The Moon

[markprice]

Some of the Apollo missions did crash the final stage of the Saturn rocket into the moon's surface as seismic tests but I can't find anything reliable to indicate that those tests indicated anything to do with a hollow moon. If someone used the same phrase "ringing like a bell" to describe the results of those seismic tests, then I can't find it. Perhaps my Google skills are failing me, someone feel free to correct me about this.

It reverberated like a bell for more than an hour after being struck:

Who Parked Our Moon? - disinformation

Among these “breath-stopping” mysteries or anomalies as scientists prefer to call them is the fact that the Moon is far older than previously imagined, perhaps even much older than the Earth and Sun. By examining tracks burned into Moon rocks by cosmic rays, scientists have dated them as billions of years old. Some have been dated back 4.5 billion years, far older than the Earth and nearly as old as the solar system.

[seeder]

It reverberated like a bell for more than an hour after being struck:

Who Parked Our Moon? - disinformation

OMG. An article by Jim Marrs. Is he a scientist? Who is he? Nobody at all...just an ex journalist well into making a living by writing woowoo books and conspiracy theories. Hardly the man to quote is it? In fact its laughable that you did so. You keep shooting down any credibility to your argument, and you do it all by yourself - perhaps without realising it. Id just slink away if I were you

[seeder]

Note that Jim Marrs has been on the AA series. That should be enough to gauge his credibility

quote:

On July 10, Ancient Aliens pundit and prolific conspiracy author Jim Marrs appeared on William Henry’s Revelations radio show to discuss ancient aliens in advance of the Contact in the Desert symposium currently going on in Joshua Tree.

Marrs was promoting his new book, whose name I refuse to publicize thanks to HarperCollins’ refusal to provide me a review copy. Marrs’s book detailed his belief that world governments are conspiring to cover up knowledge of ancient astronauts, and in so doing, Marrs recycled century-old anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, exchanging the Jews for aliens and in one case making the Jews into aliens trying to suck the gold and lifeblood from Christian America.

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2013/08/jim-marrs-recycles-anti-semitic-conspiracies-to-make-ancient-alien-claims.html

He is another NUTTER!

Now do find for us a credible source that supports your views, knowing in advance I will look into all names you quote. Or just bow out now?

[markprice]

OMG. An article by Jim Marrs. Is he a scientist? Who is he? Nobody at all...just an ex journalist well into making a living by writing woowoo books and conspiracy theories. Hardly the man to quote is it? In fact its laughable that you did so. You keep shooting down any credibility to your argument, and you do it all by yourself - perhaps without realising it. Id just slink away if I were you

... and rely on implied hypothetical theories like you do, never.

[JesseCuster]

The moon "reacted like a gong" after being hit by a rocket stage. Every single hit I've found for that exact phrase is from websites claiming the moon is hollow. I can't find the name of who said it at NASA "Scientists said..." "NASA said... "Someone at NASA said..." etc. Who actually said that? Did anyone actually say that? Is it a misquote of the "ringing like a bell" quote I gave above? I don't know but it's curious that I can't put the words into an actual individual's mouth, just third hand reports that "someone at NASA" said it, most of which are merely copying and pasting a few variations of the same story.

Another article that doesn't source the claim, just repeats it as gospel truth. Why is that? Are these people who propose hollow moon theories allergic to the idea including a link or source for these quotes?

Still doesn't answer the question that if the seismic recorders on the moon detected moonquakes originating from hundreds of km below the surface if its hollow.

BTW, your quote above doesn't make any sense. 4.5 billion years is NOT "far older than the earth", that's the same age as the Earth. Some research suggests the age might be 4.4 - 4.45 billion years old. Not that that makes any sense anyway?

Anyway, why would a giant spacecraft designed to monitor an experiment on Earth (which you thinks make sense) be older than the planet it was designed to monitor?

There's one seriously deluded implication in the article, attempting to link the existence of titanium in the moon's crust with the idea of it being a spacecraft because titanium is used in airplanes. That's like me claiming I'm a skyscraper because there's iron in my body and iron is used in the construction of skyscrapers. Have you noticed that airplanes aren't made using rocks with some titanium ore in them, but actually use engineered titanium alloys in critical components? Who writes this stuff?

Edited March 7, 2014 by JesseCuster

[markprice]

I'll leave you guys with something real to consider:

Apollo 11 photo reveals base on far side of moon - Honolulu exopolitics | Examiner.com

That's the NASA MO in action, so why question their wiki theories?

[JesseCuster]

I'll leave you guys with something real to consider:

Apollo 11 photo reveals base on far side of moon - Honolulu exopolitics | Examiner.com

That's the NASA MO in action, so why question their wiki theories?

"It looks like some kind of crystal tube with something that appears like an antenna or some kind of special weapon"

"The spheres appear to be living quarters with connecting corridors."

[click image for larger version]

That's funny. Not only are the 'spheres' and 'corridor' or 'crystal tube' 'special weapon' and 'living quarters' only a few pixels wide and thus there's no detail to be seen, the image is taken from a very oblique angle, it's right on the limb of the moon, but the author is making the amateurish mistake of interpreting it as if the camera was pointing straight down at the moon's surface. Laughable.

BTW, what's the "NASA MO" in action you're referring to?

Edited March 7, 2014 by JesseCuster

[seeder]

I'll leave you guys with something real to consider:

Apollo 11 photo reveals base on far side of moon - Honolulu exopolitics | Examiner.com

That's the NASA MO in action, so why question their wiki theories?

why not just post the damned pic?

eta: Jesse beat me to it so image removed as same

.

Edited March 7, 2014 by seeder

[seeder]

So erm, I repeat myself yet again, why didn't the 4 other countries that have mapped the moon, with the last 3 missions being relatively recent, with much better tech than existed in the Apollo missions, with very high resolution mapping.. why havent they made it public?

[JesseCuster]

Hmm... I checked the next image in that photo sequence from Apollo 11 (http://www.lpi.usra....mm/magazine/?41) which includes the area with the alien space base with crystal spheres, special weapon and living quarters and it wasn't there! Clearly one of them airbrushed images we keep hearing about.

But after a few minutes browsing the images (I love any excuse for looking over NASA's photo archives) I found it in a different photo in a different location on the moon! Must be one of them roving crystal sphere moon bases.

Curious that it should orient itself the same way towards the Apollo camera even though the photos were all taken at different oblique angles as Apollo moved over the moon's surface and thus should look like it was taken from different angles. So we have a roving crystal sphere moonbase clever enough to know when it's being photographed in order to appear the same way in different photographs to appear as a mere photographic imperfection. Crafty aliens!

BTW, for anyone who wants to check themselves, the entire series of images is full of little blobs, circles, stringy things, etc. of different shapes in different places in different images. They're clearly photographic imperfections of some sort.

Crystal sphere moonbase with living quarters and special weapon. That gave me a good laugh. Thanks.

Edited March 7, 2014 by JesseCuster

[seeder]

Well done Jesse

[Gaden]

I guarantee you that when Dawn starts relaying back the first high resolution pictures of Ceres next year, people on this website will be all over it claiming it's an artificial hollow alien space station.

You can bet your house on this, in fact, I'd wager Hoagland and his crew are already discussing what "finds" they are going to publish.

[markprice]

BTW, what's the "NASA MO" in action you're referring to?

why not just post the damned pic?

eta: Jesse beat me to it so image removed as same

.

There is no picture; that was the point: NASA quickly cut spliced and ran off a copy before the guy could get back to it.

[markprice]

This is the page to read if anyone wants to get up to speed on this topic:

Lunar Anomalies

[Gaden]

I'll leave you guys with something real to consider:

Apollo 11 photo reveals base on far side of moon - Honolulu exopolitics | Examiner.com

That's the NASA MO in action, so why question their wiki theories?

So, if the Moon is hollow, why the need for a base on the surface?

[markprice]

BTW, your quote above doesn't make any sense. 4.5 billion years is NOT "far older than the earth", that's the same age as the Earth. Some research suggests the age might be 4.4 - 4.45 billion years old. Not that that makes any sense anyway?

The moon more like 5.3 billion according to the page in post# 89.

[seeder]

There is no picture; that was the point: NASA quickly cut spliced and ran off a copy before the guy could get back to it.

Are you raving mad? The picture that you say doesn't exist, has already been posted by Jesse, and myself actually tho Ive since deleted the post

[seeder]

From your own link mark it states.. "The object was recently discovered by an observer and announced today on UFO Sightings Daily (for location of object with magnification click here).

Dont you read the links you supply? Try clicking the link in the above sentence where it says "click here"

.

Edited March 8, 2014 by seeder

[JesseCuster]

There is no picture; that was the point: NASA quickly cut spliced and ran off a copy before the guy could get back to it.

Is that in the video? I didn't watch the video, I read the article and examined the photo in it about the "crystal spheres", "special weapon" and "living quarters" nonsense. That was so laughably out of whack that I didn't even bother watching the video.

If someone is willing to fall for that photo as evidence of a lunar base then they're clearly beyond debating with as they will accept anything as evidence of alien activity as long as it's written up somewhere on the Internet or put into a YouTube video.

[JesseCuster]

The moon more like 5.3 billion according to the page in post# 89.

4.5 billion years old according to the part of your posts I quoted. You put a quote in your post saying that it's 4.5 billion years old, much older than the earth. I'm pointing out that what you said, what you quoted doesn't make sense as it's incorrect, and now you're just going to ignore what you yourself said and contradict yourself?

[markprice]

I'm all for debunking what you can but you are using the wrong pictures.

So, if the Moon is hollow, why the need for a base on the surface?

Access. There are plenty of sites that show the moon is still in use and that we were just getting in their way. Basically just a gigantic NASA FAIL on the moon, so of course they will not admit that and just silently back away from their moon.

Assuming it is a hollow alien base, as so much evidence suggests, and nothing can really refute.

That's my take away from The Moon: UFO. Maybe some day science will be able to debunk that and identify the damned thing for real. But I doubt that.

So good luck with the moon, whatever you think it is, because there is no doubting its power here for better or worse.

[markprice]

Are you raving mad? The picture that you say doesn't exist, has already been posted by Jesse, and myself actually tho Ive since deleted the post

Next time just watch the video.

[seeder]

Well - Im abandoning this thread..

[JesseCuster]

I'm all for debunking what you can but you are using the wrong pictures.

The image on the right is the one used in the article you linked to.

I went to NASA's archives, found it myself and cropped out that part. I also found the image on the right in another Apollo 11 image on NASA's website. The orientation is different (mine are rotated 90 degrees around), but it's from the same Apollo 11 image the article you linked to talks about.

Here's the link you posted earlier in this thread, read it and look at the photo on the left of the article that illustrates what it's talking about - http://www.examiner.com/article/apollo-11-photo-reveals-base-on-far-side-of-moon

[Peter B]

Based on Markprice’s previous post he may not read this, but I’d like to respond to post #55, if only for the benefit of others reading this thread who may be undecided about whether the Moon is an alien spaceship.

I asked: “That quote of Dr Brett: when did he say it?”

Markprice didn’t respond to this question. If you’re going to quote someone it helps readers to supply a source for the quote.

I said: “And as for the currently favoured theory for the origin of the Moon, understand that scientists didn't wake up one day and decide to invent a new theory.”

Markprice replied: “Scientists can continue along happily wrong for a long time.”

Yes that’s possible. But I also explained how scientists did come up with the giant impact theory, as others have described. It’s based on the evidence discovered by the Apollo missions and some innovative thinking by Soviet and American scientists.

= = = =

I said: “It took more than a decade of examining data and rocks from the Moon for scientists to come up with the fourth theory - the giant impact theory. And if you read any account of the story you quickly learn that it was a theory scientists gradually fumbled towards as they theorised about planetary accretion and the origin of the Solar System (a good account is provided in Dana Mackenzie's "The Big Splat").”

Markprice replied: “I don't buy that one.”

Please explain why.

= = = =

I said: “Determining the age of the Earth is hardly a controversial topic these days. The oldest rocks are found in Greenland and Western Australia, and dated to well over 4 billion years. Individual crystals have been dated to 4.4 billion years. Similar ages have been found for the oldest Moon rocks. The difference is that such old rocks are vanishingly rare on Earth due to erosion, alteration and tectonic activity. Such rocks are far more common on the Moon due to the almost complete absence of these processes.”

Markprice replied: “The moon being older than the earth is a big problem for that latest theory?”

Your only source for the Moon being older than the Earth is that "Eleven Things" site you’ve linked, and it doesn’t say where that 5.3 billion year figure comes from. Everything I find on science-based sites says the oldest Moon rocks are about 4.5 billion years old, which is likely to be within about 100 million years of the Moon’s actual age.

= = = =

I said: “In any case I'd like to see a source for the claim of a 5.3 billion year old rock.”

Markprice replied: “I'm pretty sure they were talking about the soil under rocks which could be alien debris, if they knew what they were doing.”

Soil or rock, I’d still like to see a source for the claim of 5.3 billion years.

= = = =

I said: “I'd like to see a source for this claim [soil older than rock] too.”

Markprice said: “I keep hearing that; you are free to google all day if you have the time.”

I’m sorry, but if you wish to make the assertion, it’s up to you to provide supporting evidence.

= = = =

I said: “http://science1.nasa...mar_moonquakes/ provides a NASA source for the "ringing like a bell" statement. It's clear from context that there's no suggestion of a hollow Moon. Instead, the Moon continues to vibrate much longer than Earth after a quake, because the "...moon, however, is dry, cool and mostly rigid, like a chunk of stone or iron. So moonquakes set it vibrating like a tuning fork."”

Markprice asked: “A round tuning fork?”

Yes. Is there a problem? As the quote above says, the Moon keeps vibrating longer than the Earth because it “…is dry, cool and mostly rigid, like a chunk of stone or iron.” Tuning forks are not the only metal objects which keep vibrating after being struck.

= = = =

I said: “I would like a source for the claim that the iron particles brought back from the Moon by a Soviet mission haven't oxidised.”

Markprice replied: “It's probably in the book mentioned earlier.”

If you’re willing to quote someone else’s statement it would again be polite to provide a source.

= = = =

I said: “Yes, there have been intermittent reports of clouds of some sort on the Moon, but these appear to be local and short-lived.”

Markprice replied: “Clouds expelled from the moon because it has no atmosphere.”

I’m sorry I don’t understand what you’re saying. The possibility that there’s still enough internal heat in the Moon to power the occasional outburst of gas from the Moon is not controversial. What’s controversial (and not sourced) is the description on the “Eleven Things” site.

= = = =

I said: “Yes, astronauts found small blobs of glass the bottoms of craters. But you only need to look at photos and videos of the Moon to see that the surface is mostly dusty soil or rocks.”

Markprice replied: “The dusty layer gets very thin in places.”

Maybe it does. And what is beneath? Can you please provide evidence that there is an extensive amount of glass on the surface of the Moon?

= = = =

I said: “It's no surprise to me that craters have a maximum depth. Once impacts reach a certain level of energy they melt the surrounding rock so that it flows into the hole created by the impact.”

Markprice replied: “It is surprising that no matter the size of the impact the depth is about the same, which discredits that nonsense about impact causing density that altered the gravity in some areas, IMO.”

Fair enough. You’re entitled to your own opinion.

= = = =

I said: “Now a lot of my answers were the non-answer of "where is the evidence". But this is the problem. The "Eleven Things" page is full of interesting statements but no information about their source. Putting quotes around some statements doesn't help. And even if the quotes are accurate, without being able to look at the source of the statements we don't have any context.”

Markprice said: “I assume that NASA is the source for what we know about this, except for the soviet iron.”

You don’t know where this information comes from? How do you know it’s correct?

Markprice said: “The problem is that NASA seems to have weak public theories.”

What do you mean by the term “weak public theories”?