reply to post by sp00n1
Ok, first of all there are no links of reference for the reader to speculate on, except for the source link, which in it's own words in the disclaimer
"The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied
or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein."
So obviously the author possibly doesn't believe what he posted himself. So why bother making such extravagant claims if you probably don't believe it
yourself or provide some kind of proof that could lead to such theories?
Let me respond to two erroneous statements posted above:
Theory: "The Moon is not a naturally occurring body and was quite possibly engineered to sustain life on Earth..."
Response: I'd sooner believe that the moon was created by collision between two dwarf planets as presented here:
by National Geographic. Or by the collision of another smaller planet with
the earth as presented in an article at NASA: www.nasa.gov...
Theory: "..its concentration of mass are located at a series of points just under its surface – which caused havoc with early lunar spacecraft."
Response: While there are regions of the moon that are magnetic, there is no proof that it is caused by a "concentration of mass". The above link to
the NASA article will confirm.
Now don't get me wrong, I'd be the first to speculate on alternate theories, but if I do you can bet I'll have something to back them up with.
I hope that future posts will not be so blindly posted just to generate clicks-throughs.
My blog: rauxbaseinvestigations.blogspot.com...
edit on 28-10-2010 by jnegron215 because: I signed it in a diferent name than my username, didnt realize my username would show.