the moon is artifical

reply to post by karl 12

Hiya bud, that's an interesting post you've made there The figures make the head whirl at first sight. I'm firmly on the side of the Moon being a natural satellite that has kept us company since before life arose on Earth. It's hard to say with any certainty that life wouldn't or even couldn't have evolved without the the tides created by the Moon's gravity. It's certain, however that these tides are hugely significant to life on Earth, as we know it.

The writer suggests that the Moon wasn't there as recently as a thousand years ago. He's mistaken. He then suggests that it wasn't there pre-Flood. If there is evidence of a 'Great Flood', I haven't seen it. There are artifacts like the Abri Blanchard Plaque, dated as older than 25 000ya, that show how man counted the days of the lunar cycle. The Lebombo Bone was a similar tool and dates from 35 000ya. Lascaux Caves have cave art dated to 16 000ya and illustrate the lunar month.

The real clincher that the Moon has been our companion much longer than we've been around is found in the geological record here. An interesting abstract 'Reliability of lunar orbital periods extracted from ancient cyclic tidal rhythmites' is found here.

I'm not very good with numbers, but looking at some of the figures from that guy's blog, I'm doubtful. The first thing is that 366days. A lot of the figures are arrived at by using this as a base. Adding almost three quarters of a day to generate the other figures seems a little slack. IIRC the Earth is 80 times more mass than the Moon not 366

Judging by this excellent thread Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot, we both agree that the Universe is a place of wonder and seeming miracles. That the Moon may evidence some coincidences in location won't surprise me or you. The amount of accidents, coincidences, lucky breaks and sheer good fortune it appears to take for life to evolve enough to appreciate itself is astronomical

reply to post by insider15


The plieadeans told channelers that the real moon was destroyed millions of years ago, and that they sent a artifical moon with maintainers(crew members) and over the years space rocks,dust,particles etc have gone on top of the the artifical spacefraft/moon. It raises that flag because people say there a vast elevators that go below the "surface" interesting stuff.. and as someone posted the Europa moon and err Plato i think are other good examples

We all know E.T's have visited for countless milennia and i think a war must of destroyed our cousins the Martians and they left remnants (structures that are the same as earth) before they evacuated

a video is circulating of glass tunnels on mars and on one side a crashed car or craft of somesort is embedded into the tunnel and blocked it..

it makes me believe either they evacuated in a hurry or move d underground and adapted.

i'm looking forward to the coming years hopefully we can find everything out

[edit on 14/01/09 by Raider of Truth]

Originally posted by insider15
i dont think the moon can be natural, it had to be built by someone as its just to much of a coincidence that it is just the right size and distance from the earth so that during an eclipse it appears exactly the same size as the sun!! if it was a few thousand miles closer or further away an eclipse wouldnt work. My theory is that its a giant space station that over the millons of years in our orbit due to its gravity has accumulated a layer of rock and dust on its surface. this would also explain why nasa hasnt gone back to the moon since the apollo program, the makers of the moon warned them off.

anyone got any comments??

It is a giant space clock, used by extra-terrestrial beings for a millenia to tell accurate solar system time when they visit the earth...

and if you listen, on the nights when the moon is full, you can hear the lunar ticks...

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
John Lear also thinks the moon is a giant soul catcher. So I wouldnt put too much emphasis on his ideas about astronomy.

As far as I recall, John stated that one tower on the moon could be a soul catcher.

If I'm also correct, I believe that John may have admitted, a couple of years ago, that it might not be a soul catcher after all. He's human and allowed to change his mind, right?

Be careful when you spread disinfo about people.

It is John Lear you're referring to - he never had an opinion, but facts and those facts he was not going to go into detail about, because...

I never did get a reply from him in u2u why... oh well..



As the adage goes, never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.

Gday all

Is it possible to beleive that 400 craft the size of aircraft carriers a day land on or inside this planet.????

If that is so, then it would be reasonable to assume that some of them come via or past the moon.

Is it then reasonable to assume that the moon is and has been inhabited since the earth was inhabited.

On saying that I could go on to say Humans are one of the alien groups on this planet

All the best john

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
I think the amazing coincidence the Moon and Sun are the same size suggests Intelligent Design more than anything (and no I'm not a right-wing Christian nut or even a Christian at all).

Since when have the moon and sun been the same size?

Man... The moon is 1/4 the diameter of the Earth. The Sun is about 100 times the diameter of the earth.

It is the relative distance between the sun and the earth that causes the moon to block out the sun during an eclipse.

The next time you use your hand to shield your eyes from the brightness of a hot sunny day, do you consider your hand as big as the sun and put it down to god's plan?



Intelligent design would be having flowing fountains of beer instead of lava and subway meatball & extra salami growing from trees instead of pine cones. That's where god went wrong. Stupid eclipses and pretty rainbows... What good are they. You cant drink an eclipse and you can't satisfy a night out on them with a hefty rainbow at 2am.

I once heard from a high level buddhist master, that the moon was actually constructed by humans in a different civilization period when mankinds science was much more advanced. The function of the moon was to bring light to the earth during night. Simple function. Inside moon is full of electronics and stuff like that. The moon was actually much smaller earlier but have now been covered with spacedust and stuff like that.

why would it be that the moon is the artificial one?

i cant see anything in the 'coincidence' that favors the moon as being the special one

is there a reason why the earth is not guessed as the artifical one?

I'm not sure I get the idea that if one moon is artificial it means they all must be. Sounds like the work of a scientist. There are clear anomalies that can be rationally interpreted as the moon being an artificial satellite. Yes, there are other possibilities.

Originally posted by insider15
i dont think the moon can be natural, it had to be built by someone as its just to much of a coincidence that it is just the right size and distance from the earth so that during an eclipse it appears exactly the same size as the sun!! if it was a few thousand miles closer or further away an eclipse wouldnt work. My theory is that its a giant space station that over the millons of years in our orbit due to its gravity has accumulated a layer of rock and dust on its surface. this would also explain why nasa hasnt gone back to the moon since the apollo program, the makers of the moon warned them off.

anyone got any comments??

First, it doesn't perfectly cover the sun.

Second, your thumb held at the right distance will do the same thing. Cosmic importance of your thumb? Minimal, IMNSHO.

Third, Congress decided not to go back to the Moon, we had more important things to do.

Fourth, it doesn't "ring like a bell when struck."

Could it just be that over millions of years the moon has settled
down into an orbit of the earth that is stable and 'correct' for
its mass? (And that mass is not evenly distributed, so the part
that is 'heaviest' always points toward the earth.)

The earth's distance from the sun - and therefore the apparent
size of the sun, from our perspective - would also be the result
of the earth settling into the right orbit for its mass.

Not just a coincidence that the moon (almost) exactly covers up
the sun during a total eclipse, just the laws of physics at work.

No superstition required here.

The relative diameters of the sun and moon depend on the distance between Earth and moon when the solar eclipse occurs. The moon's orbit around the Earth is eliptical, just as Earth's orbit around the sun is eliptical. Sometimes, the moon just covers the sun. At others an annular eclipse results, when the moon's diameter appears to be significantly smaller than the sun's. There is nothing special about their diameters and they are not visually equal, except at very specific times.

WG3

Originally posted by zorgon

It is if you use Werner von Braun's value of the Neutral point he published in Times magazine in 1969...

"At a point 43,495 miles from the Moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal
to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant." - Wernher von Braun (Time Magazine, July 25, 1969.)

Von Braun published that? I don't think so. His name doesn't even appear in the Time magazine article. It's also important to note the full context.

At a point 43,495 miles from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the earth, then some 200,000 miles distant. Beyond that crest, lunar gravity predominated, and Apollo was on the "downhill" leg of its journey.

www.time.com...

As is often the case, a mass consumption news source, in oversimplifying a complex point, got the details half right. Apollo 11 was on the downhill leg but not just because of the moon's gravitational influence. It is not a simple two body calculation and it has virtually nothing to do with the "neutral point". There are actually four bodies involved; Earth, the Moon, the spacecraft, and the Sun. Add to the mix the motion of both the spacecraft and the moon and the calculation for the "top of the hill" becomes a very great deal more complex than a simplistic two (static) body calculation.

The Moon's gravity is 1/6th that of Earth. As has been repeatedly demonstrated by various satellites in orbit around it. As is demonstrated by its orbital period around Earth.

[edit on 4/6/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by ChemBreather

The phrase "rang like a bell" does not mean the moon is hollow. The Earth does the same thing when an earthquake occurs.

The reverberations lasted longer than expected because nothing was known about the composition of moon and assumptions were made which turned out to not be accurate.

Unusually long reverberations were recorded from two lunar impacts by a seismic station installed on the lunar surface by the Apollo 12 astronauts. Seismic data from these impacts suggest that the lunar mare in the region of the Apollo 12 landing site consists of material with very low seismic velocities near the surface, with velocity increasing with depth to 5 to 6 kilometers per second (for compressional waves) at a depth of 20 kilometers.

www.sciencemag.org...

Direct shear-wave arrivals from seismtic events originating on the far side of the moon are not observed at some of the stations of the Apollo seismic network. These data suggest that the material in the lunar interior at a depth of 1000 to 1100 kilometers is more dissipative for seismic shear waves than the lithosphere above, and possibly exists in a partially molten state akin to the earth's asthenosphere.

www.sciencemag.org...

Lunar seismic data from artificial impacts recorded at three Apollo seismometers are interpreted to determine the structure of the moon's interior to a depth of about 100 kilomneters. In the Fra Mauro region of Oceanus Procellarum, the moon has a layered crust 65 kilometers thick. The seismic velocities in the upper 25 kilometers are consistent with those in lunar basalts. Between 25 and 65 kilometers, the nearly constant velocity (6.8 kilometers per second) corresponds to velocities in gabbroic and anorthositic rocks. The apparent velocity is high (about 9 kilometers per second) in the lunar mantle immediately below the crust.

www.sciencemag.org...

The Moon is not hollow.

The Moon exerts less pull on a human than a ping-pong ball held at arms length. If it was hollow it exert only a tiny fraction of that pull. And we would have no tides to stir the oceans and keep them from stratifying.

Also, if it was hollow, it wouldn't have enough mass to counter-act the gravitational pull of the EArth and it would have hit us long ago. (Just after it was built. )

Something else that nobody seems to talk about is the fact that the rocks brought back from the Moon show that it is at least a billion years older than the Earth.

That presents a serious problem for the theorists about the origins of the Moon. The current theory of a large object impacting the Earth does not hold water when the specific gravity, composition, and age of the Moon do not match those of Earth.

Also, as some have pointed out, the Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of around 6 inches per year. This doesn't sound like much but I would point out that a higher orbit requires an input of energy. So, where is this energy coming from that is taking the Moon to a higher orbit? There is currently no acceptable explanation for this phenomenon.

According to Astrophysicists, the Moon used to be much closer to the Earth and may have been as close as 35,000 miles! So, something has been acting on the Moon for a very very long time.

What is causing this? I don't know, but one possibility seems to be that the Moon could be artificial. Maybe it's a space ark? Maybe the "fall of man" was the freefall of weightless space?

Don't know. It is fun to speculate about though.

Your data on the moon rocks is incorrect.

reply to post by Phage


Correct me if I am wrong but you mentioned the mantle of the Moon. I thought that it was generally agreed upon by lunar geologists that the Moon is cold and has no mantle?

The Earth would have cooled down a long time ago but we have highly radioactive material in our core that generates heat that keeps our core molten. The Moon does not have this.

Originally posted by lunarminer
The current theory of a large object impacting the Earth does not hold water when the specific gravity, composition, and age of the Moon do not match those of Earth.

why is it odd that two different things would collide?

seems far more likely than two identical things of same age

please can you explain why they should be of same composition and age

Originally posted by lunarminer
but we have highly radioactive material in our core that generates heat that keeps our core molten.

it does?

can you help me to learn this?

where can i find and read this information?