The Moon

[Peter B]

Incidentally, however, I will grant that sometimes Armstrong could be po-faced...

NASA photo S65-58502b of the prime and backup crews of Gemini 8.

[markprice]

As per the moon "ringing like a bell":

The only genuine reference from NASA I've come across about it is a description of how moonquakes measured with seismometers during the Apollo missions made the moon "ring like a bell" and the description is clearly artistic license. Reading up on it the analogy is given with a tuning fork - that the moon is regularly undergoing small vibrations due to the ongoing moonquakes it experiences - up to 5.5 on the Richter scale. Because of the lack of water in the moons rocks, the quakes last for longer as the moon is more rigid unlike the earth's crust where water helps damp quakes quicker so that moonquakes can last for much longer than earthquakes.

Unless someone can link a reliable source that indicates that the story in the OP's link is true and meant to be taken literally - the moon made a ringing noise like a bell when a rocket crashed into it - it can be safely dismissed as nonsense. And if they're so easily taken in by these kind of silly unsourced claims, I'm inclined to doubt their capacity for critical thinking in general and thus I suspect a lot of the other claims are similarly exagerrated or taken out of context.

The moon has no atmosphere to transmit noise anyway and how can a rocket crashing into an object that's 2000 miles wide cause it to "ring" for up to four hours?

Maybe you missed this:

4. The Puzzle of Why the Moon "Rings" like a Hollow Sphere When a Large Object Hits It: During the Apollo Moon missions, ascent stages of lunar modules as well as the spent third stages of rockets crashed on the hard surface of the moon. Each time, these caused the moon, according to NASA, to "ring like a gong or a bell." On one of the Apollo 12 flights, reverberations lasted from nearly an hour to as much as four hours. NASA is reluctant to suggest that the moon may actually be hollow, but can otherwise not explain this strange fact.

Edited March 5, 2014 by markprice

[Mentalcase]

The OP article is written by Childress. Obviously it is beyond scrutiny.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Mentalcase

[seeder]

Many other planets have moons, therefore, its a common thing to 'have' a moon in the first place, it doesn't require Aliens, or mystical stories and wacko theories

[Hasina]

Some of the ads on Space.com make me sad.

"Full Moon Horoscope"

"Fortune Teller Answers"

"Science Discovers God?" (link to y-jesus.com)

"Einstein was Wrong?" (link to some crank website advertising a book about "spheritons" which cites Zechariah Sitchin)

Aren't the ads supplied by Google, which decides what ads to show you based on it's search results you've done?

[JesseCuster]

Aren't the ads supplied by Google, which decides what ads to show you based on it's search results you've done?

And other factors I think, like the text of the page the ad appears on (hence the link to moon horoscopes on an article about moon photographs).

The only ads that follow me around the Internet based on what I've been searching for are Amazon.com ads which for days pop up on all sorts of websites advertising products I visited Amazon only to get a price check on.

[seeder]

Ah - so that why I keep seeing links to 'BraBusters' then, even when I aint lookin for them

[markprice]

Many other planets have moons, therefore, its a common thing to 'have' a moon in the first place, it doesn't require Aliens, or mystical stories and wacko theories

Yeah, that's what I thought. But then those "wacko theories" are more logically plausible than a chunk of earth etc. Aliens exist is also more logically plausible than assuming they don't.

And if they do then why not build a moon to control this experiment we call earth with resources?

BTW, anyone read Who Built the Moon besides Icke? A hollowed out planetoid propelled into its exact position for various reasons. That's the only wacko theory that makes sense IMO.

[JesseCuster]

Maybe you missed this:

4. The Puzzle of Why the Moon "Rings" like a Hollow Sphere When a Large Object Hits It: During the Apollo Moon missions, ascent stages of lunar modules as well as the spent third stages of rockets crashed on the hard surface of the moon. Each time, these caused the moon, according to NASA, to "ring like a gong or a bell." On one of the Apollo 12 flights, reverberations lasted from nearly an hour to as much as four hours. NASA is reluctant to suggest that the moon may actually be hollow, but can otherwise not explain this strange fact.

I didn't miss it. What I missed was a reference or source as to where that claim came from, what it means in context, etc.

Like I said, the only information I can find about the moon "ringing like a bell" from an actual NASA source is to do with moonquakes measured with seismic instruments during the Apollo missions and is clearly not a literal remark.

http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/15mar_moonquakes/

As it regularly appears in crank websites claiming the moon is hollow but without a reference, I suspect it's a distortion of the actual facts and a quote taken out of context. I can't find a NASA source referring to the moon "ringing like a bell" apart from in the context of moonquakes and in a context (read the linked article) that is clearly not meant to be taken literally.

Why do you believe it without any sort of source? Given the amount of disinfo floating around the Internet, you shouldn't take these claims at face value. I challenge anyone to source the above claim to NASA.

[JesseCuster]

Yeah, that's what I thought. But then those "wacko theories" are more logically plausible than a chunk of earth etc.

It's only plausible if you're inclined to take at face value crackpot claims with no source or reference given and of which several at least are distortions, exaggerations, etc. of the truth.

What is implausible about the current theories about moon formation that astronomers propose? Do you understand them enough to have a valid opinion on their validity?

Aliens exist is also more logically plausible than assuming they don't.

That old strawman. No-one is arguing that there's no aliens, just that it's a seriously dubious stretch to link the existence of ET life out there with an artificial hollow moon orbiting the earth built by them.

And if they do then why not build a moon to control this experiment we call earth with resources?

That's a non-sequitur. Aliens exist therefore earth is an experiment and they built a giant 2000 mile hollow spacecraft to control the experiment. That doesn't make any sense on any level whatsoever.

BTW, anyone read Who Built the Moon besides Icke? A hollowed out planetoid propelled into its exact position for various reasons. That's the only wacko theory that makes sense IMO.

David "son of the Godhead" Icke? Srsly? Edited March 5, 2014 by JesseCuster

[seeder]

The simple fact the moon has composition and gravity rules out hollow moon theories. Oh and what about the early volcanic activity on the moon? It may be good for those who think its anything BUT natural - to read some proper facts from a reliable source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

The Moon is a differentiated body: it has a geochemically distinct crust, mantle, and core.

The Moon has a solid iron-rich inner core with a radius of 240 kilometers and a fluid outer core primarily made of liquid iron with a radius of roughly 300 kilometers.

Around the core is a partially molten boundary layer with a radius of about 500 kilometers.[35] This structure is thought to have developed through the fractional crystallization of a global magma ocean shortly after the Moon's formation 4.5 billion years ago.[36]

Crystallization of this magma ocean would have created a mafic mantle from the precipitation and sinking of the minerals olivine, clinopyroxene, and orthopyroxene; after about three-quarters of the magma ocean had crystallised, lower-density plagioclase minerals could form and float into a crust on top.

.

Edited March 5, 2014 by seeder

[markprice]

It's only plausible if you're inclined to take at face value crackpot claims with no source or reference given and of which several at least are distortions, exaggerations, etc. of the truth.

"They found a consistent sequence of integer numbers that they can apply to every major aspect of the Moon; no such pattern emerges for any other planet or moon in the solar system. In addition, Knight and Butler discovered that the Moon possesses few or no heavy metals and has no core—something that should not be possible. Their persuasive conclusion: if higher life only developed on Earth because the Moon is exactly what it is and where it is, it becomes unreasonable to cling to the idea that the Moon is a natural object—an idea with profound implications."

What is implausible about the current theories about moon formation that astronomers propose? Do you understand them enough to have a valid opinion on their validity?

Because they have to admit that their theories are highly unlikely (wacko).

That old strawman. No-one is arguing that there's no aliens, just that it's a seriously dubious stretch to link the existence of ET life out there with an artificial hollow moon orbiting the earth built by them.

Call it what you want, but the theory that the moon existed elsewhere and was then hollowed out and propelled into its location here makes more sense than a freak accident they will never be able to confirm.

That's a non-sequitur. Aliens exist therefore earth is an experiment and they built a giant 2000 mile hollow spacecraft to control the experiment. That doesn't make any sense on any level whatsoever.

David "son of the Godhead" Icke? Srsly?

It existed to be modified, like carving a house out of stone. I have a feeling a lot of things do not make sense to you...anyway this was the book I mentioned that Icke read after he started to question the moon (quoted above):

[JesseCuster]

"They found a consistent sequence of integer numbers that they can apply to every major aspect of the Moon; no such pattern emerges for any other planet or moon in the solar system. In addition, Knight and Butler discovered that the Moon possesses few or no heavy metals and has no core—something that should not be possible. Their persuasive conclusion: if higher life only developed on Earth because the Moon is exactly what it is and where it is, it becomes unreasonable to cling to the idea that the Moon is a natural object—an idea with profound implications."

Please explain. What sequence of numbers were found that can apply to every aspect of the Moon? How did they come up with the numbers? What was their methodology?

Is this standard numerology methodology of cherry picking numbers, applying arbitrary operations on them until you find what appears to the gullible and inumerate to be impressive numbers but transparent nonsense to?

Can you explain in your own words exactly what you are proposing here?

Because they have to admit that their theories are highly unlikely (wacko).

I'll ask again, do you understand enough about the proposed explanations for the origin of the moon to assess their validity or are you merely finding sources that make poorly thought out claims that confirm what you already believe?

Call it what you want, but the theory that the moon existed elsewhere and was then hollowed out and propelled into its location here makes more sense than a freak accident they will never be able to confirm.

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. It has literally no evidence backing it up and is a fantasy concocted by cherry picking unreliable cranks who have come to absurd conclusions based upon misuse, exagerration, out-of-context quotes, etc.

Ultimately, the moon as alien spacecraft theories come down to nothing more than cherry picking and misunderstanding select data in order to say "I don't know therefore hollow alien spacecraft". It's ludicrous on every level.

For example, the "ringing like a bell" that I will repeat my request for a source backing it up to NASA where they claimed that crashing rocket stages into the moon resulted in it literally ringing like a bell, and not the moonquake explanation that actually comes from NASA and which has nothing to do with a hollow moon (and in fact refutes it as how can a hollowed out shell have quakes coming from hundreds of kilometres deep down?) Can you at least understand why crashing a (relatively) tiny rocket into a 2000 mile wide object can in no way cause it to "ring" for hours on end?

I have a feeling a lot of things do not make sense to you...

I see no understanding coming from you, just parroting of other's unsourced oddball ideas that appeal to you. Like in the "ghost equation" thread where you literally had no idea why the equation you were talking about made no sense from any point of view at all - it merely looked like science to you and said something that appealed to you therefore is correct.

If the moon was a hollowed out sphere then its mass would be a fraction of what it is known to be and therefore the tidal forces it generated would be much smaller and this would have a noticable effect on the tides that we don't in fact see. Do you know what causes tides Mark and why a hollowed moon would have a noticably lesser effect on the behaviour of the sea on earth that no scientists seems to have noticed? Do you understand without Googling for the first page you can find which has some lame misunderstanding and misinfo about how tides work?

It's trivial Mark to find a webpage that says anything you want to believe. 30 seconds on Google and you can find websites "proving" that the earth is 6000 years old, that mankind has existed for 100s of millions of years, that the earth is hollow, that the holocaust never happened, that the events of ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc. actually happened in medieval times, etc. It's another thing however to apply some basic scientific literacy, critical thinking and basic research skills to gauge the validity of them. Something you show no evidence of having any interest in doing.

You need to have the right amount of open mindedness, skepticism, critical thinking, general scientific literacy, etc. to see that the idea the moon is a hollow alien spacecraft is an outright idiotic idea on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start explaining what's wrong with it. You remind me of zoser, when the facts are inconvenient, just Google for the first webpage that says anything that agrees with you, don't bother vetting it or applying and sort of thinking to what it says, just post it and think that's researching an idea.

I have a feeling I'm wasting my time.

[zoser]

The moon seems to be the world's largest UFO. What is it and how did it get there:

Eleven Things that NASA Discovered

or could it be just a base for UFOs?:

Finally: proof that there's an Alien invasion base on Moon!

A lot of theories out there...

Some interesting theories but they are all wrong.

The moon came from the earth. Specifically from the San Andreas fault.

What makes people think that procreation only occurs with people and animals.

There is much more in this, but I'll let you guys work out the rest.

Edited March 5, 2014 by zoser

[JesseCuster]

The moon came from the earth. Specifically from the San Andreas fault.

[Gaden]

Call it what you want, but the theory that the moon existed elsewhere and was then hollowed out and propelled into its location here makes more sense than a freak accident they will never be able to confirm.

This leads me to believe you think it's not normal for the Moon to exist. And yet almost every planet that we know of has at least one moon. So, either aliens have given moons to all of these planets, or the "accident' is not all that freakish, in fact, it must be the norm.

[DONTEATUS]

YEah ! go ahead and Blame the Moon on Obama like everything eles ! So Sad !So Sad !

[AtlantisRises]

This idea seems based on the theory that everything written on the internet is correct and little else.

There of course is a side argument that if two things on the internet directly contradict each other then the one with the largest font is true.

[markprice]

Can you at least understand why crashing a (relatively) tiny rocket into a 2000 mile wide object can in no way cause it to "ring" for hours on end?

That's the question right there. NASA cannot explain it. Your stance is based on occurrences NASA is reluctant to accept the implications of. I can't outgoogle NASA if they don't want me to learn something in their realm. I have not read WHO BUILT THE MOON either.

I see no understanding coming from you, just parroting of other's unsourced oddball ideas that appeal to you. Like in the "ghost equation" thread where you literally had no idea why the equation you were talking about made no sense from any point of view at all - it merely looked like science to you and said something that appealed to you therefore is correct.

Consciousness is measurable in SI units...but then you quit as soon as I provided that information.

If the moon was a hollowed out sphere then its mass would be a fraction of what it is known to be and therefore the tidal forces it generated would be much smaller and this would have a noticable effect on the tides that we don't in fact see. Do you know what causes tides Mark and why a hollowed moon would have a noticably lesser effect on the behaviour of the sea on earth that no scientists seems to have noticed? Do you understand without Googling for the first page you can find which has some lame misunderstanding and misinfo about how tides work?

Something like a five mile thick surface substance, then twenty mile deep hardened layer...whatever it is it's perfect for what it does.

It's trivial Mark to find a webpage that says anything you want to believe. 30 seconds on Google and you can find websites "proving" that the earth is 6000 years old, that mankind has existed for 100s of millions of years, that the earth is hollow, that the holocaust never happened, that the events of ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc. actually happened in medieval times, etc. It's another thing however to apply some basic scientific literacy, critical thinking and basic research skills to gauge the validity of them. Something you show no evidence of having any interest in doing.

Just questioning the moon after an Icke marathon.

You need to have the right amount of open mindedness, skepticism, critical thinking, general scientific literacy, etc. to see that the idea the moon is a hollow alien spacecraft is an outright idiotic idea on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start explaining what's wrong with it. You remind me of zoser, when the facts are inconvenient, just Google for the first webpage that says anything that agrees with you, don't bother vetting it or applying and sort of thinking to what it says, just post it and think that's researching an idea.

I have a feeling I'm wasting my time.

If you are going to be that hypocritical then you are definitely wasting your time.

[Skeptical Moose]

That's no moon...it's a space station...

21614 by LenzFreak, on Flickr

^^This is the last shot i took of it, definitely some progression going on from the last shot i took

[Merc14]

And other factors I think, like the text of the page the ad appears on (hence the link to moon horoscopes on an article about moon photographs).

The only ads that follow me around the Internet based on what I've been searching for are Amazon.com ads which for days pop up on all sorts of websites advertising products I visited Amazon only to get a price check on.

Use Firefox and install the add-on "AdBlock Plus". Does a good job of greatly decreasing the number of ads you are assaulted with.

[DONTEATUS]

Well lets just Go back and See !

[markprice]

What a crock of S*#%.

1. The Moon’s origin is not a mystery. The giant impact hypothesis is the currently favored scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.

That's not saying much.

2. It is erroneous to compare the age of Moon rocks to Earth rocks as the oldest rocks on Earth are recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. Since the Moon does not have this process, rocks found on the Moon would be much older. Furthermore, rocks on the surface of the Moon could quite be the remains of asteroids.

Then you are saying we have no idea how old the earth is and it might be as old as the moon because that did not recycle rock.

3. If chemical analysis of the Moon’s soil revealed that the lunar soil did not come from the rocks, then it stands to reason that it’s the rocks that are alien to the Moon, not the lunar soil.

Not all rocks on the moon are alien; the soil is older anyway.

4. I simply don’t believe this.

And if true as stated all over the Internet then what? you believe or not...

5. Mystifying Maria – the rare metals found need approximately 4,500 degrees Fahrenheit to melt and fuse with surrounding rock. Based on the giant impact hypothesis the surface of the Moon was once molten.

I don't think that is disputed, and probably why it would make such a good hull.

6. The pillar of iron in New Delhi, India is rusting; just at a very slow rate due to an accidental protective film on the pillar created during the forging, based on the materials used (raw slag and unreduced iron), and the weather cycles of its location. I bring this up to discount the information being presented; if your one exception is wrong so is the rule.

The pillar doesn't refute that moon iron did not rust; it's more of an aside.

7. There is nothing around the Moon to “shield” its surface from harmful radiation resulting from cosmic rays and solar flares. These cosmic rays hit the lunar surface and “bounce” up, it would stand to reason that you would receive higher radiation levels on elevated surfaces (e.g., Apennine Mountains). I would question the education of any scientist that wonders “where…all this hot radioactive material come from” while pondering any celestial body.

They were saying there that the core is cold and radioactive material on the surface was surprising, not that it is just "embarrassingly radioactive".

8. There could be water ice in the Moon’s craters at the poles. In November 2009 NASA reported that the spectral signature of water was confirmed on the Moon. However, what was actually detected was the chemical group hydroxyl, which is suspected to be from water but could also be inorganic salts containing chemically-bound water molecules. The results of many endeavors to find water on the Moon are inconclusive, however it is a possibility. I do not have a problem with this Moon discovery on the list; it merely needs to be rewritten to be more accurate.

Your theory is that there is water on the moon to account for the clouds?

9. This discovery is being exaggerated. The lunar soil is composed of various types of particles, including glasses (e.g., agglutinate particles and volcanic and impact spherules). The agglutinate form at the lunar surface by micrometeorite impacts that cause a small-scale melting which fuses adjacent material together into a glassy shell. The Moon is “paved with glass” as the Earth is “paved with plastic”.

what?

10. The Moon’s magnetism is very strange indeed, as a result of a lot of cosmic bombardment among other things. And one should investigate and study these “other things” to gain a full appreciation of the fact that there many, many extraneous variables at play here. The statement “NASA can not explain…” is simply erroneous.

It's not erroneous when previous tests indicated that the moon had no magnetic field.

11. Solved: http://phys.org/news...ns-mystery.html

"For the first time we can figure out what size asteroids hit the moon by looking at the basins left behind and the gravity signature of the areas. We now have tools to figure out more about the heavy asteroid bombardment and what the ancient Earth may have faced."

"The team confirmed the standing theory that the concentrations of mass were caused by massive asteroid impacts billions of years ago and determined how these impacts changed the density of material on the moon's surface and, in turn, its gravity field."

Then let me get this straight: density caused by impact changes the gravity in those areas. But all the craters are about the same depth regardless of size indicating lack of impact effect based on existing density which halts whatever hits the moon at about the same point.

Ugh!

agreed.

[psyche101]

Hey Mark

I see my link must have blown your mind, too much for you I take it.

Anyway, what about LCROSS??? That blows all this nonsense right out of the water, and was observed by independent parties to be a large explosion emitting much debris, amateurs have catalogued over 100 meteor strikes, none of which support a hollow moon theory, China's Change-e is there right now, and not reporting a hollow moon or ringing.

And this means you call Edgar Mitchell a liar in the same breath;

(Edgar Mitchell) I, nor any crew I was on (I was on three Apollo crews), received any briefing before or after flights on UFO events, saw anything in space suggesting UFOs or structures on the moon, etc. We did it just like we said in official reports. My only claim to knowledge of these events is from the individuals, mostly of yesteryear, who were in government, intelligence, or military; were there, saw what they saw, and now believe it should be made public. But I claim no first hand knowledge, nor have any. Pass it on to the rest of the net, if you will.

--Edgar Mitchell

Edited March 6, 2014 by psyche101

[scowl]

That's the question right there. NASA cannot explain it. Your stance is based on occurrences NASA is reluctant to accept the implications of.

How are they reluctant? Were you thrown out of a NASA press conference or something?

I can't outgoogle NASA if they don't want me to learn something in their realm.

Their realm?

I have not read WHO BUILT THE MOON either.

I built it. There, now you know.