Who built the moon?

Interesting excerpt from Christopher Knight's book 'Who built the moon'

In 1983 at Koni, Hawaii, an international conferrence was organised,its goal was to arrive at a global scientific consensus on moon origin. In Edwardian times the general feeling amongst scientists was the 'intact capture theory' which speculated the moon was captured by earths gravity and brought from elsewhere.This theory was discredited.
Next came along the 'coaccretion theory' which said the earth gained its moon by incremental build up(similar to saturn's rings),this to has now been proved wrong.

These days the fission theory or the dollop theory is accepted and it states that the moon itself is a result of a huge body smashing into the earth.
There are a number of discrepancies with this theory.
The 'giant impact hypothesis of collision ejection' would have resulted in a massive impact which could not have failed to speed up the rotation of the earth far beyond todays situation.
To counteract this ,it has been suggested that shortly after another huge body coming from exactly the opposite direction and with a specific speed cancelled it out.It sounds highly unlikely.
Also,with regard to the geology of the moon the current fission theory requires that the entire moon be initialy molten and accreted from devolatilized material-ie it does not account for the moons lower mantle apparently largely undifferentiated compositions.
The fission theory also does not account for a necessary density reversal below the upper mantle.
That said,there are a number of anomalies and coincedences about our moons structure that occur nowhere else in the solar system.
The moon revolves at exactly one hundreth of the speed that the earth turns on its axis.The moon is exactly four hundred times smaller than the sun and exactly four hundrd times closer to the earth(there are many more)
The fact is that many scientists have always rejected the fission theory as highly inprobable and implausible and in true scientific fashion have gone where the evidence took them.

Link

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

PS Resonance and seismic tests also carried out on the moon went a long way in proving ,to some extent, the moon is hollow. As Christopher Knight mentions in his book folks should look into the moon's anomalous rotation,composition and mesons.
Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Well, the Moon is hollow. The Grey's have made within Earthlike. Our Moon was in the wrong orbit so the Grey's moved it into the correct position, (orbit)

Hey, but what do I know.

Are you sure that the moon really exists?

www.revisionism.nl...

Originally posted by JackHill
Are you sure that the moon really exists?

I did'nt check out your link, but there's rumors floating around, that it is just a hologram.

But I don't buy it. I know for a fact, it's made of cheese. (I heard that when I was maybe 7 or 8 years old, so no links to back it up)

[edit on 12/5/2006 by Mechanic 32]

I will usually give someone the benefit of the doubt on far out theories. I am trying really hard here, I mean, Last night was a full moon, if not really close, and it lit up the whole area. Damn near as bright as a the sun with strong sunglasses.


How do you explain the sunlight reflecting off the moon, and lighting up the desert?

directed at Jack



[edit on 5-12-2006 by tha stillz]

Some strange UFO footage was filmed by astronauts on the moon and is shown towards the end of this short film where two self luminous objects appear to be inside a moon crater.

This film tends to stick near the end so you might have to move it along with your cursor.

video.google.co.uk...

Theres also this other footage filmed on take off:

video.google.co.uk...

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

ok , can we start with some citations for the " facts " you claim ?

Originally posted by karl 12
In 1983 at Koni, Hawaii, an international conferrence was organised,its goal was to arrive at a global scientific consensus on moon origin.

and what were its findings , and more important - what newer data has been published since ?

The moon revolves at exactly one hundreth of the speed that the earth turns on its axis.

the earth rotates on its axis once ever 24 hours

the moons rotational period is 28 days

[ all values rounded to whole numbers for ease of calculation ]

so where the heck do you get your 1/100th value from ???????


The moon is exactly four hundred times smaller than the sun


the moon has a diameter of 3476 km

the sun has a diameter of about 1.4 million km - it is not static

so your " exact " relationship is imposible

and exactly four hundrd times closer to the earth(there are many more)

again incorrect the sun is is 149 598 000 km from the earth

the moons orbit is 384400 km

again nither of these are absolute values - there are varables

but your precise " 400 fold " claim is again erroneous

in any case , co incidence explains the apparent symetry without having to involke any higher cause as an explaination .

The scientific principle of arriving at judgements AFTER dispassionately examining evidence has led many to the conclusion that te moon is itself an artificial construct made by unknown intelligence.

really , who exactly has reached these conclusions ?

PS Resonance and seismic tests also carried out on the moon went a long way in proving ,to some extent, the moon is hollow.

no they did not - you are confusing an off the cuff remark with scientific data

radius of Earth = 3 963.1676 miles
radius of the moon = 1 079.57031 miles

combined radius = 5042.73791 miles

7! = 7x6x5x4x3x2x1 = 5040

Originally posted by Yandros
radius of Earth = 3 963.1676 miles
radius of the moon = 1 079.57031 miles

combined radius = 5042.73791 miles

7! = 7x6x5x4x3x2x1 = 5040

I never thought of it like that.....

Its a good thing we developed a counting system EXACTLY like the aliens.....

[edit on 6-12-2006 by Tiloke]

Originally posted by tha stillz
I will usually give someone the benefit of the doubt on far out theories. I am trying really hard here, I mean, Last night was a full moon, if not really close, and it lit up the whole area. Damn near as bright as a the sun with strong sunglasses.


How do you explain the sunlight reflecting off the moon, and lighting up the desert?

directed at Jack



[edit on 5-12-2006 by tha stillz]

That was the first question I did to myselft after reading the webpage. And what about the laser beam used to calculate the exact distance between our planet and the moon?

Ignorant ape - you wrote

"the moon has a diameter of 3476 km

the sun has a diameter of about 1.4 million km - it is not static

so your " exact " relationship is imposible "

The corellations are based on the first ever branch of mathematics ever devised, the Gesh Sumerian sexagesimal system - it uses sexagesimal geometry (base ten+base sixty) .

It is based on 366 degrees instead of 360 and is far more accurate.
A megalithic yard is also used. One megalithic yard equals 0.61 cm.
To fully arrive at accurate arc seconds the megalithic yard must be divided by 366 degrees.

The suns circumference is 4373096 km

Converted to the megalithic yard and applied 366 geometry

The Suns circumference is 5270913968 MY

One degree 14401404

One minute 240023

One second 40003.8



The moons circumference is10,914.5 km

Converted to the megalithic yard and applied 366 geometry

the moons circumference is 13155300 MY

one degree 35943

one minute 599

one second 99.83



This mathematical way of discerning arc minutes is the original way it was done and ,with regard to 366 geometry, was used by the Sumerians who 'invented' mathematics itself.

Use for the rest of the corellations and you will find there are many 'coincedences' and 'anomalous corellations' which happen on no other body in the solar system apart from our satellite.

PS Resonance and seismic tests also carried out on the moon went a long way in proving ,to some extent, the moon is hollow.


"no they did not - you are confusing an off the cuff remark with scientific data "

Again I'd tend to disagree -several resonance/seismic tests werre performed on the moon by the Apollo missions and gave back resonance readings of over an above 8 minutes of reveberations right up to some lasting over over 3 hrs; seismic data confirms this.

You may be getting confused with the Apollo astronaut who, when monitoring readings from the booster hitting the moon, said the moon 'Rang like a bell'. Of course this is circumstantial,yet interesting nevertheless.

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

KARL12 :

despite much pseudo scientific waffle and handwaving your figures still do not suppport the claimed exact 400 : 1 ratio

The conference was in 1984, and in Kona, Hawaii.

Also, the conclusion was quite different...

At that meeting, the giant impact hypothesis emerged as the leading hypothesis and has remained in that role ever since. Dr. Michael Drake, director of the University of Arizona's Planetary Science Department, recently described that meeting as perhaps the most successful in the history of planetary science.

A collection of papers from that meeting was published by the Lunar and Planetary Institute (Houston) in the 1986 book, Origin of the Moon, edited by PSI scientist William Hartmann, together with Geoffry Taylor and Roger Phillips. This book remains the prime reference on this subject. In the meantime, researchers such as Willy Benz, Jay Melosh, A. G. W. Cameron, and others have attempted computer models of the giant impact, to determine how much material would go into orbit. Some of these results have been used by Hartmann to make the paintings on this web page, attempting to show how the impact would have looked to a human observer (if humans had been around -- they didn't come along until 4.5 billion years later!)

In the 1990's, Dr. Robin Canup wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on the moon's origin and the giant impact hypothesis, which produced new modeling of the aggregation of the debris into moonlets, and eventually, into the moon itself. Dr. Canup is continuing the modeling of the lunar accretion process.

Source: www.psi.edu...

Hartmann, W. K. and D. R. Davis 1975 Icarus, 24, 505.

Hartmann, W. K. 1997. A Brief History of the Moon. The Planetary Report. 17, 4-11.

Hartmann, W. K. and Ron Miller 1991. The History of Earth, (New York: Workman Publishing Co.)

Hartmann, W. K., R.J. Phillips, and G.J. Taylor, eds. 1986. Origin of the Moon. (Houston: Lunar and Planetary Institute.)



[edit on 21-12-2006 by Gazrok]

The moon in an artificial construct. Yup thats right, it was created.
By God.

Of course the moon is engineered!

Amazing what you can do with magents, isn't it?



Seriously - I think it all depends if you subscribe to an open or closed universe theory.

Originally posted by JackHill

www.revisionism.nl...

I never thought that reading something could possilby make one dumber by the second...until I read the contents of this website.

The moon is not a man-made object. It has been around longer than mankind has existed, and evidence of its existence has been recorded by many ancient sources, such as its reference in Greek Mythology (Artemis) and Roman Mythology (Luna).
Effects of the moon on Earth are clearly demonstrated. High tides and low tides are caused by the gravitational force of the moon on the Earth. In order for the moon to have such gravity it has to have a certain mass ( I am no scientist but common knowledge supplies ample information), therefore it cannot be hollow, or a hologram or any other b.s.
How could "government installations" have projected a hologram of the moon back in the Roman times, let alone in our current day and age? What would they project the image against anyway?
I found it hilarious on the website above that one of the arguments used to refute the claim that the moon exists because there is unanimous acknolwedgement by the scientific community is that no one who claims the moon doesnt exist would earn a degree from a university. Well no kidding! I dont think anyone who claims 1 + 1 = 3 would earn a math degree either.
I find it absurd that we have soo much scientific data on the subject, yet most people rely on testimonies found on the internet usually written by unknown or amateur sources, and if we come across a webpage that says that the Earth is hollow or the moon is a holograph or that theres opening to a hollow Earth guarded by Reptillians, and uses the excuse that "we are all brainwashed by science and mass media" and have to "open our minds" we completely throw all science out the window, which has brought us to the modern realization of man, and accept what some whackjob has to say.
Yeah i said it. I bet I could write a page on how the sun was really made by Reptillians as a space weapon, twist information around, add some made up facts and reasoning, post no counter argument, throw all rational thinking out the window, tell you that anything you dont believe is a result of you being restricted by mere human science, and that our concept of science, which has so far proved to be quite effective, is wrong, and there would still be people that take what I say as the truth.
[edit on 22-12-2006 by Think About IT]

[edit on 22-12-2006 by Think About IT]

Im not sure about a hollow moons but there was a story about a pilot back in the 1950`s who claimed he flew through a hole in antartic and came out into the underworld which was green like and had plains and forests like Europe and the US.He also discribed the core as a subsitute for the sun.Really interesting story although I read this off a text.

Im unsure if the story has been posted on the internet.Highly likely it is,I just cant find it...

[edit on 22-12-2006 by southern_Guardian]

Yes, allegedly this is ascribed to Admiral Byrd...back in the 40's...though its more the stuff of sci-fi imho....

I remember my first beer! What a stupid post! I guess the earth is fake too! I don't know what your smoking Karl, but it must be some pretty good stuff!