 / 411: According to astrological aspects, we can find a stay made on the Moon by this entity. Hence the lunar influence on this native. Never sleep with your face exposed to the moonlight! There is also a lot to be said about exposure to the sun's rays. Because Moon and Sun govern the emotions (Reading 1401-1). As the Sun is the source of life - in terrestrial materiality - the beauty of the satellite of the Earth, experienced in these lunar stays, from where the soul of the individual goes to travel to these other planets […] gives a vital experience to the entity or soul when it passes by (Reading 805-4) The inhabitants of the Moon, satellite of the Earth preceded those who adapted to matter, came to live on Earth in material form. And this entity was among those who thus dwelled on the Moon, it remains very influenced by the two stays it made there. (Reading 264-2)

:plane:

[Lunesoleil]

The ENOCH Book: Extract on Lighting

Here is the passage which sends the reader back to the journey of the  (Moon) and (Sun) in the Heavens

CHAPTER LXXI (Section 13)

1. Book of the course of the celestial lights, according to their orders, their times, their names and the places where they begin their career, and their different places, all things that Ouriel, the holy angel who was with me and who governs them. The whole treaty concerning them is in conformity with what it showed me and for all the years of the world, perpetually, until the new work is accomplished which is to last forever.
-Isa 65:17; 66:22; 2 Peter 3: 3,13; Rev 21: 1-

2. Here is the first law of lights. The sun, the torch of the day, comes out of the gates of heaven, located to the east, and sets on the opposite side, through the gates of heaven, which are to the west.

3. I saw six doors, where the sun begins its career, and six doors where it ends.

4. Through these same gates the moon goes out and also enters, and I saw these princes of the lights, with the stars that precede them, the six gates of their rising, the six gates of their setting.

5. All these doors are one after the other in the same alignment, and to the right and to the left there are windows.

6. First we see advancing the great luminary, which we call the sun, whose orbit is like the orbit of the sky, and which is all resplendent with fire and flames.

7. The wind blows away the chariot on which it is mounted.

8. But soon he leans north to advance east; it turns while passing through this door, it lights up this part of the sky.

9. This is how he looks in his career the first month.

10. He leaves by the fourth of these doors which is in the east.

11. And at this fourth door which he crosses the first month, there are twelve open windows from which streams of flame escape, when they open at the time which is marked for them.

12. When the sun rises in the sky, it passes through the fourth gate for thirty days, and through the fourth gate on the west side it descends in a straight line.

13. After this time, the days grow longer, the nights diminish for thirty days. Then the day is two parts longer than the night.

14. The day, in fact, has ten parts, while the night has only eight.

15. However, the sun passes through this fourth gate, and sets by passing through the corresponding gate, then it approaches the fifth gate, which is on the east, for thirty days, and it sets likewise while passing through the corresponding door.

16. Then the day is further increased by one part, so that the day has eleven parts; the night decreases and has only seven.

17. Then the sun moves eastward through the sixth gate, and it rises and sets through that gate for thirty days.

18. At this time, the day is twice as long as the night, contains twelve parts of it.

19. As for the night, it decreases in the same proportion and contains only six parts. Finally the sun is declining, so that the day decreases while the night increases.

20. For the sun returns eastward, passing through the sixth gate, through which it goes out, and enters for thirty days.

21. After this period, the day decreases by one degree, so it has only eleven parts, while the night has seven.

22. The sun leaves the west, through the sixth gate, and goes east, rises through the fifth gate for thirty days, and also sets in the west through the fifth gate.

23. At this time the day is reduced by two twelfths so that it has ten parts, while the night has eight.

24. Now the sun passes east and west through the fifth gate. Finally he gets up by the fourth for thirty-one days, and goes to bed in the west.

25. At this time, day is equal to night, so that both also have nine parts.

26. Then the sun leaves this gate, and advancing towards the east, passes through the third gate as well at its rising as at its sunset.

27. From this time the night increases for thirty days, so that the night consists of ten parts, while the day includes only eight.

28. Then the sun goes out by the third gate and will set likewise by the third gate in the west for thirty days.

29. Then he passes the second to the east as well as to the west.

30. At this time the night has eleven parts and the day only seven.

31. It is the time that the sun passes through the second either at its rising or at its sunset. Then he declines and arrives at the first door, which he passes through for thirty days.

32. He also goes to bed by the first door.

33. Then the night is double the day.

34. So she has twelve gates, while the day has only six.

35. And when the sun has reached this point he begins his career all over again.

36. He goes through this door, for thirty days, and lies in the same door to the west.

37. In this time, the night decreases by one part, it only includes eleven.

38. As for the day, it has only seven parts.

39. Then the sun goes through the second gate, to the east.

40. Returns through the one he had first fled for thirty days, rising and lying at the two corresponding doors.

41. The night decreases still, it has only ten parts, and the day eight. The sun passes through the second gate either at sunrise or at sunset, then it advances towards the east, rises through the third gate for thirty days, and goes to set at the corresponding western gate.

42. The night continues to decrease, it contains only nine parts, as many as the day, then there is equality between the one and the other; the year is on its three hundred and sixty-fourth day.

43. So it is the very course of the sun which produces the length or the brevity of days and nights.

44. It is he who causes the day to increase successively, that the night to decrease in the same ratio.

45. Such is the law of the course of the sun, it advances, it retreats in turn. Such is the destiny of this great luminaire intended to light up the earth.

46. ​​This luminary to which God from nothingness gave the name of sun.

47. For as he comes in and goes out, never resting, dividing the ethereal plains day and night in his chariot. Its light illuminates seven parts of the moon, but they are both equal in size.

CHAPTER 72

1. After this first law, I saw the one which looks at the lower luminary, which is called the moon, and whose orbit is like the orbit of the sky.

2. It is again the wind which pushes the chariot on which it is mounted; but his light is dispensed to him in moderation.

3. Each month its setting and rising vary, and its days are like the days of the sun. And when its light is full, it contains seven parts of the sun.

4. She gets up, and takes her course towards the east for thirty days.

5. At this time, it appears, and constitutes for you the beginning of the month. For thirty days she passes through the door through which the sun passes.

6. Then she is almost invisible, so that there appears in her no light, except the seventh part of her total light, every day it increases by a portion, but always rising and setting with the sun .

7. When the sun rises, the moon rises with it, and receives a small portion of light from it.

8. On this night, the first day before moon day, the moon sets with the sun.

9. And during this night the moon is dark, but it rises with the seventh part of its light, moving away from the sunrise.

10. But little by little it lights up until its light is complete.

CHAPTER 73

1. Then I saw another law, which consists in determining the lunar months: Ouriel my holy angel and my leader did not let me ignore anything.

2. So I wrote everything down, in the way he revealed it to me.

3. I have noted the months, in the order they arrive, the appearance and phases of the moon for fifteen days.

4. I wrote when the moon completely loses its light, and when it enjoys all its brightness.

5. In certain months the moon advances alone, and for two other months it sets with the sun by the two doors which are in the middle, that is to say, by the third and the fourth. She goes out for seven days, and completes her race.

6. Then she approaches the door through which the sun has passed, and for eight days she passes through the second door, as well as the sun.

7. And when the sun goes out through the fourth gate, the moon goes out for seven days, until the sun goes through the fifth gate.

8. For seven more days she declines towards the fourth gate; it is then in all its splendor; but it soon diminishes and advances by the first door for eight days.

9. Then she walks again to the fourth door, from where the sun rises.

10. So I saw their position, as well as the rising and setting of the sun, in the order of its months.

11. And in these days every five years we will add thirty days, because they are in addition in the solar year. And all the days that will belong to one of these five years will be three hundred and sixty-four. In addition, there will be six days for each of them, so as to form an additional month of thirty days.

12. The lunar month is shorter than the solar and sidereal month.

13. Besides, it is she who regulates the years, so that they do not vary by a single day and invariably consist of three hundred and sixty-four days. In three years there are one thousand and ninety-two days; in five years, eighteen hundred and twenty; in eight years, two thousand nine hundred and twelve days.

14. As for the lunar years, three years include one thousand sixty-two days; five years, shorter than those of the sun of fifty days, embrace only one thousand seven hundred and seventy days, and eight lunar years include two thousand eight hundred and thirty-two days.

15. So eight lunar years are shorter than eight solar years by eighty days.

16. The year is therefore formed by the course of the sun or the moon; it is therefore, according to whether one relates to one or the other of these stars, or longer or shorter.


:Avalon:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&nv=1&pto=aue&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=fr&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://www.bibleetnombres.online.fr/livenoc2.htm&usg=ALkJrhjlC0D-6Fu4vB0bkYVgVCPK5hq8_Q

[Lunesoleil]

I also hear that David Icke wrote an entire book about the moon, and what he's doing here, earlier this year.

It doesn't surprise me that David Icke had an attraction to the Moon, he certainly had a planetary sojourn in a previous life on the Moon and it was also possible an Atlantean. There is a connection with the past and very advanced technologies ...
https://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/David_Icke

OnWYjNKSBFI

👽 :ufo:

[Lunesoleil]

I had thought that the Moon was artificial because the Annunaki during Atlantis era blew it up. A moon from one of the other planets, Saturn? was tractored in. Evidently much has been written that it is a haven for ET's underground. We did not conquer the Moon.

A reflection that makes me think, what if the Moon was simply the emotional reservoir of all human thoughts, since the dawn of the world? Its gray color appearance would show the dominant negativity of emotional states as they are certainly more numerous than beautiful bright thoughts, although I could read on the forum that the Moon could have colors? The Moon as the central lung of the Earth, already its satellite. It's an idea that has fallen like a hair in the soup. And what to say about all this literature, these videos talking about the effects of the Moon, why then this voluntary error, by Organic Portals (PO). And what to say about the effect of the Full Moon, the night of the soul, moonless night at the time of the New Moon. Would these psychological effects of the Moon be a sham ?, for individuals are sensitive to these strategic moments of the phases of the Moon. I find these different approaches very interesting ...

:ufo: