Hollow Moon?

Posts: 8187

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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."

http://www.geocities.com/area51/hollow/8827/moonfacts.html

http://www.nealadams.com/newmoon/newmoon.html

Posts: 58

Interesting book on the moon:

Who Built the Moon? - by Chris knight and Alan Butler

Posts: 8187

I find it amusing that Sci-fi and NASA has us believing that thrust can exist in the vacuum of space. Anyone that could create or manipulate such a massive structure would likely have control of gravity. Infact; I've wondered if the theory of gravity is all wrong. Yes; the moon appears to affect the tides, and may also contain a gravitational generator?

Posts: 58

Conventional study of the moon says that it was originally part of the earth I think, and that it broke off probably because of an asteroid collision with the earth.

Speaking of thrust in space...how do satellites stay orbiting the earth? I was camping far away from the city recently and saw these specs of light, which I have seen before when I was younger and told they were sattelites...they literally race across the sky at all different angles. How do they stay up there? How come they seem to move so fast.

Anyway, back to the moon...apparently Apollo lunar teams at NASA reported on several occasions that the moon rang like a bell when struck. I don't know what they struck it with...or even if anyone ever even went to the moon to strike it anyway.

Posts: 8187

I'm convinced the moon landing in '69 did not occur. See: http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2464

So the evidence they're putting forth on some of this is very questionable (like the moon acting hollow when struck).

Posts: 7

im sorry i just find this as redicilous as they "inverted earth/universe bible interpritation crap" a hollow structure wouldn't affect tides, there wouldnt be enough mass. and the general theory in science about the moon's orgin is that it was part of the molten earth and broke off when an asteroid hit it. i would comment on the whole moon landing thing but ill save it for that thread.

Posts: 297

why then do they keep sending the rockets up? There's got to be something they're doing in space. seems like every 3 months they launch something. more GPS spy equipment I presume. I wonder... ...what is meant by "global positioning" anyway. I don't like the sound of it.

Posts: 4

The ESA (EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY) about two months ago shot an impact probe into the moon, the few milliseconds of impact recorded were supposed to give more information on the overall make-up of the moon. You can look it up and 'YES' they did "say" that strangley enough in rang out like a bell for a number of hours..

Saying that the moon is hollow does not automatically lead you to believe that it was created by someone or that it is some strange object from deep space,-- all it points to is that the moon may be hollow and (surprise) we have to keep on developing our ideas.

Nasa and the Esa allways come forward with some tit-bit of info whenever they fire a rocket or perform a test.. It's just good PR and marketing!! The alternative researcher 'Jim Marrs' has done some fantastic research into Nasa, their occult ideology and obvious connections to the NSA and the military industrial complex as a whole.

When someone makes a move in chess you allways have to think 'why did they move THAT piece'..
It's the same on the political/technocratic level, WHEN A STATMENT IS MADE YOU MUST THINK 'WHY' they are not forced into saying anything so why thais statement in particular ,stay vigilant..

Posts: 226

	Dirt Poor wrote:
	why then do they keep sending the rockets up? There's got to be something they're doing in space. seems like every 3 months they launch something. more GPS spy equipment I presume. I wonder... ...what is meant by "global positioning" anyway. I don't like the sound of it.

The entire Space Program is about escaping the earth when it is about to 'flip' ie a poleshift. I explain that in my post "Something is wrong with the Sun http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4401

The Sun is a warning that things are changing drastically on our planet, and the Hydra (Elite) have always known this time was coming as did the Mayans etc, every culture that rose to power has built structures aligned to the planets, especially the Sun, and most ancient religions etc were Sun worshippers. Yet the ordinary people never seem to question why ... in the fullest sense.

The space program is all about preparing the ISS for habitation and is intended for what the Hydra knows is coming. The workers and residents of the ISS affectionately call it 'Mother ISIS'.... ??

My Post "Connecting the Dots" explains the coming cataclysm.

Posts: 2

*EVERYONE* should download and read the following book by Ingo Swann, the "father" of remote viewing :

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XPZR1MXP

Just type in the code in the upper right hand corner and (the text) is yours.
However, since the book is going for (at the bare minimum) $500 and up, the very important sketches are not available.

It takes into account everything you could possibly think of with regard to this topic.

Posts: 5

	madthumbs wrote:
	I'm convinced the moon landing in '69 did not occur. See: http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2464 So the evidence they're putting forth on some of this is very questionable (like the moon acting hollow when struck).

As questionable as the evidence may seem, I'm inclined to believe that we did. I saw the reasons why, and the counter reasons why not. Enough of the counter "why we did land on the moon" evidence is good enough IMO to make me skeptical that it was faked.

Even if we did not, I do not support those who try to "expose the truth" at all. At that time, it was imperative that we beat Russia to the moon, so if faking it was what we had to do, then I am glad the United States did that. Just seems very anti American to me when certain individuals ask those involved with the moon/Apollo missions how they faked the landing. Should just shut up and go play golf or something.

Posts: 2

	Tuff wrote:
	Enough of the counter "why we did land on the moon" evidence is good enough IMO to make me skeptical that it was faked.

The REAL question is: WHY have we not gone back ?

And it's NOT because "there is nothing there".

Download "Penetration" by Ingo Swann....

Posts: 5

corsetconvict wrote:

	Tuff wrote:
	Enough of the counter "why we did land on the moon" evidence is good enough IMO to make me skeptical that it was faked.

The REAL question is: WHY have we not gone back ?

And it's NOT because "there is nothing there".

Do you have ideas why we haven't gone back? Bush wants to go back there, but not til we can set up a base there, around 2020. Who knows if that'll happen.

Honestly - I think NASA lacks the brains it once had to do this type of mission.

Posts: 8187

Check out this high res image of the moon:
http://ncarboni2.home.att.net/Moon_Hypersaturated.jpg

Don't the craters appear to be not only shallow but widely flat at the bottom as if there's an extremely hard shell underneath a soft coat?

Posts: 273

	madthumbs wrote:
	Don't the craters appear to be not only shallow but widely flat at the bottom as if there's an extremely hard shell underneath a soft coat?

Yes it does appear that way, You could almost say the moons looks like its been on a long journey and has a lot of bug splatter on it, maybe the surface is just a coating and on the inside is habitat, who knows really.

Neal Adams work is great, it really blew me away when I first saw the animations.