Can someone please refute this?

[Vultur]

I've seen this list of "facts" supporting that the Moon is a spacecraft a bunch of places. I know the Moon isn't a spacecraft, but can someone more knowledgeable than myself tell which of these "facts" are real and what the real explanation is? I know #1 and #10 are wrong.

I hope this doesn't come across as laziness, but I just don't know where to look to research this, and I'd like to know more.

[apolloman]

*yawn*

Looks like typical c.t. claims...any the evidence to prove these claims ? any hard facts ? I thought so.

I have no technical background so can't be specific but claiming that the moon is a craft because quote "this is the only theory that is supported by all of the data, and there are no data that contradict this theory" end quote -is plain stupid.

Others might be more loquacious and elaborate on the technical stuff. Or they might not.

[Grashtel]

I've seen this list of "facts" supporting that the Moon is a spacecraft a bunch of places. I know the Moon isn't a spacecraft, but can someone more knowledgeable than myself tell which of these "facts" are real and what the real explanation is? I know #1 and #10 are wrong.

I hope this doesn't come across as laziness, but I just don't know where to look to research this, and I'd like to know more.

Ok, here's my crack at that site, I would warn you that its early and I haven't had my breakfast so my sarcasm setting is high and my brain may not be running at 100% so please excuse any silly mistakes.

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.

The oldest Lunar rocks I can find reference to are 4.4 billion years old, anyone know of any older ones?

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.

Or rather the dust did, form micrometeorites to be exact.

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).

Titanium is the ninth most common element in Earth's crust, should we be thinking that Earth is a spaceship too?

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.

I am not familiar with these two, any got any better info on them?

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.

No volcanoes? Then I guess that the huge lava flows that form the Maria must have been made by space faeries.

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).

Beneath some of the maria, from my reading of the maps they seem to be rather circular looking maria, now I wonder what could cause a large circular formation with a concentrated mass below it? One might almost think that something big like say an asteroid struck the Moon, and its not like there is any other evidence of that (well except all the craters).

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.

A) The Moon may not be entirely geologically dead and B) Earth's gravitational effects on the crust will deform it producing seismic activity.

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."

Or perhaps as is to be expected from the current best theory of the Moon's formation its lacking in heavier elements (eg the Mars size hunk of iron that makes up Earth's inner core) and so is less dense? Granite has an average density of 2.75 g/cm³.

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.

An unusually light core fits with both the previous point about its low density and the current theory of the Moon's formation.

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.

The problems with drilling were due to the structure of the lunar dust (fine jagged particles compacted and vacuum welded into an extremely resilient mass), not due to its composition, the drills they had wouldn't have worked on actual rock anyway. I'd want to see references to finding Uranium 236 and neptunium 237 in Lunar material (and an explanation of why a multibillion year old starship would have elements with half-lives of millions of years in its hull).

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."

Neatly passing up mentioning the giant impact hypothosis which is currently the most well accepted idea for how the Moon formed.

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.

Yep the Moon's orbit is unusual, if you ignore all the other moons in the Solar System that are also tidally locked and in "near-perfect circular" orbits, not that the Moon's orbit is particularly perfect. Unless the Moon was perfectly spherical it would naturally have a center of mass different from its geometric center, and to be stable the mass has to be distributed evenly about the line passing through the centers of mass of the Earth and the Moon meaning that given that the Moon is fairly symmetrical its geometric center will have to be nearer or further from Earth than its center of mass. As for the Moon wobbling you may want to look up lunar libation. Finally something did have to put the Moon into its current orbit, that something is called gravity, particularly the set of effects known as orbital mechanics.

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."

Lets try its a coincidence? Unlikely events do happen occasionally, that's why they are called unlikely not impossible.

[PraedSt]

If it's a spaceship they certainly haven't taken good care of it. It's pock-marked and covered in dust. Disgraceful. Wouldn't have happened if I was Captain, let me tell you.

[Grashtel]

If it's a spaceship they certainly haven't taken good care of it. It's pock-marked and covered in dust. Disgraceful. Wouldn't have happened if I was Captain, let me tell you.

That may be a deliberate disguise, this book goes into that in detail (and is a pretty good story with some good space battles).

[PraedSt]

Thanks Grashtel. I'll try a couple of chapters. Might be a good way to pass the time while I wait for the Election result...

[Grashtel]

Thanks Grashtel. I'll try a couple of chapters. Might be a good way to pass the time while I wait for the Election result...

You're welcome, David Weber's stuff is well worth a look, as is the other stuff in the Baen Free Library

[PraedSt]

Gaaah! There goes my work for the rest of the year...I'll be sending you a bill.

Thanks again.

[LotusExcelle]

Oh good lord. They have them in Palm format. That's it I'm done. I already have all of Lovecraft's and Philip K. Dick's stuff on there.

[Vultur]

OK, thanks: I was especially curious about the drilling and the mass stuff. So mascons are a product of impacts? I'd read about them, but I didn't know the reason was known.

Just as a minor point, as for the neptunium: if you read the bottom of the page, that website suggests the moon ISN'T billions of years old (or rather hasn't been here that long); it claims the moon entered the system in human history and that there was a tribe in the time of the ancient Greeks which preserved the memory of pre-lunar days. Don't these people realize what the gravity would have done to the Earth?

[Grashtel]

Gaaah! There goes my work for the rest of the year...I'll be sending you a bill.

Thanks again.

Muahahaha!!!!

Of course if I was being really evil I would tell you about baencd which hosts the various CDs packed with eBooks that Baen gives out with some of their hardbacks and actively encourages the free copying and distribution of (remember, the first hit is always free). Or Webscription.Net Baen's site where you can purchase large numbers of good quality ebooks for reasonable prices in unencrypted formats.

[Peter B]

Vultur said:

...it claims the moon entered the system in human history and that there was a tribe in the time of the ancient Greeks which preserved the memory of pre-lunar days.

I'm pretty sure there's good fossil evidence from hundreds of millions of years ago which preserves tidal records. These tides wouldn't be what they are without the Moon.

[Peter B]

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."

Er, elements on the Moon generally *are* sorted by weight. And titanium is a fairly light element (atomic number 22).

On top of that, titanium is a naturally stone-loving element, so it doesn't seem strange to me that it would be abundant near the surface of the Moon.

[LotusExcelle]

A logical conclusion: The SR-71 used a lot of titanium. The moon therefore was designed by Lockheed.

[Swift]

A logical conclusion: The SR-71 used a lot of titanium. The moon therefore was designed by Lockheed.

The form of the titanium on the moon is as the oxide and the paint industry uses more titanium oxide than anyone else. Therefore, the moon was designed by a joint venture of Glidden and Sherwin Williams.

[pzkpfw]

(

The form of the titanium on the moon is as the oxide and the paint industry uses more titanium oxide than anyone else.

We had a rain-water-guttering maker advertising in gushing words that their product contained "Titanium Dioxide!!!!"

I think that's what made it white.
)

[Veeger]

Actually the lunar space ship is one of the very early models.

One of the more recent models looked like this:



before it was abandoned and left in orbit around Saturn. Today it looks like this:

[andyschlei]

And that is proof that it was built by AT&T

http://actfind.blogr.com/stories/8168114/?tag=phone

[captain swoop]

Titanium Dioxide is in everything, paint, dye, polo mints.

One of the manufacturing plants is on Teesside, operated by Huntsman under the name Tioxide. Nasty process involving Plasma Arcs and Chlorine. Black sand from South Africa goes in one end and white powder (higher refractive index than diamond) comes out of the other along with a lot of reclaimed metals.

[Swift]

And that is proof that it was built by AT&T

http://actfind.blogr.com/stories/8168114/?tag=phone

A fellow I know has worked for AT&T for years and tells me that when the logo first came out, everyone in the company called it "The Death Star".

[ravens_cry]

That may be a deliberate disguise, this book goes into that in detail (and is a pretty good story with some good space battles).

Ooh, I always wanted to read that. I read the sequel when I took it out of the school library, but I never could find this book.
I salute you!

[Vultur]

[QUOTE=Veeger;1357740]<pictures of Mimas and death star>[QUOTE]

Eerie. Were there pictures of Mimas when SWIV came out?

[slang]

That may be a deliberate disguise, this book goes into that in detail (and is a pretty good story with some good space battles).

Thanks Grashtel, this book's now been taking up most of my free time (and quite a bit of the not so free time too :> ). chapter 15 next And thanks for the other links as well.

[Veeger]

Eerie. Were there pictures of Mimas when SWIV came out?

Cassini took the picture of Mimas in August 2005. SW-IV was released in 1977. Amazing, eh?

[Vonstadt]

*headdesk* Each time I think, "Yep that last one was the silliest theory I have heard to date!" something new and sillier comes along.

It just never ends does it?

[Swift]

*headdesk* Each time I think, "Yep that last one was the silliest theory I have heard to date!" something new and sillier comes along.

It just never ends does it?

Nope. Humans are just that amazing.

[Skyfire]

There is one point that stands out for me and as I see it sums it up really ...

8. <SNIP> ...... These are probably not natural phenomena.

Well, as far as I know "probably" does not equate to proof.

Also, in this case, the word "probably" seems to have been used in the context of "if you squint through one eye (with the other closed), and ignore a huge mountain of scientific evidence, then you MIGHT see it as a little bit unnatural".

[Vonstadt]

....Six moon landings and hundreds of experiments have resulted in more questions being asked than answered. Among them:

At least this fellow/fellows seem to acknowledge that we actually went there

[Van Rijn]

This has come up a number of times on BAUT, just search on "hollow moon". Here's one thread, for example:

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...on-hollow.html

[Van Rijn]

*headdesk* Each time I think, "Yep that last one was the silliest theory I have heard to date!" something new and sillier comes along.

It just never ends does it?

No. Honestly, this one seems almost tame to me, compared to things like "the earth is a tree" or "the sun has a solid iron surface." By the way, looking at your avatar, it occurs to me that Mimas also looks quite bit like Discovery EVA pods, which were described years before Star Wars.