Theories on the moon...

Now, I know that there's a million threads on here disccussing various theories on the moon. These theories concern everything from it's creation, to life on it, to whether it's hollow or solid, or if we've even managed to land on the moon. Certainly not all of these theories can be true, as many contradict others.

I'm starting this thread to try and gather, into a single thread, the moon-related theories that everyone has heard, and see if we can't rule out at least a few, and perhaps even prove one or two.

I'll start by posting the theories I've heard, with a little detail on them, and my thoughts on it.

Moon's creation theories:

1. The moon was created at the same time as the Earth, from the same particle cloud, and has therefore been with us since it's inception. Personally, I think this one is bunk. Recent evidence suggests that the makeup of the moon and earth are so different that they couldn't have possibly formed from the same materials. For instance, there's three elements on the moon that simply do not exist on earth. If both were formed from the same cloud, they would share all of the same base elements.

2. The moon was caught in the Earth's gravitation field. Most likely bunk. The forces required for such an ensnarement would be near impossible given the mass of both bodies - kind of like trying to catch a lion with a flyswatter.

3. The Planet X / Nibiru theory. This theory talks of the 11th planet in our solar system, the one alledged to be outside of Pluto, on a very oblong orbit around the sun, passing into the inner solar system (crossing the paths of Earth, Mars, etc), and then leaving the outer limits of the known solar system to complete the far end of its path, trillions of miles outside of the edge of the known solar system. At one point, billions of years ago, it is surmised that this planet collided with the cooling earth, and knocked a large part of it off into space. The debris from Nibiru and Earth formed together into our moon. I'm not sure about this theory. The theory states that Nibiru's orbit takes roughly 3600 years to complete, and most often, when it passes through the inner solar system, it remains clear of any of the planets there. This theory is also further supported by findings in ancient Sumeria alluding to an alien race, the earth being the 7th planet in the solar system (which is the case if you start counting at Pluto), and the visible passing of another heavenly body around the time of the Sumerians. If this were the case, we wouldn't have been able to detect this planet with our current technology, since if it was passing during the Sumerians time, it would have passed again around roughly 500 BC, and wouldn't be due back for close to another 1000 years, meaning that most likely, at the moment, it's still outside of Pluto's orbit. Interesting theory, but I'm not sure if it holds any water.

4. Earth caught a small meteor in it's orbit (not impossible - we've caught at least one in recent history), and over time, it was joined by other meteors, and eventually, grew into the planetoid it is now. Not too far fetched, as far as I can tell, but how large was the first one, in order to attract other meteors to group with it, and how long would the whole process have taken, given the infrequency of meteors actually passing close to the earth?

Life on the moon

1. The moon is actually a giant spaceship orbiting Earth in order to keep tabs on us. I find this one just rediculous. There's a lot of other theories that would have to be proven just to make this one semi-believable - such as humans being created by an alien race (one could then assume that it's a camoflauged ship used by said race). The feasibility of being able to move such an object through space, based on its mass alone, seems near impossible, and certainly more than practicality would allow for.

2. Alien staging base on the far side of the moon. Certainly not impossible. If we had gained the interest of an alien race, it would be a logical place to build a staging facility for the researchers, military, and ships.

3. Traces of life have been found on the moon, the most "amazing" (or preposterous, depending on your view) is a fossil of a large "crab-like" creature on the moon - roughly the size of a school bus, sectioned exoskeleton, multi-faceted eyes, etc. I find this one completely impossible to believe. Doesn't the fossilization process rely on water? There's no water on the moon, nor is there evidence to suggest that there ever was. Besides that, with no atmosphere, how could any sort of life have survived without some sort of life-support system?

Other moon theories

1. The moon is hollow. Well, now that really depends on how it was created, doesn't it? If it's an alien spacecraft, well, yes, it's probably hollow. If it was formed by asteroids and space dust collecting together, it's quite possible that it has a massive network of caves running all throughout it, in which case, in a manner of speaking, yes it would be hollow. I find this one to be completely unanswerable until we know how it was created.

2. NASA never actually set foot on the moon. Well, if this is true, then conspiracy theorists wouldn't have half the material to talk about now, would they? It would certainly make many of the other theories completely moot. There's some arguments that seem to be fairly convincing regarding this, but at the same time, I don't think it's true - especially after reading through roughly 200+ pages of technical jargon relating to the logs for the Appolo 12 and 14 missions. There's just too much information in there to make it up, when a group looking to facilitate a conspiracy could just claim "classified records" and leave it at that.

3. Astronauts from the Apollo missions encountered alien craft and were warned to stay away from the moon. Well, if the far side of the moon really is an alien staging facility, then I could see this as quite true, much like security outside of Area 51 will watch and warn people who come too close. There's good evidence supporting it, but nothing of the sort even vaguely alluded to on NASA's website (not like I really expected it). In fact, of all the sites I've seen claiming that there was a great deal of communication between these astronauts and ground control, I have yet to see any of it on a reputable site. My opinion, quite plausible, though nowhere near provable.




Anyway, this is just a few theories I've heard, and I am looking forward to hearing any others that you have heard, as well as discussion on these to either debunk them once and for all, or bring them closer into the realm of indisputable truth.

Originally posted by obsidian468
Life on the moon
Doesn't the fossilization process rely on water? There's no water on the moon,

fossilization also happens with pressure not only water and who says aliens breath they could use osmosis to take in minerals on the moon

Originally posted by klain
fossilization also happens with pressure not only water and who says aliens breath they could use osmosis to take in minerals on the moon

Just just further supports the "bunk" argument on this one. The large "crab-like" fossil was "found" on the surface.

I didn't think about the osmosis thing though... good point.

You forgot the well known theory that the moon may be made of cheese

Originally posted by Ric
You forgot the well known theory that the moon may be made of cheese

haha! Yes I did!

Fossils on the moon? never heard about that one... so they actually found a fossil up there? Does anybody have more information about this?

the only thing i can find is something about fossils on the moon that resemble microorganisms.
www.panspermia.org...

What about the one where we just didn't actually set foot on the moon when we say we did. The original moon landing was a hoax in order to beat the Russians there. We were tied in the space race, so we decided to stage a "moon landing" in a Hollywood studio.

isnt it so they could drain the russian economy by making them make a true attempt at a moon landing while we just fake it?

Fossilization does not require water. it just needs soje wat to gat materiao deposited over the organism in question,as for finding the fossil on the surface, a meteor could have moved the debris over it while another metoer (or serries) covered in the loast crater

im sorry but i couldn't understand a word of what you said

[edit on 13-2-2005 by klain]

Originally posted by Paladin327
Fossilization does not require water. it just needs soje wat to gat materiao deposited over the organism in question,as for finding the fossil on the surface, a meteor could have moved the debris over it while another metoer (or serries) covered in the loast crater

Originally posted by klain
im sorry but i couldn't understand a word of what you said

Let me translate.

Fossilization does not require water. It just needs some way to get material deposited over the organism in question. As for finding the fossil on the surface, a meteor could have moved the debris over it, while another meteor (or series of meteors) covered the lost crater.

I believe that's correct.

Originally posted by obsidian468
I'm starting this thread to try and gather, into a single thread, the moon-related theories that everyone has heard, and see if we can't rule out at least a few, and perhaps even prove one or two.

There is a reason why its still being argued:
Its impossible to rule things out and its impossible to prove something.

If we had gained the interest of an alien race, it would be a logical place to build a staging facility for the researchers, military, and ships.

That hasnt been logical since a decade ago
We probably know more about the moon than what goes on in any nearby forrest.

sorry i could'nt read what you were saying not the concept