Hidden Nature of the Moon

[Froglich]

"...The moon always shows us the same side, suggesting it's actually artificial....."

Tidally-locked moons are not only the norm, they are no observed examples in the solar system that aren't.

 

[feralimal]

"...The moon always shows us the same side, suggesting it's actually artificial....."

Tidally-locked moons are not only the norm, they are no observed examples in the solar system that aren't.

You've observed other moons to confirm, ie this is personal testimony? Or are you quoting Wikipedia as a source of truth here?

 

[Froglich]

You've observed other moons to confirm, ie this is personal testimony? Or are you quoting Wikipedia as a source of truth here?

If I were to claim, "Ravens are black," and you rejoined that they were some other color instead (let's say white), and chastised, "You've observed other ravens to confirm, ie this is personal testimony? Or are you quoting Wikipedia as a source of truth here?"

-- You know what I'm going to do? Ask you to show me a white raven, thereby subjecting you to your own standards of proof. What's good for the raven is good for the raptor, right?

Therefore: I will ask you to show me *one* moon in the entire solar system that is not tidally-locked, and expect standards of proof equivalent to what you expect of me. Pick any planet with moons (all planets from Earth outward have moons). Show me one moon that's dizzying around like a tucked-in iceskater wrapping up her routine.

~ ~ ~

And, since my honor was impugned, see here, wherein I write, "Tilting at Windmills in the Wikipedia Big Lie Factory", recounting my experiences as an editor there before moving on to more hospitable, less-spooky wikis).

 

[CathyHT]

The moon is 3300 miles up in the sky, 32 miles in diameter just as the Sun is. The moon is light. Illuminated plasma. Since space is not real - both bodies are in our system and in the middle is the fixed star (light) Polaris. All stupid, silly movies like Moonfall just are created by the Freemason World of Lies and Deception. They want us to believe in their stupid theories (which are just theories) which when basic logic and critical thinking is applied the stories, theories and evidence fall apart. They think we are dumb, blind and cannot see the veil has been pulled over our eyes. Nice post though. I will give the movie a pass.

I am in agreement with you. Do you have any more posts I could read?

 

[feralimal]

If I were to claim, "Ravens are black," and you rejoined that they were some other color instead (let's say white), and chastised, "You've observed other ravens to confirm, ie this is personal testimony? Or are you quoting Wikipedia as a source of truth here?"

-- You know what I'm going to do? Ask you to show me a white raven, thereby subjecting you to your own standards of proof. What's good for the raven is good for the raptor, right?

Therefore: I will ask you to show me *one* moon in the entire solar system that is not tidally-locked, and expect standards of proof equivalent to what you expect of me. Pick any planet with moons (all planets from Earth outward have moons).

That's not how logic works. If I say I have a dinosaur in my pocket, you don't have to disprove that. I would need to prove my claim.

Here, I'm not making any claims, so it's not for me to disprove anything. For what it's worth, I don't even know what those lights in the sky are, whether they are even physical objects. I certainly haven't seen moons on other planets. Obviously I haven't confirmed that they are are tidally locked.

I am somewhat familiar with what agencies such as NASA say, but then I have seen lots of their own evidence that proves that the footage they give us is trickery. If my understanding of their footage is right - that they are merrily misrepresenting reality in some cases - why would I then trust them to faithfully relay other information? Especially when I cannot verify any of it for myself? How could I know that such-and-such imagery was of a tidally locked moon and not a generated graphic?

Anyway, if you can't confirm something and can't explain to me how I verify it for myself (in this case the existence of tidally locked moons), that's fine. But that idea/story cannot be considered as knowledge to you or me - it's just a story.

You can say that 'Wikipedia says all moons are tidally locked'. That too is not knowledge, but you at least would be honestly relaying information, rather than overstating what you think you know. If you did that, we could then discuss whether Wikipedia is faithfully expressing reality or not, and you would not feel that I was personally attacking you.

 

[Froglich]

The moon is 3300 miles up in the sky, 32 miles in diameter just as the Sun is. The moon is light. Illuminated plasma.

Through the eyepiece of a mid-grade telescope, the lunar surface is in rather crisp 4k quality (aside from atmospheric shimmer). An interesting sort of plasma that manifests as an incredibly-detailed solid object rather than a hazy blob under magnification. (Then there's the matter of keeping the tides synched to this illusion and keeping it running for thousands of years without a glitch cluing in the savages below.) Meanwhile, a solar illuminator only 3300 miles away somehow manages to illuminate the planetary hemisphere under it without wonky parallax oddities giving the fakery away, or how an object only 32 miles wide can cast enough light to warm a hugely efficient black-body radiator (the Earth) up to a livable temperature without either immediately gamma-cooking everyone to death or instantly frying a hole in the backdrop of the celestial greenscreen as if it were a carbon arc floodlight inserted into a table-lamp.

<eyebrow lift><totally not the setting of Scrapped Princess>

For all the work our alien lizard overlords would have to put into building such an insanely complicated 15,000 mile wide sky-sphere terrarium to cocoon their full-sized, 7800m diameter ant-farm, you'd think it'd be a lot easier and cheaper to just haul in a real moon from one of the outer planets and park it in orbit around this one. After all, if a two-stroke diesel will get the job done, you don't drag a barge down the river tethered to a squadron of fighter-jets (even if that would look totally baller in a Fast and the Furious sequel).

That's not how logic works. If I say I have a dinosaur in my pocket, you don't have to disprove that. I would need to prove my claim.

Nevertheless, presumably you have a some basis for objecting over what most would consider innocuous conjecture. (We're talkin' about a big, gray, inanimate rock here; it's not as if some cabal spokescritter were bloviating the latest excuses for streamlined looting on TV and set off our Spidey-senses fine-tuned for discerning high-grade bullshit.)

You can say that Wikipedia says all moons are tidally locked. That too is not knowledge, but you at least would be honestly relaying information, rather than overstating what you think you know.

I suppose Aristarchus' "On the Sizes and Distances" is out of the question, since those cads at Wikipedia made articles for him and it. The bastards!

 

[Citezenship]

I get that, you're pattern matching. I think there's a value to that.

I probably take an even more hard line that you, without personal verification all the rest is in an assumption. Historical accounts could be faked, people can be tricked en masse (as we have seen these past 2 years), people will create volumes of work on things they have no personal knowledge of, etc. To me, 'information' is an industry and means of control; it has only a incidental association with truth.

This applies even more so to metaphysical information, which at best is an account of someone else's experience. The religious accounts might be someone's written testimony, then formally written up into doctrine... But I don't know, and worse I don't think there is a way for this info to ever be known. If one were able to gain some personal experience of some metaphysical thing perhaps it is possible to convince oneself.

Fwiw, I think those things where one can say "I know" are very few (even if we use those words a lot). I personally recognise 3 types of things are commonly said to be known: general facts about the world (eg historical facts), info from experience (current experience and memory) and conceptual principles (eg the principle of how a screw and screwdriver works). I don't think we can actually know general facts (unless we have personal experience of the event); I think we can only know our current personal experience (but our own memories are fallible and can be implanted/altered). Conceptual principles (logic reason) seem to be the best (least disputable) when it comes to knowledge, imo.

Outside of ones own experience one has to subscribe to a trustworthy source, once one begins to question the validity of such materials our world becomes much smaller.

This is one of the major faults with all written historical artefacts, they are based in the realm of trust, this leaves us in a very vulnerable position that is exacerbated through training(schooling etc) that trains us to accept an authority outside of our own experience and to separate the mind from trusting our own intuition that is more often than not screaming "no that can't be right".

This is much like the trapping of souls talked about in this thread because most base the actions of the now on a fear of the future based upon the assumptions of how the past has played out, this in my view serves as the greatest trick as it distracts us from what is right here right now.

So experience should be at the top of our list, all other things can be integrated or dismissed based on if it can be verified through experience.

I don't really now what my point is here or if it is a contribution to this thread but it felt like it has a place here and now.

 

[trismegistus]

If I were to claim, "Ravens are black," and you rejoined that they were some other color instead (let's say white), and chastised, "You've observed other ravens to confirm, ie this is personal testimony? Or are you quoting Wikipedia as a source of truth here?"

-- You know what I'm going to do? Ask you to show me a white raven, thereby subjecting you to your own standards of proof. What's good for the raven is good for the raptor, right?

Therefore: I will ask you to show me *one* moon in the entire solar system that is not tidally-locked, and expect standards of proof equivalent to what you expect of me. Pick any planet with moons (all planets from Earth outward have moons). Show me one moon that's dizzying around like a tucked-in iceskater wrapping up her routine.

~ ~ ~

And, since my honor was impugned, see here, wherein I write, "Tilting at Windmills in the Wikipedia Big Lie Factory", recounting my experiences as an editor there before moving on to more hospitable, less-spooky wikis).

After reviewing this thread thoroughly - It does not appear as if anyone's intention is to impugn your honor.

This thread's topic is taking the theories expounded on by this film and filling in the gaps with the history of theoretical moon constructs. Saying that "all moons in the solar system are tidal locked" and asking to give examples of moons in the solar system that aren't tidal locked isn't really on-topic to this discussion. If anything it guarantees that this thread will spin out of control addressing strawman topics not related to the thread. There are plenty of moon-related anomalies that don't make a whole lot of sense even when seen through the "mainstream" lens - tidal lock included. For example - even if what you say is true (that other solar systems exist, with other planets, with moons that are tidal locked) - it doesn't thoroughly explain why all of these objects are tidal locked. Even among the mainstream opinions that I was able to find there is still debate.

Moons with synchronous rotation in our solar system

Some moons are tidally locked, others are not. There are several factors that lead to or militate against tidal locking:

• The distance at the planet about which the moon orbits. The time needed to tidally lock a moon is proportional to the distance at which the moon orbits the planet, raised to the sixth power. Close-in moons tend to be tidally locked while more remote moons tend not to be.
• How long the moon has been orbiting the planet. Most of the regular moons (moons that formed along with the planet formed) are tidally locked. Moons that have been captured recently (a hundred thousand years ago qualifies as very recent) tend not to be tidally locked. It takes a good amount of time for a planet to tidally lock a moon.
• How massive the planet is. The time needed to tidally lock a moon is inversely proportional to the square of the mass of the planet. The giant planets have a large number of tidally locked moons. The Earth has one tidally locked moon, Mars has two, and Pluto has one. (Pluto is also tidally locked with Charon.)
• How large the moon is. The time needed to tidally lock a moon is roughly inversely proportional to the square of the moon's radius. A planet can create larger torques on larger moon. Large moons are roughly spherical while smaller moons tend to have a potato-like shape (or even more irregular). These factors mean that large moons get tidally locked sooner than do small moons.

There are other factors, and there are exceptions. One example is Hyperion, a 270 km wide moon of Saturn, which orbits Saturn at less than half the distance as does the much larger Iapetus. Yet Hyperion is not tidally locked while Iapetus is. One reason is size and shape. Iapetus is fairly large and is thus more or less spherical. Hyperion is roughly half of the potato radius. Potato shaped objects have funky rotations. Another factor is that Titan, Saturn's largest moon, has a strong influence on Hyperion orbit and rotation. Hyperion's rotation is chaotic.

So there is far more to this topic than just "every moon in every solar system is tidal locked" just from a cursory search. But to make my earlier point clear - this still has nothing to with the topic at hand which is specifically related to the big white ball that comes out at night on Earth.

On another moderation note - we can respectfully disagree about what the moon actually is, and I don't think it is completely offtopic to criticize alternative theories about the moon in this thread. Any comments that attempt to troll, bait, or otherwise spin the conversation offtopic will be removed.


EDIT:

To make a relevant contribution to this thread- I strongly recommend anyone interested in alternative moon theories check out this book

Who Built the Moon?

I think it is one of the best compilations of moon anomalies one can find out there. I can't find a free online version, so you will likely just have to pick up a copy.

 

[Froglich]

Moons with synchronous rotation in our solar system
"...Some moons are tidally locked, others are not...."

Aside from Hyperion (that author's headless-clown corner-case), all satellites in "regular" orbits (roughly circular, as opposed to markedly elliptical) seen so far are tidally-locked. This is to be expected, as any rotating body under the gravitational influence of another will rotate slower and slower due to tidal-braking, with locked being the end-state. (Hyperion currently being in 3:4 orbital resonance with unusually closely adjacent-orbit Titan suggests that Hyperion's freewheeling days are already numbered...although I would speculate that it's more likely to wander too close to Titan and either be punted out of the Saturn system entirely, or sent into another collision trajectory.)

To sum up, the original statement that drew my attention, "...The moon always shows us the same side, suggesting it's actually artificial....." cannot stand for that reason since "showing the same side" is the norm as established by 56 out of 57 "regular moon" cases. --If the moon really were artificial, criteria "suggesting" it should be abnormalities, not normalities.

 

[trismegistus]

If the moon really were artificial, criteria "suggesting" it should be abnormalities, not normalities.

That is fair enough. In that case let me list out some true abnormalities that I don't think have been discussed in this thread yet:

• The moon's center of gravity isn't where it should be, instead it is off-center from its expected gravitational center. Even mainstream sources can only speculate as to why this is the case, where anomalies are documented but paid little lip service as to how this could happen.
• The moon has uneven mass distribution, heavier on the near side. Again - mainstream arguments say this is due to the effect of tidal lock, but it is a theory just as much as anything else.
• While the circumference and width of impact craters on the moon wildly vary in size, their depth does not. No crater exceeds approximately 3400 meters in depth before it is "stopped" by something. The mainstream explanation of this is essentially "gravity"
• The moon is lacking in density - it should be heavier than it actually is.
• The moon makes its own water

Some further, though perhaps looser associations:

The Priestesses of historical descendants of the ancient Bee Goddess -- Demeter, Rhea, Cyble -- were called Melissae, the ancient Latin word for bees. The Bible mentions a ruler and prophetess of ancient Israel called Deborah, the "Queen Bee", her Priestesses were known as Deborahs as well. Some say that the Priestesses of the Moon Goddess were called bees because 'it was believed that all honey came from the Moon, the hive whose bees were the stars.

Source: Bee Goddess

More on Cybele found on this site:
SH Archive - Diana of Ephesus, or Artemis to the ancient Greeks
SH Archive - Ancient Genetics Factory: The Temple of Artemis

Hyperion has been shown to posses "Honeycomb"-like qualities

Throughout ancient history we find repeated use of the beehive motif as representing the cycle of life, the building of a strong structure, and unity. The moon is just as popular a motif in ancient times, both have been venerated by many cultures in the past. Now to take things squarely into the speculative:

If you were part of a highly advanced race of beings who existed on Earth and had knowledge of a cyclical cataclysm - what would you do? How do you ensure that civilization would continue afterwards? You couldn't build a shelter on Earth - that would be counterproductive. You would want a structure that is near earth, but not too far away to make travel difficult. You would need it to be tidally locked, to ensure that it existed in harmony with earth's rotation. You would need it be extremely strong, also. Well it just so happens that a honeycomb structure is objectively the strongest possible design for protecting against anything, including impacts. With a strong layer of protection, you can build your infrastructure underneath in order to protect whoever needs it - hence the uneven distribution of mass, and relatively low density due to the honeycomb structure. You would need it to generate its own water, in order to survive and prosper while waiting out the cataclysm.

Examine the symbol of the crescent moon as portrayed in ancient times. Apply the esoteric knowledge of the moon as the "rebirth" of our civilization after a cataclysm. Is this a moon with a star in it? Or is this actually representing a structure literally inside the moon? It is an interesting thought to entertain, at the very least.

 

[feralimal]

Nevertheless, presumably you have a some basis for objecting over what most would consider innocuous conjecture. (We're talkin' about a big, gray, inanimate rock here; it's not as if some cabal spokescritter were bloviating the latest excuses for streamlined looting on TV and set off our Spidey-senses fine-tuned for discerning high-grade bullshit.)

Firstly, I don't consider it innocent conjecture. Framing the world and our position in it is a potentially key control mechanism. It supports the idea that our situation is just like one of so many billions of other planets, in so many billions of other galaxies. Ie it's just a random and meaningless occurrence - which is a disempowering thought for the individual to believe - we can never understand our purpose here as there is none. An alternative explanation could be that we are at the center of an intentional creation, with a purpose and aim - which may make the individual feel as if there is a value to their actions, that they need to take care. The point I am making is that if we cannot even conceive of certain empowering ideas, that our 'scientific' outlook means we instantly dismiss them, then we are waylaid from even seeking what might be our higher purpose. I'm not saying that we do have a higher purpose - I don't know - but if you train people not to even ask the right questions, that is powerful.

(As an aside, the idea of science being somehow better than religion is quite funny to me, especially when the scientific method is ditched, with no personal verification of evidence, except that of proven liars, is provided. Parroting unverified stories and calling them 'knowledge', whilst sneering at others that don't accept the consensus view is the worst of religious dogma - hybris! These sort of stories (space, viruses/vaccines, evolution, big bang, etc) are the foundational mythology of science though.)

Also, do you realise that there are alternative ways to describe the solar system observations btw? Take a look at: Tychos.space
I understand that this explanation addresses problems relating to the Copernican model. I don't think it addresses tidal locking, but there's enough there to make me think that the official understanding fails to explain things satisfactorily even within its own terms - the explanations of the observations are not the simplest.

Further to this, you assume the moon is a rock. Why? Perhaps you believe this because astronauts landed there? I don't - to me all that is just a story provided by proven liars. All I can say is that there is a light and we call it the moon. Some people believe it is a rock. I guess if they saw a picture of a rock they would say that was a rock too...

If we dismiss the stories, and try to go from personal experience, I find many issues with the moon and the explanations we are provided. Tidally locked is one bizarre observation. That it is perceived to be the same size as the sun is another. That an eclipse's shadow is smaller not bigger than the purported size of the moon is another - the shadow can surely only be bigger. Apparently only the sea has tides but not lakes (tides are driven by the moon) ie a smaller body of water is harder to move (does salt have something to do with it?) The moon looks see through sometimes. It is lit as brightly at the edges as at the center (unlike a billiard ball which is brighter in the center where more light is reflected directly to us, than at the edges) - ie reflects light like a plate not a sphere. The craters are all circular, no glancing hits - just 90° impacts apparently.... and the meteorites that caused them must have passed right through the earth to cause them. Etc.

Anyway, I see lots of problems with the provided story: I have no idea whether all other 'moons' are also 'tidally locked' - it just sounds like an additional supportive story to me, the provided moon story does not correlate strongly with my experience, with no way for me to prove or disprove the claims of a round rock, with value for those running the story in misleading us as they misdirect our belief increasing our dependence on their unverifiable expertise/lies.

Finally, I'll post this very interesting post I read recently, that provides an alternative explanation of satellites and the iss:
Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$ - Page 105 - Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

I don't believe what I am told.

 

[Magnetic]

I have to say that 99.9% of the commentary here does not refer to the movie "Moon Fall" at all. So this is all misdirection because it does not address the film. We have categories of subject manner to place certain subjects into boxes of meaning that can be interpreted but since there are no comments on the film itself then all comments here are off topic and should be in another catagory like moon lore, Steiner, Blavatsky, etc. Please move this thread to occult moon musings or whatever you like but these comments did not reference the film so they don't belong here. This film's monster moon protagonist is graphene oxide and is alerted to the spaceship because his CELL PHONE was on.

 

[dreamtime]

I have to say that 99.9% of the commentary here does not refer to the movie "Moon Fall" at all. So this is all misdirection because it does not address the film. We have categories of subject manner to place certain subjects into boxes of meaning that can be interpreted but since there are no comments on the film itself then all comments here are off topic and should be in another catagory like moon lore, Steiner, Blavatsky, etc. Please move this thread to occult moon musings or whatever you like but these comments did not reference the film so they don't belong here. This film's monster moon protagonist is graphene oxide and is alerted to the spaceship because his CELL PHONE was on.

True. Renamed thread title, and moved to an appropriate subforum.

 

[Quiahuitl]

Through the eyepiece of a mid-grade telescope, the lunar surface is in rather crisp 4k quality (aside from atmospheric shimmer)

Maybe you can help me with something I've been studying for 15 years now.

The Sun and Moon are both high in the sky at an elevation of approximately 30 degrees. The Moon is exactly at its waxing half phase, so the Sun is to the right of it and they are separated by an azimuthal separation of 90 degrees.

The sky appears to rotate clockwise to an observer in the Northern Hemisphere (I'm in England), so there is a moment when both Sun and Moon appear to be at exactly the same elevation.

At this moment, what is the orientation of the light/dark terminator line across the Moon?

EDIT I think the answer is 'Vertical.'

 

[intothevoid]

I had a dream about 10 years ago; I was standing in the central square of my town in England looking up at the night sky and many pieces of the moon were falling down (on fire) through the sky above. That was all I saw but somehow I knew it was pieces of the moon.

I did some research a few years ago and it turns out the US govt supposedly had a secret plan to nuke the moon (and destroy it). I have a US tv news clip discussing this saved. Can't find it on YT now.

There's also USAF project A119 - set off nuke on moon for research and as a show of force.. Project A119 - Wikipedia

I'm not entirely convinced the moon is solid but it looks like a ball. It's odd there don't seem to be many meteor impacts visible form earth considering there's no atmosphere. Wouldn't you see big dust clouds even from relatively small objects impacting the surface?

 

[Safranek]

Someone posted two interesting links in the german forum on the corresponding thread.

The first is a remote viewing session, that was since deleted from the original channel (supposedely because the remote viewers were too shocked by their own discoveries). The remote viewers discover a soul-control system that steals our energy and recycles our souls:

Since the video was deleted due to a copyright strike, here is a copy:

Upload files for free - Moksha Remotely Viewed by Four Viewers in Blind Study.mp4 - ufile.io

 

[AthroposRex]

I have to say that 99.9% of the commentary here does not refer to the movie "Moon Fall" at all. So this is all misdirection because it does not address the film. We have categories of subject manner to place certain subjects into boxes of meaning that can be interpreted but since there are no comments on the film itself then all comments here are off topic and should be in another catagory like moon lore, Steiner, Blavatsky, etc. Please move this thread to occult moon musings or whatever you like but these comments did not reference the film so they don't belong here. This film's monster moon protagonist is graphene oxide and is alerted to the spaceship because his CELL PHONE was on.

Dang nice catch, I watched this disaster of a movie and watched that part, but was preoccupied with tearing the scene apart because the graphene oxide could sense the phone but apparently missed the electric flashlight they were shining at it.

 

[busy.baci]

I had a dream about 10 years ago; I was standing in the central square of my town in England looking up at the night sky and many pieces of the moon were falling down (on fire) through the sky above. That was all I saw but somehow I knew it was pieces of the moon.

I just had an apocalyptic dream last night. The whole world turned up side down and the sky literally felled down during it. People I was talking to in my dream were not paying attention of what I was saying, just as usual, but when the frigging cattle started to run away as mad, people on my dream started asking me more.
I told them the earth was about to be chopped into pieces and many of those were about to go vertical with the buildings attached to them. They were like: "Oh my god, we're going to die!" I told them to shut up because everyone was going to die in a very angry manner.

And then I just woke up in a shiny Sunday morning, relieving me from my dream.

 

[TurpinHero]

I had a dream about 10 years ago; I was standing in the central square of my town in England looking up at the night sky and many pieces of the moon were falling down (on fire) through the sky above. That was all I saw but somehow I knew it was pieces of the moon.

I did some research a few years ago and it turns out the US govt supposedly had a secret plan to nuke the moon (and destroy it). I have a US tv news clip discussing this saved. Can't find it on YT now.

There's also USAF project A119 - set off nuke on moon for research and as a show of force.. Project A119 - Wikipedia

I'm not entirely convinced the moon is solid but it looks like a ball. It's odd there don't seem to be many meteor impacts visible form earth considering there's no atmosphere. Wouldn't you see big dust clouds even from relatively small objects impacting the surface?

One summer evening in 1963, at my after school Astronomy Club meeting, (which was about the moon as we observed it,) I asked the teacher who ran the club... 'With the whole surface of the moon covered in craters, caused, as you have said, by asteroid/debris impact, why haven't there been any reports/photos of ongoing impacts throughout recent history, especially now, when we have many private telescopes, like our own club's, watching the moon?
And some of those craters are hundreds of miles across that must have been caused by impacts of massive pieces of debris, didn't such impacts affect the moons trajectory (my word for it then)?
Answer given to first question - 'because such impacts happened millions of years ago (missing the point completely).' and to question two
' the effects of those impacts have given us the moon and its orbit as it now is.' Case for him, closed, for me, left me still asking the same question.
The teacher was no lightweight, he once brought his old friend from University, Patrick Moore (who was staying with him at the time), in to talk to us. Mostly about his tv programme The Sky At Night.
Interesting thread, thank you for it.

 

[inthefade]

I don't buy that the moon even physically exists.