Can Anyone Debunk this Theory?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
As the poster above you noted, this is not a "theory." It's speculation, and has no data. It's not that it's outside the box that bugs me. Outside the box is fine. Speculation is fine. Making no sense at all? Not so fine.

Making no sense? Data? You sound like someone who's trying to get a job in the Church! Oh Yeah! Then Jesus Christ is just speculation. No data, you see? The Big Bang. Black Holes. Dark matter. All speculation, what? But you would accept these theories because its come from 'scientists'. 'Mainstream' physics. Research? But NO proof of all this? As of today, these are just deductions, inferences, conjectures. But this makes sense to you. How come?

Can you provide proof/evidence of all the above? Difficult to get out of that straitjacket you started wearing in school, huh? Now let's see you making sense of all this! Because what you've implied makes no sense to me at all!

And oh yes, you say the Moon was gouged out from Earth by a comet because that's a theory advocated by scientists. I say it's an alien spaceship parked in orbit around the Earth billions of years ago. I can't prove it. But can YOU prove that comet theory? You've accepted it because most have and the most acceptable to human logic which has been conditioned years ago through the school curriculum. Better to be with the crowd, what? It's more fashionable to do so!

Cheers!



[edit on 31-1-2008 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

Originally posted by Harte
Absurd.

Of course absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

What the heck else could possibly be evidence of absence?

What if absence is true? What evidence of a non-presence could there possibly be, except for the absence of evidence for any presence?

Harte

There is no evidence that I am a highly efficient artificial mimetic intelligence. It also isn't likely... that does not mean that it is impossible that such could be true in another case. Indeed, one could posit that it is an eventual probability reaching towards 100% to occur some time in the near future.

"Possible" or "not possible" is beside the point. You stated that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You didn't say absence of evidence is not evidence of impossibility.

So, why are you changing the subject here?

Originally posted by TheColdDragonNo evidence of it occurring now, of course.

I recall science placing the wrong head on a set of bones and proclaiming it "Brontosaurus" for several decades. It was a misconception of evidence.

That is true. But if they had found no skeleton at all, would that constitute evidence that such a dinosaur never existed? Of course it would, what else would be evidence that something never existed? (Please note that the words "proof," "possible" and "impossible" do not appear in the above question.)

Originally posted by TheColdDragonLikewise, in order to find evidence you must first look where evidence is likely to be. Then you must interpret the evidence. Often, evidence is interpreted vis a vis a previously existent understanding which may or may not be based off of specious understanding, biased also by previously held theories, thoughts, and ideas. Thusly, even the most detailed of world views is suspect if key components are found to be in error... much like a house of cards.

As you pointed out with your Apatasaurus example, this has occurred several times famously in science, and it occurs without fanfare every minute of every day in science.

BTW, when was the last time you saw a pseudoscientist come out and say, "Gee, folks, I had it wrong. See, this new finding provides evidence that my previous theory was off track. A new theory is required ?"

Originally posted by TheColdDragonIf you care to respond to the other postulates as to why there is lack of evidence, I think it would create a better dialogue than merely plucking out a phrase from my post and making a reductum ad absurdum argument to be dismissive of the rest.

You may yourself consider it reductio ad absurdum. I consider it to be a statement of fact. I do not quarrel with all the rest of your post because most of it seems not worth arguing about and the rest I don't really disagree with. After all, you prefaced most of it with "what if" or similar verbiage. Who am I to try and argue with what you yourself wish to speculate on? Thus, I wasn't being dismissive of all the rest, merely pointing out that your absence of evidence comment provides no support whatsoever for the subject to which you were trying to apply it.

But your absence of evidence quote is not your own. You have adopted it without understanding how backwards it is. Now that I have (I think) adressed your statement, why don't you provide for me an example for precisely what evidence of absence would be?

For example, hypothetically speaking, let us say that the Inuit peoples never lived in Florida. Never set foot there. Could evidence exist to indicate this fact, if it were true? Now, notice I didn't say "prove," I didn't say "impossible" or "possible," I said "indicate."

IOW, what does the complete and total absence of evidence for Inuit occupation of Florida say about whether the Inuits ever lived in Florida? Obviously, you and I both agree that it certainly proves nothing. But does it not indicate (which is really what evidence tends to do, otherwise it's called "proof,") that the Inuit were never in Florida? Sure, it might be wrong. But finding Inuit artifacts in Florida, though indicative of an Inuit presence there, doesn't prove such a presence either, does it? I mean, maybe the artifacts were traded for by the Seminoles in Florida, maybe the artifacts have been traded tribe to tribe from Alaska to Florida and no Inuit ever set foot in Florida.

See what I mean? Evidence can only indicate a thing in archaeology. Absence of evidence is then evidence in and of itself. And if not evidence of absence, then what is it evidence of?

Of course, the validity of using the absence of evidence as indicative of absence depends to a large degree on how hard and how conscientiously one has been looking for evidence, before one declares that there is an "absence of evidence."

Originally posted by TheColdDragonScience at one point had no evidence of Black Holes, gravity, relativity. That did not mean they did not exist.

Yet long before they had hard evidence for any of this, they had theories that made predictions. Then experiments were set up to see if thepredictions came true. Some of them (namely the relativity and the black hole theories) turned out precisely as the mathematics had predicted.

Not a bad track record. If I were you, I wouldn't try to use a "hard" science as an example of how evidence (or lack thereof) does not imply existence (or lack thereof.)

Originally posted by TheColdDragonLikewise, the currently held theories and ideas put forward by our race aren't necessarily accurate or true.

The people who have put forward these theories readily admit that they may not be true. In fact, most of them are putting out theories to explain things that the old theories couldn'
t explain. If new theories are accepted, eventually they too will be replaced, once they come up against something they can't explain.

That's how science works. Again, when was the last time you heard of an "alternate historian" taking this view?

Originally posted by TheColdDragonThey merely make the most sense to those who pretend at knowledge.

That's a cheap shot from a self-created ignoramus. Just because you are too lazy to learn, that does not mean you can accuse people who aren't so lazy of "pretending."

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
Yet long before they had hard evidence for any of this, they had theories that made predictions. Then experiments were set up to see if the predictions came true. Some of them (namely the relativity and the black hole theories) turned out precisely as the mathematics had predicted.

Black Holes? According to astrophysicist DH Menzel, Harvard College Observatory and Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, Mass., the equation for the gravitational radius of a black hole derived from the Einstein field equations is entirely a mathematical relationship and therefore black holes cannot exist. A derivation is given for the Yilmaz metric, which disposes of the concept of black holes but allows red holes, infrared holes, and radio holes produced as a consequence of the gravitational redshift.

So after decades long calculations inferring, deducing and 'proving' the reality of the existence of black holes from so called mathematical calculations, we now have scientists saying that black cannot exist!! So you are way off course when you contend that "black hole theories turned out precisely as the mathematics had predicted." They didn't!

In other words, we know next to nix about the universe! Hypotheses, conjectures, inferences, theories, all borne out from so called mathematical calculations? So what happened? Many of the predicted themes based on calculations and scientific models and paradigms are falling apart as newer discoveries are being made.

Cheers!

Originally posted by Harte

What the heck else could possibly be evidence of absence?

What if absence is true? What evidence of a non-presence could there possibly be, except for the absence of evidence for any presence?

The problem, friend, is that you can't have evidence or proof of a negative concept such as absence. All you can say is that there has been no proof as of yet, and that there is proof for another theory.

It would essentially be as if I asked you to prove that I had never held a rolex watch in my hand. You have no evidence that I did, it doesn't mean I haven't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While you apparently say that this was used in an ironic or sarcastic fashion, this is the manner in which I use that term.

So, why are you changing the subject here?

Not changing the subject. Grasping for a good metaphor, as it were.

That is true. But if they had found no skeleton at all, would that constitute evidence that such a dinosaur never existed? Of course it would, what else would be evidence that something never existed?

If they had found no skeleton, it only means that they found no skeleton, not that such a skeleton doesn't exist. That is science. Surmising that something doesn't exist because you haven't witnessed it is the kind of bald-faced hypocrisy plaguing the establishment nowadays. It tends to lend itself to rejecting evidence that doesn't fit merely for the sake of a satisfactory whole.

It is just as easy to reject evidence as it is to accept it, we are all human.

BTW, when was the last time you saw a pseudoscientist come out and say, "Gee, folks, I had it wrong. See, this new finding provides evidence that my previous theory was off track. A new theory is required ?"

This is an ad hominem directed at people who you feel are pseudoscientists. With respect, I decline to address this comment further. If anyone is approached with hostility, incredulity and ridicule, they will defend even the indefensible. This is about dialogue, not about who is right or wrong.

To the respect of others, I have had some good go-round with people who would be considered pseudo-scientists.

merely pointing out that your absence of evidence comment provides no support whatsoever for the subject to which you were trying to apply it.

Absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence does not exist in some form. It also does not preclude the possibility that evidence was available at one time, and gone at another. Intemperate is reality, common popular thought at a time declared Troy a fairy tale, a make-believe. There wasn't a lack of evidence, only an absence of it until such a point where someone came across that evidence.

an example for precisely what evidence of absence would be?

That is precisely what cannot be done, as it would be evidence of a negative valuation. Prove to me yes, give me evidence of Tuesday. Evidence of any sort would preclude there NOT being an absence.

See what I mean? Evidence can only indicate a thing in archaeology. Absence of evidence is then evidence in and of itself. And if not evidence of absence, then what is it evidence of?

An absence of evidence is inadmissable as evidence for anything. The function of evidence is to provide a guideline of understanding, in archaeology it is understanding the past. Perhaps the Egyptians flew around on firebreathing dragons. There isn't any known evidence for it. You will certainly see this comment as idle speculation again, but I am attempting to impart how declaring absence as evidence of anything is... well...

As for the comment about pretending at knowledge, every human being pretends at knowledge. Look up the language root for the word Knowledge. There is nothing we KNOW, we can only make educated guesses based off of our observations. Approximating the truth.

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by Harte
Yet long before they had hard evidence for any of this, they had theories that made predictions. Then experiments were set up to see if the predictions came true. Some of them (namely the relativity and the black hole theories) turned out precisely as the mathematics had predicted.

Black Holes? According to astrophysicist DH Menzel, Harvard College Observatory and Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, Mass., the equation for the gravitational radius of a black hole derived from the Einstein field equations is entirely a mathematical relationship and therefore black holes cannot exist. A derivation is given for the Yilmaz metric, which disposes of the concept of black holes but allows red holes, infrared holes, and radio holes produced as a consequence of the gravitational redshift.

So after decades long calculations inferring, deducing and 'proving' the reality of the existence of black holes from so called mathematical calculations, we now have scientists saying that black cannot exist!! So you are way off course when you contend that "black hole theories turned out precisely as the mathematics had predicted." They didn't!

In other words, we know next to nix about the universe! Hypotheses, conjectures, inferences, theories, all borne out from so called mathematical calculations? So what happened? Many of the predicted themes based on calculations and scientific models and paradigms are falling apart as newer discoveries are being made.

Cheers!

Mikesingh,

I don't recall the names, but unless I'm way off base here, I believe I do know the theory you're talking about.

This is a quarrel about whether or not a collapsar can actually collapse all the way down to a singularity.

Of course, given the time dilation effect in such extreme gravitational fields, from our perspective such a collapse never actually occurs.

If I have the right theory in mind, then this is the main point of contention.

I stand by what I said. Once the capability of searching the sky for evidence of the existence of black holes was developed, searches turned up precisely what the theory predicted.

The General Theory of Relativity made several other predictions as well, warping of spacetime and time dilation come immediately to mind. Once these things could be observed and measured, there were observed to agree with the Theory of Relativity to within whatever degree of error to which you wish to carry it.

Now, that being said, the General Theory of Relativity is just a theory. It has obvious and glaring drawbacks, chief among them is that it can't (apparently) be applied at the quantum level. There is a complete disconnect, in fact, between what QM tells us about space and what the GTR tells us - for example, QM says space is quantized (Planck length) and GTR tells us it is a continuum.

These two views cannot be reconciled, so one theory or the other, or both, is (are) already butting up against the walls of their own intrinsic limits.

Exactly like I said about theories in my previous post.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
Now, that being said, the General Theory of Relativity is just a theory. It has obvious and glaring drawbacks, chief among them is that it can't (apparently) be applied at the quantum level. There is a complete disconnect, in fact, between what QM tells us about space and what the GTR tells us - for example, QM says space is quantized (Planck length) and GTR tells us it is a continuum.

These two views cannot be reconciled, so one theory or the other, or both, is (are) already butting up against the walls of their own intrinsic limits.

Good example, Harte! I'm just saying that we don't know EVERYTHING as of now! Like Heitmann, W. and G. Nimtz's paper where they mention recent experiments concerning the 'tunneling' of parts of Mozart's 40th symphony at 4.7 times the speed of light!! But that's taking QM/QP into account. If not, then it's the good old straight forward GTR!!

Cheers!

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

Originally posted by Harte

What the heck else could possibly be evidence of absence?

What if absence is true? What evidence of a non-presence could there possibly be, except for the absence of evidence for any presence?

The problem, friend, is that you can't have evidence or proof of a negative concept such as absence. All you can say is that there has been no proof as of yet, and that there is proof for another theory.

It would essentially be as if I asked you to prove that I had never held a rolex watch in my hand. You have no evidence that I did, it doesn't mean I haven't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While you apparently say that this was used in an ironic or sarcastic fashion, this is the manner in which I use that term.

The bolded items above show that you use "evidence" and "proof" interchangeably. That's fine, but wrong.

If you consider "evidence" to be "proof," then youre argument is right. But if, as you stated at the end of your post, we can actually never "know" anything, then where does "proof" enter into it?

I'll say it again, I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence. Why don't you address my scenario about the Inuit in Florida? I think that suich a scenario will reveal the differences in what we mean when we say evidence.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

That is true. But if they had found no skeleton at all, would that constitute evidence that such a dinosaur never existed? Of course it would, what else would be evidence that something never existed?

If they had found no skeleton, it only means that they found no skeleton, not that such a skeleton doesn't exist. That is science. Surmising that something doesn't exist because you haven't witnessed it is the kind of bald-faced hypocrisy plaguing the establishment nowadays. It tends to lend itself to rejecting evidence that doesn't fit merely for the sake of a satisfactory whole.

Here, again, you put words in my mouth. Look, evidence does not mean proof. Evidence, or lack thereof, is only evidence. I never stated one could surmise that a thing didn't exist based on lack of evidence for it. I stated that a lack of evidence is evidence for a lack of existence, not proof of a lack of existence,. My Inuit in Florida scenario clearly stated this. Why do you continue to claim something which has not been stated by me?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

BTW, when was the last time you saw a pseudoscientist come out and say, "Gee, folks, I had it wrong. See, this new finding provides evidence that my previous theory was off track. A new theory is required ?"

This is an ad hominem directed at people who you feel are pseudoscientists.

Please. I know who i'm talking about, even if you don't. In fact, if you don't, I'm glad you don't.
That was no attack - it was me commenting on how theories work - and how they don't work.

The person I directed the comment toward was you. The people referred to in my comment as pseudoscientists are pseudoscientists.

Talk about ad hominem, what about your "pretending at knowledge" comment?

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
The bolded items above show that you use "evidence" and "proof" interchangeably. That's fine, but wrong.

You are right. Just replace "Proof" anywhere you see it with "Evidence". Probably is more effective and makes more sense.

Why don't you address my scenario about the Inuit in Florida? I think that suich a scenario will reveal the differences in what we mean when we say evidence.

It doesn't change that having no evidence doesn't constitute evidence. Having nothing is not having something, in fact, it constitutes the opposite. Thusly, having no evidence doesn't support the idea that the evidence doesn't exist.

Please. I know who i'm talking about, even if you don't. In fact, if you don't, I'm glad you don't.
That was no attack - it was me commenting on how theories work - and how they don't work.

So you don't use the term "Pseudoscientist" in a derogatory fashion in reference to others.? I skept.

You weren't directing your comment to apply to me directly, I am sure, but it is still an ad hominem concerning those you consider to be "Pseudoscientist".

Talk about ad hominem, what about your "pretending at knowledge" comment?

Harte

That was merely a statement of fact. Everyone, including myself, pretend at Knowledge. You are not excluded either. We are all, as a species, pretending at Knowledge.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
It doesn't change that having no evidence doesn't constitute evidence. Having nothing is not having something, in fact, it constitutes the opposite. Thusly, having no evidence doesn't support the idea that the evidence doesn't exist.

So basicly what you are saying is that anything is possible because we havent found evidence for it? That for example Vikings traveled to Australia and created a 50 million pop city in 4000 BC with Islam as main religion? This would be supported by your theory: We dont have any evidence that Vikings existed 4000 BC. We dont have any evidence they went to Australia. We dont have any evidence of a large city from 4000 BC populated by 50 million Vikings. We dont have any evidence that Vikings had Islam. This must still mean that the idea of this evidence exist however?

I'd disagree. Absence of evidence is certainly evidence of absence as long as you're always ready to revise it when evidence appear.

Its when you arent willing to revise it (like pseudoscientists regurgitating the same claim despite evidence of the opposite) that it doesnt work.

Originally posted by merka
So basicly what you are saying is that anything is possible because we havent found evidence for it?

Firstly, everything is possible. That does not, however, mean that evidence is of no consequence. I will repeat, again.... Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. Not having evidence about something does mean the evidence does not exist.

Let me emphasize that last part... It does not mean the evidence does NOT exist. It is not evidence FOR absence if you have no evidence.

Likewise, if there is evidence for a sound and comprehensive theory, then naturally that takes presidence.

There are hundreds of old civilization theories, and a lot of evidence of historic civilizations. That there is no evidence for a past advanced civilization does not mean that there was not one. Many good explanations are put forward by Byrd and others as to why it isn't likely, yet some of the more exotic reasons why evidence might have disappeared are not considered.

And while it just seems like a hypothetical, what if game... questions are what move us forward.

I'd disagree. Absence of evidence is certainly evidence of absence as long as you're always ready to revise it when evidence appear.

Absence of evidence is only that; Absence of Evidence. Tautologically.

Its when you arent willing to revise it (like pseudoscientists regurgitating the same claim despite evidence of the opposite) that it doesnt work.

Again with the Psuedoscientists. What it boils down to is that there are discrepencies, questions, inconsistencies and it is these oversights by the mainstream academia which draw the attention of the people you'd dub pseudo-scientists.

Just remember, friend, that in the brevity of modern science, heretics have put forward ideas that challenged the establishment in unwelcome ways, and those heretics were often met with credulity, skepticism, distrust, and accusations of lunacy, mental disease, and more.

Crazy ideas are, in many ways, possibly the most important ideas. Wrong or right.

And just for the sake of repeating again, No evidence is only no evidence, nothing else.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
It is not evidence FOR absence if you have no evidence.

So if I where to hold up my hand and make a simple claim: "There is an apple in my hand"... The apple is the evidence that may or may not exist: Either its in my hand or its not . Is not the absence of an apple (ie lack of evidence) evidence that there is no apple in my hand?

Its a simple statement based on what one know, really: if something isnt there, its not there.

Of course we dont know everything. Its not like we can level an entire country and dig up every square meter in search of archeological evidence just to make sure that evidence is 100% sure to exist (be it complete absence or not). That's why its not good to use "proof".

There is no evidence that a colony of 6ft fluffy pink bunnies live in secretive corner of the Ahaggar mountains in the Sahara.

Does this mean we consider it quite possible that the colony exists? After all, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

I realize that Selective Reading has become quite a plague across the internet, but I would greatly appreciate it if those who comment actually READ the entirety of my comments and replies.

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. That doesn't mean there isn't evidence to the contrary, or that the evidence which presented should be ignored.

The only way I can foresee someone misunderstanding my previous comments (With exception granted for my mis-use of proof/evidence initially) are if they weren't read but Skimmed.

Harte had a much better analogy, with the Florida bit. At least it was reasonably feasible, as rebuttals go.

Not that fluffy pink bunnies are right out, but they are a speculation and unless you have some evidence in support, or a good argument, it boils down to a cost-benefit analysis of time-well-spent.

If someone came to me with compelling information about how Jesus assasinated Hitler with a time-travelling Robot from Alpha Centauri, then I'd oblige them what time I feel I could afford. Especially if the case was compelling.

Yet, at this point, it is a far fetched idea because I lack any evidence in support of it. That doesn't mean there is evidence it didn't happen, it means I don't give it the time of day without evidence. It doesn't mean the person is wrong, it means that my cost-benefit analysis shows that it would not be time-well-spent without compelling information to the contrary.

Thusly, anything and everything is possible. Yet, as many humans and throughout history, I do require convincing. I'm more open minded than most, and some might consider that ludicrously naive.

I dislike excluding any wild conjecture, after all, the only harm it can do is waste my time... and really, friend... this is the internet. You wouldn't be reading it if you didn't have some time to waste.

OK, I just want to point out that I agree with some of what has been presented here. In all likelihood there is intelligent life out there, and given the rather accurate "golf ball" representation one would be a fool to disagree with the math. I would like to suggest that the vehicle that we all traveled here in still exists.

This vehicle would be the moon. A couple of good reasons for this is the circular orbit the moon travels in, which rules out the "capture" possibility as well as the known makeup of the moon rules out the "broken away from the earth" possibility. It is large enough to carry a multitude of species a great distance, and for some unknown reason it's craters are not more than 2 miles deep, regardless of the diameter of the crater. (this suggests a hardened center able to withstand the brutal nature of deep space)

Recently, in the past 30 years or so, the moon has begun to "wobble", which as some speculate may be due to an artificial control mechanism below its surface. Surly a natural satellite such as the moon, with no change in external influence would suddenly begin to wobble on its own.

Even if there were no "star wars" scenario, as presented, it is very likely that with human nature being what it is, we would as a species want to explore and colonize space as we are able. We have, as history proves shown that adventurous exploring is part of our nature.

Now, the usual rebuttal is "where is all this technology now"? I would suggest that the technology would still be in place within the moon, waiting for us to mature as a population where we would be able to obtain, understand and utilize these resources.

As far as "how would we simply forget these resources", it has been suggested that in the event of a nuclear war, it would only take two generations for our species to lose our communication skills and devolve to a much more self preservative state. (see the movie Threads) If this were the case, only one generation of these travelers would have to agree to begin anew on this planet and all the successive generations would be taught whatever that first generation wanted. Very much a new start for a civilization without the complexities of the previous technological burdens.

If the moon were the vehicle we had used to travel here, what better place to keep safe all of the histories of our peoples and technology? Or do we all somehow evolve at exactly the same rate all over this planet without regard to environment? (Notice that Inuit people are not covered in thick hair to protect from the cold)

Lastly, can we all be honest with ourselves for a moment, and consider that if we were to travel to a far reaching planet, find some sense of life beginning to evolve on that planet which could pose a threat to our colonization, what would we as a species do? (history has already answered that, we would kill anything that could derail our plans and begin colonization of this new land, see Australian aboriginals, native American history etc.)

I think there is a lot more information suggesting that we are not indigenous to this planet than we would like to believe. But to see it, we have to want to, and be prepared to accept what we find. Thanks for reading my response.

..Ex

reply to post by v3_exceed


Excellent post v3! But heck! This thread is as old as the dinosaurs, so how did you find it?

Interesting points you made there especially regarding the Moon. There are many more intriguing facts about it that have yet to be satisfactorily explained. But try attempting to argue that the Moon is probably artificial and you'll be hauled over the coals for propagating such unscientific precepts!!

Cheers!

Hey Mike,

I had found this thread by reading the thread about the mars cities, and their supposed result of jpeg pixallation.

I thought it was interesting that many of the posters are experts in jpeg production, but neglect to mention that pixallation in jpegs generally happens around attributes in an image and not in clear open spaces. (unless there is something within that open space).

So in example, when one over compresses or over optimizes a jpeg you will generally see this pixallation around the edges of text, people or other items within that rasterized image.

I have long thought that the moon has a lot more to it than what we have been told in school, but without a ready means of seeing it ourselves we have to trust *cough...NASA...cough* for our answers.

Thanks for reading.
..Ex

reply to post by mikesingh


I'm impressed that there is enough evidence that the Moon is not an ordinary planetoid body that it needs to be researched. Seismic studies, gravity variations, and other anomalies suggest it's not boring.
Our Enigmatic Moon

Possibly the strongest evidence for it to be a 'hollow ob-ject'(sic) comes from the fact that when meteors strike the Moon, the latter rings like a bell. More specifically when the Apollo crew in November 20, 1969 released the lunar module, after returning to the orbiter, the module impact with the Moon caused their seismic equipment to register a continuous reverberation like a bell for more than an hour. The same effect occurred with Apollo 13's third stage which caused the Moon to ring for over three hours. So what's going on with the Moon?

To me, investigating this is more important than collecting rocks. I would not be surprised if we know more than he public is being told.

I don't see a compelling reason to suggest it's conspiracy related, but -something- is up. It looks like they withheld speculation. So there are hings NASA isn't saying. This is fairly atypical. NASA tells the public both more and less than we suspect. Even skeptics will tell you NASA withholds interesing data and some is redacted for reasons unknown and apparently unrelated to standard reasons.

2 cents.

reply to post by Badge01


Thanks Badge!

How about the important and extraordinary evidence of the discovery of the so called "mascons" or Mass Concentrations of Gravity that appear in some places around the lunar globe?

These "mascons" were discovered by the Lunar Orbiter series of space missions of the late 1960's. NASA reported that the gravitational pull caused by these mascons was so pronounced that the spacecraft dipped slightly and accelerated when flitting by the circular lunar plains.

This showed that there must be some hidden structures of some kind of dense, heavy matter centered like a bulls eye under the circular maria.
No scientist has ever accounted for how these mascons got there or could have been formed by random natural processes.

Apart from the age of Moon rocks with some that appear to be OLDER than the Earth, and the million dollar question as to how the Moon got here, here are some more intriguing aspects that have yet to be satisfactorily explained:

> The astronauts found it extremely difficult to drill into the surface of the moon below the loose dust layer.

> Even the biggest craters on the Moon are not more than a uniform depth of approx 3-4 km. For e.g., the huge lunar crater Aristarchus ( on the NW edge of the Oceanus Procellarum), is 25 miles (40 km) in diameter but only 2.2 miles (3.6 km) deep (from rim to floor). The much bigger Tycho, an 85 mile diameter crater, is just over 4km in depth. So how come? Considering the velocity on impact and mass of the object that collided with the Moon, the depth of Tycho should have been at least seven to eight miles. So is there some sort of an impenetrable artificial construct that has a 3-4 km layer of dust on top?

> Vast quantities of Titanium are known to exist on the Moon. Isn’t this one of the strongest materials suitable for construction of space craft?

> Though lunar surface materials are very dense, yet the Moon as a whole has a density about half that of earth. How come? Obviously the interior must be very rarified to compensate for this. Pointer to a ‘hollow Moon’?

Cheers!


keelynet.com...