re: Well, the Moon Missions MUST BE FAKE!

quote:

---

The ability to have open discussions about any topic a great mark of intellegnce.

---

Not really. It's a pleasant thought but no measure of intelligence. I've known many average intellects who can have an open discussion about many subjects and entertain an idea without accepting it. It's like the stupid cliche about insanity being repetitive acts expecting a different outcome. It's simply not the definition of insanity.

Maybe what you see from some of us, rather than a lack of intellectual ability, is a current lack of patience for fun and entertaining, but ultimately fruitless hypotheses when it seems flat earth and other stupidity is growing trendy.

quote:

---

simple discussion

---

This is not a simple discussion.

This is an outlandish proposition.

Before it can be given respect it must be dignified with some sort of rational substantiating statement.

Links are ok for substantiating a stetememnt. But making an outlandish proposition and requiring another to search thru a series of links for proof is not acceptable dialog protocol.

quote:

---

Dude. The existence of the moon has been explained by science if you want scientific answers. And it aligns with the theory that the moon is as old as the earth. I’ll give you a hint... there is a reason many of the rocks on the moon that were brought back by the Apollo missions closely resemble those on earth.

---

Well aware. Postulated/theorized are better terms...

There are multiple theories with the giant impact theory being the most accepted

https://www.space.com/19275-moon-formation.html

quote:

---

How Was the Moon Formed?
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | November 15, 2017 08:24pm ET

---

quote:

---

Giant impact hypothesis

The prevailing theory supported by the scientific community, the giant impact hypothesis suggests that the moon formed when an object smashed into early Earth. Like the other planets, Earth formed from the leftover cloud of dust and gas orbiting the young sun. The early solar system was a violent place, and a number of bodies were created that never made it to full planetary status. One of these could have crashed into Earth not long after the young planet was created.

Known as Theia, the Mars-sized body collided with Earth, throwing vaporized chunks of the young planet's crust into space. Gravity bound the ejected particles together, creating a moon that is the largest in the solar system in relation to its host planet. This sort of formation would explain why the moon is made up predominantly of lighter elements, making it less dense than Earth — the material that formed it came from the crust, while leaving the planet's rocky core untouched. As the material drew together around what was left of Theia's core, it would have centered near Earth's ecliptic plane, the path the sun travels through the sky, which is where the moon orbits today.

---

quote:

---

Although this is the most popular theory, it is not without its challenges. Most models suggest that more than 60 percent of the moon should be made up of the material from Theia. But rock samples from the Apollo missions suggest otherwise.

"In terms of composition, the Earth and moon are almost twins, their compositions differing by at most few parts in a million," Alessandra Mastrobuono-Battisti, an astrophysicist at the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, told Space.com. "This contradiction has cast a long shadow on the giant-impact model."

---

So the leading theory states that 2 giant impact occured leading to the formation of the moon (1 wasn't enough, so they theorized another impact to satisfy the theory...)

In part leading to statements like below:




Full quote:

quote:

---

“The Moon is bigger than it should be, apparently older than it should be and much lighter in mass than it should be. It occupies an unlikely orbit and is so extraordinary that all existing explanations for its presence are fraught with difficulties are none of them could be considered remotely watertight.”

---

Back to the article

quote:

---

Capture theory

Perhaps Earth's gravity snagged a passing body, as happened with other moons in the solar system, such as the Martian moons of Phobos and Deimos. Under the capture theory, a rocky body formed elsewhere in the solar system could have been drawn into orbit around Earth. The capture theory would explain the differences in the composition of Earth and its moon. However, such orbiters are often oddly shaped, rather than being spherical bodies like the moon. Their paths don't tend to line up with the ecliptic of their parent planet, also unlike the moon.

Although the co-formation theory and the capture theory both explain some elements of the existence of the moon, they leave many questions unanswered. At present, the giant impact hypothesis seems to cover many of these questions, making it the best model to fit the scientific evidence for how the moon was created.

---

My speculation is in line with the capture theory (with the obvious difference being the artifical etiology). My speculation would account for the inconsistencies with what is italicized below.

The book linked in my original post in the thread argues that material could have been extracted from the earth to bolster the structure (bearing in mind we would be talking about a group capable of amazing technological prowess)

I've been thinking that for a while.....all done on a soundstage in Burbank.

Pearl Harbor was staged.....just ask the Germans

Gulf of Tonkin was faked as well (probably the truth)

and so was 9/11 just ask Charlie Sheen

Juan Williams said that S Curry attended Davidson 4 years. I may well misheard this but I believe he said so today on 'the five'

quote:

---

Juan Williams said that S Curry attended Davidson 4 years. I may well misheard

---

You're too lazy to just search it real quick for yourself? You just gobble up whatever the media says?

I think about my Grand Father. He was a wonderful man. He also believed the moon landing was fake. Grand Pa passed away about four months after the first moon landing but went to his grave believing it was fake. That was in 1969. With all due respect to my Grand Father, hearing anybody with that notion in 2018 is mind boggling.

quote:

---

quote:
“The Moon is bigger than it should be, apparently older than it should be and much lighter in mass than it should be. It occupies an unlikely orbit and is so extraordinary that all existing explanations for its presence are fraught with difficulties are none of them could be considered remotely watertight.”

---

There are a lot of 'should' in that which sounds more like opinions in search of a fantastic theory. Construction by aliens from materials mined on earth is less "remotely watertight" than straightforward physics?

How on earth can the moon be older than it "should" be? It was formed soon after the rest of the rocky planets. Why shouldn't it seem old - and how young 'should' it be? and why 'should' it be that young?

Lighter in mass than it should be?? It was formed by crustal material blasted off the earth - the heavier earth materials had already settled to the mantle. Straightforward.

Unlikely orbit?? How so? what orbit would be more likely? The moon started out much closer to earth than now and tidal forces are continuing to slow its orbital velocity as well as the earth's rotational velocity. It is a great coincidence that it now subtends the same optical angle as does the earth but the coincidence is that this is the precise epoch where there are intelligent beings on earth to notice.

quote:

---

Under the capture theory, a rocky body formed elsewhere in the solar system could have been drawn into orbit around Earth. The capture theory would explain the differences in the composition of Earth and its moon.

---

Now THAT would be a great coincidence.

quote:

---

There are multiple theories with the giant impact theory being the most accepted

---

so - the science is settled??

Hey Seth:
We have these thingys called "satellites".
They go up into outerspace and take pictures and stuff.

The Russians have these thingys called "satellites".
They go up into outerspace and take pictures and stuff.

They send back the same images they have for 40+ years



Kind of like me claiming Seth Curry doesn't exist because "he's only on TV."

quote:

---

If Alex Jones had said this you guys would be eating it up, fitting it into all of your other "deep state" narratives.

---

Lefties still cant figure it out. please continue this ignorance. Trump a shoe in 2020