Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue May 18, 2021 3:47 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 
Who Built the Moon? 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Awesome


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 951
Thanks: 43
Thanked: 561 times in 419 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Who Built the Moon?
Image

I am currently reading this book. I read an earlier one called "Civilization One" by the same authors. I call this "crankism." I don't mean that to be insulting. There is a difference between a crank and a kook. A kook is just a nutjob who tries to force their insane ideas on others and, when they succeed, the results are disastrous. Marjorie Taylor Green is a kook. A crank in contrast is someone whose ideas are "out there" but they are interesting and merit discussion. Even if you don't buy their conclusions, you learn a lot by studying up on their ideas.

Cranks are generally harmless but kooks are dangerous. As an example, Gavin Menzies is a crank who posits that the Chinese circumnavigated and mapped the earth in 1428. It's an interesting idea and he introduces you to various features of the earth that may have been left behind by this Chinese voyage. Even if you don't believe that this voyage took place, you learn about these strange anomalous features as well as the odd maps used by European explorers that had places on them that weren't supposedly discovered yet and so on. By the time you're done reading, you're not so sure the voyage didn't really happen and even if it didn't, there's a lot of stuff that still has to be explained because conventional histories don't even account for them. A kook, the other hand, calls the coronavirus "kung-flu" at rallies, gets wild applause, and then nutjobs are going out into the streets attacking anyone who looks Chinese because "you brought this virus here." One celebrates the Chinese for their inventive genius, the other condemns them for something they had no control over.

Cranks often garner a dedicated audience but their ideas stay confined among that audience and no one gets hurt. Kooks try to forced their ideas on the mainstream or try to legislate them into our lives where they are not wanted and people don't react to that very well. It would be folly for people to put Menzies' 1428 voyage into history texts--at least yet. Some people have no interest in 1428 and they have a choice to remain ignorant of it. Nobody is going to legislate it into their lives. If someday the voyage is proven to have taken place then, fine, we'll put it in the history books. Until then, keep in its designated corner where people who choose to debate it can do so without bothering anyone else.

"Who Built the Moon" is book for the crankists. I must say, just reading the introductory matter is an education in how the moon orbits, how the phases work and how ancient peoples both regarded it and tracked its movements. It's worth reading just for that. But Knight and Butler take it further:

-How is it possible, they ask, that the moon should mimic the sun's movements so precisely and in reverse, no less? If you think about it, it shouldn't be possible.
-Not only does it mimic the sun in reverse, its disc is the same size as the sun's to observers on the ground. Why is the moon so big in relation to the earth? No other moon in the solar system is a quarter the size of the planet it orbits. They are tiny in comparison--1/80th the size. How did this happen?
-Why is it that the moon vibrates like a gong when struck? No other celestial body we know of does this that we know of. It should be impossible UNLESS the moon is hollow! But if it is hollow, it can't be natural.
-Where exactly did the moon come from? It seems to be exactly the age of the earth BUT its rocks are older than any found on earth. Earth is about 4.5 billion years old but the oldest rocks we have are about 3.5 billion years old but moon rocks are 4.5 billion years old. Why the billion-year difference?
-One thing we notice of the moon's composition is that it is the same stuff we find in the earth's crust but not in the mantle or core. It's as though something hit the earth and blew off part of its crust to form the moon. That's interesting to posit because it explains something about the earth that we have observed on no other planet: continental drift. All other planets' land is locked in place but the earth's land is sliding around the surface of the planet. Did this happen because something struck the earth removing a huge amount of the crust producing huge gaps? One thing we notice is that if we were to take the moon's mass and distribute it over the earth, it would be enough to eliminate the drift and fill in the oceans. Is this how our oceans formed?

And I'm just about a quarter of the way through the book. The authors also discuss how ancient societies created the megalithic yard and why. They uncover some queer information about where Stonehenge and Avebury are located where they are even though it must be coincidence and yet it cannot be. They point out that Thomas Jefferson devised his own measuring system that has astonishing results for calculating the size of the earth. Where did he get it? Where did Jonathan Swift get his information found in "Gulliver's Travels" that Mars has two moons (150 years before we knew Mars had moons at all), gave their approximate distances from the planet and their periodicity where the inner moon revolves around Mars twice in a day (something not predicted by celestial mechanics). Were there ancient sources of knowledge available back then to the intelligentsia? If so, what happened to it? Where did it come from? Who discovered it and how? How old is it?

"Who Built the Moon" and "Civilization One" are both thought-provoking and worthy of discussion. These are big, complex books and not written for sensationalism. I've barely touched on anything presented in these books, barely skimmed it. These are works where you can suspend your skepticism without suspending your intelligence in the process and that is the most valuable thing about crankism--it allows us to discard our hardened beliefs for something different, something worth thinking about. Always being certain about the things we have no real certainty of is inherently unhealthly. So set your mind free for a little bit. Let the skeptics have their little laugh. Spring-cleaning for the brain.

I've ordered these on Kindle but you can get them in hard book form too. It doesn't matter how you do it, just do it.



The following user would like to thank DB Roy for this post:
DWill
Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:38 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6874
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 2217
Thanked: 2416 times in 1822 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Built the Moon?
I find myself searching for a different term for "kook," since I think of kooks as flighty, ineffectual people who mean no harm. So I see Marjorie Taylor Green as something worse than kooky. But I know what you're getting at with your distinction between two types of "out of the box" people. I think one thing you're responding to with cranks is that they have done the work, shown dedication to their far-out claims, whereas a kook like Green has no intellectual investment at all, is simply an opportunist.

I recall reading Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision way long ago. From somewhere came the claim that Einstein or someone very famous died with the book open on his desk. (That claim is supposed to be proof that a brilliant man took Velikovsky seriously.) Velikovsky had a breadth of knowledge nearly unmatched, and he used much of it to construct grand theories such as that earth had suffered collisions with other planets in the past. He was the most famous contemporary example of a catastrophist. Although I've forgotten the book, I'm sure you're right that there was much to be learned from it. Velikovsky was so smart that one would have to be really smart to be able to refute him, without replying merely that true scientists don't believe him.

I once looked into the Shakespeare authorship question and still find it interesting. Knowledgeable people have argued that Shakespeare was a front man for the real author. Yes, I suppose the claim is preposterous, but still, could the actor/businessman who in his will left his wife his "second best bed" really have written the most famous plays in world literature?



Last edited by DWill on Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:06 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Junior


Joined: May 2013
Posts: 317
Thanks: 70
Thanked: 100 times in 84 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Built the Moon?
DB Roy wrote:
A crank in contrast is someone whose ideas are "out there" but they are interesting and merit discussion. Even if you don't buy their conclusions, you learn a lot by studying up on their ideas.


I'm one of those who enjoys speculating on whether or not we went to the Moon and seen a few documentaries on the subject. I gotta say, I've learned a lot about technology of the period just from the documentaries. Anyway... I can see why people would think we didn't go to the Moon. Sputnik changed the world. Ham radio operators tuned in just to hear it beep. The United States had something to prove to the world, and what better way then wanting to put a man on the Moon to plant a flag? Better still, there was no way to check they actually did.

Today we have this as proof: blurry, pixelated pictures to prove the flag is there. :clap2: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19050795

I believe we went to the Moon, but I do think the evidence is less than convincing we did. At the end of the day, it's a good debate over coffee.



Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:39 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Upper Echelon 3rd Class

BookTalk.org Moderator
Book Discussion Leader
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2368
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 128
Thanked: 970 times in 746 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Built the Moon?
Who Built the Moon does sound "cranky." On one side you describe the primary theory of the formation of the moon where a Mars sized object strikes the Earth, then the moon forms out of that debris. On another side the moon is described as hollow and therefore unnatural. Those two can't be reconciled. It's also claimed that the Moon has the same materials as the Earth's crust (which supports the collision theory), but does not contain material from the Earth's mantle or core. However we have never directly sampled the Earth's mantle let alone the core, so I don't know how such a statement can be made. Anyway, sounds like a fun book, possibly on my future/sometime list...

Regarding Velikovsky, he claimed the planet Venus was ejected from Jupiter around 15th century BCE. I haven't read the book, but can't imagine what data was available in 1950 to suggest such an event. He may have been very smart, but seems like a kook to me, although since his ideas aren't dangerous he's a crank according to DB Roy's definition. :x

Regarding men landing on the moon on 7/20/1969, if we faked it experts from many advanced countries would have exposed that long before now.



Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:34 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Awesome


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 951
Thanks: 43
Thanked: 561 times in 419 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Built the Moon?
LanDroid wrote:
Who Built the Moon does sound "cranky." On one side you describe the primary theory of the formation of the moon where a Mars sized object strikes the Earth, then the moon forms out of that debris. On another side the moon is described as hollow and therefore unnatural. Those two can't be reconciled.


In this case, they don't have to since the authors were bringing up various theories of the moon's origins and discussing the pros and cons of each. They, thus far, have not chosen one as definitive.

Velikovsky's ideas were definitely off the deep end but I recall in Carl Sagan's Cosmos series that he criticized the scientific establishment for trying to silence Velikovsky. If Einstein read Velikovsky, it only proves what I'm saying. Sometimes you need to read something "out of the box" to jumpstart your own theories.

One thing about online discussion I abhor is the chronic skeptic. Skepticism is okay and it is necessary. The earth isn't flat and none of the "evidence" they present to show that it is actually works whereas simple observation disproves it beyond all doubt. But constant harping on things trying to prove the world is a boring clockwork bores the hell out of me.

I see nothing wrong with studying the UFO phenomenon. Is it worth studying? I think so. To dismiss all of it as misidentification of conventional aircraft or natural phenomena is fine as long as you never see one yourself. Once you do, you can't go back. Some say they are military aircraft. Well, ya know, some certainly are and some certainly are misidentifications. The Pentagon and Navy have released clips of UFOs that certainly are noteworthy. If they are all secret military aircraft, what is their purpose? I mean, if it's military, it should have something to do with national defense. These craft should be used in wartime situations and for enforcing the peace--kind of like atomic bombs. They should be common knowledge so that people know they are real and what they can do. Yet, these craft are kept secret. Hell, we can't even be sure that they are ours. What would be the purpose of that? To deny the reality of these objects is to deny the video proof released by our own govt. Either they are real in some way or it is a black op. Either way, that is an alarming situation.

Another example is the idea that the octopus came from outer space. Sure, it's looney BUT it stimulates discussion of exactly where life does come from and why the octopus is so weirdly intelligent. Whenever I see someone posting stuff like that online, I leave it alone. After all, we may realize that ALL life on this planet actually came from space. It's entirely possible and to read these skeptical responses to something that these people couldn't possibly know any better than anyone else is just arrogant and boring and often posted by someone with no real scientific background but who want to look like they have one. You can dig up anything pro or con on the internet. I say go ahead and question if the octopus has a terrestrial origin. To just say no and leave it at that isn't productive. Look into its origins and then look back into life's origins. There's no end to it. If life is from space, then where in space? If it isn't then how did it just pop up all the sudden? Then you have to ask how does consciousness happen? Why are crabs conscious but the shells they carry around are not? It's called the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can say the shell is not composed of the type of chemical compounds that allow for it to be alive but it leaves unanswered why life should happen at all.
I may see a light as blue and you may see it as red but why do we see it as anything?? Skepticism may make you look smart superficially but you only ultimately don't know anything more than anyone else. Life is a big mystery and skepticism can't change that. I think that is a misuse of skepticism.



Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:46 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6874
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 2217
Thanked: 2416 times in 1822 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Built the Moon?
Well, astrology entailed a great deal of detailed observation of the skies and could be said to have led to the science of astronomy. Perhaps even phrenology in some way stimulated the science of neurology? Those two examples, though, were respected inquiries in their own time, while the authors' moon theories and those of Velikovsky are not and were not. But then you could look at those theories as challenges to an orthodoxy, and do we want to stifle that? Probably not. If the theories really are outlandish, at least the established authorities can benefit from the exercise of defending what they see as the truth. Only if anyone feels he or she has time for this kind of debate, though. In general, I don't. Creationists are sometimes eager to debate evolutionists, but I'm not interested in joining or listening.

I'm still going to defend skepticism as the proper critical attitude. It doesn't need to be obnoxious, though, the equivalent of "shut up about it." Just over the mountain from me, a U.S. Representative named Denver Riggleman, a Republican defeated by a far-right challenger last November, had an interesting journey with the Bigfoot believers. He became involved with these folks out of fascination with Bigfoot and did get into that culture. That led to him publishing something that dealt with the sex life of Bigfoots (Bigfeet?), for which he was roundly ridiculed during his campaign. He won anyway. His defeat for re-election was due to his officiating at a wedding between two men. After his loss, he became probably the most outspoken Republican against the lies Trump told about the election. So, when it came to the real world, where beliefs have consequences, he came through big time.



Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:55 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Upper Echelon 3rd Class

BookTalk.org Moderator
Book Discussion Leader
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2368
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 128
Thanked: 970 times in 746 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Built the Moon?
You don't need to go to the cranky side for science that is weird and not "boring." Check into quantum mechanics, multiverses, the 50/50 chance that we exist in a simulation, etc. etc.



Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:15 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Awesome


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 951
Thanks: 43
Thanked: 561 times in 419 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Built the Moon?
DWill wrote:
Well, astrology entailed a great deal of detailed observation of the skies and could be said to have led to the science of astronomy.


And alchemy gave us chemistry. Many of compounds and processes we have discovered were actually discovered by alchemists. Everything from gunpowder to Glauber salts to porcelain to calomine lotion came from alchemy. I have a lot of books on alchemy. It's a fascinating

Quote:
I'm still going to defend skepticism as the proper critical attitude. It doesn't need to be obnoxious, though, the equivalent of "shut up about it." Just over the mountain from me, a U.S. Representative named Denver Riggleman, a Republican defeated by a far-right challenger last November, had an interesting journey with the Bigfoot believers. He became involved with these folks out of fascination with Bigfoot and did get into that culture. That led to him publishing something that dealt with the sex life of Bigfoots (Bigfeet?), for which he was roundly ridiculed during his campaign. He won anyway. His defeat for re-election was due to his officiating at a wedding between two men. After his loss, he became probably the most outspoken Republican against the lies Trump told about the election. So, when it came to the real world, where beliefs have consequences, he came through big time.


Sounds too good for the republican party.



Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:25 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Awesome


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 951
Thanks: 43
Thanked: 561 times in 419 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Built the Moon?
LanDroid wrote:
You don't need to go to the cranky side for science that is weird and not "boring." Check into quantum mechanics, multiverses, the 50/50 chance that we exist in a simulation, etc. etc.


QM was crank stuff that was eventually proven to be real. Good book on it is Sean Carroll's Something Deeply Hidden.



Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:41 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6114
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2534
Thanked: 2489 times in 1867 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Who Built the Moon?
Quote:
-Why is it that the moon vibrates like a gong when struck? No other celestial body we know of does this that we know of. It should be impossible UNLESS the moon is hollow! But if it is hollow, it can't be natural.

This hollow moon theory looks to be the epitome of cranky kookiness. If the moon was hollow, its mass would be far less than it actually is. Astronomers have calculated the mass of the moon because it keeps it in stable orbit, it causes tides on earth, and it causes the precession of the equinoxes. These are all calculated and observed so exactly in line with the classical mechanics of gravity that there is no such room for error in mainstream science.

The problem with cranks is that scientists can point out a glaring flaw in their theory but they just don't care, because they are emotionally invested in it. And often, cranks are self taught and have major serious gaps in their knowledge. That enables real experts to see the immediate error in their ideas.

There are examples of theories such as continental drift that were initially dismissed as crank but proved to be true. Astrology is a very interesting case in point, since its cultural background is so complex. It is clear that there are seemingly astrological phenomena, such as the ability of rats to sense the gravity of the moon. But in line with the theory of paradigm shift, such anomalies are dismissed as the preserve of cranks when they appear to undermine a prevailing opinion.

Another major supposedly crank topic is the invention of Jesus Christ. Several scholarly books provide strong evidence for the invention hypothesis, but this just gets dismissed out of hand by Christian apologists on fallacious grounds such as that the existence of Jesus is so widely believed that it must be true. There are people who are so fearful of being labelled crank that they will not investigate evidence. One interesting example is the influence of Buddhism on Christian origins, which appears massive, but gets generally dismissed by Christians.

A useful starting point for such analysis is the crackpot index - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackpot_index


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:18 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Awesome


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 951
Thanks: 43
Thanked: 561 times in 419 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Built the Moon?
Robert Tulip wrote:
This hollow moon theory looks to be the epitome of cranky kookiness. If the moon was hollow, its mass would be far less than it actually is. Astronomers have calculated the mass of the moon because it keeps it in stable orbit, it causes tides on earth, and it causes the precession of the equinoxes. These are all calculated and observed so exactly in line with the classical mechanics of gravity that there is no such room for error in mainstream science.


Slow down. It was something some people assert about the moon. The authors mentioned it for that reason only. It is NOT the subject of this book. They go through a painstaking discussion of the tides and how the moon orbits.

Quote:
The problem with cranks is that scientists can point out a glaring flaw in their theory but they just don't care, because they are emotionally invested in it. And often, cranks are self taught and have major serious gaps in their knowledge. That enables real experts to see the immediate error in their ideas.


Well, cranks and kooks. The difference is that cranks only hurt themselves. Kooks hurt everybody. If a crank group believes the moon is hollow, they're not shoving it down my throat or yours. If they believe it, they are only hurting themselves and people have a right to hurt themselves as long as they don't hurt others. But a kook might believe the earth was created in 6 days because the bible says so and so everyone must believe it and we are going to teach it in school and not scientific theories which is just atheist religion. THAT hurts everybody. After all, the hollow-mooners have a point: if the earth is made of the same material as the earth's crust, then why does it vibrate when struck? That opens up a whole line of discussion during which those who participate will learn new things.

Quote:
There are examples of theories such as continental drift that were initially dismissed as crank but proved to be true. Astrology is a very interesting case in point, since its cultural background is so complex. It is clear that there are seemingly astrological phenomena, such as the ability of rats to sense the gravity of the moon. But in line with the theory of paradigm shift, such anomalies are dismissed as the preserve of cranks when they appear to undermine a prevailing opinion.


Suicide hotlines have known for years that activity increases during the full moon and would hire extra operators for the duration even though science insists there is no correlation.

Quote:
Another major supposedly crank topic is the invention of Jesus Christ. Several scholarly books provide strong evidence for the invention hypothesis, but this just gets dismissed out of hand by Christian apologists on fallacious grounds such as that the existence of Jesus is so widely believed that it must be true. There are people who are so fearful of being labelled crank that they will not investigate evidence. One interesting example is the influence of Buddhism on Christian origins, which appears massive, but gets generally dismissed by Christians.


I don't call the Jesus thing crankism. It's kookism. It's shoved down our throats and legislated into our lives. If Christians stayed in their corner and debated it among themselves and any outsiders who cared to engage them, that would be fine. But no--you and I have to believe this garbage and they won't stop until we do.

[quoteA useful starting point for such analysis is the crackpot index - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackpot_index[/quote]

Thanks, looks interesting.



Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:52 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Awesome


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 951
Thanks: 43
Thanked: 561 times in 419 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Built the Moon?
Some interesting points:

-The moon's movement against the starry background takes 27.322 days for the moon to return to the same position.
-The length of a year is actually 366 days by the moon. If we divide 10,000 by 366, we get 27.322.
-Every 10,000 days, the moon completes exactly 366 orbits around the earth.
-The earth's mean orbital velocity around the sun is 1/10,000 of the speed of light in a vacuum--29,780 meters per second. Light travels at 299,792,458 m/s. That's accurate to 2/3rds of a percent.
-What makes the above fact even stranger is that, starting in 1972, we had to add a leap second to every year. By 1999, however, this was no longer necessary. The earth's orbit around the sun is slowing but no one knows why.
-The diameter of the sun is 1,392,000 km while the earth's is 12,742 km and so 109.245 earth diameters could fit within the sun's diameter. Yet, when the earth is at aphelion (its furthest distance from the sun), 109.267 sun diameters could fit in that space. Even stranger, there are 10,920.8 km in the moon's equatorial diameter.
-The moon turns exactly one kilometer every second at its equator.
-The moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the sun and 27.322% the size of the earth.
-The sun is exactly 40,000 Megalithic Yards per Megalithic Second of Arc while the earth is exactly 40,000 km at its polar circumference. The latter is intentional but how did megalithic people know about the sun?
-This means that nature used a metric system and a base 10 system that also somehow works exactly as the megalithic measurements used by ancient peoples.

So, we have three possibilities:

1) This is all wild coincidence.
2) There is a god.
3) There was an ancient civilization very advanced that left behind systems of measurement to humanity from very early on and whom, it would seem, manufactured the moon from the earth.

We discover new things about the moon all time. Only very recently did we discover water on the surface of the moon--something we previously thought impossible. As for the moon's possible artificial origins, we may know for sure quite soon:

https://www.mining.com/moon-richer-in-m ... %20thought.

We have now discovered the moon is more metallic than we previously thought and Trump signed an order in April of last year giving the United States the right to start mining the moon by 2025. This order was signed without international consent and it remains to be seen whether it will be allowed to take place. I think it is far more important that we learn to start pushing asteroids out of earth's path and the Japanese have already landed on asteroids and so it is within our grasp to do this as well as mine them. But what do I know?



Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:22 am
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
Banned Books
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2021. All rights reserved.

Display Pagerank