NASA Photos Confirm Moon is Artificial?

Say cheese! NASA captures stunning images of the far side of the moon These amazing pictures capture the moon's cratered surface in the most intricate detail ever recorded. The images, which were taken by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), have boosted the resolution of images of the far side of the moon over 100 times. Digital elevation and terrain maps based on the new data reveal the heavily cratered and bumpy surface of the moon in all its complexity

But it's hard to see how the moon broke off from the earth and it remained a perfect sphere with hundreds of huge raindrop type pock marks, while the earth is this convoluted, seemingly traumatized molten rock in comparison - and with hardly any visible craters.

Tbh im not sure if i buy the whole story, as it makes sense due to the fact that our planet has moving plates that move the crust up and down in various places, whereas the moon does not. Something i did think about reading this post however is; is it just me, or is our moon the only moon that is completely dead? i mean Jupiter moons are either volcanically active, or frozen, whereas our moon is just dead...

______beforeitsnews/story/317/206/NASA_Photos_Confirm_Moon_is_Artificial.html
I know its not the most credible website, but this story deserves coverage never the less

Just to be clear, this is not my thoery i do not belive it myself, im just reporting and wanting to hear a balanced argument

Ever since i got the theory of the "artificial moon" presented i've had mixed feelings about it.

In my opinion there are 2 theories that make the most sense:

1. the moon got created after earth collided with another cosmic body (Tiamat?), a part of earth's outer crust got flung out and reformed into a sphere, hence why its only a lump of dead rock, all metals were already colluded into earth's core.

2. the moon got created somewhere else and dragged into place, or created in orbit as a "roid catcher"

I tend to lean towards the first theory but that's because it fits into my own view of origins, which are also simply theories and never proven. But aint that the case with everything in life it seems?

Sorry don't buy it for one minute. Are we to assume that our moon is artificial because it doesn't look like the planet it orbits around?

What about all the other moons in our solar system? Does each of Saturns moons for example look like Saturn? No.

I think we have to face the fact that human desire to explain absolutely everything (the quest for knowledge) is naturally misleading some of us in desired conclusions rather than just accepting that we just don't know.

If we survive on this ball of dirt long enough then perhaps our ancestors will get nearer to understanding our moon.

I don't care how it was made, I'm just glad to have something that beautiful out there to gaze up at rather than just the stars which are just dots.

Oh La Lune!

I would really like someone to explain the whole "tides" if the moon is fake. Several theories abound as to the creation of the moon. Most common is the theory that an orbiting body "glanced" or brushed against the earth and a portion of the mass broke free. Studies have been conducted to illustrate that the moon is actually moving away from the earth at a rate of 3.8cm per year.

Just my 2 cents

Originally posted by nerbot
Sorry don't buy it for one minute. Are we to assume that our moon is artificial because it doesn't look like the planet it orbits around?

What about all the other moons in our solar system? Does each of Saturns moons for example look like Saturn? No.

I think we have to face the fact that human desire to explain absolutely everything (the quest for knowledge) is naturally misleading some of us in desired conclusions rather than just accepting that we just don't know.

If we survive on this ball of dirt long enough then perhaps our ancestors will get nearer to understanding our moon.

I don't care how it was made, I'm just glad to have something that beautiful out there to gaze up at rather than just the stars which are just dots.

Oh La Lune!

I agree with most of your post but think about this for a bit:

Lots of Saturn's moons got "picked up" by Saturn's huge gravitational pull. Our moon is too big in comparison to our planet for our planet to keep it in stable orbit by itself (from what i've read, im no astrophysicist myself).

I think that answering some fundamental questions about our moon will also answer some profound questions about our own history.

This photo does not confirm of deny the creation of the moon as an offshoot of earth.

Our atmosphere protects earth while the moon has nothing to stop objects from striking the surface, hence the craters.

Awesome picture, but to draw a conclusion of creation or to call it artificial from looking at this photo is not good science. It's more akin to Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling...



CHED

The Moon being a chunk from the Earth has pretty much been disproved now.

The reason the moon simply *cannot* be from the Earth is that lunar rocks are approximately 500,000,000 years *older* than Earth's rocks.

I think it probable, that the moon is either a captured wandering moon (there are many, many 'wandering' moons and planets throughout space, fact), or is the result of a catastrophic collision between Mars (which probably led to Mars becoming a dead world) and another planet or moon.

This could have resulted in a large surviving fragment of whatever hit Mars, being catapulted out of it's original orbit and captured by Earth to become our moon (the moon was originally a lot closer to Earth), the rest of the collision debris from Mars and whatever hit it, probably became the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars, and the origin of the dwarf planet Ceres (in the Jovian/Martian asteroid belt), and both moons of Mars, Phobos and Deimos being additional fragments captured by Mars' gravity.

Originally posted by spikey
The Moon being a chunk from the Earth has pretty much been disproved now.

The reason the moon simply *cannot* be from the Earth is that lunar rocks are approximately 500,000,000 years *older* than Earth's rocks.

I think it probable, that the moon is either a captured wandering moon (there are many, many 'wandering' moons and planets throughout space, fact), or is the result of a catastrophic collision between Mars (which probably led to Mars becoming a dead world) and another planet or moon.

I have to agree here that the Moon is a lot older that the Earth, and I have several theories on the Moon and it's purpose. I believe it came with Nibiru, or Planet X when it came here before the flood. One moon of Nibiru crashed into Earth, causing the Pacific Basin and the Asteroid Belt. I believe it to be composed of a metallic skin and is hollow inside. I believe it contains crystalline based computers that make our reality as we know it to be, using an electro-magnetic field that programs are ran on for our enjoyment and life. Our human intentions are a part of the program, and work with the original programming. I believe that certain ET Beings altered the original program, and created a new and different reality. Anyone who is my age will tell you life was different a long ago.

The Earth Without the Moon

Aliens Have Been On The Moon Since Ancient Times

The case for the civilization on the Moon

From what i understand,(which i am beginning to find out is somewhat dated) the moon is also not of the same composition as earth.(different minerals different proportions etc.
I see it as a visitor put in place to make earth an incubator for the creation of species.
We can see by the fossil record, that there have been many many species which have come and gone over earths lifspan.
I view this process as continuing onward into infinity barring the unforseen.
Mars is an ideal place to begin the project of terraforming a planet to our specifications.We could do this remotely i believe without ever setting foot on the planet.
As Mars meteorites have brought microscopic life to earth in the past,so too can we plant the microscopic seeds which would restore some forms of life to our neighbouring planet.
Confirmation that it is truely uninhabited, would open the door to a myriad of ways we could assist nature in restoring the atmosphere of mars as a first step in its assisted evolution.Though many generations would have to pass before it became remotely inhabitable for humans.

reply to post by Romekje

Do any of the moons around any of the gas giant planets look anything like their parent planets? The question here is how are moons formed not were they artificially made. I am not suggesting that you're advocating an artificial Moon theory just stating that in general.

Lots of Saturn's moons got "picked up" by Saturn's huge gravitational pull.

This is a theory but I think that at least some of these moons have been "picked up" by the gravitational attraction of these giant planets and some are a product of that planet. I also believe that we can differentiate between these two by the nature of these moons' orbits.

Our moon is too big in comparison to our planet for our planet to keep it in stable orbit by itself

This is obviously wrong! don't believe me? well just look up one night and see if the Moon is still there. Perhaps one might say that the Moon is too big, by comparison to the Earth, for Earth to have captured it as it wondered by. I realize that the Moon is slowly drifting away but for now I would call this a stable orbit.

reply to post by spikey

The Moon being a chunk from the Earth has pretty much been disproved now.
The reason the moon simply *cannot* be from the Earth is that lunar rocks are approximately 500,000,000 years *older* than Earth's rocks.

Who disproved this?
The estimated age of the Earth, @ 4.6 billion years old. Estimated age of the Moon, @ 4.527 billion years old. I don't think one can differ from these estimated ages that the Moon is older than Earth but if you have a source please link it.

As I remember it, the Moon rocks collected from the Apollo missions show the same mineral content as found in rocks here on Earth proving that the Moon and Earth are made of the same or similar material.

More evidence that the Moon was created from Earth is the Moon's tidal lock with Earth, the same side always faces us. The Earth was spinning before the theoretical impact event that is thought to have created our Moon. This ejected material would contain angular motion from the Earth's spin when it was still a part of the Earth. This is called the conservation of angular motion or angular momentum.

This material that was ejected into orbit around the Earth would maintain a rotation with Earth's center as its axis, as we see today. Furthermore the heavier material would gravitate closer towards the Earth, while the Moon was forming, offsetting the center of mass of the Moon, as we have measured from the Moon. In order for the center of mass of the Moon to be offset in such a way it must have formed orbiting a large body, like the Earth, while it had a tidal lock with said planet, or having conserved its angular motion from its parent planet. In other words the tidal lock of a moon to its parent planet is evidence that it was formed from that planet.

Originally posted by spikey
The reason the moon simply *cannot* be from the Earth is that lunar rocks are approximately 500,000,000 years *older* than Earth's rocks.

How do you know they are 500,000,000 years older?

Can you provide a link to this information please?

reply to post by nerbot


Does it really matter whether the Moon is older or not? Why is our moon composed almost entirely of heavy carbon elements when mainly our planets core is made of the same minerals. This seems to be the main similarities.

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH

If the Moon is older than the Earth then that means it did not come from the Earth. Evidence seems to show that this is not the case, the Moon is younger.
If this is incorrect than some verification is in order, don't you think?

reply to post by WiseThinker


Anything is possible... I know science states that without the moon life would not have occured on Earth, but as of late we are finding that we have been wrong about a lot of things, and could be about the moon. We are still exploring our Solar system, trying to understand planetary formation, gravity etc etc.

One of the other theories I have seen about the moon is it belonged to another plaent in system that was destroyed (Asteroid belt inner system / ort cloud at the edge of our solar system) and after a long time settled into orbit around the Earth.

The one issue that I see though is how the moon is tidally locked and the distance from the Earth. No matter what science says, I find it almost impossible for that specfic chain of events could occur naturally. Even the distance and the size of the moon is unique, and has the effect of being the right size nd distance from the earth, with both being in a precise orbit, where it can cause the sun to be blocked out by eclipses.

What are the odds....

We ignore our own history and buy into the "PC version" that consistently ignores information that contradicts established beliefs.

We find evidence all over this planet of unknown advanced civilizations that cannot be explained. The most recent was a 12k year old gold mine in South America. It made the news, but then was ignored. The same setup has been found in South Africa also, and once again ignored.

Everyting about humanity, from our history, origions etc just do not make sense with current explanations.

computer models have shown that capture and sister theories dont work. Impact theory does work, even though not proven 100%, it's the best bet. A mars sized object hit earth, more like a glancing blow, meaning it kept most of its composition and mixed with some of earth. That's why the moon has different ratios of elements present.

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
reply to post by nerbot

 

Does it really matter whether the Moon is older or not?

Not to me.

Why is our moon composed almost entirely of heavy carbon elements when mainly our planets core is made of the same minerals. This seems to be the main similarities.

In the early stages of our planet, if supervolcanoes had enough power, who's to say the didn't blast their eruptions beyond our atmosphere and into orbit to then create the moon from this dust.

Any ideas?

Also, IF rocks found on the moon have been dated to pre earth history then who's to say they weren't from space and hit the moon to be picked up by astronauts ions later. After all, if something large hit the moon, wouldn't it fragment and leave convenient pieces on the surface. If astronauts dug down to a solid sheet of rock and took a sample of it maybe the date of that rock would be more accurate.

Questions questions...

Originally posted by WiseThinker
But it's hard to see how the moon broke off from the earth and it remained a perfect sphere with hundreds of huge raindrop type pock marks, while the earth is this convoluted, seemingly traumatized molten rock in comparison - and with hardly any visible craters.

Because it was molten when it formed? The Earth does have craters but they're mostly covered by plant life.
The moon has no atmosphere to burn up small objects, like the Earth, so far more objects hit the moons surface.

Tbh im not sure if i buy the whole story, as it makes sense due to the fact that our planet has moving plates that move the crust up and down in various places, whereas the moon does not. Something i did think about reading this post however is; is it just me, or is our moon the only moon that is completely dead? i mean Jupiter moons are either volcanically active, or frozen, whereas our moon is just dead...

If it was broken off of our planet then there is no reason it would have a crust. Yes there lots of moons that are solid rock.

how on earth (pun unintended) can this be evidence. i apologize, but i am not seeing anything really conclusive here, sorry.

The moon is real.

Originally posted by DuceizBack
The moon is real.

Actually its not per Google Moon. Zoom all the way in on Google Moon and you will see the real composition of the moon...

namely Cheese!

I think the question about the moon is along the lines if it was created by an impact, how can we explain the fact its circular and not lopsided etc from an impact? If we remove everything from earth where we can see the basics we would see the impact craters in the Yucatan Penninsula and other areas. We would see the Marinnas (sp) trench, along with the massive scarring found on the floor of the Pacific ocean.

If the moon was formed as the result of a collision, why so circular with little evidence of a massive impact?

That info aside, we go back to the question about the theory life on earth would not be here without the moon. Its placement, rotation, tidal lock, orbit from the earth, along with the earth/moon orbit from the sun.

I can see a conincidence on a few levels, but when its specific and goes beyond just one or 2 issues, we need some new theories.