Is the Moon a Mothership ?

reply to post by FinalCountdown


Besides being distracted by your avatar of the creepy backwards talking guy on Twin Peaks...

Thought Id ask what makes YOU think the moon is a "mothership:?

reply to post by Chamberf=6

If the owls are not what they seem could it be that the Moon is not either?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

If the owls are not what they seem could it be that the Moon is not either?

Good point Agent Cooper.

I'm not suggesting the moon is hollow... BUT

After transferring the cargo of lunar samples from Intrepid, the Lunar Module was jettisoned. Intrepid was deliberately crashed into the Moon as part of a seismic experiment. The effect of the impact was recorded by the newly deployed ALSEP seismometer at the Ocean of Storms. Seismologists were surprised by what they saw. Unlike it would have done on Earth, the impact on the Moon caused it to ring like a seismic bell. The reverberating shock waves continued for 55 minutes. On the Earth the shock waves would have ceased after 2 minutes.

Source
You don't have to take their word for it, how about NASA themselves?

Furthermore, shallow moonquakes lasted a remarkably long time. Once they got going, all continued more than 10 minutes. "The moon was ringing like a bell," Neal says.

...

The moon, however, is dry, cool and mostly rigid, like a chunk of stone or iron. So moonquakes set it vibrating like a tuning fork. Even if a moonquake isn't intense, "it just keeps going and going," Neal says. And for a lunar habitat, that persistence could be more significant than a moonquake's magnitude.

Interesting to note that any structure built on the moon would have to be flexible because of these moon quakes...

NASA again

It occurred at 8:09 p.m. EST, April 14. The S-IVB struck the Moon with a force equivalent to 11 1/2 tons of TNT. It hit 85 miles west northwest of the site where the Apollo 12 astronauts had set up their seismometer. Scientists on Earth said, "the Moon rang like a bell."

Now there are valid reports all over the net describing the moon resonating like a bell when struck, which some people use as proof that the moon is indeed hollow. I have no personal opinion on the subject, but I do have a question.

If NASA says the moon rings because of a rubble layer, wouldn't that be equivalent to hitting a can full of gravel? I can't fathom how rubble would cause the ringing...

reply to post by Invariance

Now there are valid reports all over the net describing the moon resonating like a bell when struck, which some people use as proof that the moon is indeed hollow.

Try hang a solid steel ball from a chain (or use a steel plate, easier to get) and hit it. Is it hollow. Does it resonate?

If NASA says the moon rings because of a rubble layer

NASA doesn't say that.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Yes the owls are not what they seem tonight, not for next week either for that matter…

I can't believe everyone hasn't heard of this theory by now, but to get the general idea out there just in case, from wikipedea:

Spaceship Moon Theory

The Spaceship Moon Theory, also known as the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory, is a theory that claims the Earth's moon may actually be an alien spacecraft. The theory was put forth by two members of the then Soviet Academy of Sciences, Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, in a July 1970 article entitled "Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?".

Vasin and Shcherbakov's thesis was that the Moon is a hollowed-out planetoid created by unknown beings with technology far superior to any on Earth. Huge machines would have been used to melt rock and form large cavities within the Moon, with the resulting molten lava spewing out onto the Moon's surface. The Moon would therefore consist of a hull-like inner shell and an outer shell made from metallic rocky slag. For reasons unknown, the "Spaceship Moon" was then placed into orbit around the Earth.

Their theory relies heavily on the suggestion that large lunar craters, generally assumed to be formed from meteor impact, are generally too shallow and have flat or even convex bottoms. Small craters have a depth proportional to their diameter but larger craters are not deeper. It is theorized that small meteors are making a cup-shaped depression in the rocky surface of the moon while the larger meteors are drilling through a five mile thick rocky layer and hitting a high-tensile "hull" underneath.

Additionally the authors note that the surface material of the moon is substantially composed of different elements (chromium, titanium and zirconium) from the surface of the Earth, despite a supposed common origin. They also note that some moon rocks are older than the oldest rocks on Earth.

They postulate that the moon comprises a rocky outer layer a few miles thick covering a strong hull perhaps 20 miles thick and beneath that there is a void, possibly containing an atmosphere.

In 1975, Don Wilson published Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon in which he compiled what he considered supporting facts for this theory.

In 1976 George H Leonard published Someone else is on the Moon in which he reprinted numerous NASA photographs of the lunar surface and suggested that large scale machinery was visible in these pictures.

The supposed talk about 'spaceships being so far superior to ours' is somewhat cranky.
Although technically Apollo 11 could be called a spaceship as it was in space, it was a modular vehicle, with several stages, and some redundant in the mission, and almost a paper bag. So you are not even talking like with like in any form, no need then for Neil Armstrong, or anyone else to make any such comparison.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Invariance

 

Now there are valid reports all over the net describing the moon resonating like a bell when struck, which some people use as proof that the moon is indeed hollow.

Try hang a solid steel ball from a chain (or use a steel plate, easier to get) and hit it. Is it hollow. Does it resonate?

If NASA says the moon rings because of a rubble layer

NASA doesn't say that.

If not NASA, then whose theory is it? Link: er.jsc.nasa.gov...

One theory is that the signal is scattered and repropagated in very deep rubble. An- other holds that the velocities of seismic waves from these impacts are comparable to measurements of velocities in crystalline rock. So the crystalline material which the astronauts found so abundant on the Moon's surface may extend very deep into the Moon.

The first sentence of the quote...?

~edit~ one more question... solid metal will resonate, but not ring... is describing the moon as ringing a wrong term by NASA?

reply to post by FinalCountdown

I can't believe everyone hasn't heard of this theory by now, but to get the general idea out there just in case, from wikipedea:

I see when I asked why YOU think the moon is a mothership, you give a link which also says

As for the latter, he notes that the moon is the only planetary body besides Earth on which extensive seismic observations have been made. These observations have constrained the thickness of the moon's crust, mantle and core, suggesting it could not be hollow.[5]
Karen Masters of University of Portsmouth similarly suggests that, based on the behavior of objects interacting with the gravitational field of the moon, we can determine the mass of the moon. Given the observable size of the moon, we can then calculate the density, which strongly rejects the notion that the moon could be hollow.

en.wikipedia.org...

I've always found it interesting how large our Moon is compared to Earth, which is unusual. Moons are (generally speaking) a chunk smaller than their host planet. Moons also tend to rotate around the host planet, while our Moon rotates with Earth in a tandem. In fact our "Moon" is technically not a Moon or a Satellite at all, but would be considered a duoplanet with Earth. I find it funny the name we've given the Moon is a misnomer.

reply to post by Invariance


I think when Phage asked

Try hang a solid steel ball from a chain (or use a steel plate, easier to get) and hit it. Is it hollow. Does it resonate?

Answers: No
Yes

reply to post by wmd_2008


as far as we're concerned (ie what we can see of it from earth) it doesn't. one side is always out of our sight.

Originally posted by haunebu52
I've always found it interesting how large our Moon is compared to Earth, which is unusual. Moons are (generally speaking) a chunk smaller than their host planet. Moons also tend to rotate around the host planet, while our Moon rotates with Earth in a tandem. In fact our "Moon" is technically not a Moon or a Satellite at all, but would be considered a duoplanet with Earth. I find it funny the name we've given the Moon is a misnomer.

Which may have something to do with its origin -- as in the theory that the moon was created out of a collision between earth and another large body.

Pluto and Charon actually have a larger size ratio than Earth and the Moon, although Pluto is no longer considered a major planet. It is thought that Charon may have been captured by Pluto.

reply to post by Invariance

If not NASA, then whose theory is it?

Your quote comes from a document produced in 1970. We have learned a lot about the Moon since then, including discovering that some early assumptions were wrong. The seismic data from Apollo helped discover that the Moon is composed almost entirely of material comparable in density to that of Earth's mantle. The average density of the moon is less than earth because it has a very small iron core in comparison to Earth.

The Moon's density is fairly uniform throughout and is only about 3.3 times the density of water. If it has an iron core, it is less than 800 kilometers in diameter. This is a sharp contrast from planets like Mercury and the Earth that have large iron-nickel cores and overall densities more than 5 times the density of water. The Moon's mantle is made of silicate materials, like the Earth's mantle, and makes up about 90% of the Moon's volume.

www.astronomynotes.com...

~edit~ one more question... solid metal will resonate, but not ring... is describing the moon as ringing a wrong term by NASA?

You said:

Now there are valid reports all over the net describing the moon resonating like a bell when struck, which some people use as proof that the moon is indeed hollow.

What's the difference between ring and resonate?

The moon, however, is dry, cool and mostly rigid, like a chunk of stone or iron. So moonquakes set it vibrating like a tuning fork. Even if a moonquake isn't intense, "it just keeps going and going," Neal says. And for a lunar habitat, that persistence could be more significant than a moonquake's magnitude.

www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

as far as we're concerned (ie what we can see of it from earth) it doesn't. one side is always out of our sight.

But as we see it from Earth is not the only way to view the Earth Moon system. If you were a detached observer watching the Earth-Moon system as the Earth revolves around the Sun (i.e., watching the way all of the bodies in the Solar system move around the Sun), then you would say the Moon rotates once per revolution.

reply to post by Phage


I'm not so sure about the comparatives made about ringing and resonance, I don't think enough is known about the Moon to say that yet, perhaps a good reason to return to the Moon on its own, and very much an interesting subject.

reply to post by smurfy

There's plenty to learn about the Moon...and Mars...and Venus...and Earth for that matter.
You don't think the Moon is a mothership, do you?

reply to post by Ben81



Hi Ben, nice thread

The Moon is indeed strange. I posted about it some time ago, I listed many of the supposed coincidental measurments etc and the thread was very active, but the mods removed half the content and put up messages practicaly accusing me of plagerism(spelling), I told them the graphics were my own and they removed the accusation that I'd stolen the graphics but refused to put back what they had removed, it killed the thread. Interestingly it was the only thread where I saw Phage beaten into admitting he was in wrong. Maybe thats why they killed it, or maybe it was too close to the truth!!

I think the moon was put there by someone because I believe a planet with a large moon is a more healthy planet and more likely to support life. Its daily cycles churn the oceans and prevent stagnation. I also think that its the perfect observation post for anyone who wants to observe us. I think to find other planets that have life on them we should look closely at those that have large moons.

Is it a space ship? why not, theres so many odd things about it that we should not rule out the idea.

reply to post by VoidHawk


Thanks for the compliment Void !
but i think you just opened the gates of hell

has for the moon being a mother ship
we already suspect that there is some big alien bases on it
i have recently had the though that it could be a huge mother ship
because of the picture of SHARE that i have put in the op
its dimension of this share ship is 42*13*8 km
the moon is around 3500 - 4000km

so its matching


saved this picture a while ago .. i dont have the link anymore
but it was from a youtube video and i did a printscreen to save the image

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by smurfy

 

There's plenty to learn about the Moon...and Mars...and Venus...and Earth for that matter.
You don't think the Moon is a mothership, do you?

I was only talking about the Moooon