Printable View
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.Quote:
Posted by shiva777
I agree with you Marjon.Quote:
Posted by Majorion
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
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
https://youtube.com/watch#!v=ajTU...eature=related
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.
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/46rosli...MoonRising.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
The table in this link compares lunar to earth composition, with respect to key elements.Quote:
Posted by onawah
Also this pertinent article is worth a read: Moon and Earth Formed out of Identical Material
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.Quote:
Posted by Majorion
The Jeffrey Grupp audio clip was interesting but I'm not partial to the Moon landing hoax theory.
Near the end of this section of John Lear interviewed by George Noory, he mentions the Moon being towed into place
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nm6HE...eature=related
Richard Hoagland gets into the discussion here:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=BKxgQ...eature=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:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=bc-kB...eature=related
re other moons brought here, all planets in our system are inhabited, 6 mile high tower on Moon,
https://youtube.com/watch?v=CxW--...eature=related
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4G2-P...eature=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?
Quote:
Posted by Fredkc
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
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.
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
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.
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:
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.Quote:
"A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."
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
i thought there was a topic for this opened already? if not , ignore
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.
Scientists are catching up , new thing : http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19342-shrinking-moon-may-explain-lunar-quakes.html. 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.
Interesting thread ... see where this goes
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).Quote:
Posted by The_Cipher_Replied
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 ?
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.
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/an...dden%20History
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?