Before the Flood, There Was No Moon., page 3

I have strong reasons to believe the following;

1. The moon is an extremely ancient object, possibly older than our solar system
2. It is an unnatural object, whose origin is not adequately explained.

I am resistant to forming beliefs, but I think there's a great deal of evidence that suggests that the moon is an alien generation ship - and may not have been in orbit for very long. I don't have much info on its length of time in orbit - but I am investigating it - some starting evidence indicates maybe 10k to 15k years.

The basis for my belief in the antiquity of the moon is built on a few things.

The moons surface has saturation crating. This means that new craters will destroy older craters. Based on face value observations of existing craters science determines an approximate age for the moon of around 4 or more billion years. However - there is more data available.

When a meteorite strikes it burrows into the surface - creating a region of differing density, detectable by gravity anomaly mapping. If you overlay the available gravity anomaly and topographical maps - you find that many of the anomalies refer to ancient craters that have been obscured. This indicates a far more ancient moon. Also - casual observation of the gravity anomaly maps shows a MASSIVE difference between the dark and face sides of the moon - there is no known attempt to explain this. physicsworld.com...

Geological samples indicate that the moon is 'at least' 4.5 bil yrs old - however, there are problems with these samples.

1. The sample size is extremely small (slightly over 300kg), was drawn from very few locations, and was taken from the surface only (not by drilling). In short - the sample is not statistically representative.
2. Using the age of rocks can only tell you the minimum age, not the maximum age of the area they came from.
3. Finding old rocks on earth is actually quite difficult - you need to look in particular areas - on the moon the it probably more difficult due to its bombardment by meteorites.
4. NASA may decide to lie about the samples, especially if it indicates the moon is alien

So as far as the geological samples are concerned, they do not rule out a more ancient moon.

If the moon is ancient, then there is a problem - because it appears that its orbital path ISN'T so ancient.

It has a incremental increase in orbit - if you wind its orbital decay backwards - it collides with the earth around 1.2 bil years ago. Fossil evidence indicates it could not have evolved from earth at that time.

We are left puzzling over an object that appears to be ancient - but arrived in orbit after it was formed.

The 'generally' accepted theory is that it was formed from a collision of a small planet with earth and 'thrown off' into orbit around 4.5 bil years ago - however, firstly this doesn't adequately address its incremental orbit.

Furthermore, in the event of such a collision, the ejected material either spins off out of orbit, crashes back down, fails to form a moo, or is too dense (full of iron) - its totally unlikely to create the moon.

Here's an analogy - when you open your garage you find that you car has moved from one side of the garage to the other. Your explanation is an inrush of hurricane strength wind, that lifted your car from one side of the garage to the other without disturbing or damaging anything else. Of course - your wife might just have moved it ..

I like to believe the simplest explanation - no matter how unlikely - is usually the truth.

The simplest explanation is that the moon is artificial, it was piloted here and placed into orbit. It is an alien generation ship and contains alien life.

I think those aliens have guided human events for the last 15k or so years, I think I understand some of their motives - and that they have bases on earth - notably Area 51 - possibly polar caps and the Australian desert.

I feel that they are not our friends.