Pegasus Research Consortium

You decide. It looks good.  I pasted the youtube information below on it and what was used.

Edward

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtyFQRkhW9g

------------------
Youtube comment/show more on what was posted.

Published on Sep 15, 2012

What the hell is going on up there?
Watch in full hd fullscreen 1080p.
Must read description as well:

While filming the moon on september the 15th 2012 with my telescope and Canon EOS 600D i spotted 13 orbs probably starting from a secret alien moonbase.
I edited the raw footage and used dirrentent color to get a better look of these objects.
The original raw footage you can see here: http://youtu.be/1XsYlI-q0hk

If you think it's fake just search on YouTube for "UFO starting from moon" or "UFO landing on moon".
There are a lot of more proof videos similar to this one. UFO Fleet 2013
-------------------------

Greetings Member Edward:

Welcome to PRC.

Although this video (and others) have been discussed in the past, it is always good to bring up material that may have been overlooked or trampled to death by "debunkers" - IMHO.

For your first effort here at PRC, thank you and we are pleased to award your first GOLD.


We are pleased to provide a few screenshots that other members may feel free to comment on.

IMHO, it certainly appears that "craft" are emanating from that 'crater.'

BTW, ArMaP, Zorgon, et al, which 'crater' is that?



(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16-31%20March%202013%20SNAPPY/UFOsleavingmoon14-600.png) (http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16-31%20March%202013%20SNAPPY/UFOsleavingmoon14-FULL.png)



(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16-31%20March%202013%20SNAPPY/UFOsleavingmoon15-600.png)



(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16-31%20March%202013%20SNAPPY/UFOsleavingmoon16-600.png)



(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16-31%20March%202013%20SNAPPY/UFOsleavingmoon17-600.png) (http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16-31%20March%202013%20SNAPPY/UFOsleavingmoon17-FULL.png)

Thanks for the welcome Thorfourwinds.

Actually that was my 3rd post here  ;)   , my first post is here:  http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=166.msg54196#msg54196
8)

Thanks for showing the craters and images.  It's all fascinating stuff.

Edward

Quote from: thorfourwinds on March 24, 2013, 02:42:33 PM
Greetings Member Edward:

Welcome to PRC.

Although this video (and others) have been discussed in the past, it is always good to bring up material that may have been overlooked or trampled to death by "debunkers" - IMHO.

For your first effort here at PRC, thank you and we are pleased to award your first GOLD.


We are pleased to provide a few screenshots that other members may feel free to comment on.

IMHO, it certainly appears that "craft" are emanating from that 'crater.'

BTW, ArMaP, Zorgon, et al, which 'crater' is that?



(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16-31%20March%202013%20SNAPPY/UFOsleavingmoon14-600.png) (http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16-31%20March%202013%20SNAPPY/UFOsleavingmoon14-FULL.png)



(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16-31%20March%202013%20SNAPPY/UFOsleavingmoon15-600.png)



(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16-31%20March%202013%20SNAPPY/UFOsleavingmoon16-600.png)



(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16-31%20March%202013%20SNAPPY/UFOsleavingmoon17-600.png) (http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16-31%20March%202013%20SNAPPY/UFOsleavingmoon17-FULL.png)

(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lg50aa500a.gif) (//http://)

Peace Love Light

Liberty & Equality or Revolution

Ohh a new one for me, excellent pics  :)

Quote from: Sinny on April 03, 2013, 12:36:44 AM
Ohh a new one for me, excellent pics  :)

Check out the video I posted, that the pic's are from.


Edward

The Great John Lear has theorized that Aristarchus was a 24 mile round Fission Reactor That's what it looks like just like the ones at 3 mile island up the road but far bigger. The blue color was is thought to be from radiation from the moon mixing with oxygen when you mix the 2 they turn blue.
I believe 00% in the Hollow Earth Theory and have always thought the moon was hollow. What if Aristarchus is a Giant entrance and exit just as we have on our polar regions and other places on earth. To me this looks like intelligently controlled craft coming out of the moon.  :)

Quote from: ShotInTheDark on April 03, 2013, 12:03:02 PM
I believe 00% in the Hollow Earth Theory and have always thought the moon was hollow.

00%  :o

I'm glad you have so much confidence in the theory. LOL

If the Moon was hollow, I understand it would either be orbiting much slower OR be further away (or similar).

We know the Moon's mass from its orbital dynamics and it can't really be completely hollow with the dynamics it has unless the equations of motion on which engineering are based are completely wrong.  If they were wrong the rockets, planes and machines our civilisation rely on would not work.

LOL 00% well that not to good you know I met 100% think you could change it or I might be able to Funny!!! Great video though if real amazing!!

Quote from: Pimander on April 03, 2013, 02:53:47 PM
00%  :o

I'm glad you have so much confidence in the theory. LOL

If the Moon was hollow, I understand it would either be orbiting much slower OR be further away (or similar).

We know the Moon's mass from its orbital dynamics and it can't really be completely hollow with the dynamics it has unless the equations of motion on which engineering are based are completely wrong.  If they were wrong the rockets, planes and machines our civilization rely on would not work.

Yes agreed I don't mean hollow as in the sense that its the crust then the rest is empty. I believe that there's many layers and different places to go within the planet that are beautiful I have a picture saved somewhere of the Hollow Earth and how i personally believe it is check this out:

(http://www.theshiftofconsciousness.info/InnerSunOfHollowEarth1.jpg)

Now I think this could be why Aristarchus is so bright because it also has an inner Sun it would have to have some type of energy to grow food survival just a theory.

Quote from: Pimander on April 03, 2013, 02:53:47 PM
00%  :o

I'm glad you have so much confidence in the theory. LOL

If the Moon was hollow, I understand it would either be orbiting much slower OR be further away (or similar).

We know the Moon's mass from its orbital dynamics and it can't really be completely hollow with the dynamics it has unless the equations of motion on which engineering are based are completely wrong.  If they were wrong the rockets, planes and machines our civilisation rely on would not work.

OR... It can be hollow if some gadgetry on the moon is gravitationally holding it to its present position...  Without that consideration, which several have reported is the case, then the calculations of mass would be incorrect if that is indeed the case.

And frankly...  *I* think there is some mechanism(s) in place that do hold the moon in its place around Our planet.

There are bases on the moon and i agree it could be held in place by something we couldn't possibly understand it can still be a spaceship for all we know. We are so primitive its not even funny if we don't all kill each other imagine how far we will be in just 1000 yrs from now?? The physics currently as we know them may be completely different with one discovery.

There is definitely something going on the moon I think Zorgon and John Lear have proven that beyond any reasonable doubt. Im starting to think there is life in almost every planet on the inside of the planets like Lear has said all along at first i thought no that cant be right but when i started to really look into the hollow earth theory it made total sense. The Hollow Earth Theory may explain many mysteries UFOs,Bigfoot,Monsters in general. The Aurora Borealis could be light leaking out from the central energy source some call it the central sun. Have a look:
http://www.nasa.gov/mov/105423main_FUV_2005-01_v01.mov

The Southern Lights are coming from the black hole and are shooting upward.

The moon is hollow and IS a spaceship, similar to Nibiru, but obviously much smaller, parked where it is to hold our eco systems together. We had two natural moons, which were destroyed eons ago, according to Pleiadeans who have been so kind as to inform us of this.

As Zorgon says...you can Google it.

Peace and Love,
JD

Quote from: ShotInTheDark on April 07, 2013, 02:41:54 AM
There is definitely something going on the moon I think Zorgon and John Lear have proven that beyond any reasonable doubt.

Its definitely true that there are some massive mysteries associated with the Moon including lights which have been observed for centuries right up to recently.  Mysteries about what appear to be inconceivably unlikely coincidences numerically and geometrically (see Who Built the Moon by Chris Knight and Alan Butler. (http://www.whobuiltthemoon.com/)

Some of the Apollo footage also looks faked to me, and I have looked at it long and hard and seen all kinds of appeal to the sceptic in me.  It looks faked in some instances almost certainly.  That's how I see it.

The hollow Moon theory does not stack up as far as I'm concerned.  The mass of the Moon looks known.  The orbital dynamics looked correct when I checked this out, in line with the equations of motion.  There is no need to invoke some mysterious force holding it "where it is" because the accepted "laws" of physics and equations of motion mean it makes sense that it is in orbit as we observe it.

The Moon is light, possibly lighter than might be expected.  It may well contain caverns where it is possible to have bases. I doubt it is completely hollow, it isn't light enough.

I am also sceptical that NASA's last Apollo mission was the end of the matter regarding our contact with the Moon.  The military had plans in place to go and set up a base on Luna.  Zorgon has lots of info on this.  We, the public, are expected to believe that the plans were shelved.  I say bollocks were they. If the military (or black projects) have not done more regarding missions to the Moon and building outposts in space in secret then they are complete idiots. With those resources to risk another power getting there first is something only arrogant cretins would do..... Unless we were warned off.

The idea that the Moon might be a space ship towed into orbit?  In the absence of any evidence that it is or not, I'd say why would you think it is in the first place?  I don't accept it just because someone who you guys may think is an authority says so. No evidence for this theory says to me you have to be gullible to accept it.  Sorry if that offends anyone but I'm way too smart for that nonsense.

So yes, John and Z are right in that there is something amiss regarding what is assumed to be common knowledge about the Moon.   Proof is not easy to come by.  What John and Zorgon have proven is open to debate.  Luna is a mystery, hence the name of the site. That doesn't mean we should all turn off our BS radars.

As far as the Hollow Earth Theory goes.  Sorry again, but I don't buy that either.  The Auroras at the North and South pole can be explained by The Solar Wind interacting with the Earth's magnetic field causing ionisation.  The effect on that NASA clip is Magnetic South (more accurately it is Magnetically North there and the South of the compass points there).  I'll bet if you look into it Geographical south is not where the dark dot is.

If you have no evidence that the Earth is Hollow other than a picture that might be faked then look for more evidence.  If you find none there is probably a reason for that. ::)

(http://www.physics.sjsu.edu/becker/physics51/images/28_03_Earth_magnetic_field.jpg)
IMAGE COURTESY OF: http://www.physics.sjsu.edu/becker/physics51/mag_field.htm


I have to say, I tire of certain types of bias I see on the web.  I see it from people classed as "hardcore believers" and others classed as "hardcore sceptics".  Both "sides" hold fast to certain ideas they hold dear.  On this site there is a tendency to hang our coats on the whole lot when it comes to alternative ideas.  In the same way that "hardcore sceptics" are wrong to be biased always in favour of mainstream scientific ideas, by the same token it is also wrong for so many members here to always lean in favour of ideas that are are alternative to the mainstream.  Not all members all of the time.  But too often that is what I see.

As long as that remains the case the real scientists posting here will not post in their real name and there is almost no chance more "real scientists" will show up.  There are at least two scientists here (on and off) that I know of for sure and am fairly certain there are three.  None of them post on their own field very often at all as there is no point whatsoever.

Quote from: Pimander on April 07, 2013, 10:50:44 PM
The hollow Moon theory does not stack up as far as I'm concerned.  The mass of the Moon looks known.  The orbital dynamics looked correct when I checked this out, in line with the equations of motion.  There is no need to invoke some mysterious force holding it "where it is" because the accepted "laws" of physics and equations of motion mean it makes sense that it is in orbit as we observe it.

Or...  The Ones who placed it there are clever and had influence in offering a "mass" number, and/or had a good idea what it would be calculated to be - and then designed Their efforts to LOOK like it all works out.  It is likely very important that Humans not see a problem with its mechanics.

Also...  Mass has much to do with materials.  A layer of soil on top of...lead, say, as a casing, would yield more mass than an equal volume of silica and such.  If We do not have data beyond the surface and a few feet down, how can We accurately measure the moon's mass?

Just saying that there are other explanations that would allow the calculations to work out...

Give me a single tangible piece of evidence that the Moon was placed there.

Quote from: Pimander on April 08, 2013, 01:46:49 AM
Give me a single tangible piece of evidence that the Moon was placed there.

Well in very ancient cultures they talk about two moons.  So if that is/was the case this moon we have must of came from somewhere.


Edward

Quote from: Edward on April 08, 2013, 02:11:09 AM
Well in very ancient cultures they talk about two moons.  So if that is/was the case this moon we have must of came from somewhere.

Surely that would mean one of the two is no longer there or is no longer visible?  If there was two Moons and the stories aren't symbolic of course.

Yes the Moon "came from somewhere."  That isn't evidence it was put there by aliens (or whoever).  I'm talking the real thing now - actual evidence.  A tangible verifiable fact.

Quote from: Amaterasu on April 08, 2013, 01:43:38 AM
how can We accurately measure the moon's mass?

Gravity as a force is proportional to mass.

Gravity causes acceleration in proportion to its mass.  [The acceleration caused by Earth can be measured by measuring the acceleration of free fall due to gravity.]

Using the acceleration of free fall (math here which I'll spare you) we can calculate the Earth's mass.

The Moon does not really orbit the Earth.  The Earth Moon system actually orbits a common centre of mass (barycentre).  As we know the mass of Earth and we know where the barycentre is (actually in Earth but not the centre) we can calculate the mass of the Moon based on where the barycentre is*.  It is basically the point where their masses cancel out (more math).

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Orbit3.gif)
http://scienceprojectideasforkids.com/2010/barycenter-of-the-earth-moon-system/

So we know the mass of the Moon.  No guessing.  Real evidence.  No BS!

I'll probably regret posting real science but there you have it. :P


The barycenter (or barycentre) is the point between two objects where they balance each other. For example, it is the center of mass where two or more celestial bodies orbit each other. When a moon orbits a planet, or a planet orbits a star, both bodies are actually orbiting around a point that is not at the center of the primary (the larger body). For example, the Moon does not orbit the exact center of the Earth, but a point on a line between the center of the Earth and the Moon, approximately 1,710 km below the surface of the Earth, where their respective masses balance. This is the point about which the Earth and Moon orbit as they travel around the Sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_%28astronomy%29

Pim, how can You tell that the mass is low density throughout and not a shell of high density with a hollow space within (with a relatively thin coating of low density)?

How do You know that there are no mechanisms affecting the gravitational dance?

I'm not saying this is true, but that I can make a good case.

Also, there are the ancient report, as Edward points out, of two moons...but also reports of a time there was NO moon.  I gather (but have not verified) that the two moons were here before the no-moon segment of the history.

So...  Though there is no "proof" (whatever THAT might be) that the moon was moved here, there are also things like The Terra Papers which give that as a specific.  The moon is an AR ship, according to the Papers.

I seem to recall coming across some Sumerian texts that also spoke of the moon as a vehicle - but don't hold Me to that.  It was a while ago and I could be misremembering.

Quote from: Pimander on April 08, 2013, 03:40:41 AM
Gravity as a force is proportional to mass.

QuoteThe book presents new concepts in the study of gravitation. A new equation for the gravitational force is introduced, which is the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law and which has been verified experimentally to very high precision. The equation is F = a.A, or force = acceleration Area. The book also presents equations for the sequential distances of the planets from the sun and of satellites from the centers of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, with correlation coefficients upwards of 0.99, concluding that gravitation is quantized. A simple and useful equation for eccentricity is presented as the ratio of the sum of perturbations to the gravitational force of the sun. It is shown that Kepler's second law is not a general law; i.e., equal areas are swept in approximately equal intervals of time only near aphelion and perihelion. There is now confusion between the concepts of "force" and "energy." In the last chapter of the book, new units are introduced to clarify the two concepts. Any equation containing "mass" relates to the concept of "energy". Force is independent of mass.

Pari Spolter, Gravitational Force of the Sun (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FGravitational-Force-Sun-Pari-Spolter%2Fdp%2F0963810758&tag=pegasreseacon-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325)

QuoteDr. Spolter exposes the fundamental mathematical errors in both Einsteinian and Newtonian theory with such elegance and ease that even a mathematical recalcitrant like myself was inspired to recall my high-school mathematics (last used in anger 20 years ago!) to follow her working out. No, I am not making this up: I voluntarily engaged in strenuous mathematics for my own enjoyment!

"Gravitational Force of the Sun" is very focused. Dr. Spolter successfully knocks the pins from under two great, unchallenged theories of science by reviewing the original documents that Newton wrote and examining the mathematics and assumptions that Einstein and Newton used. I have seldom before read a more thorough hatchet job. She must be a relentless researcher with prodigious memory and intellect.

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Toons/Einstein_Pari.jpg)

Quote from: Amaterasu on April 08, 2013, 05:22:52 AM
Pim, how can You tell that the mass is low density throughout and not a shell of high density with a hollow space within (with a relatively thin coating of low density)?

There are no known forces in the universe that would create a body as large as the Moon that is "hollow".  In the absence of tangible evidence that it is hollow, I'd say that we are just saying it is hollow.  I could say the sun is a big egg that kicks out heat but I'd be talking out of my ass without real evidence.

QuoteHow do You know that there are no mechanisms affecting the gravitational dance?

We know the mass of the Moon and Earth would give us the orbital dynamics we observe, therefore there is no mysterious"other force" at work.

QuoteI'm not saying this is true, but that I can make a good case.

Go on then, make a good case.  However many Moons we have had in the past, produce evidence that the Moon is a towed into position or hollow. :)

QuoteAlso, there are the ancient report, as Edward points out, of two moons...but also reports of a time there was NO moon.  I gather (but have not verified) that the two moons were here before the no-moon segment of the history.

That is an interesting story.  It may be true that there have been different numbers of satellites in the past.  That is not evidence that Luna was towed there by aliens, there could be a host of other reasons.  Also the myth/legend may or may not be symbolic rather than literal, we just don't know.

Any tangible evidence would be handy. :)

QuoteSo...  Though there is no "proof" (whatever THAT might be) that the moon was moved here, there are also things like The Terra Papers which give that as a specific.  The moon is an AR ship, according to the Papers.

The Terra papers?   Do they contain any evidence or are they more stories?

QuoteI seem to recall coming across some Sumerian texts that also spoke of the moon as a vehicle - but don't hold Me to that.  It was a while ago and I could be misremembering.

A comet is a vehicle for whatever it carries.  Does that make it a space ship or mean it is towed by aliens?  Without evidence that say it is, what would you say?

---

Amy, the density of the Moon isn't as low as you seem to be under the impression.  For example, it has a Density of 0.605 of Earth's.  Compare that to Pluto (0.317) or Saturn (0.125) and it starts to look less incredible.  If it was formed from similar rock to Earth's Mantle then 0.605 is not so strange and just indicates that the Moon likely has a lot less Nickel and Iron in its core.  The Moon has a similar density to Mars (0.713).  Unless you also think that all these planets are hollow but have no evidence for that either. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/planet_table_ratio.html

There is NO REAL EVIDENCE THAT THE MOON IS HOLLOW THAT I AM AWARE OF.  THAT IS WHY NONE OF YOU CAN POST ANY.  Even if we cannot say for sure what is inside the Moon we have no reason to suspect it is hollow other than somebody saying it might be (even if there are bases inside caves there).  ::)

---

To Ed,

I managed to download the hi-res from UT and look it over. I also saw the typical comments of moon birds. I don't understand at this moment why the Orbs or Moon birds have no color in my process. Is it they are actually in space and have no atmospheric interference hence no color glow. Could be. If they are starting from the surface they must be very large. I could calculate that over some time. The paths they are taking are not straight, sort of hap-hazard. the paths should be traced if possible. Flight paths of each one. Anyway I have most of the video saved.
Deuem

Howdy Pim and the rest here!! :)

I ,for one can not buy into the "Hollow Earth/Moon Theory" either.

We have discussed many times the Earth Quake activity and then laid the ground of discussion as too understand with in the confines of data presented with in the USGS website for deductive analysis as if it is following these known lines of the 'Ring of Fire' postulated and the possibility that the 'Ring of Fire' may be something more of a 'Accepted Understanding' and there by altering or eluding us to improper deductive mathematics for too truly and confidently confirm these events for future same case scenario's.

Mr. Lear and Mr. Zorgon are fundamental with in their analysis, I believe because there is no other proper negated explanation for the physics behind it. I also understand that they are revered as 'Experts' of the topic such as "Bases on the Moon' and confide with in their understanding and the evidences that have been produced there by showing this may well be the fact. I too was a researcher forthese bases, have a rather small library compared to these two Gent's, but it is evident, there is something going on the Lunar surface, and humanbeing's can't make the claim to fame it is us. So, there lies another conundrum of the whole case scenario being explained easily and/or readily "These things on the Lunar surface weren't done by us, so who is left too take the  credit? ET's." There is way too much evidence supporting these claims, and we know we didn't do it 100%, or as ShotInTheDark would say "00%" LOL :P JK SITD!!! HA ha ha ha!!

Even though I believe there to be or were inhabitants with in or on the Lunar satellite, and do personally think that there is good reason too not speculate but openly accept these deductions to be true, I have still seen absolutely no tangible evidence supporting it was 'Towed' into it's current resting place. And as far as I can tell, the Computer simulation that was done by a researcher o f"How did the Moon come too be" has a very profound explanation that holds true thus far as being the answer. Sorry, don't remember the Computer Programmer's name and I couldn't share that information with you if I had it. "My PC Sux!!!" LOL  ::)

The Ancient writings discussion and topic is of interest, this is due to the fact that they usually used true case scenarios for story retelling, but, there again, the metaphorical interpretations leaves us on the Cusp of understanding what is being reiterated as a fact based incident or history. Seems as if there are going too different accepted interpretations, as a species, this is the common ground of the whole interpretation concepts. As we are showing here, today as well. One thing that can be admitted with the whole Ancient Alien and acclimated Satellite is that the before mentioned computer simulation would support this event as being a possible factual event, there by supplying both Ancient Civilizations reiterated tales and new age sciences meeting on a common ground for deductive reasoning and verifiable proof of there being an event 'Creating' our closest natural satellite. IMHO. ;)

As for the 'Hollow Earth Theory' I can not even fathom how or why one would think or accept it was truly a 'Livable' hollow place? As so many topics of scientific and sometimes esoteric explanations, this has too be by far the most 'Unimaginable' case scenario in all of science research for discussion. It has came too my attention over different topics of discussion, namely 'Green House Effects' that the Earths core is very Dynamic and quite inhospitable for anything like a 'Hollow Earth' too actually exist, or anything too exist with in those kinds of environments.

During these topics of discussion , after bringing the "nuclear reactor" information into such discussions leads right to rebuttals such as "SO, There is a Sun at the center of the Earth," once the topic reaches scientific analysis and theories. I only say this because we have never truly ventured to the center of the Earth and there by being a 'Theory' in retrospect. Even  though I respect these peoples views for what they truly believe to be true and fact based, I am with in the thought preempted ideologies that without such adventures scientific research i.e. Journey to the center of the Earth, as depicted by the Barrowman's Science fiction tale/book, and with the pilot supposedly visiting the place personally on a flight over the North pole ( Can't remember exact expedition or who this was.) along with others throughout history that have tried to postulate that this is a 'True' place, and ever since the 1800's being dismissed by science as being nothing but articulated pseudosciences at best, we have again allowed ourselves too be swayed by some form of written word into the gullability of the true understanding of what really lies with in these associated belief ideologies, there by thwarting the truth from it's true postulation and perspectives of understanding.

Either way,if and when the day comes to make these journey's to these 'Fantastical' places and take the initiative as a science oriented species to the degree it needs to be taken, then and only then will we get answers of these questions once and for all. After all, we live in a society that seems to have the echelon's of monetary wealth backing such endeavors such as 'Tunnels for Turtles' and 'Atmospheric Chemical Spraying' (Multiple reasons here) we are going to remain the gullable until such scientific conundrums are resolved.

Pimander:

I truly enjoyed your explanation of the Baricentre and the use of it there of and for deductive reasoning. This, too is something that has come up in discussions over and over again. It is important to not over look our understanding with in the applied mathematics, as we 'Currently' understand them anyway, for 'True/True' resulted explanations and theoretical explanation's of such quagmires of misinterpreted information.
The case being, we are a civilization that seemingly have too openly accept the 'True/False' for verifiable argumentative purposes or too show our personal accepted ideologies out weigh true science, and at times, the variables that counterdict this from being factual. One would be amazed, that in such forums as our Humble Peggy of how easy it is to reiterate using these exact same twists of conversation to give explanation, no matter how convoluted they seem too be from on side of the table to the other. Even some sciences are far reaching into the Aether for explanation, but one thing is absolutely clear "We are a people of Great conceptual minds with in the PRC Group." and that for me speaks volumes with in such topical discussions. ;)

The Contributing Group:
AS for you here that take these 'Hypothetical' and 'Theoretical' possibilities to absolute heart for their contributions into such sciences, please understand that I am not bashing nor hindering you too think differently or titling you as less than myself. I just can't see any merit in the 'Acceptance' of such unreachable deductive science fiction based personified pseudoscience related 'Belief' systems.

If TPTB would afford the thought into furthering our understanding of what lie beneath our feet, we may have the answers we all long for and that being with acclimation of possible new understandings and scientific growth with absolutes for 'True' and Irrefutable understanding of the matters at hand. After all, PRC is here for all of us too enjoy and discuss, but more so, I find it a place of learning and sharing of such information as we speak here, though individually divided as it may seem, respect runs rampant and justly so, for we all have the same goals "Truth". ;) 8)

With Great Respect,
1Worldwatcher

 

Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on April 08, 2013, 03:36:07 PM
I ,for one can not buy into the "Hollow Earth/Moon Theory" either.

Well done for backing a winner.  8)

Quote from: Pimander on April 08, 2013, 01:46:49 AM
Give me a single tangible piece of evidence that the Moon was placed there.

Recently John mentioned a book - 'Secrets of Our Spaceship Moon' by Don Wilson,

that he found compelling regarding many of the Moon's mysteries.

I think this book is where a lot of this speculation originates Pim.


Don finds that the answer to most of the mysteries all point to one explanation - the Moon is a constructed vehicle towed into place.

Example - he finds it suspicious that the full moon covers the entire orb of the sun within 1% as viewed from earth.

And that one side always faces us.

He finds it beyond the pale of chance that this would occur naturally.


He does a pretty good job of collecting all the various oddities and mysteries of the moon into one place and takes a shot at explaining them.


Free ebook download for those interested here -

http://www.ebook3000.com/Secrets-of-Our-Spaceship-Moon_86457.html (http://www.ebook3000.com/Secrets-of-Our-Spaceship-Moon_86457.html) 


8)

As I said in my earlier post, there are legitimate mysteries regarding Luna.  However, it is a bit of a joke to invoke aliens every time we don't understand something.  It's no different to saying the lightening is caused by Zeus' being angry, or saying,  "it was the Gods wot did it!"  You can say it but you are just speculating rather than actually trying to find out the truth.

Quote from: A51Watcher on April 08, 2013, 05:00:54 PM
Example - he finds it suspicious that the full moon covers the entire orb of the sun within 1% as viewed from earth.

And that one side always faces us.

The book I metioned earlier, Who Built the Moon, looks at similar mysteries and postulates that humans from the future built the Moon.  Both books just invoke speculation in the absence of evidence.  I simply accept it is a mystery until we know why.  In fact the facing Earth thing could happen from baryocentric (is that a word?) effects I suspect.  I think it can happen due to "phase locking".  In fact it is common.

QuoteHow does this happen? Well, the Moon makes one revolution around the Earth about every 29 days, and that's what causes the Moon phases. But the Moon also rotates once every 29 days also. Because of this, the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth:

We call this "being locked." We're not the only system like this, by the way. Both of Mars' moons, Phobos and Deimos, always have the same side facing Mars. All of Jupiter's, Saturn's, Uranus', and Neptune's moons are locked to those planets as well. And in a really weird case, Pluto and its largest moon, Charon, are locked to each other, so that both always show one another the same face:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2008/04/29/why-do-we-only-see-one-side-of-the-moon/

The common centre of gravity remains where it is only if the bodies are pretty spherical with a central centre of gravity (Earth) or if the object faces the baryocentre (Moon) keeping its centre pointing towards the baryocentre.  Hope that explains. ;)

Quote from: Pimander on April 08, 2013, 11:51:26 AM
There are no known forces in the universe that would create a body as large as the Moon that is "hollow".  In the absence of tangible evidence that it is hollow, I'd say that we are just saying it is hollow.  I could say the sun is a big egg that kicks out heat but I'd be talking out of my ass without real evidence.

Sure there is a force that could create a body as large as the moon that is hollow.  It's called Consciousness.  There is just as much evidence that the moon was constructed by Consciousness as there is that it was constructed by random matter agglomeration.  Actually...  Via historical records, there is more evidence that it is a construct of Consciousness than there is that it was a "natural" formation.

Just sayin'.

QuoteWe know the mass of the Moon and Earth would give us the orbital dynamics we observe, therefore there is no mysterious"other force" at work.

Unless...  (Possible scenario) The mass of the moon was calculated based on the dynamics (in which case, the mass stated may be off by a wide margin if gravitational manipulation is involved), and because the mass number is an average, does NOT prove mass distribution within the body.

Like I said, a thick shell of lead coated with sand enclosing hollowness will have a similar mass as a solid body of sand.

QuoteGo on then, make a good case.  However many Moons we have had in the past, produce evidence that the Moon is a towed into position or hollow. :)

I have more proof in the form of historic record than You have...  Just sayin'.

QuoteThat is an interesting story.  It may be true that there have been different numbers of satellites in the past.  That is not evidence that Luna was towed there by aliens, there could be a host of other reasons.  Also the myth/legend may or may not be symbolic rather than literal, we just don't know.

No, but neither is it proof it wasn't.  And like I said, there is more evidence in historical record that it was than that it wasn't.

QuoteAny tangible evidence would be handy. :)

As there is no tangible evidence either way (but for historical record), I agree evidence would be handy - on either side of the question.

QuoteThe Terra papers?   Do they contain any evidence or are they more stories?

Depends on who You ask.  If You ask Robert Morning Sky, the information was given to His grandfather by Bek'ti, an ET His grandfather rescued.  And to Him (and Others), it is evidence.  But to Those who doubt what Robert wrote, it is not.  [shrug]

You might want to read them: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Terra_Papers.html

Also, I constructed a glossary:  http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=1310.0

QuoteA comet is a vehicle for whatever it carries.  Does that make it a space ship or mean it is towed by aliens?  Without evidence that say it is, what would you say?

Silly question and rather strawmanish, eh?  We are not discussing comets; We are discussing the moon and its specific situation/origin.

QuoteAmy, the density of the Moon isn't as low as you seem to be under the impression.  For example, it has a Density of 0.605 of Earth's.  Compare that to Pluto (0.317) or Saturn (0.125) and it starts to look less incredible.  If it was formed from similar rock to Earth's Mantle then 0.605 is not so strange and just indicates that the Moon likely has a lot less Nickel and Iron in its core.  The Moon has a similar density to Mars (0.713).  Unless you also think that all these planets are hollow but have no evidence for that either. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/planet_table_ratio.html

These are AGGREGATE densities.  Like I said, ANY of those bodies could be constructed hollow with a very dense shell - or solid and constructed of lesser density materials, whether similar to an Earth substance or not.  I have no opinion one way or another about the hollowness or solidity of other bodies, but have historical record and reports from Morning Sky to suggest the moon - and ONLY the moon - is a construct, a ship, a Consciousness creation.

QuoteThere is NO REAL EVIDENCE THAT THE MOON IS HOLLOW THAT I AM AWARE OF.  THAT IS WHY NONE OF YOU CAN POST ANY.  Even if we cannot say for sure what is inside the Moon we have no reason to suspect it is hollow other than somebody saying it might be (even if there are bases inside caves there).  ::)

Equally, there is no evidence that it ISN'T hollow.  That is why none of YOU can post any.  [shrug]

Everything is pretty Hollow... and in some case's Hallowed when it comes to the Vatican LOL :D

If for example location X  had a once nice spring water source dry up one can only assume that there would be a Hollow somewhere in that system.  The Hollow may not appear to be what we might expect, but with rock movement in general Hollow could be more defined with "Path's of Ease". 

The Moon has Lava Hollows according to Nasa.  Yet Nasa cannot show us them close up.  The only Close up Point and Shoot Pic's we have of the Moon are the American Flag... God Bless America and all but when I travel I like to take pics of area's which don't look like my home country  :P 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgAbZV6RuA

I get a kick out of the folks who assume they know the specific density of celestial bodies. There are only speculative assumptions on which such calculations are made, and whichever specimens of rock are analyzed for the positing of speculative assessment, the whole exercise disregards the likelihood that the rock in question does not represent the spectrum of minerals within the celestial body.

Bottom line--everyone is wrong for speculating. Enough speculation already...let's get on board a spaceship and go see for ourselves with resonant imaging technology, drilling apparati and crews of people willing (or robots) to drill all the way to the center of the object and THEN we'll have a look see.

My hunch is that it is hollow, like the earth. The Plejorans say both are hollow. I don't have their word directly, but others I find credible in their interactions with Plejoran ETs do report this. If we suddenly find out that both are hollow, or even just the earth, well, then--won't those who insist (based on flawed data) that the earth and/or moon is solid look silly? To me they already do, but silliness is cute sometimes.

Put water in a balloon and spin it. What happened? That's right--all of the liquid material tends to travel outward from the center. Try starting with common sense and so forth in assessing such things. There is no solid OR liquid core. The solids (tectonic plates) and liquids work against and within one another until an opening is found to relieve the "outage" pressure, and voila! We have volcanoes.

I hope that helps clear this up.

Peace and Love,
JD

Quote from: Amaterasu on April 08, 2013, 07:05:51 PM
Sure there is a force that could create a body as large as the moon that is hollow.  It's called Consciousness.  There is just as much evidence that the moon was constructed by Consciousness as there is that it was constructed by random matter agglomeration.

Well no there isn't, there is no evidence whatsoever that it was constructed by "consciousness" so there can't be more evidence for that theory than any other.  I could say it was put there by goblins to make us have this conversation and there is just as much evidence I am correct (i.e. none at all).  :P

I'm not saying I know how it came to be there, I am saying that there is no evidence it was towed there by aliens and no evidence that it is hollow.

You keep trying to ask me to prove a theory I have not proposed.  I am simply saying you have no tangible evidence for the "theory" that Luna was towed into place by aliens/consciousness and you also have none that it is hollow.

QuoteActually...  Via historical records, there is more evidence that it is a construct of Consciousness than there is that it was a "natural" formation. 

Just sayin'.

A story/myth saying something is created by consciousness is no different that me saying Goblins did it.  It is a tale.  Yes legends/myths can be based on fact, but are often symbolic.  If there was any evidence at all that the myth were true (i.e. corroborating evidence) then we have something to work with.  In this case we have nothing.  No TANGIBLE VERIFIABLE FACTS WHATSOEVER.

QuoteUnless...  (Possible scenario) The mass of the moon was calculated based on the dynamics (in which case, the mass stated may be off by a wide margin if gravitational manipulation is involved), and because the mass number is an average, does NOT prove mass distribution within the body.

Like I said, a thick shell of lead coated with sand enclosing hollowness will have a similar mass as a solid body of sand.

Nice idea.  Do you have any evidence for it or is it speculation?  The answer is obvious.

QuoteI have more proof in the form of historic record than You have...  Just sayin'.

You don't have proof.  It is barely even evidence.

QuoteNo, but neither is it proof it wasn't.

There is no proof it wasn't Goblins but that doesn't PROVE anything does it?

QuoteAs there is no tangible evidence either way (but for historical record), I agree evidence would be handy - on either side of the question.

If there is no evidence, then we look for evidence.  We don't just say, "Goblins towed it there", "aliens did it" or, "consciousness made it hollow".  A credible theory needs something checkable/verifiable to back it up.  Otherwise it is an interesting tale and nothing more.

I find it hard to believe how you can't see my point.  You are an intelligent woman.  Why do you think the alternative scene is such easy pickings for snake oil salesmen?

It's high time all of us started saying "PROVE IT". No matter who tells you something.  If they can't then they are just stories.  Entertaining stories are still stories. If the stories are told to you by a space alien claiming to be from Venus, Billy Meier, Stephen Greer, Pimander, the writers of the Bible, John Lear or a being claiming to be God Himself.  Even Gods could tell tales.  SIMPLE AS THAT.  I want something tangible to work with. :)

QuoteDepends on who You ask.  If You ask Robert Morning Sky, the information was given to His grandfather by Bek'ti, an ET His grandfather rescued.  And to Him (and Others), it is evidence.  But to Those who doubt what Robert wrote, it is not.  [shrug]

It might be true.  If it is then there must be some corroborating evidence.  If not, then the alien may have made it up - we just don't know.  Is that such a ridiculous notion?

QuoteYou might want to read them: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Terra_Papers.html

Also, I constructed a glossary:  http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=1310.0

I'm familiar.  Let me know when we have corroborating evidence that is not just one more story that drives scientists and serious researchers to avoid UFOlogy like the plague.

QuoteWe are not discussing comets; We are discussing the moon and its specific situation/origin.

I was pointing out that something can be a vehicle without being a space ship. in response to this comment.

Quote from: Amaterasu on April 08, 2013, 05:22:52 AM
I seem to recall coming across some Sumerian texts that also spoke of the moon as a vehicle - but don't hold Me to that.  It was a while ago and I could be misremembering.

The Earth is a vehicle in that we travel on it.  That does not make it a space ship.

QuoteThese are AGGREGATE densities.  Like I said, ANY of those bodies could be constructed hollow with a very dense shell - or solid and constructed of lesser density materials, whether similar to an Earth substance or not.

Evidence that can be checked?  No?  ::)

QuoteI have no opinion one way or another about the hollowness or solidity of other bodies, but have historical record and reports from Morning Sky to suggest the moon - and ONLY the moon - is a construct, a ship, a Consciousness creation.

Nice story.  Any evidence that can be checked would help make it something more.  Otherwise, do you have any snake oil I could buy?

QuoteEqually, there is no evidence that it ISN'T hollow.  That is why none of YOU can post any.  [shrug]

You want me to prove a negative now. ::)

I haven't said a story about the Moon is true so don't have to prove anything.  I don't know what is inside the Moon, I just suspect the stories that the Moon is a hollow space ship towed there are no better than folk lore.  Might be true, most likely not.


Lets put it this way.  MY theory is that Goblins put the Moon there to get us to have this debate.  Post evidence it is not true please....  Can you prove a negative like you just asked me to?  Or is your argument nonsense?  100 GOLD TO THE FIRST CORRECT ANSWER! (and I'm completely serious)

JD, the video you posted was created by Kev Connolly in 2008.  It is meant to be a black hole.  Here is his YouTube account. http://www.youtube.com/user/kevmc34

Here is the original with comments going back to 2008 - before the BS about it being a film of Earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dua07C30ck0

Quote from: Pimander on April 09, 2013, 07:20:03 PM
Well no there isn't, there is no evidence whatsoever that it was constructed by "consciousness" so there can't be more evidence for that theory than any other.  I could say it was put there by goblins to make us have this conversation and there is just as much evidence I am correct (i.e. none at all).  :P

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/hollow-moon-t8064.html

Compiled by Ronald Regehr

The moon is the Rosetta stone of the planets." —Robert Jastrow,
First Chairman, NASA Lunar Exploration Committee

After hundreds of years of detailed observation and study, our closest companion in the vast universe, Earth's moon, remains an enigma. Six moon landings and hundreds of experiments have resulted in more questions being asked than answered. Among them:
1. Moon's Age: The moon is far older than previously expected. Maybe even older than the Earth or the Sun. The oldest age for the Earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old; moon rocks were dated at 5.3 billion years old, and the dust upon which they were resting was at least another billion years older.
2. Rock's Origin: The chemical composition of the dust upon which the rocks sat differed remarkably from the rocks themselves, contrary to accepted theories that the dust resulted from weathering and breakup of the rocks themselves. The rocks had to have come from somewhere else.
3. Heavier Elements on Surface: Normal planetary composition results in heavier elements in the core and lighter materials at the surface; not so with the moon. According to Wilson, "The abundance of refractory elements like titanium in the surface areas is so pronounced that several geologists proposed the refractory compounds were brought to the moon's surface in great quantity in some unknown way. They don't know how, but that it was done cannot be questioned." (Emphasis added).
4. Water Vapor: On March 7, 1971, lunar instruments placed by the astronauts recorded a vapor cloud of water passing across the surface of the moon. The cloud lasted 14 hours and covered an area of about 100 square miles.
5. Magnetic Rocks: Moon rocks were magnetized. This is odd because there is no magnetic field on the moon itself. This could not have originated from a "close call" with Earth—such an encounter would have ripped the moon apart.

There's more at the link.  Some points stronger than others.

QuoteI'm not saying I know how it came to be there, I am saying that there is no evidence it was towed there by aliens and no evidence that it is hollow.

And again, there is as much evidence of one as of the other.  Why label one as true and the other false?  Why not assign probabilities?  Given that Sumerian tablets describe the genetic creation of Humans, I have to give a fair probability that there might have been Beings that had the wherewithal to create such an object.  This gives Me a good sway, along with reports of a time of no moon, towards a higher probability that the moon is a construct than that it is not.

QuoteYou keep trying to ask me to prove a theory I have not proposed.  I am simply saying you have no tangible evidence for the "theory" that Luna was towed into place by aliens/consciousness and you also have none that it is hollow.

Um... And more than once I have said You're right.  And also pointed out that a counter position that it was a "naturally" formed body also had no proof.  What is Your purpose in bringing this up if You are not of the opinion that that the moon is a "natural" body?  Just to stir creppola?  [grin]

QuoteA story/myth saying something is created by consciousness is no different that me saying Goblins did it.  It is a tale.  Yes legends/myths can be based on fact, but are often symbolic.  If there was any evidence at all that the myth were true (i.e. corroborating evidence) then we have something to work with.  In this case we have nothing.  No TANGIBLE VERIFIABLE FACTS WHATSOEVER.

Ok, ok.  Nor does the common supposition.  But We have peripheral data that point Us in directions of probability, and I say there's a high probability that the moon is a hollow, Consciousness creation.

QuoteNice idea.  Do you have any evidence for it or is it speculation?  The answer is obvious.

Darlin', it's a possibility, as I clearly stated.  And one that does not take a HUGH leap.  Why are You attacking Me as if I was declaring it as truth?  Good grief, Charlie Brown.  It's not a matter of whether I have proof; it's a matter of its being a POSSIBILITY.  And possibilities in this universe are best considered when asking questions.  The more the possibility explains the evidence, the higher the probability of its being true, n'est pas?

QuoteYou don't have proof.  It is barely even evidence.

Pim, enough with trying to cast aspersions on the possibility - with some fairly high probability - that Our moon is a construct by over and over bringing up the proof thing - yeah, You're right, but there is nothing to contradict it either.  Rather, show how it cannot be, or admit We all lack data.

QuoteThere is no proof it wasn't Goblins but that doesn't PROVE anything does it?

You ARE getting rabid here, aren't Ye?

QuoteIf there is no evidence, then we look for evidence.  We don't just say, "Goblins towed it there", "aliens did it" or, "consciousness made it hollow".  A credible theory needs something checkable/verifiable to back it up.  Otherwise it is an interesting tale and nothing more.

Yes.  Let's do it then.  Git 'er done!

QuoteI find it hard to believe how you can't see my point.  You are an intelligent woman.  Why do you think the alternative scene is such easy pickings for snake oil salesmen?

Huh?  Darlin', I have examined a LOT of evidence, adjusting and weighing based on My assessment of reliable sources, and the probability needle swung further towards the "construct" end and away from "natural."  Much further.  [shrug]  What has "snake oil salesmen" got to do with anything?  An emotional button for the passing reader?

QuoteIt's high time all of us started saying "PROVE IT". No matter who tells you something.  If they can't then they are just stories.  Entertaining stories are still stories. If the stories are told to you by a space alien claiming to be from Venus, Billy Meier, Stephen Greer, Pimander, the writers of the Bible, John Lear or a being claiming to be God Himself.  Even Gods could tell tales.  SIMPLE AS THAT.  I want something tangible to work with. :)

What did I claim is true?  Why are You demanding proof from ME for?  I merely claim that I see enough evidence to suggest that the moon is a construct in higher probability than that it is not.  I have offered a fair amount, even in this thread, of what I am considering in assessing probabilities.

As for tangible?  I have some evidence to consider.  Have at it.  But tangible, not yet.  [smile]

I could go on, again and again saying I agree no One (We know) can prove either way at the moment with most of the rest of Your post...  But at this point I hope I have clarified where I am coming from and Your demand for "proof" - whatever THAT might entail - will cease, and We can move on here.

Well, there is one thing for sure we can probably all agree on "There 'IS' something going on and possibly with in our Moons surface and sub surface terrains."

There is way too much evidence supporting this 'Conspiracy' of being more a fact. I have done some in-depth research in this area, and seeing videos and images supporting the 'Possibility' that someone has caught an apparent fleet of UFOs leaving from what looks to be a crater is just another point of discussion to further deduce that our closest natural satellite is in fact a 'Habitat' for either someone or something, this is very evident, both apparently now, and science astronomer's from earliest recorded history have seen thing's  that defy current accepted explanations. Good thread though, love discussing and learning of these Lunar anomalies and structures that lay with in such deductive reasoning and discusion. ;)

1WW

Regarding UFOs and ETs...
This may be of interest...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHunekX1xPw

Peace and Love,
JD

If there are really Aliens on the moon then I would imagine that the moon has Deep Under Ground Bases like we have on Earth. It might be honeycombed to death over countless years of living there.

Since I have never been there and anything I see  or read is second  or third party the only thing left is my gut decission.  I do not think it is hollow, like a basketball. I have a real hard time thinking it was manufactured as is. If there are Aliens on the moon or were on the Moon and they have all the special gagets we read about. Then towing the moon from one solar system to another should be easy for them. The resources needed to construct it from scatch would be a waste of time and money as I see it. Just grab a free floating moon somewhere and use it. Other planets have too many, they can spare one. Unless I go there with pim and drill a hole I will never know the truth.
deuem

Quote from: deuem on April 10, 2013, 05:33:28 PM
If there are really Aliens on the moon then I would imagine that the moon has Deep Under Ground Bases like we have on Earth. It might be honeycombed to death over countless years of living there.

Since I have never been there and anything I see  or read is second  or third party the only thing left is my gut decission.  I do not think it is hollow, like a basketball. I have a real hard time thinking it was manufactured as is. If there are Aliens on the moon or were on the Moon and they have all the special gagets we read about. Then towing the moon from one solar system to another should be easy for them. The resources needed to construct it from scatch would be a waste of time and money as I see it. Just grab a free floating moon somewhere and use it. Other planets have too many, they can spare one. Unless I go there with pim and drill a hole I will never know the truth.
deuem

What if You wanted to build a fortress You could hide as a moon...?  Just saying that the ease of grabbing a nearby rock is less likely to suit Your needs than the building and camouflaging of a moon-sized fortress...

Just pointing out that the reasons WHY it was built would be a determining factor in the end methods.

Quote from: deuem on April 10, 2013, 05:33:28 PM
If there are really Aliens on the moon then I would imagine that the moon has Deep Under Ground Bases like we have on Earth. It might be honeycombed to death over countless years of living there.

Since I have never been there and anything I see  or read is second  or third party the only thing left is my gut decission.  I do not think it is hollow, like a basketball. I have a real hard time thinking it was manufactured as is. If there are Aliens on the moon or were on the Moon and they have all the special gagets we read about. Then towing the moon from one solar system to another should be easy for them. The resources needed to construct it from scatch would be a waste of time and money as I see it. Just grab a free floating moon somewhere and use it. Other planets have too many, they can spare one. Unless I go there with pim and drill a hole I will never know the truth.
deuem

The moon was harvested, not built, then fitted with bases and gedgetry which keeps us within optimal propinquity.

Peace and Love,
JD

Science...

Pim wants proof. Pim seeks proof. Pim has no proof and can prove it. Pim Pim Pim. Where's your proof? Moon...Beautiful moon. Beautiful ginormous loverpizza moon (no proof of that). Poor Pim. No pizzamonkeyfishfried proof the moon even exists except whatever the powers that be conspire to project and perpetuate holographically--but PIM! NO PROOF.

You see, I'm not out trying to perpetuate the spoon-fed paradigm, only spooks do that whenever THEY can't prove their side. It is a tactic bereft of even the tiniest tinge of honor to suggest that BECAUSE no "tangible" proof exists for the hollow moon/earth theory it by default MAKES the opposing view correct. IT DOES NOT.

Your fence, my fence. We're DANCING ON THE FENCE POLE. I'll jump aside as soon as YOU provide ME tangible proof (not hearsay) that either the moon OR the earth are solid. Fair enough--that's NOT a question.

Peace and Love
JD

Fence pillows for sale, get your fence pillows...

It is interesting debating this for a lot of reasons, None of which we have 100% proof on. IMHO, Anyone who says they know how much the Earth weighs is just guessing. But I would think, that if I guessed it weighed 1 ton, then I could come real close on what the Moon should weigh. But that still would not determine if either or both were hollow. It would just confirm the ratio of masses.

Science is telling us that the moon is a billion years older that the Earth, This is what is starting the problem. Where did it come from. Seeing how our solar system is all about the same age, it makes sense it came from another or was formed long before we were. It could have just wandered in all on its own but that has problems also. Why is it so perfect and in just the right alignment. Also more problems. So we turn to Aliens did it..Deuem

Quote from: deuem on April 11, 2013, 05:38:35 PM
Why is it so perfect and in just the right alignment. Also more problems. So we turn to Aliens did it..Deuem

Yeah but there are more people stay similar stuff than just the crowd of "of oh it must be aliens".  What would be considered "fringe" or out right fantasy  and even some "myths" stories.  There are accounts that say, This moon we have is indeed alien and was brought here.   

There are also further myths and stories of legend about the earth having two  moons at one time.   


So there is more to the "possible" orgins  of the moon  then those who just merely claim, oh it must be aliens.   

for what its worth is all Im saying.....

Edward

So you typed all that just to say, "I don't have any evidence, you're right Pimander" in an attempt not to look wrong or bury my posts? :o

Expert at masking the fact that what I said was completely true.  I'm almost embarrassed for you.

Quote from: Anynonmouses on April 11, 2013, 04:44:51 PM
You see, I'm not out trying to perpetuate the spoon-fed paradigm,

Really? You support Greeer  nough said :P
::)

Quote from: Edward on March 24, 2013, 11:33:14 AM
You decide. It looks good.  I pasted the youtube information below on it and what was used.

Edward

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtyFQRkhW9g

------------------
Youtube comment/show more on what was posted.

Published on Sep 15, 2012

What the hell is going on up there?
Watch in full hd fullscreen 1080p.
Must read description as well:

While filming the moon on september the 15th 2012 with my telescope and Canon EOS 600D i spotted 13 orbs probably starting from a secret alien moonbase.
I edited the raw footage and used dirrentent color to get a better look of these objects.
The original raw footage you can see here: http://youtu.be/1XsYlI-q0hk

If you think it's fake just search on YouTube for "UFO starting from moon" or "UFO landing on moon".
There are a lot of more proof videos similar to this one. UFO Fleet 2013
-------------------------

Great Vid!!!
Please share any other footage you get.

Thanks,

ELESW1NE

Quote from: LSWONE on April 23, 2013, 07:35:33 PM


Great Vid!!!
Please share any other footage you get.

Thanks,

ELESW1NE

Yeah thats kinda interesting :D

I'm subbed to a guy in Melb's YT channel and he post's some really odd stuuf, and for an AM he try's hard to explain what he is doing.. good skywatcher :D

It is great footage.  Sorry for overstating the point that it doesn't prove the Moon is a hollow space ship built by aliens. :)

Ever consider this moon location as a stargate. A place where the open gate glows when sun light reacts on the dome but in the darkness remains hidden and transparent. I would enter the speculation water exist there in vast quantity.



(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16-31%20March%202013%20SNAPPY/Aristarcus_CL_02-600.png)

Quote from: Edward on March 24, 2013, 11:33:14 AM
You decide. It looks good.  I pasted the youtube information below on it and what was used.

Edward

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtyFQRkhW9g

------------------
Youtube comment/show more on what was posted.

Published on Sep 15, 2012

What the hell is going on up there?
Watch in full hd fullscreen 1080p.
Must read description as well:

While filming the moon on september the 15th 2012 with my telescope and Canon EOS 600D i spotted 13 orbs probably starting from a secret alien moonbase.
I edited the raw footage and used dirrentent color to get a better look of these objects.
The original raw footage you can see here: http://youtu.be/1XsYlI-q0hk

If you think it's fake just search on YouTube for "UFO starting from moon" or "UFO landing on moon".
There are a lot of more proof videos similar to this one. UFO Fleet 2013
-------------------------

Ok I have seen some additional footage assume from the same year as the one I posted here in 2012 around sept. 15 but the one I'm going to show here is of the same location but presumably a few  months after the Video I posted Originally up above.  There Area is virtually the same of where these "objects" come  out of but how they do and how they disperse is entirely different from what was originally seen prior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLf_Ee3WUJ8

Edward

How I see that photo of Aristarcus

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Aristarcus_CL_02dt600.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Aristarcus_CL_02dt600.jpg.html)

A different angle

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/aristarchus-schroters-valley600.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/aristarchus-schroters-valley600.jpg.html)

Deuem

Quote from: Gigas on April 24, 2013, 08:22:47 PM
Ever consider this moon location as a stargate. A place where the open gate glows when sun light reacts on the dome but in the darkness remains hidden and transparent. I would enter the speculation water exist there in vast quantity.



(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16-31%20March%202013%20SNAPPY/Aristarcus_CL_02-600.png)

Or maybe the Moon is Hollow and filled with Ice Water ... an Ice planet with a Silicon/Aluminium/Titanium Crust perhaps ?

C..

http://youtu.be/SIX8yoF1OB8

Have you kids seen this one before? Really grainy but it looks like there is something going on up there.

Elvis

http://youtu.be/fXXhVK49kVc

And who are these little guys? Found in the orbiter scans.

Elvis.

http://youtu.be/khEX4KTQrmI

Where they heading to one of these type of places?

Quote from: Gigas on April 24, 2013, 08:22:47 PM
Ever consider this moon location as a stargate. A place where the open gate glows when sun light reacts on the dome but in the darkness remains hidden and transparent. I would enter the speculation water exist there in vast quantity.

I do now Gigas with this video I just found.  This is what I initially thought when I first saw this new video I posted the other day  here I'll post again:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=4086.msg61454#msg61454


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLf_Ee3WUJ8

Quote from: Cosmic4life on June 10, 2013, 05:26:47 PM

Or maybe the Moon is Hollow and filled with Ice Water ... an Ice planet with a Silicon/Aluminium/Titanium Crust perhaps ?

C..

Or even one with a radiactive warmer core and liquid beneath ice?