The Moon Is Strange
Has an astral body as logic defying as our moon been discovered? The facts could be mistaken for fiction, if indeed they are facts.
That the subject is not widely and openly discussed in the public arena might appear odd. The moon is stranger than that if the data is to be believed. This being common knowledge we may ask ourselves why we were never taught those alleged facts when studying the solar system in school? The solar system will be the focus of another in-depth article. If what is read leaves you nonplussed; The data regarding the solar system is topped full with astoundingly contradictions.
The following information is documented and is claimed to be valid. The moon doesn’t rotate on its axis and shows the same side towards earth. No other planetary body at least in our solar system does that. It is simply inexplicable. It is the only astral body in our solar system that has a near perfect circular orbit. The moon’s centre of mass is about six thousand feet closer to earth than its geometric centre, which should result in a wobble, however the moon is more egg shaped.
The moon is believed to be much older than previously thought. Perhaps older than the earth or our system’s star. The earth is believed to be approximately 4.6 billion years old where the moon rocks were estimated at 5.3 billion years of age. Go figure. Though ageing sciences have been called into question, such a detail, regardless of time spans, calls into question numerous theories.
The chemical components on the dust beneath the rocks differs to that of the rocks. The consensus being that the rocks were not native to the planet. Planetary geology usually indicates that materials closer to the core are denser or heavier than those closer to the surface. This is not the case with the moon. The
abundance of titanium on the surface leads to speculation that these elements must have been brought to the surface, but they do not know how. The fact that they have been ‘brought’ to the surface leaves us with questions.
An extensive water vapour cloud covering a hundred square miles for fourteen hours was claimed recorded by sensing equipment on one of the lunar landings. Magnetised moon rocks have been discovered in spite of there being no magnetic field on the moon. A close encounter with another astral body is discounted as it is agreed that it would have ripped the moon apart.
Moon craters that originate internally suggest volcanic activity, however, the moon has not been thought to ever be hot enough for volcanos to exist. Mascons are large dense, circular and are found at forty miles beneath the moon’s maria. The disk shaped objects suggest artificial construction. It is found odd that these disk shapes appear centred beneath each huge maria.
Moonquakes are reported every year that are not attributed to meteor strikes. Soviet astronomer Nikolay A. Kozyrev of the Crimean Astrophysical observatory photographed a gaseous eruption near the Alphonsus crater on the moon. A reddish glow was detected for approximately half an hour. Astronomers from the Lowell Observatory later discovered glowing parts on the crests of Aristarchus region ridges in 1963. The observations have been periodical and repeat themselves as the moon moves closer to the earth. These are not believed to follow a natural phenomena pattern. There have been numerous reports of lights and flashes emitted from the moon at various locations. Flashes have been observed on the moon since 1540. One year before the documented lunar landing, over five hundred and seventy flashes or lights were observed on the moon.
The moon density data suggests hollow sections of the moon according to Nobel chemist prize winner Dr. Harold Urey. NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated in 1962 that the data suggested more of a hollow than homogeneous sphere. MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon said that the Lunar Orbiter experiments suggested the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow.
In 1962 the Apollo 12 crew ejected the ascent stage of their module. It crashed onto the surface of the moon with astonishing results. It was said that the moon reverberated like a bell for an hour. Similar yet greater phenomena occurred with Apollo 13. Seismic instruments recorded reverberations that lasted more than three hours and travelled to a depth of twenty-five miles. Leading again to hollow conclusion.
The crust proved unexpectedly hard. The astronauts had extreme difficulty drilling into the maria. It is composed of illuminate, a mineral with large quantities of titanium witch is commonly used on deep diving vessels.
All the former main theories for how the moon’s existence came about have been disproved as not possible in light of the discoveries.
The moon’s diameter and distance is simply too precise for the coincidences. Its precision is such to completely cover the sun during an eclipse. The sun is about four hundred times the size of the moon and four hundred times the distance from it. The sun and moon appear nearly the same size when viewed from the earth. The coincidence is perplexing.
An unusual artificial looking bridge between two craters has been verified by two independent scientific sources. It was thought incredible that such a thing could be naturally formed and last through all the ages the moon has existed.
In 1968 a one and half mile high obelisk like tower was discovered by Orbiter three. Dr. Bruce Cornet was convinced that no natural process could have explained the existence of the structure. The Sinus Media region tower climbs five miles from the lunar surface.
Throughout history there have been compelling correlations between moon phenomena and ancient sites. All the recorded and compiled data suggest the moon to logically be an astral ship. None of the data contradicts the theory. The moon has been slowing down the earth’s spin over time. It is estimated that an earth day would be six hours if it were not for the moon.
This list of strange facts about the moon is incomplete. NASA is a government and military body, state organisations are historically known for the concealment of knowledge and information. It would be illogical and foolish to wholeheartedly believe everything ‘establishments’ tell us. Deception and dishonesty is prevalent historic fact.
The Solar System Is Stranger Than The Moon
We may have just learnt that the moon is stranger than we had been taught. It is concerning that so much is simply not as we have been led to believe; from the sciences, history and even in the arts. Hamlet and Byron in poetic prose hinted at such oddities.
‘For there are stranger things in the heavens and upon the earth than are dreamt up in your philosophies.’
‘The truth is strange, stranger than fiction.’
A recent article shed light on the known yet not commonly disseminated peculiarities with moon data. As children we might have sat in awe as the planetarium took us on a journey through astronomical wonders. We would have had no notion about the mountains of solar system data that did not make sense. A primary source of university educational material states at the start that the data does not support theories. When the fish swim in the school, whom and what information will they be able to put their trust? It may be logical to question the validity of the academic community or the knowledge a certificate says is held. From an astrophysics curriculum book. One might need to re-read it several times before the gravity of the meaning and its repercussions settles.
‘THUS FAR WE HAVE SEEN THAT WE KNOW VERY LITTLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM.’
‘…ALL SUGGESTED ACCOUNTS OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM ARE SUBJECT TO SERIOUS OBJECTIONS. THE CONCLUSION IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE SUBJECT WOULD BE THAT THE SYSTEM CANNOT EXIST.’
The so named evolutionary solar system model is heavily flawed, it is interesting that most of us are blissfully uninformed of such a fact. The explanations given for the composition, behaviour and factual data make no sense. To call it a theory might be grossly unfair to the meaning of the word, or even that of postulation and hypothesis. More accurately; it should be called a fictional fantasy of the nonsensical kind. The church of science at times appears to have fanatical beliefs associated with that of a cult. Dissenters are ridiculed publicly for not towing the theoretical line or having the intelligence of academic acumen. When searching for truth; we may discover that the questions are infinitely more interesting than the currently unfathomable.
Establishment Scientism kept on telling us that the earth was ‘pear’ shaped or oval at its equator. The latest high resolution HD imaging from Russian satellites claims to show a near perfectly round sphere to the eye. Ok, so that might be a touch confusing, but this is a minor point only to frame the stream of uncomfortable facts.
In a nut shell; the current scientism model:
The solar system forms from a large swirling clouds of dust and gas, asteroids or planetesimals collide and form the planets on an ecliptic plane which forms from the anticlockwise rotation around the sun, except Pluto, demoted and promoted to planetary status. Closer to the sun equals hotter, no chance of gaseous, water vapour as well as rocky, the outer more inversely so. The stunning problem; it doesn’t work.
Problems with the scientism model:
How gas, dust and small rocks stick together can be modelled but, you cannot achieve that with planetoids or asteroids to form planets. The model claims that somehow asteroids acquire a gravitational field and form planets, they have no idea how this happens, it’s a postulation. Let’s look at the anomalies of each planet.
The planet closest to the sun has the highest density of all the solar planets. The problem being that it is too small to have the density it has within the discussed model. The absence of the large gravitational field means it should not be able to compact its planetary material to such a density. It is believed that over seventy percent of the planet has an iron core. The major problem with the data is that the solar model cannot account for the possibility of its density, it simply should not be so. Sometime later when Mariner 10 discovered that Mercury had a gravitational field whereas it should not. This produced a substantial problem. For a planet with a gravitational field that is billions of years old requires a moving molten core to create the field. All planets that have magnetic fields require molten cores. Thus, Mercury should have a molten core and not have the density or planetary data it produces. Because the planet is so small it should have cooled and frozen eons ago. As the core is solid, it should not have a magnetic field. The proposed explanations for this to conceivably occur are highly technical and subsequently make whole model implausible again.
The solar model would state that Venus should be quite similar to earth due to its size, mass and forming closely to earth from the same materials. Venus has one tectonic plate, a carbon dioxide atmosphere, clouds of concentrated sulphuric acid, a nine hundred degrees Fahrenheit temperature at ninety atmospheres of pressure. Venus is the hottest planet in the system as opposed to Mercury and has no magnetic field. It should according to the model. Venus’ planetary surface appears much younger than it should. The erosion and damage is not indicative under solar model definitions; that is to say with sulphuric acid, the degree of heat and conditions. It is very unlikely to have a craggy rock surface unless much younger than imagined. The planet also rotates in an alternate direction than it should. The proposed reason for the stark changes from its solar model are; bulge gravitational breaking change. There is no tidal bulge, it is near perfectly spherical. An asteroid hit it and it spun the wrong way; which is a similar proposal for some of the Mercury outlined anomalies. The problem is that the two degree of axial tilt seems far too small. As well as considering that the orbit is the most circular of all the solar planets, making it extremely unlikely or more correctly, having no evidence of a massive asteroid collision caused anomalies.
Our day lasts for twenty-four hours. There is no reason for it to be so in the solar system as days range from ten hours to approximately two-hundred days. What is the significance? If we rotated faster we would have violent winds, too slow and the massive temperature changes would likely harm current forms of life. The degree of our axial tilt allows for relative temperate seasons on a solar system scale. There is no reason for the tilt to be that favourable as axial tilts vary greatly in the solar system (refer to prior and later stated planetary temperature for comparison). The extremely favourable circular orbit gives relative climate stability. The breathable protective atmosphere found on earth in our solar system should not be necessarily so given the Venus generic data. Any fairly minor tilt one way or the other in that composition would result in either a similarly Venus surface condition or a frozen planet. The approximate seventy percent surface water so necessary for life should not be there given the solar model. In other words, Earth is too close to the sun to have so much water. Supposedly the Earth never used to have it. Yet again the postulation proposed is a big asteroid/ comet planetesimal covered in water hit it. So far the first three planets can only be explained by a perfect planetoid strike to cause the effect. Earth has a magnetic field much of life is dependent on, just as Mercury has one but shouldn’t, Venus doesn’t have one but should; Earth has one and there is no conventional reason that it should. The proposed dynamo field theory does not work for any of the planets thus far though it was postulated as a response to the Earthly field. Paraphrasing from a quote, ‘The method for geometric field generation remains an unsolved problem at the centre of the issue.’ The magnetic field problem becomes acute when it is stated that the recorded historical wild fluctuations in the field dictate a strong belief that the field could not be millions of years old. Though this leads to more questions that cannot be answered. This does not automatically substantiate a bipolar model belief system. What were we taught in school about magnetism, not what is now stated. ‘Magnetism is pretty much as puzzling now as it was when William Gilbert wrote Concerning Magnetism, Magnetic Bodies and The Great Magnet.’ We will bypass the moon as it is the subject of an earlier article.
Mars has been discovered to be a planet of substantial extremes. The guessed at former water erosion has been disproved in numerous places observed over time. The deep thermokarst leaves similarly looking evidence to that of water erosion. The atmosphere is too thin to sustain water and it would evaporate, i.e. No surface water. Water on Mars is physically impossible under the solar model. Postulation proposed. ‘Mars used to have a different atmosphere and water, but was hit by a giant asteroid.’ The massive asteroid guess gets a fourth strike. Supposed trace amounts of carbonates of limestone suggest water, but substantial amounts of chemicals that break down in water are found in tact. Though some data appears anomalous; the possibility of large surface water evidence is non existent. The asteroid postulation appears ever less likely. The evidence of water can have other explanations, given the contradictory evidence. We must be familiar with the NASA Mars hype we get to lead us to believe in a certain direction. Why the big rush to go there and bypass the Moon? Since 1970 all interest in the moon as evaporated as quickly as the Mars water postulation. To surmise, no real evidence of surface water, quite the opposite, as well as the materials dispelling prior water and the likely fictitious giant meteor strike.
The biggest of planets in our solar system has a ten hour planetary axial spin. It’s moving very fast for its size. The solar model of planetary growth due to random meteor strikes from the gaseous cloud cannot mathematically account for such a spin rate. Plausible spin rates due to random impact are calculated to be as much as once a week at most. Certainly not once a day or even ten hours for that matter. Only feasible postulation for the spin speed; an unaccounted, unknown unexplainable external force which goes against the solar model. Jupiter is baffling and next to nothing is known about how or where it could have been formed. Jupiter measurements continue to confound. Atmospheric composition that should be there is not. It is postulated that the gaseous giant should be composed of the solar model materials. It does not fit the model.
A brief look at Jupiter moon phenomena. Io has massive volcanic activity according to voyager data; this should not be the case in the solar model, i.e. A dead cold ancient solar body. Europa is the smoothest planet and completely frozen. Yet right beside it is Callisto, the most heavily cratered planet in the system. The solar model cannot account for them being so immensely different given their closeness. Both moons are about half ice, Europa has a core and Callisto does not. The fact that they are so dissimilar given the evidence; is not easily explained and certainly not by the solar model. Ganymed’s surface is a puzzle and like other planetoids has a magnetic field that should not be there. There is more anomalous data to explore regarding Jupiters’ moons.
Famous for being the ringed planet; these rings comprising debris, dust, rocks and some boulders are too young for the solar model. The former belief that they were formed at the time of the planet formation has been dropped. Their state, place and behaviour is not indicative of planetary aged formation. The postulated solution to this solar model problem; a planetoid strike. Barring Jupiter every anomaly thus far revealed is proposed to be explained by a planetoid, planetesimal or asteroid strike. The observed spoke effect and braiding of rings is anomalous and unexplainable in light of the data on ring behaviour.
Enceladus is a Saturn moon that shoots out massive geysers believed to be affecting the rings. Enceladus is said to be far too old to be doing this. Mimas a similar sized moon of Saturn does not reproduce the phenomena. Once again, planetary adjacent moons claimed to be formed in accordance with the solar model with completely different behaviour. Titan has a methane atmosphere which is problematic for a billions of years old planetoid as sunlight breaks up methane. The assumption would be that the only way to sustain a methane atmosphere is to be replenished by massive planetary methane seas. There is no subsequent evidence of this. The atmosphere, if any, should not be methane. The so named dancing moons of Saturn Janis and Epimetheus swap around, they switch places to be closer to Saturn. It is not known why.
A faintly ringed planet that also does not behave as it should. Rather than spin like the rest of the planets; it roles like a ball in its solar orbit. The proposed solution to this problem; yes, you’ve guessed, a massive astro planetary collision. Even a wild stretch of imagination cannot account for a collision that would cause the resulting spin that knocked it on its side. Uranus also has a relatively precise unexpected circular solar orbit. Uranus’ moons also orbit relative to the vertical axial. They orbit around the equator at near right angles to the ecliptic. If Uranus was tipped on its side, its current state is not accounted for in the solar model. Relative precise orbits are inexplicable; whereas haphazard ones would be expected. Mathematical models suggest the moons should not be there in their current and behavioural state.
All gaseous planets radiate more energy than they receive from the sun; Uranus does not. This is once again unexplained by the solar model. Beyond the bizarre, Uranus’ magnetic axis has an approximate sixty degree tilt relative to its rotational axis. It is not known why. The magnetic field does not line up with planet rotation, furthermore the axis is offset from the planet centre. Miranda is a Uranus moon with highly anomalous and inconsistent stark terrain changes with near geometrically formed borders between them. They defy natural causation and the solar model. The proposed answer; a large asteroid collision. For the collision proposal to function in the case of Miranda; it would need to be struck approximately five times, thus shatter, coalesce and repeat the times necessary. The problem is that the current features are extremely hard to explain regardless. The real reasons for Miranda’s existence remains unknown.
As an old cold and dead planet, being furthest from the sun in a cold section of the solar model; it radiates twice the energy received from the sun. A surface visible spot has altered since viewing started and its atmosphere changes are not indicative of a relatively old planet. It has anomalous magnetic field behaviour similar to Uranus. The discovery of two planets with similarly strange magnetic field behaviour in the current solar model is extremely unlikely. An important factor relating to the standard solar model; it cannot explain how two gaseous giants, that is Uranus and Neptune, could form at the outer edge of the solar model. The slow gravitational accretion would require more time than the probable existence of the solar system to produce both astro bodies. No scenarios can be produced to account for Uranus and Neptune.
The planetary escaped moon theory is not substantiated sufficiently. Pluto has several moons, one extremely large. It is undecided whether they are all Neptune escaped moons. Furthermore there is the comet anomaly regarding the standard solar model.
The Safronov calculations from the seventies makes clear that the standard solar model requirement for outer forming solar planets would require a time scale beyond reason. In summary, the standard solar model hardly, where it cannot in so many cases, account for the solar system, its bodies, behaviour and or composition. Fundamental questions of science remain unanswered and the theories border on the preposterous, yet you a student must pay, take an exam and provide ridiculous theories to attain a respected diploma.
Fanatical scientism’s accidental and deliberate delusion seems intrenched in society, and any who speak of inconsistencies that cannot be ignored are ridiculed regardless of their education, research and or findings.