Hollow Moon Theory Part 3
By Author, Rob Shelsky (with excerpts from For The Moon Is Hollow And Aliens Rule The Sky)
If you remember from my last article, we discussed five mainstream theories as to how we “got” our Moon, and they were:
1. The Theory of Capture.
2. The Theory of Accretion.
3. The Theory of Fission.
4. The theory of a Georeactor Explosion.
5. The Theory of a Giant Impact.
Now as detailed in Part two of this series of articles on the Moon, all these theories and I do mean all, have major problems with them. Everything from the too circular orbit of the moon, to it being too big to have been captured, to problems with right angular momentum, the Moon having too low a density for its size, etc., you name it—each theory has major problems and quite a number of them. Even the current darling of astronomers, the Impact Theory, has problems, again, as mentioned in the last article on this topic. This is why yet other scientists came up with the Fission Theory, to address the problems with the Impact Theory. However, there is yet another theory and it seems to address all these problems, as well as solving them.
The Spaceship Moon Theory. This is probably the first, or at least one of the first real theories where the idea is discussed the Moon may not be what it seems to be at all, that it may, in fact, be hollow. This theory, which is often also referred to as the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory, postulates the Moon may not actually be a satellite of Earth, at least not a natural one.
Messrs. Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, who at the time of the formulation of this theory were members in good standing of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, first proposed this idea in Is the Moon the Creation of Intelligence, an article they wrote in July of 1970.
They developed the theory the Moon was an unnatural thing. They said it could well be a worldlet that had been hollowed out by aliens, ones obviously having a far superior technology to ours. They went on to say the aliens may well have used such technologies to make the center of the Moon molten and then removed this liquid magma by ejecting it onto the surface of the Moon and out into space.
The result? The Moon would be a hollow shell, with a rocky and natural-looking exterior, except for those large areas of solidified magma, which we see as maria today.
They further proposed the inner shell would be made of a strong metal for added structural support. At some point after this was done, the aliens then moved the moon into such a nearly perfect, circular orbit and near the current distance from the Earth for reasons unknown to us, but certainly not to them.
Besides citing the maria, those dark plains of lava, as the exudate of the liquefied interior of the Moon, the two scientists also pointed to the craters on the Moon, particularly the larger ones, as another indication of their Spaceship Moon Theory.
You see, despite some of the Moon’s craters being truly massive in area, those larger ones are all very shallow. Yet oddly, the smaller craters are deeper. If formed from meteors and asteroids colliding with the Moon, these scientists argued this would not be the case. The bigger craters, being the result of larger asteroids impacting the Moon and so having more kinetic energy because of their mass, should be much deeper.
Instead, again, they are shallow and relatively flat in their centers. In some cases, the bottoms of the craters are even convex in shape, bulging slightly upward, as if the Moon’s material and the remnants of the asteroid were “bouncing off” of something in the interior. They use this as further evidence the craters could not have been formed as thought by meteor impacts, at least, not in the way believed by most astronomers.
Is this a credible idea? Well, it does seem on the Moon the smaller craters do have depths proportionate to their area in size, as they should have, as one would expect. Their interiors are proportionately deep to their diameters, in other words. However, as the two scientists argued, this doesn’t seem to be true of larger craters on the Moon. Why?
How does one account for this disturbing discrepancy? Well, the authors say this is so because the smaller craters were actually formed by meteor impacts, which burrowed their way into the surface of the Moon. However, the two Russian scientists claim this “real Moon” layer is only about some five miles or so deep.
The larger impact craters, which should have impacted more deeply still, were stopped by the inner hull, the metal one supposedly manufactured by the aliens. This, the two scientists conjecture, would account for the shallowness of the larger craters. Despite the size of the striking object, it’s speed, and greater force over smaller meteorites, the inner “hull” of the Moon deflected them back out, thus causing the results we see only with the larger craters having the flat and shallow centers, or even slightly bulging ones. In short, the larger asteroids weren’t “allowed” to penetrate as deeply as they naturally should have.
The scientists have a point. If what they argue is true, it would, indeed, account for the shallowness of larger craters, versus the more proportional depths of the smaller ones. The bigger meteors simply couldn’t get past the inner hull. The smaller impacts never drove that deeply into the Moon’s rocky surface in the first place to reach the inner hull, so their depth is “normal.”
Also part of their theory is the thickness of the inner “steel” hull. They say that below the rocky outer layer of the Moon, the metal one might then be as much as 20 to 25 miles thick. Inside of this would be an open space, which could be used for any purpose or purposes. They also say such an interior space might well contain an atmosphere.
Furthermore, both men also used the evidence of the composition of the material on the surface of the Moon. They pointed out that Titanium, Zirconium and Chromium make up a larger part of that material than on Earth, which makes the Moon’s surface considerably different in detail from the materials on the crust of our planet.
So as much alike as the isotopic ratio and makeup of the Moon’s material to the Earth’s mantle material is, there are also significant differences in the composition ratios. The Soviet scientists went even further. They said some rocks found on the Moon date farther back than any found on Earth, itself. What does this mean? Well, it must mean the Moon would then be older than the Earth, formed before it did…or the Moon was created before the Earth was and by “someone.”
Also, Apollo 17 brought back some dust samples, which were composed of orange glass spherules (tiny spheres), along with fragments of other minerals. The particles are quite small and range in size from 20 microns to 45 microns. What’s more, and quite differently than Apollo 11 material brought back, the orange samples were highly and unaccountably wealthy in zinc content.
What was the standard explanation for this by mainstream scientists? Well, they say the material probably originated from volcanoes. They say this although, and despite a number of actual Moon landings by NASA, no volcanoes, active or extinct, have ever been discovered.
Whether any ever existed on the Moon is a matter for conjecture. So if not volcanoes, from where did this “dust” then come?
By these pieces of evidence and others, Alexander and Michael argued the Moon might have been created before the Earth (again, citing the older age of some Moon rocks over any found on Earth), and so had a different origin.
They weren’t alone in this belief. In his 1975 book, Our Mysterious Moon, author Don Wilson listed a series of facts he believed acted as supporting evidence for the idea of a hollow Moon.
Nor was he alone in this. Author George H. Leonard in his book, Someone Else Is on the Moon, published in 1976, included a series of NASA photos purportedly showing large and artificial-looking structures on the Moon. He believed some of these structures might be huge pieces of machinery.
Do most other mainstream scientists discount this theory? Of course, they do. For one thing, they claim the disparity in the age of some rocks from the Moon versus the lesser age of those on Earth is due to tectonic activity on our planet. Rocks are “recycled” on Earth, and this accounts for the disparity in ages of Moon versus Earth rocks. Being all recycled by now, they are simply younger.
This is a plausible idea, but is it correct? Again, we simply don’t know. It’s just as much a theory at the moment, as the Hollow Moon Theory is. However, to date, none seem to be able to account at all for the orange “dust” samples found on the Moon, their origin, or why they should be so heavy in zinc content. Also, none seem able to account for the difference in the amount of Chromium, Titanium and Zirconium between lunar surface samples of rocks and those of rocks on Earth. What’s more, scientists say the Moon never reached the temperatures in its molten and early stage to “refine” Titanium, which takes a very high temperature, indeed. It has only been very recently in our own history we were able to achieve such temperatures to forge Titanium. Therefore, they are at a loss as to explain why there is more Titanium (or any at all, for that matter) on the Moon’s surface. The same for Helium 3, which again, is abundant on the Moon’s surface, but not on Earth.
So is the Moon actually hollow?
Well, here is some more interesting information in further support of such an idea. We’re betting most people didn’t even realize this. For instance:
As mentioned in a prior article, the Moon isn’t dense enough. The average mean density of our nearest neighbor is 3.34 grams per cubic centimeter. This is low, very low, and only about three and a third times the density of water! How can this be?
Unlike the Moon, the average mean density of the Earth works out to about 5.5 times that of water, so its density is considerably higher than our neighbor’s. This, despite the fact the Moon is supposed to be composed of material from Earth and so should have the same density? What can account for this major inconsistency?
This presents scientists with a major problem, this disparity in densities between our sister world and us. Furthermore, there are very few ways the Moon could be as large as it is, and have such a low density.
Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel Prize winning chemist, made the observation that the disparity in densities between our two worlds, meaning the much lower density of the Moon compared to the Earth, might be accounted for by the Moon having “simply a cavity.”
Red flag here! A Nobel Prize winner saying the moon might be hollow?
Another noted scientist, Dr. Farouk El Baz, went even further in his statements and implications, when he said:
“There are many undiscovered caverns suspected to exist beneath the surface of the Moon. Several experiments have been flown to the Moon to see if there actually were such caverns.”
Red flag again! If the moon has caverns of enough size to change its overall density, so that it is far less than Earth’s, those caverns must be of truly massive proportions, e.g., a hollow Moon, basically?
To date, the findings of such missions and experiments have not yet been made available. As seems to be the usual case these days with such matters, one has to ask why this hasn’t happened. Why hasn’t the general public had access to these results?
And of course, the usual response to such questions seems to be no answer at all. A sort of stonewalling mentality seems to be the order of the day when it comes to certain topics, ones that NASA seems simply to refuse to respond to in any realistic way.
However, even Dr. Gordon MacDonald, a NASA scientist, declared that:
“If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the Moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere.”
Red flag yet again! Another scientist, a NASA one this time, daring to say the Moon may be hollow? Nor is he alone in this determination.
Much later, Dr. Sean Solomon stated that:
“…the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the Moon’s gravitational field...indicating the frightening possibility that the Moon might be hollow.”
Red flag yet one more time! Yet another NASA scientist making the claim the Moon might be hollow? Really?
Werner von Braun, called the Father of American Rocketry by many, wrote an article in Popular Science in 1970 titled, How Apollo 13 Will Probe the Moon's Interior. He discussed the idea that when the main section of the Apollo 13 was allowed to impact the Moon that,
“The astounding result of that crash: The Moon rang like a bell for nearly an hour, indicating some strange and unearthly underground structure.”
Dr. Wernher von Braun was the Director at NASA for quite a while.
Could this “hollowness” have somehow come about naturally? Well, this just doesn’t seem very likely at all. Why? Well as the noted (famous) scientist, the host of the original PBS TV series, Cosmos, Carl Sagan, once remarked in his Intelligent Life in the Universetreatise:
“A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object.”
So by sheer logic, if the Moon is hollow, then according to no less than Carl Sagan, it cannot be a natural satellite. He said this, not me.
All these comments and statements by renowned astronomers and cosmologists must lend great credence to the idea of a hollow Moon theory, especially given all the above peculiarities of the Moon are explained by this theory and no other.
And one should remember that not only do they theorize the idea of the Moon having a hollow center to explain the density disparity, but as Carl Sagan put it so succinctly, it couldn’t have come about that way through any “natural” means. That only leaves the “unnatural,” doesn’t it, by sheer default?
After all is said and done, is the Moon we see in our night skies really just an empty shell? Does all this data supply the necessary information to confirm such an idea? In other words, can we know for sure? Well, there are no absolutes, as most of us have found out at some point in our lives, but that doesn’t mean we can’t attempt to go even further to try to find the answers. This much, we can do.
Author’s Note: I do give much more information and data in my book, For The Moon Is Hollow And Aliens Rule The Sky, as well as my other book, Invader Moon. If this topic interests you to such an extent, please check them out.