Somebody please wipe this site off the face of the Earth:
I HATE hollow moon theories.
Several days after it splashed down.Proof that the "ringing" of the moon is common knowledge in the scientific and NASA communities is presented in communications between Mission Control and the men aboard the Apollo 17 moon mission on December 29, 1972.
Eh? Maybe it's just because you don't understand the Giant Impact theory."The moon has only 60% of the density of Earth. The improbable fact that an equal amount of earth material seemed to weigh almost twice as much as moon matter mystified everyone. Why the difference? The actual answer, some scientists felt, pointed to the possibility that part or all of the moon's interior was hollow!" (4)
Then there's a report in the July 1962Before Apollo, before the ALSEP seismometers, before Lunar Orbiter, before Surveyor, before Ranger..... ah, help, I'm going to go insane if I spend one more day in "Lunar Conspiracies".... how do you guys maintain your sanity?In 1959 eminent scientist
For a time there seemed to be observational evidence that Phobos may have been hollow, but this was later proven mistaken. Irrelevant to Luna anyway.Professor Iosif Shklovsky put forth his findings in relation to the "moons" circling Mars. "After carefully weighing up the evidence he concludes that they are both hollow"
I do not know any respectable scientist who entertains the notion of any naturally hollow body.While some "orthodox" scientists will quietly admit that some earthly bodies are probably hollow,
Of course they do. That idea is, if I may say so, just plain stupid. A 17 on the Bart scale. How would internal heat be stored? How would volcanism happen? What about outgassing? How would planets form? Why would all bodies be formed in that way? The simplest answer is often correct, and this is just ridiculous. Why don't we see exit holes on the opposite sides of large craters? Why aren't planets incredibly dense, then, to have all of their mass in the crust? Ahhhh...... I'm melting in irrationality......"orthodox" scientists .... steadfastly refuse to accept the fact that ALL planets and moons are NATURALLY hollow and hurry to add they must be "artificial" satellites.
And I thought that it was because of the Big Impact theory, that the Moon is made of low density crustal/mantle material......For instance:
"The moon seems to be a comparatively light world in contrast with the planet Earth. The fact that the moon is only about 60% as dense as our planet has led scientists to two theories: that the moon is without an iron core, and/or, that it is partially hollow.
It doesn't have an iron core, anyway, as far as I know.
What? You have about 4 or 5 paragraphs there, and you claim your burden of proof and your burden of viability is satisfied? Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous.Once again, the "establishment" scientists are trying to "fit" the facts to their "sacred cow" theory. In no way will they "buck" the system and admit the obvious. The facts, once again, support the theory laid out by Gardner and Reed all heavenly bodies are hollow.
Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous.
CrenshawDG@aol.com is the author. He also entertains the notion that the earth is hollow. Somebody e-mail him, or I'll go insane. The stuff that can get on the 'Net....