S&F. Very, very interesting thread. While I don't necessarily believe these theories, they are interesting nonetheless. It's quite possible that there may be more on the Moon than recently thought...I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

Originally posted by Now_Then

Originally posted by Condemned0625
Woah. Could it be? This seems to confirm that the moon really IS an artificial creation.

It confirms nothing of the sort Really, did anyone lurn english at school? All you have here is a rehash of selected moon myths that are bound to impress any standard 12 year old. Yes the moon is very interesting - spurious use of the word 'confirms' is unacceptable!

It says clearly SEEMS to confirm.....the definition one of which can be...
" To appear to one's own opinion or mind"

There's a lot of lies passed off as truth. Especially when it comes to dating. It's fraudulent science, not real science! There are ancient drawings of what we call dinosaur. Dinosaur wasn't a word until the 1800's. On Buddhist temples there are carvings of dinosaur. The ancient world called them dragons, and also leviathan in the Holy Bible and also a fire breathing creature. So I take any so called 'facts' these pro evolutionist say with a grain of salt.

There's a lot of lies passed off as truth. Especially when it comes to dating. It's fraudulent science, not real science! There are ancient drawings of what we call dinosaur. Dinosaur wasn't a word until the 1800's. On Buddhist temples there are carvings of dinosaur. The ancient world called them dragons, and also leviathan in the Holy Bible and also a fire breathing creature. So I take any so called 'facts' these pro evolutionist say with a grain of salt.

There's a lot of lies passed off as truth. Especially when it comes to dating. It's fraudulent science, not real science! There are ancient drawings of what we call dinosaur. Dinosaur wasn't a word until the 1800's. On Buddhist temples there are carvings of dinosaur. The ancient world called them dragons, and also leviathan in the Holy Bible and also a fire breathing creature. So I take any so called 'facts' these pro evolutionist say with a grain of salt.

I took the liberty to add some of these labeled as "Possible Support" to the wikipedia page on the hollow moon theory. The edits were deleted within minutes.

This thread is absolutely amazing. This simply just proves that the Moon might be an artificial object, brought here many years ago, by who knows who.. Very good thread. Thnx A LOT.

Great find OP! Now I know why our government isn't going back, I hope that Space X or one of the company's like them goes there to mine or something and Scientists get to tag along in the very near future. Star and flag

I think it was Alex Collier that said that the moon was brought here by one of the alien races millions of years ago.

Having seen videos of Alex collier, the facts the OP posted doesn't really surprise me. I don't know why, but as crazy as Alex collier claims sound, I somehow believe him.

If you haven't already, I suggest you look into his videos.

Response to the OP's listed points...

1,2, and 4 sound generally correct.

Number 3, you have no proof that aliens brought titanium to the Moon...or built the Moon out of Titanium.

Number 5, is wrong. The Moon does have a magnetic field.
Even if it did not, Moon rocks can still bear Iron and be magnetic.

Number 6 is easily explained by the recent discovery of sinkholes on the Moon.

Number 7 is baseless speculation. Craters all over the Solar System leave mass concentrations. It's a known feature of some large craters. You have no proof that they are artificial.

Number 8 the Moon is not getting closer to Earth, in fact it is receding at the rate of about 1 to 3 inches a year. Also, the alleged witnessing of explosions on the Moon don't mean seismic activity is taking place. You don't even know if these observations are correctly made, you have no grounds to conclude that the cause of them are probably artificial.

Number 9, hollow moon doesn't mean like a Ping Pong ball. It would be more like a sponge or porous rocks.

Number 11, all the unusual samples in the world don't make it alien. It's telling how you "know" that Moon rocks can bear Iron, and yet you still made the mistake of claiming that Moon rock magnetism requires the Moon to have a magnetic field.

Number 12, just so we are clear Isaac Asimov was a biochemist. His area of expertise was not the Moon or space. Also, just because Asimov said it, doesn't mean it is true. That is called "appealing to authority", and it does not prove anything. Otherwise, yes...the Moon's origin is still not 100% determined.

Number 13, the Moon's orbit is not stationary...again it is moving away from us at a rate of a handful of inches a year. And again, you have no proof that the Moon is artificial.

Number 14, that chance alignment only happens now at this point in history. In the past the Moon was closer to Earth and completely covered the Sun and it's "halo" during eclipses. In the future the Moon will not be able to cover the Sun anymore, due to moving away and getting relatively visually smaller compared to the Sun. Also, Asimov's statements concerning this prove his lack of expertise on the Moon. I mean no disrespect to Isaac Asimov, but the facts must be stated. He was a biochemist who wrote science fiction, and no more an expert on the Moon than you or I.

Number 15, No. You have not proven that the Moon is an artificial construct. Your own apparent inconsistency concerning magnetism indicates that you are just repeating what someone else has said, without really understanding it.

Number 16, yes those are called "transient phenomenon" and they don't prove anything.

Number 17, the Mare Crisium bridge has never been conclusively proven to exist. Other photographs of the area don't show a bridge.

Number 18, the Shard is very mysterious, but there have never been any confirming photographs. Until another photo of it is taken, we can only make assumptions.

Number 19, the Tower is another mystery that needs a confirming photographs.

Number 20, the obelisks (blair cuspids) aren't really anything unusual. The really long shadows that make them look very tall, are because the Sun is low in the horizon. It is lighting the objects from their side, making them have long shadows. Any arrangement of three objects in a rough line is gonna look like the Pyramid complex in Giza or Orion's belt.

Originally posted by Now_Then

Originally posted by Condemned0625
Woah. Could it be? This seems to confirm that the moon really IS an artificial creation.

did anyone lurn english at school?

can you see the irony in that statement??
P.S what does english have to do with the Moon??

Wrong on number 2, the moon cannot be possibly older than the sun that created it.

After I read that I didn't read or hit links after that, this whole post is not based on fact.

As far as us not knowing what we want to from 6 moon landings goes, we don't have knowledge of half of our own earth's life forms, so you see, what you may expect is vast.

This is not a thought provoking post, just much of the same stuff that people around here get stars and flags for.

If you don't like what the world's astrophysics scientists tell you, do your own research yourself, or find another source that you think isn't taking NASA dollars out of your pocket, which is really the thrust of your post. You think NASA lies to you, but you aren't educated enough in the subjects you rant about to know the difference.

This sort of thing grinds my gears.