NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/space/15478

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-08 | 9.0 KB

Xref: sparky sci.space:15478 alt.conspiracy:11991
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!jbh55289
From: [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
References: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:42:20 GMT
Keywords: Ten Embarrassing Questions about the Moon
Lines: 165

[e-mail] writes:

>                    TEN EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOON

I would be embarrassed to post something this silly too.  Although it may be
a lost cause, I'll attempt to clear up this mess.

>   1.) Where did the moon come from , and how did  it  attain  it's  present
>       orbit?

"Snarfy"  (please tell us your real name) lists the three pre-Apollo theories
of Lunar genisis - fission, capture and creation with the Earth.

>     However,evidence gathered by the Apollo  missions  indicates  that  the
>   moon  and  earth  differ  greatly in composition.  Scientists now tend to
>   lean toward the third theory -  that  the  moon  was  "captured"  by  the
>   Earth's  gravitational  field  and  locked into orbit ages ago. There are
>   incredibly   difficult   celestial   mechanics   involved   in   such   a
>   capture.

There are indeed.  That explains why very few plantary scientists take it
seriously.  The current theory of Lunar genisis holds that a Mars sized body
collided with Earth in its early history and the reulsting debris formed the
Moon.  This hypothesis has beed modeled on supercomputers and is consistant
with the evidence of massive collisions in the early solar system.  It also
explains the difference in makeup of the two bodies.

>     Newton's  Laws  of  gravitation  would  almost  certainly  have
>   assured  an  acceleration  great enough to send it out into the depths of
>   space  again.   The  logically  consistent,  but  socially   unacceptable
>   alternative  to  this conclusion is that a steering or braking "manuever"
>   had been performed by some mechanism "aboard" the  moon.

"Logically consistant" maybe.  Sensible no.

>   2.   Is  the  "  apparent " size similarity (as viewed from earth) of the
>     sun and moon a mere coincidence?

>    Yes. The fact that the moon subtends an angle of arc, as viewed from the
>   earth  ,  equal  to that of the sun ,is a " coincidence" which causes the
>   occasional solar eclipse spectacle . Only the Earth , alone  of  all  the
>   planets  in  the  solar  system , is known to harbor life and a satellite
>   with this peculiar quality.
>   The theory that the moon was placed here  by
>   intelligent  being(s) as a sort of "planet marker " , is only a  theory .

You can say that again.  The Moon only has the correct apparent diameter during
certain parts of its eliptical orbit.  Sometimes it's too far away, resulting
in an annular eclipse in which you can see the sun around the Moon.  The idea
that aliens would need to move astronomical bodies around just to remeber which
was which is plain silly.

>    3. Why are moon rocks so much older than earth rocks?

>     99 percent of moon rocks brought back turned out upon  analysis  to  be
>   older than 90 percent of the oldest rocks that can be found on earth . If
>   we  assume  that the moon came from a different area of the solar system,
>   where the component material might have been different  ,this  assumption
>   would  still  not  account  for  the  disparity in the average age of the
>   matter composing the two bodies.

You haven't disccused the average age of the matter, you've discussed the age
of the rocks.  Rocks are "born" when the material they are made of cools off
enough to become solid.  The Moon would have cooled much sooner than Earth
because of its size.  Old Earth rocks would long ago have been subducted into
the mantle and reformed.  Finding Earth rocks as old as lunar ones would
disrupt the current theory, not support it.

>  4. Why are the "maria" or "lunar seas" located almost entirely on one side
>     of the moon?

The Moon is not an evenly distributed body, due in part to gravitational
gradients.  Maria formation would be more likely to occur where the crust is
thinner - on the near side.

>  5. Was rustproof iron found on the moon ?

No, and you comments to the contrary are silly.

>  6 . Is the core of the moon hot or cold ?

"Scarfy" makes some strange comments here and a few logic leaps that lost me.
The core of the Moon is solid.  This explains its weak and disorganized magnetic
field and the lack of siesmic activity.  This also makes sense given the small
size of the Moon - it would have cooled faster than earth.

>  7. Were immense clouds of water vapor ever observed on the moon?

>     The few lunar excursions indicate that the moon is a  very  dry  world.
>   But after Apollo 15, NASA experts  were  stunned  when  a
>   cloud  of  water vapor more than 100 square miles in size was detected on
>   the  moon's  surface.  NASA  officials  suggested  that  two  tiny tanks,
>   abandoned  on the moon by U.S. Astronauts, had somehow ruptured. But  the
>   contents of  these  tanks  could  not  have  produced  a  cloud  of  such
>   magnitude.

Why not?  It doesn't take much to mess with the Lunar atmosphere.  I've read
that it roughly doubled in mass when the Apollo rockets lit up.

The water vapor appears to have come from the moon's interior.
>   Mists, clouds and surface changes have been allegedly seen over the years
>   by  astronomers  .   For  instance  , six astronomers in the last century
>   claimed to have seen a mist which obscured the details on  the  floor  of
>   the  crater Plato. Clouds of any kind would be an extremely odd phenomena
>   on the moon, because of the supposed low gravity, which presumably  could
>   not  hold an atmosphere.  Water trapped beneath the surface, then venting
>   by some unknown process , is one possible explanation - but then what (or
>   WHO) is "letting off steam"?

Trapped deposits of volatiles are not inconsistant with current understanding
of the Moon.  They're just rather rare.  By the way, the Moon can and does
hold an atmosphere.  It's just very thin.

>  8. What caused the "Glaze" on the lunar surface?

>     Lunar  explorations  have  revealed  that  much of the lunar surface is
>   covered with a glassy glaze , which indicates that the moon's surface has
>   been scorched by an unknown source of intense heat.   Expert's  analysis
>   shows  that  this  did not result from massive meteorite impactings.

Could you give references for this please?

>  9. What are "mascons" and how did they get there?

>     In 1968 ,tracking data of lunar orbiters first indicated  that  massive
>   concentrations  (mascons) existed under the surface of the circular lunar
>   maria.  NASA  even reported that the gravitational pull caused by themwas
>   so  pronounced  that  the  spacecraft  overhead   dipped   slightly   and
>   accellerated  when  flitting  by  the  lunar  plain  , thus revealing the
>   existence of these hidden structures,  whatever  they  are.  Calculations
>   show that they are enormous concentrations of dense heavy matter centered
>   like a bull's eye under the  lunar  maria.  NASA  has  never  offered  an
>   explanation of their existence.

The last statement is a flat out lie.  The mascons (mass concentrations) are
the remains of large meteorites buried under the lunar maria.  The do indeed
have interesting effects on the gravitational and magnetic fields, but there
is nothing bizzare about them.

>   10. Is there anything "funny" about the moon?

>     People  who seem to be overly "obsessed" about the moon will often tell
>   you that the moon is indeed endowed with "strange" powers  that  have  an
>   effect  on thier lives. These people are sometimes called "lunatics." The
>   fact that you have  been  reading  these  "NASA  Moon  Coverup"  articles
>   through  to  this  point  indicates that YOU may have undiagnosed lunatic
>   "tendencies", and should ,perhaps ,see your doctor immediately (just  for
>   a  check-up).  Your doctor can prescribe precise dosages of the "correct"
>   drugs needed to overcome the effect of such unusual notions as  suggested
>   in  this  series of postings.  These drugs will assure that your opinions
>   conform comfortably to those currently accepted by  the  government,  and
>   will result in many opportunities for career advancement.

Did you know that fully _half_ of all babies are born within one week of a full
Moon!  No kidding.  Of course, if that surprises you or if you take allegations
of such things seriously, you really could use some help.

I wouldn't suggest drugs or mindwashing.  Just get your lazy behind down to
the library and start reading up on the explanations for all these "bizzare,
unexplained" phenomena.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

"We can lick gravity, but the paperwork's a bit tougher."  Wernher von Braun