aliens live inside a hollow moon

yeah cause as the moon rotates it is also revolving

Originally posted by gottago
a huge underground sea has just been discovered 3 km beneath China:

Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

Uh....no....not exactly what your implying.

From your source:

The water then rises up into the overlying region, which becomes saturated with water [image]. “It would still look like solid rock to you,” Wysession told LiveScience. “You would have to put it in the lab to find the water in it.”

Although they appear solid, the composition of some ocean floor rocks is up to 15 percent water. “The water molecules are actually stuck in the mineral structure of the rock,” Wysession explained. “As you heat this up, it eventually dehydrates. It’s like taking clay and firing it to get all the water out.”

Its rock with a lot of water in it. Nothing more.


[edit on 13-3-2007 by MrPenny]

To Nip:

About the book 'Alien Agenda', I don't think that you can get it at a library but it only cost me about $8 at Barnes and Noble

ok thank you I'll pick it up on my next trip

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler

Originally posted by JackCash
They can probably do/controll stuff that we can't even dream of.

I'm not saying that I believe that our moon is hollow, I'm just saaying that they can probably do things that we can't even comprehend right now.

Like making someone believe the Moon is hollow?

Ha ha now that was funny!
There very well may be undergound Moon bases along with the bases on the surface of the Moon on its dark side, the side we dont see.
But the Moon is hollow or artificially constructed.............thats just too far out.

Originally posted by TheStev

Belief is easy acceptance of reality is harder!
This statement implies that what some of the people in this thread believe about the moon are 'beliefs' and what you believe about the moon is 'reality'. That was the point I was making by asking if you know for a fact what is happening on the moon. The implication made by your statement is that you know the 'reality' of what is happening on the moon, and claims made in this thread are 'beliefs'.

A statement with no evidence that is third party and varifiable is a belief.
[edit on 13-3-2007 by TheStev]

belief

Your analysis of what i stated says more about you than me. it is easy to believe, as i said i dont know what is happening on the moon and evidently neither do you, and i dont care

How did John's comments futher the issue?
I don't believe they did, but apparently you do:

Where do i acknowledge this?

Johnlear interjected in a discussion and took it to a place that it doesnt need to go
Again, what place did John take this discussion that it wasn't already taken to by the OP?

I already covered this in my previous post

Most Ufologist consider themselves to try to the best of their ability to use sciencific approaches

I think we're running into a difference of terminology here. When someone says 'science', I think of the mainstream scientific body, not the scientific method. In fairness, though, a person or group can use a method, but I don't believe that technically a person or group can work 'hand in hand' with a method. A method does not have a 'hand' for the person or group to put their hand(s) in as it were. As far as I'm aware, mainstream science considers UFOlogy pseudo-science.

Symantics, i am not going to split hairs on this groups do not have hands that is true what are you trying to prove with this?

You seemed to defend John Lears position so in leu of any evidence from Mr Lear for his conformation of th OP statement i suggested is that we believe them with out any arguement?

While I appreciate the question mark - the sentence was worded as a statement, not a question.

a statement is automatically turned into a question by adding a question mark

My beliefs are irrelevant.

so why do you continue to state them if you feel they are so irrelevent

Do you honestly believe the OP expected someone to come forward and say 'Yep, this is true and here's the proof'? I think the OP was aware that these are claims without proof and was wondering what take others had on these claims. Surely the OP would know if such proof existed then these would not be 'claims' they would be 'reality'.

Evidently, unlike you, i do not read into things as much as you i took his question at face value.

I think you need to read over the last page of posts and read in context what i was saying, Johnlear can make all the statements he wants i dont want to stop him, make no difference to me, however you say that Johnlear can state whatever he wants yet you pick over everything that i say. If you choose to believe what Johnlear or anyother person says on this board by all means do so, if you want to tell a story then do so, i am not going to stop you but if you are going to jump down my throat for expressing my opinion then please question your motives.

I don't believe in hollow theories... hollow theories about hollow objects. There can be no proof offered for such a theory, and yet, it the hollow moon theory comes up again and again...

All it is is grasping at straws... someone ran out of outlandish theories to make about already established science, so they decided to make one about our lunar neighbor.

For the record, yes i believe it UFOs, yes i believe some of them are unexplainable, but i do not believe in something without proof. In saying that, i'm not closed minded. If sometime in the future they prove the moon is hollow, then how can i argue then?

What exactly does my analysis say about me? Quite clearly you have beliefs as to what is happening on the moon and those beliefs contradict the beliefs of people here - otherwise you wouldn't be posting in this thread.

And why 'evidently'? I've never claimed to know what was happening on the moon. Why would you say 'evidently neither do you'. This implies that I have made some fallacious statement about happenings on the moon.

What was the point of the Wiki link about belief? 'Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition.' By that definition, reality is a belief. But your link continues to state that 'Like the related concepts truth, knowledge, and wisdom, there is no precise definition of belief on which scholars agree'. Seems like you posted a link to provide a definition, and your link worked against you by saying there is no clear definition.

Where do i acknowledge this?

I posted a specific quote immediately after this section of my post which identified where you acknowledge this. Here it is again:

Johnlear interjected in a discussion and took it to a place that it doesnt need to go

Symantics, i am not going to split hairs on this groups do not have hands that is true what are you trying to prove with this?

Semantics actually, and it's not. Groups do have hands. They have many hands. Groups are collections of people. People have hands. Hence, groups have hands. Methods do not have people. Methods are actions. They are verbs, not nouns - let alone collective nouns. Therefore groups have hands, methods do not. Any questions? Let me expand, cause I think you're struggling to follow. To say 'hand in hand' is to refer to a collaboration. Would you say that scientists collaborate with the scientific method to come to conclusions? Of course not. Scientist use the scientific method to come to conclusions.

a statement is automatically turned into a question by adding a question mark

No it's not?

so why do you continue to state them if you feel they are so irrelevent

The conversation pertains to beliefs about the nature of the moon and what's happening up there. Please point out where I have once stated my beliefs on this matter.

Originally posted by fooffstarr
I don't believe in hollow theories... hollow theories about hollow objects. There can be no proof offered for such a theory, and yet, it the hollow moon theory comes up again and again...

All it is is grasping at straws... someone ran out of outlandish theories to make about already established science, so they decided to make one about our lunar neighbor.

For the record, yes i believe it UFOs, yes i believe some of them are unexplainable, but i do not believe in something without proof. In saying that, i'm not closed minded. If sometime in the future they prove the moon is hollow, then how can i argue then?

yeah it's not like we individually can go to the moon and see....

so somethings you just have to say yes i believe it/no i don't
alot of things we just can't prove/disprove right now
so is one wiser to believe a theory or disbelieve?

Originally posted by Nip
yeah it's not like we individually can go to the moon and see....

so somethings you just have to say yes i believe it/no i don't
alot of things we just can't prove/disprove right now
so is one wiser to believe a theory or disbelieve?

Well said, and in my case i have to disbelieve this one...

Sorry for the short post

I don;t have a good reason but i think I'm gonna place this just behind the fence of "MY" Beliefs


but i like that you are thinking

Originally posted by Ata
Has anyone read the book 'Alien Agenda' by Jim Marrs? The first chapter talks about the moon being an ancient spaceship and that it has not always been in the sky. If you research cave drawings and ancient text, there was never a reference to a moon. Anyways, it is a fascinating book.

That is probably the best book on the UFO/ALIEN subject ever written.
It'd be nice if Marrs released a new revision with updated info, but I guess his whole thing is the "9/11 conspiracy" now.

Can someone provide me with a link that explains how the moon has any effect on the tides? I remember learning it in school but I forgot.
I am a supreme conspiracy theorist and very superstitious and if you ask me I believe the moon is hardly what we are told to believe. I don't believe the moon has any effect on tides also. Alien Kush Instincts tell me so.

>'Has anyone read the book 'Alien Agenda' by Jim Marrs? The first chapter talks about the moon being an ancient spaceship and that it has not always been in the sky. If you research cave drawings and ancient text, there was never a reference to a moon. Anyways, it is a fascinating book.'

Didn't Velikovsky cover the subject of the 'capture' of the Moon in one of his (defamed) books? I seemed to remember that the claim was based on his translations of eye witness accounts.

Some of you'all are attempting to use 'Science' as a basis for the refutation of the concept offered by the thread author.

I'm sorry... I find that BEYOND totally amusing!



Why is it that folks that get on top of that soapbox typically don't have the attention to detail to notice that 'Science' is mostly smoke and mirrors, has little REAL basis in fact (and REALITY) and for the most part demonstrates all of the rationale of morons setting the library on fire cuz it violates some cannon of religion.

Also... IF we are going to associate some critter with 'Science' in action... ESPECIALLY with regards to 'Physics' might I recommend a parrot?



Special salute to Connected... Your posts actually let me wade thru the entire thread.

Originally posted by mcktj
It was explained in an earlier post

The moon turns much slower than the earth, the earth rotates at approx. 1000 miles/hr at the equator giving us a day the moons day is our month, size has nothing to do with the speed it rotates on its own axis.

I would google lunar cycle or something like that to find out more

Why does the moon revolve around its axis at a slower speed than earth does around its axis? The opposite would seem true to me or they both revolve at the same speed around their respective axis but due to the fact that the moon's diameter is smaller than that of earth it would complete a day(or full revolution) much faster than earth would!

]Originally posted by MrPenny

Trying to explain it in words is nearly impossible. Go buy two styrofoam balls, rotate one while keeping one side of another ball constantly turned towards it. Once you see the mechanism in action, its a "ta da!!!" moment.

I don't think its too hard to explain provided ones vocubulary is up to par!

I understand what you are trying to say but that would mean the moon is in a geosynchronis orbit around Earth and it fails to take into account that the moon's diameter and planetary size is much smaller than that of Earths therefore the Earth day should be much larger than a Moon day and not the other way around as some claim!

Thats no moon...thats a space station, Chewie reverse thrusters full power!

Sorry I have to lighten the mood, for myself if not anyone else.

I was very interested to hear about the moon ringing for an hour. Although metal doesn't have to be hollow to resonate. Hell, I don't know what to believe anymore

[edit on 13-3-2007 by kleverone]

I read that once too that the moon rang like a bell after touchdown and its made of Titanium, and they saw humans already up there and aliens/craft etc. This was apparently part of the the commentary of Armstrong i think? that got cut from the air, (they say) i find it hard to believe and far fetched, tho not impossible.

At one stage in history we wouldnt have believed in a network of sewers and tube trains being possibly built under the city but now look what we have? wired up the whole globe, so how can we think it hasnt for sure all been done before on a grander scale? I like to keep an open mind but i dont want my brain to fall out.

They do say Armstrong became a recluse after dont they? and others? I wish we had that commentry recording, not some more 'writing' by whoever it was.


[edit on 14-3-2007 by Sekhemet]

Originally posted by johnlear

It is true that aliens live and work inside the moon but it is not hollow per se. The moon has gigantic caverns as does earth. Within these caverns are huge laboratories and probably living quarters. The same is true for earth.

so aliens maintain and work(and probably live) in huge laboratories that exist in gigantic caverns on earth as well as the moon?

Is this right?

Is this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
an entrance to one of their laboratories?

[edit on 14-3-2007 by surrender_dorothy]

Originally posted by SocialistAgenda
I don't think its too hard to explain provided ones vocubulary is up to par!

Apparently its impossible in some special cases. I've read some very good descriptions of it right here in this thread, and textbooks are jammed full of this kind of information.

Somehow though, you're not getting it.

I think if you look at the depth of the craters on the moon and compare them to anywhere else where meteors have hit it is easy to see the numbers don't add up. All of the craters are about 1/10 as deep as they should be based on impact physics. If you research this topic you will almost every fact points to a hollow moon.