Yeah, I know. But I was a bit taken aback by a poster on GLP who didnt seem like your average crackpot:

http://godlikeproductions.com/bbs/me...87ba0dbd14a2e4

Long post by
AA User ID: 1437

Just wondered if any of it should be taken seriously.

Here's the full post, by the way


1. Moon’s Age: The moon is far older than previously expected. Maybe even older than the Earth or the Sun. The oldest age for the Earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old; moon rocks were dated at 5.3 billion years old, and the dust upon which they were resting was at least another billion years older.

2. Rock’s Origin: The chemical composition of the dust upon which the rocks sat differed remarkably from the rocks themselves, contrary to accepted theories that the dust resulted from weathering and breakup of the rocks themselves. The rocks had to have come from somewhere else.

3. Heavier Elements on Surface: Normal planetary composition results in heavier elements in the core and lighter materials at the surface; not so with the moon. According to Wilson, "The abundance of refractory elements like titanium in the surface areas is so pronounced that several geologists proposed the refractory compounds were brought to the moon’s surface in great quantity in some unknown way. They don’t know how, but that it was done cannot be questioned." (Emphasis added).

4. Water Vapor: On March 7, 1971, lunar instruments placed by the astronauts recorded a vapor cloud of water passing across the surface of the moon. The cloud lasted 14 hours and covered an area of about 100 square miles.

5. Magnetic Rocks: Moon rocks were magnetized. This is odd because there is no magnetic field on the moon itself. This could not have originated from a "close call" with Earth—such an encounter would have ripped the moon apart.

6. No Volcanoes: Some of the moon’s craters originated internally, yet there is no indication that the moon was ever hot enough to produce volcanic eruptions.

7. Moon Mascons: Mascons, which are large, dense, circular masses lying twenty to forty miles beneath the centers of the moon’s maria, "are broad, disk-shaped objects that could be possibly some kind of artificial construction. For huge circular disks are not likely to be beneath each huge maria, centered like bull’s-eyes in the middle of each, by coincidence or accident." (Emphasis added).

8. Seismic Activity: Hundreds of "moonquakes" are recorded each year that cannot be attributed to meteor strikes. In November, 1958, Soviet astronomer Nikolay A. Kozyrev of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory photographed a gaseous eruption of the moon near the crater Alphonsus. He also detected a reddish glow that lasted for about an hour. In 1963, astronomers at the Lowell Observatory also saw reddish glows on the crests of ridges in the Aristarchus region. These observations have proved to be precisely identical and periodical, repeating themselves as the moon moves closer to the Earth. These are probably not natural phenomena.

9. Hollow Moon: The moon’s mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth’s is 5.5. What does this mean? In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, "If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere." Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the moon’s reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where is "simply a cavity." MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote, "the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon’s gravitational field . . . indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow." In Carl Sagan’s treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."

10. Moon Echoes: On November 20, 1969, the Apollo 12 crew jettisoned the lunar module ascent stage causing it to crash onto the moon. The LM’s impact (about 40 miles from the Apollo 12 landing site) created an artificial moonquake with startling characteristics—the moon reverberated like a bell for more than an hour. This phenomenon was repeated with Apollo 13 (intentionally commanding the third stage to impact the moon), with even more startling results. Seismic instruments recorded that the reverberations lasted for three hours and twenty minutes and traveled to a depth of twenty-five miles, leading to the conclusion that the moon has an unusually light—or even no—core.

11. Unusual Metals: The moon’s crust is much harder than presumed. Remember the extreme difficulty the astronauts encountered when they tried to drill into the maria? Surprise! The maria is composed primarily illeminite, a mineral containing large amounts of titanium, the same metal used to fabricate the hulls of deep-diving submarines and the skin of the SR-71 "Blackbird". Uranium 236 and neptunium 237 (elements not found in nature on Earth) were discovered in lunar rocks, as were rustproof iron particles.

12. Moon’s Origin: Before the astronauts’ moon rocks conclusively disproved the theory, the moon was believed to have originated when a chunk of Earth broke off eons ago (who knows from where?). Another theory was that the moon was created from leftover "space dust" remaining after the Earth was created. Analysis of the composition of moon rocks disproved this theory also. Another popular theory is that the moon was somehow "captured" by the Earth’s gravitational attraction. But no evidence exists to support this theory. Isaac Asimov, stated, "It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible."

13. Weird Orbit: Our moon is the only moon in the solar system that has a stationary, near-perfect circular orbit. Stranger still, the moon’s center of mass is about 6000 feet closer to the Earth than its geometric center (which should cause wobbling), but the moon’s bulge is on the far side of the moon, away from the Earth. "Something" had to put the moon in orbit with its precise altitude, course, and speed.

14. Moon Diameter: How does one explain the "coincidence" that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Again, Isaac Asimov responds, "There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion."

15. Spaceship Moon: As outrageous as the Moon-Is-a-Spaceship Theory is, all of the above items are resolved if one assumes that the moon is a gigantic extraterrestrial craft, brought here eons ago by intelligent beings. This is the only theory that is supported by all of the data, and there are no data that contradict this theory.

This belongs in ATM (particularly as it relies on Apollo being a real event!)

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Nothing about "Lunar Conspiracies" presumes the conspiracy is about not having gone to the moon. Granted, you might get more replies in "Against the Mainstream", but if it's a claim for a conspiracy involving the moon I think it's on-topic.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I thought the "hollow moon" hypothesis was discarded, along with the "nougat filled moon" when the first samples from the lunar surface proved it not to be made of milk chocolate.

Some of them resurrected during the "neutral point" debaucle.

There is one notion of a neutral point computed from static gravitational factors, assuming stationary Earth and Moon.

There is another notion of neutral point involving orbital motion, a la the Langrange points.

And there is yet a third notion of neutral point deriving from the patched-conic trajectory design.

These methods of computation naturally arrive at different results because they represent different physical concepts. If you take the result of one method and pretend it's the result of another method, and then you compute the other parameters (e.g., the mass of Earth or Moon) for that misplaced method, you can inappropriately construct a "proof" that those parameters are different than previously supposed.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Well, let's start the detailed debunk. I noted that from item #15 that this GLP post screams "Rick Sobie" but who knows . . .
Googling Kozyrev got nothing but a lot of UFO and time travel sites, I couldn't find a reputable website describing the event in 1958, whether anyone else saw it, or if there were other explanations (meteor strike?). I can't find the photo of the eruption either.

__________________
Now while I might be amused by Cthulhians, I don't necessarily distrust them to carry out the functions of government. -- JayUtah

What's it like being a skeptic in the Middle East? Check out my blog.

Without having any scientific knowledge to argue the more technical points...

What on earth (or moon, for that matter) does the size of the Moon have to do with whether it's hollow or not?

Okay, maybe that's more evidence for the "spaceship" theory than purely the "moon is hollow" theory, but even if it was, and we assume that the Moon *is* in fact an alien spaceship, why the heck would they bother to park their spaceship in a perfect orbit around Earth at exactly the right distance to look the same size as the Sun?

If only they'd bothered to apply common-sense to their theory before they started on the "science" part... >_<

__________________
"Science without faith is lame, faith without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein

Not from what I’ve read. The oldest Moon rocks are over 4 billion years old, but nothing has been recorded which is older than any scientific theory for the age of the Earth or the Solar System.

Not from what I’ve read. The dust is simply pulverised rock. Some of it may be from distant locations on the Moon, as successive meteorite impacts shove fragments around. A small amount of anorthosite was uncovered in the Apollo 11 material, even though it wasn’t native to that part of the Moon.

My understanding is that the proportion of lighter elements is higher the further away you are from the Moon’s centre.

[/quote]4. Water Vapor: On March 7, 1971, lunar instruments placed by the astronauts recorded a vapor cloud of water passing across the surface of the moon. The cloud lasted 14 hours and covered an area of about 100 square miles. [/quote]

Never heard of this one. Anyway, how can a single instrument determine the area of a vapour cloud? Source?

I understand that the Moon has a weak, but measurable, magnetic field. That would make magnetised rocks believable.

Which craters are volcanic? Anyway, there’s plenty of evidence the Moon was once liquid, such as the elemental differentiation (heavy stuff at the centre), and the existence of anorthosite and the mares. The mares are solidified magma. That sounds like good evidence the Moon was once hot.

What’s the evidence they’re disc-shaped?

Why can’t the moonquakes be meteorites? And anyway, the Moon would experience differential heating which would also cause small quakes. What’s the source for the evidence of periodical phenomena on the Moon?

The Moon’s density is equivalent to the density of the Earth’s mantle, from which current theories suggest it was ripped by a massive collision. The theories presented pre-date Apollo, and were thus made without the massive amount of data Apollo provided.

Solid objects vibrate like this, as well as hollow objects. The Earth vibrated after the Boxing Day earthquake.

The astronauts had problems drilling into the Moon dust because of extreme compaction of fine, rough-surfaced particles. Digging was easy. This statement seems to confuse a hard powder (the Moon’s surface) with a hard solid object (the hull of a submarine).

Yes, all three old theories had problems. As a result, a new theory was developed in the 90s – the massive impact theory. Read “The Big Splat” for an entertaining explanation of the story.

The Moon’s orbit is hardly circular. And its rotation has been slowed by tidal interaction with the Earth. There are no mysteries there.

Yes, it’s a coincidence at the moment. But in the past, when the Moon was closer to the Earth, it was obviously larger in the sky than the Sun. In the distant future, we won’t be able to have total eclipses.

Dang it, it’s in trouble now, after my previous comments. :wink: If anyone would like to copy them over to GLP, be my guest, as long as you provide a link back to this thread.

Cheers

"15. Spaceship Moon: As outrageous as the Moon-Is-a-Spaceship Theory is, all of the above items are resolved if one assumes that the moon is a gigantic extraterrestrial craft, brought here eons ago by intelligent beings. This is the only theory that is supported by all of the data, and there are no data that contradict this theory."


No, wait. This just in. Apparently there is another theory just as well backed by the data. The moon has reached us via a time warp from another dimension.

RBG

Must've been hell for the "people" inside the Moon.

False.

1) The *majority* of large moons in the solar system have "stationary" orbits. Actually, the technical term is "tidally locked."

2) The moons orbit is not a near-perfect circle. Its Eccentricity 0.0554 The Earth's orbit about the sun has an eccentricity of only 0.0167. Of Jupiter's moons, Ganymede has an eccentricity of 0.002. Io's is 0.041. Europa's is 0.009. Callisto's is 0.01. It took me exactly 30 seconds to google this information. Do I really need to look up any other moons or is this enough?

Where this guy says our moon is "the only one" there turn out to be many. And where he says our moon has a "near circular" orbit it turns out that compared to other moons ours is not circular at all. You have to wonder about a person who makes a claim that is so easily proven false.

The orbit is not a perfect circle, therefore the moon is *not* always just the right distance to cover the sun. This is called an annular eclipse. See this diagram:



except that many of the above items are false.

The eclipse-coincidence argument is just mind-boggling. Why would the presumed intelligent aliens care about making the Moon/spacecraft be just the right size for this? What conceivable reason would they have to do so? If they did have such a reason, why not make the Moon's orbital plane match the ecliptic, so we'd get those pretty eclipses every month instead of the current rare occasions?

Is this supposed to be some sort of whistle-blow?

"Okay, Qualar, we'll make our base look like a natural satellite to hide it in plain sight. But we'll give the Earthlings a hint, what?"

#-o

Upper class British aliens, are they? :wink:

Well, according to David Icke......

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

Or why not also make the period of the moon's orbit harmonic with some other easily observable celestial event? There are innumerable ways we can imagine that aliens could "encode" the artificiality of the moon, and therefore a distinct statistical likelihood that at least one of them will arise by chance.

This is the basis of the fallacy of numerology. When individual events occur with minute probability, it is often wrongly believed that aggregate probabilities of patterns in sequences or sets of those events must necessarily be on the same general order of magnitude as the original events. Statistically that is not the case. In numerology a large number of artificially-created coincidences or significances is silently contemplated, but only a few such "salient" ones are considered. This creates the illusion that it is improbable such a correlation arose by chance.

But since the "salient" correlation (Michael Jackson's shoe size in centimeters, for example, with the synodic orbital period of the moon in days -- the so-called "Moonwalk Ratio" :-) ) is actually drawn from an endless vat of arbitrarily-defined and questionably-relevant correlations, the question at hand asks what the chances are of all those correlations failing. Given enough potential correlations, the chance that at least one of them will arise randomly becomes a fair bet. There are other valid orbital periods besides the synodic. How do we know which was "intended"?

The question is compounded by adding arbitrary tolerances on the metrics. If you say it is a coincidence that the moon's diameter and distance provide for "perfect" eclipses, you have to decide how closely you're going to measure. The eclipses are not perfect, just close enough. If you widen the "window" into which a candidate metric can fit, you greatly improve the chances that it will fit without exhibiting any qualitative correlation.

Saying that the moon's synodic period is 29 days, and Micheal Jackson's shoes are 29 centimeters long seems rigorous. Saying that the moon's synodic period is 29.53 days and Michael Jackson's shoe size is 29.03 centimeters is less impressive. The reader has to be convinced that the "error" is still within a significant tolerance. Unfortunately most readers' intuition about tolerance is more forgiving than statistical tolerance analysis.

And why centimeters? Why days? Why shoes? Why our moon?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Number 11 pretty much answers number 3: