aliens live inside a hollow moon

Duhhhhhhhhhhh. Sorry. Found it really fast.
nasa source
Very interesting

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.

source

What NASA was talking about seems to have been taken out of context to support a bizarre theory. It makes sense that the Moon would be different. With no water in the minerals to speak of and no Mantle in a "Plastic State" it would indeed "ring like a bell" whether hollow or not.

Originally posted by thedigirati
first off, anyone ever hear of Pumice?? it's a very hard glass like rock substance that can float on water

Pumice is effectively Lava "foam" and though classed as a glass because it has no crystal structure it is not really very hard in terms of a rock... it crumbles to dust very easy...

Your not suggesting the Moon is made of Pumice?

Okay I am confused here...

Originally posted by whatukno
Everything that I put forth comes from scientific data collected by NASA.

Okay your data as you say from NASA says the moon is full of molten rock that fills craters almost instantly with lave making them shallow.

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.
science.nasa.gov...

Neal says its solid, backed up by the NASA space weather site...

The moon was ringing like a bell and continued to do so for around an hour. After they had had a chance to analyse the seismological information, NASA declared that the moon seemed to be a hollow sphere with a metallic layer around 34-40 metres deep.

This source quotes NASA saying it seem hollow...

So here we have three official NASA sources... and we have three official NASA explanations...

You would think a bunch of smart rocket scientists could get their facts straight so us poor ignorant laymen wouldn't get confused



:shk:

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by surrender_dorothy
I spoke to some guy a while ago and he told me that the moon is hollow and that aliens live inside. is this true?

It is true that aliens live and work inside the moon but it is not hollow per se. The moon has gigantic caverns as does earth. Within these caverns are huge laboratories and probably living quarters. The same is true for earth.

/agree

The point of the O.P. topic really isn't a question about wether it's hollow, it's more about the 'Aliens Living inside the Moon' i.e. beneath surface..
So, bickering over magnetism vs. gravity when none of the people speaking are physicists is a bit mute point, IMO..
ALIENS ON THE MOON ==== Meat and Potatoes of this thread.. (and an important topic for those intrigued by the various STS UFO footages, and where they are coming from)

Originally posted by Tattoo1377
ALIENS ON THE MOON ==== Meat and Potatoes of this thread..

Yeppers been there doing that John Lear moon pictures thread...

Aliens, Ancient stuff and us on the Moon...

(and an important topic for those intrigued by the various STS UFO footages, and where they are coming from)

Oh those are merely critters... they aren't "from" anywhere they live here in space...
www.landoflegends.us...
www.landoflegends.us...
www.landoflegends.us...

Goodness I have written about this years ago... telling all they have made beneath, Earth like. Same as with our Solar System, them are busy beavers, lol.

They use our resources and terraform, they do like Earth's beauty... so do I but we do need to plant lots more trees and plants we are killing ourselves.

Trees and plants will cure us, friends. The question is do any of you care? I wonder if any of you will remember this message in two minutes or the time it takes you to post something?

TREES AND PLANTS WILL CURE ALL can't be any clearer then that, sorry mods, yes this time I was yelling.

I think its funny people doubt the moon is hollow for no reason at all. For every theory, there is an anti-theory person, waiting to disagree for usually no good reason.

What person said it can't be hollow because it has gravity??? That is so entirely false that I can't understand why someone said it, and nobody debated it.

The Sun, which is made of gas, has the strongest gravitational pull in the solar system. Explain that?

It is completly possible that the moon is hollow. I see no reasons at all for it to not be.

If the Moon is hollow, then why does it have so much mass ? Yes, the density (3.42 times that of water) is considerably less than that of Earth (5.52), but that doesn't automatically make it hollow. That is still denser than the vast majority of asteroids, and they are chunks of rock !

Yes, the Sun is made of gas. So what ? Gravitational field strength has nothing whatsoever to do with what an object is made of. It's the mass of the object that counts, and since the Sun is over 330,000 times as massive as Earth (and over 1,000 times more massive than Jupiter), it sorta makes sense that it has the strongest gravitational pull.


[edit on 15-5-2007 by Mogget]

Originally posted by Mogget
If the Moon is hollow, then why does it have so much mass ?

Very thick and massive shell, probably some unknown metal that causes it to "ring like a bell" and proven by those huge magnetic anomalies they found

Gravitational field strength has nothing whatsoever to do with what an object is made of.

Precisely, so there is no reason it can't be hollow with a very massive shell

sorta makes sense that it has the strongest gravitational pull.

Sorta? So you don't really know?

Originally posted by zorgon

Very thick and massive shell, probably some unknown metal that causes it to "ring like a bell" and proven by those huge magnetic anomalies they found

Entirely speculative, and not from a NASA source as you claim. It is from

Clive R. Neal, associate professor of civil engineering and geological sciences at the University of Notre Dame

who does not work for NASA and is simply quoted by their site. Unless you were joking and I missed that?

So you don't really know?

Apply that same question to yourself.

Until we get back to the moon and gather more info, than everything on this thread is speculative.



[edit on 16-5-2007 by kleverone]

Originally posted by kleverone

Until we get back to the moon and gather more info, than everything on this thread is speculative.

Until we get back to the moon? You mean publically? Or do you mean this afternoon? Thanks.

Originally posted by kleverone
Entirely speculative, and not from a NASA source as you claim.

The Puzzle of Why the Moon "Rings" like a Hollow Sphere When a Large Object Hits It: During the Apollo Moon missions, ascent stages of lunar modules as well as the spent third stages of rockets crashed on the hard surface of the moon. Each time, these caused the moon, according to NASA, to "ring like a gong or a bell." On one of the Apollo 12 flights, reverberations lasted from nearly an hour to as much as four hours. NASA is reluctant to suggest that the moon may actually be hollow, but can otherwise not explain this strange fact.

SOURCE

that the upper crust of the Moon rings like a bell when hit. It has the unusual and ... Science Report. NASA SP-330. Washington, D.C., Government Printing ...
www.springerlink.com/index/T278803717216WN1.pdf

NASA has reported that it "rings like a gong or a bell" when hit by spent rocket stages or landed upon by modules ~ reverberations of from one to four hours were picked up by Apollo 12.

Unless you were joking and I missed that?

You probably did usually this is the first clue

So you don't really know?

Apply that same question to yourself.

Why? I know a great many things...

Like the fact that the magnetic anomalies make it difficult to maintain orbits...

Here is a picture of the main magnetic anomaly on the near side... in full living color, not that black and white stuff NASA has been selling...



And here is the one thats on the far side of the moon directly opposite the one above...




The first one is Rainer Gamma, the second I forgot if they named it, I will have to look that up...

Until we get back to the moon and gather more info, than everything on this thread is speculative.

About the fact that the moon is hollow... granted.. but the above information is fact , not speculation., so not EVERYTHING is speculation. That is why one does research... to find the answers... then you too will know and not have to speculate..

It is however also true that many at ATS will never accept anything as real, and most won't even read the documents one provides



[edit on 16-5-2007 by zorgon]

I started a thread on this a while ago (www.abovetopsecret.com...). Anyways there's a book called Alien Agenda by Jim Marrs and it has a ton of info on this. Here's some points I had:

First off, reasons the Spaceship Moon Theory would work
(quoted from the book)

1. It would explain why the moon gives evidence of being much older than the earth and perhaps even the solar system

2. It explains why there are distinct layers within the moon, with the most dense materials on the outside layer. This is exactly the type of "hull" one would expect to find a spacecraft.

3. This theory could explain why no sign of water has been found on the moon's surface, yet there is evidence it exists deep inside.

4. It would expalin the magnetism found in moon rock (that is too weak to pick up a paperclip on earth). These rocks were magnetized as the mooncraft passed by planets and suns on its journey through space.

5. The strange maria or moon seas, are explained as dumping pools for molten rock blasted from the moon's interior. The mascons--those dense masses located just below the center of each maria--may be remnants of the machinery used to hollow out the moon.

Also it goes on to talk about the moon being hollow. One of the most interesting points about this is, that when a few of the Apollo missions crash landed stuff on the moon (Apollo 13 dropped Stage 3 or osmethin like that), the entire moon vibrated like a bell or a gong for over 3 hours.

Also there are intriguing events such as

1. A "star" was seen within the body of a crescent moon "directly between the points of her horns" on March 5, 1587

2. A small white "cloud" was seen on the moon Nov.12, 1671 by French Astronomer Gian Domenico Cassini, director of the Paris Observatory

3. On April 24, 1882, moving shadows were seen in the moon's Aristotle area.

4. A "black cloud surrounded by violet color" ws see nin the Sea of Tranquility by Canadian astronomers on 9/11/67

And also there are formations that are on the surface that are too "perfect" to be non-artificial. And the moon's orbit around the earth is so close to being a perfect circle, it's unnaturall. And the moon is the perfect distance from the Earth to cover the entire sun during an eclipse(except for that one part with the rays). AND the formations are in the exact same positions on the moon as the pyramids of Egypt are on earth (there are also formations on Mars, including the Face of Mars, that are in the same exact position as the pyramids). So yeah, thats all i have so far, anyone have more info or insights to this? Just think about it, the Moon, a ufo!

Norm Bergrund also talks about that... and he is ex-NASA...

His theory is that it was towed into orbit and the ship is still on the farside, hidden or disguised...

We think we may have found it.... but thats another thread...

Here is an old Lick Observatory photo... Jan 1946

This clip is near Endymion crater.... and this thing is huge... maybe one of the towing handles?






And this was also in the Lick photo... but it wasn't there in a second photo a few days later...

Well there has long been speculation that Phobos is an 'artificial body'.

You can find Google links to Rense's site which I won't supply because I can't promote this theory.

They allegedly found differences in the tidal effects and soforth.

I would suggest that an alien race good enough to build an artificial moon could make it not -seem- hollow by casual observation. That's not a debunking, just a thought.

If one artificial moon is found, it raises the potential for another, I suppose.

Originally posted by zorgon
About the fact that the moon is hollow... granted.. but the above information is fact , not speculation., so not EVERYTHING is speculation. That is why one does research... to find the answers... then you too will know and not have to speculate..

Speaking of doing your research, please show me in any of those examples you gave where they describe the moon having an inner shell, resulting in a ringing or vibration. I wasn't questioning the ringing but you failed to post my quote in context. The moon rings because it is dry, cool and rigid. Here I'll let your guy Neal explain

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.

It doesn't say anything about a shell...a little research would have told you that.


[edit on 17-5-2007 by kleverone]

Very thick and massive shell, probably some unknown metal that causes it to "ring like a bell" and proven by those huge magnetic anomalies they found

If that shell is only 50 metres thick, it would have to be made of neutron star material* for the entire Moon to have a density of 3.42 times that of water.

* exaggerated for dramatic effect

As for the magnetic (and gravitational) anomalies, these are almost certainly due to asteroid impacts in the past (many of which would have been metallic chunks of the differentiated cores of much larger objects that were themselves shattered by huge impacts).

Precisely, so there is no reason it can't be hollow with a very massive shell

No reason at all, except that the alternative explanation (that the Moon is a normal object, and not hollow) is a very good one.

Sorta? So you don't really know?

Actually, I do really know. The Sun is the most gravitationally significant object around these parts because of its enormous mass (99.87% of the mass of the entire Solar System).



[edit on 17-5-2007 by Mogget]

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Mogget]

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Mogget]

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Mogget]

Originally posted by Uplifted
I wouldn't trust wikipedia. If a blind man throws 100 darts in the direction of a dartboard, he is bound to hit it atleast once. Kinda sounds like wiki.

with all due respect, what exactly do you mean? The wikipedia entry not only doesn't throw 100 darts, it doesn't throw darts at all. You seem to think that wikipedia entries just toss every single idea into a massive jumble of ideas, hoping you believe one of them. That is not the case at all with the hollow moon entry. The entry clearly states that the hollow moon theory is a debunked one, and nothing else. It does not say

'The hollow moon theory has been debunked. However, the hollow moon theory has been proven. However, maybe the hollow moon theory is partially correct. With that in mind, possibly the hollow moon theory is completely wrong perhaps. We're just guessing.'

Everything on wikipedia leads to sources. Credible sources.

Perhaps i have misunderstood you completely, though, and you are actually saying you believe the moon is hollow and that wikipedia is wrong in saying it has been debunked.

Frankly, i am tired of people discrediting everything on wikipedia. I would venture to say it is ultimately more reliable than encyclopedias that are printed because every entry is constantly montiored and updated with new, reliable information. The fact that the public can edit it and occasionally vandalize it should not make you think it is full of filth and lies. It is amazing how quickly vandalized entries get corrected.

Also of note, if a particular entry has no sources or is a bit wobbly with its credibility, the site notes that in a big giant obvious box at the top of the page that says something along the lines of "this entry's credibility is questionable"

[edit on 5/17/2007 by Ack]

Originally posted by AckFrankly, i am tired of people discrediting everything on wikipedia. I would venture to say it is ultimately more reliable than encyclopedias that are printed because every entry is constantly montiored and updated with new, reliable information.

Well said Ack, I totally agree.

Knowledge is ever changing. For example, as soon as one graduates from university in a given field, groundbreaking advances have been made in that field and the entire subject has to be re-thought, and re-taught!

The scepticism on this particular thread is noted and appreciated; however, nobody can deny the sheer uncertainty underlining this hollow/solid moon idea.

Query - what is your average, domestic telescope capable of seeing when observing the moon? Furthermore, what is your top-of-the-line, ridiculously expensive home telescope capable of seeing? What can we - the general population - observe and discover by looking into it ourselves?

Originally posted by thebox
Query - what is your average, domestic telescope capable of seeing when observing the moon? Furthermore, what is your top-of-the-line, ridiculously expensive home telescope capable of seeing? What can we - the general population - observe and discover by looking into it ourselves?

Answer - We can see that Aristarchus Crater glows blue from time to time, using a not so expensive 10 inch telescope...



And its just as good as the Clementine color version, taken by a VERY ridiculously expensive satellite