Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Ostrowski
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Luna

Evidence from the early space probes that Lunar gravitational gradient calculations were possibly flawed:

The United States and the Soviet Union started to send probes to the Moon in the late fifties. Most of these initial probes met with miserable failure. It is posited here that the reason for these early failures were due to a miscalculation of the lunar gravitational gradient.

While is would appear that the calculated mass of the moon was accurate enough to determine the surface gravity (1/6 of Earth's gravity) this is not sufficient data required to properly calculate landing or impact velocities if the moon were assumed to be a hollow spheroid instead of a homogenous mass of rock throughout it's volume.

This is because in the case of a hollow spheroid the center of mass is much closer to the surface of the moon if in fact the moon is hollow than if it really were a homogenous mass of rock. The location of the center of mass of any celestial object is critical in determining it's gravitational gradient, hence the final velocity of any object required to soft-land or otherwise come in contact with the moon would not be known unless the location of the center of mass is somehow determined.

The first of three early successful probes, Luna 1, was launched by the Russians on January 2, 1959, was not required to land, but rather "Flyby" the moon at a distance of about 4600 miles. This is a sufficient distance from the surface where exact knowledge of the location of the center of mass is not critical to success.

Luna 2 became the first manmade object to hit the moon. Here though, the probe was allegedly not designed to withstand impact, so no conclusions were drawn about the fact that it ceased to function thereafter.

Luna 3 circled the far side of the moon, took some pictures, and sent them back to the earth. Strangely, Russian moon exploration came to a four year stop after these initial successes. The Russians were characteristically secretive about the data they collected.

The American efforts were almost laughable at first. The Ranger space probes were designed to hard land on the moon. Ranger 3, launched on January 26, 1962 , missed it's target completely and went into solar orbit, Ranger 4 hit the moon but did not send back any useful information. Ranger 5 missed the moon by 450 miles and the whole program was put on hold for two years.

Ranger 6 allegedly had it's electrical system burn out in flight and no pictures were sent.

The Russians re-activated their space program, but their Luna 5, launched on May 9, 1964, crashed at full speed on the moon, when it was intended to make a soft landing. Luna 6 utterly missed the moon.

Luna 7 crashed on the moon when it's retro rockets fired too soon, which is a significant detail in relation to where one assumes the moon's center of gravity to be located in relation to the surface.

This is because of the fact that if the moon were assumed to be a homogenous rock, the braking required to make a soft landing could begin taking place at an earlier time than if the moon were a hollow spheroid of the same mass.

The reason for this is that the accleration that gravity imparts to a landing spacecraft is lower if the center of mass is further away from the landing surface, therefore a slower burn rate of fuel is allowable to soften the landing. Hence an earlier ignition starting time may be allowed.

Ignition start time is also one of the easiest flight parameters to control, much moreso than burn rates on any rocket motor.

Miscalculation of the moon's gravitational gradient cannot therefore be ruled out as a reason for the too early start time of Luna 7's landing rocket motor.

Luna 8 also crashed on the moon , but luna 9 was successful, and became the first spacecraft to soft land on the moon.

Lunar probes from both the United States and the Soviet Union were more succesful after this. This cannot most likely be attributed to some sudden advance in the quality of the hardware or telemetry methods of both space programs, whereas it is much more likely to be a result of recalculation of the lunar gravitational gradient.

end part 1 of 2

---

In part 1, I have attempted to demonstrate how evidence from the early lunar space missions showed that something appeared to be lacking in the required effort to land the unmanned spaccraft on the lunar surface. The totality of that evidence indicates that it is at least possible that the calculations of the lunar gravitational gradient were just plain erroneous for some reason.

The lunar orbiting space missions demonstrated even more evidence that the moon might not be a solid homogenous rock throughout it's volume.

The most important evidence of this kind where this supposition was proven beyond all doubt was the discovery of the so called "mascons" or Mass Concentrations of Gravity that appear in some places around the lunar globe.

These "mascons" were discovered by the Lunar Orbiter series of space missions of the late 1960's. NASA reported that the gravitational pull caused by these mascons was so pronounced that the spacecraft dipped slightly and accelerated when flitting by the circular lunar plains.

This showed that there must be some hidden structures of some kind of dense, heavy matter centered like a bulls eye under the circular maria.

No scientist has ever accounted for how these mascons got there or could have been formed by random natural processes.

There is other data from the manned Apollo lunar exploration series that makes a case for the idea that the moon might not be a natural object formed by random processes such as congealing from a dustcloud, billions of years ago.

The most significant fact revealed from the samples of lunar soil and rocks brought back to earth by the Apollo astronauts is that the moon and earth cannot possibly share sthe same origins. The reason for this is the vastly different ages of the earth and moon as determined from samples of lunar material collected by the Apollo Astronauts.

Over 99 percent of the moon rocks brought back turned out upon analysis to be older than 90 percent of the rocks that can be found on the earth. The first rock that Neil Armstrong picked up after landing on the Sea of Tranquility turned out to be 3.6 billion years old.

Other rocks turned out to be even older, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6 and one alledged to be even 5.3 billion years old. The oldest rocks found on earth are only 3.7 billion years old, and the area that the moon rocks came from was thought by scientists to be one of the youngest areas on the moon!

Scientists have generally offered three major theories to account for the moon`s orbit around our planet. All of these are in serious trouble.

One theory was that the earth might have been born alongside the earth from the same cloud of gas and dust about 4.6 billion years ago. This theory had to be junked after the lunar rock and soil samples were analysed for their ages, as outlined above. Another theory that the moon had somehow been ripped out of the earth, from the pacific basin, perhaps. This explanation fails for the same reason.

The third theory, that the moon had somehow been captured by the earth's gravitational field is interesting, but still not satisfactory, that is if it is assumed that the moon is a "natural" object manuevered about by random gravitational processes. However, this theory is the most favored by scientists today.

There are enormous objections to overcome in this last theory because of the extremely difficult celestial mechanics involved.

For one thing, any object entering the vicinitey of the earth from elswhere in the solar system has an initial velocity imparted by the sun's gravitational influence. The only confirmation that could possibly result in a rendzvous with the earth would appear to be one where the moon had originated somewhere within the orbit of the earth around the sun.

The possibilty of this occuring as a result of some random natural process is staggeringly miniscule. The moon would have to have been "launched" from another planet (Venus or Mercury) or even from the Sun itself. If that were the case, then the lunar rocks and soil samples would be younger, not older than rocks found on earth.

However, the probability that the moon came from elswhere in the solar system outside the orbit of the earth is even more remote, if not totally impossible. This is because that as the moon aproaches the earth from outside earth orbit it would be gaining speed, and as it got near the earth, a braking maneuver would be required to put it into the orbit that it has.

A braking manuever can only be accomplished with thrusting systems under intelligent control of some kind.

As NASA scientist Robin Brett aptly summarized, "It seems easier to explain the non-existence of the moon than it's existence." But of course, the moon exists. Why or how it exists remains a mystery.

end part 2 of 2

---

Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 08:06:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Ostrowski
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Luna, continued

On Sat, 25 Oct 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote:

> Jim -

>

> On a more sincere note, I can't see why the moon is so anomalous because

> the rocks are old. And from what we've been told, they really aren't so

> different, at least chemically. Here the crust has been churning the whole

> time, so of course the surface mostly isn't that old. The moon's dead

> geologically, so the old surface sits there, littered with silica debris

> from the meteorite bombardment of all those huge glass domes.

>



If the age of the rocks were the only thing, fine, but this is the first I've

heard that they are similar chemically - and the surface being that old means

that most of the meteorite bombardment must have taken place sometime prior to

the dated formation of the rocks, because they were molten at that time and

just beginning the aging process.



There were other anomalies discovered by the space missions that I didn't

mention. The astronauts found it extremely difficult to drill into the surface

of the moon below the loose dust layer. When the discarded descent stages of

the spacecrafts crashed on the moon, NASA noted that the moon "rang like a

gong or bell" for up to four hours after impact.



So it's important to look at evidence in terms of it's totality, or cumulative

effect , and ask questions as to WHY have we not gone back to the moon to find

answers. The capabilities of the shuttle would certainly make this possible by

ferrying - docking lunar exploration equipment into orbit piece by piece,

instead of boosting everything up there in one shot like we used to.



Or maybe someone at NASA knows the moon is an artificial object and there ARE

artifacts of some kind there that should be kept from public view.



Jim



From: "Fred Epps"  


To: "vortex" , "Jim Ostrowski" 




Subject: Re: Luna, continued 


Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 11:17:32 -0800 




Hi Jim, and all!  




I try like hell to avoid posting about these non-o/u topics like UFOs (and I

have been mightily resisting the Great Pyramid posts as well) but I just had

to do it with this hollow moon thing :-)  I'll be perfectly happy to take this

off list, becasue it really doesn't belong here.



I have been convinced that the Moon was a hollow body that had been moved into

orbit by SOMEONE for about 5 years, since I read the books by Don Wilson

called "Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon", and "Secret Of Our Spaceship Moon"

which covers the evidence described by Jim and a great deal more.



Unlike many speculative theories, like Hoagland's, the evidence for the

artificiality of the Moon in it present form is solid and varied.  NASA

scientists themselves have said that the hollow moon model fits the facts ---

but of course it can't be true.



> > On a more sincere note, I can't see why the moon is so anomalous because

> > the rocks are old. And from what we've been told, they really aren't so

> > different, at least chemically.

>

> If the age of the rocks were the only thing, fine , but this is the first

> I've heard that they are similar chemically - and the surface being that

> old means that most of the meteorite bombardment must have taken place

> sometime prior to the dated formation of the rocks , because they were

> molten at that time and just beginning the aging process.



The surface of the moon is NOT similar to that of the earth, unless your

neighborhood is high in glasses containing refractory metals like Titanium.



The presence of these metals is very difficult to explain, because the Moon

does not have enough gravitational pressure or radioactivity in its core to

be an active volcanic body which would be capable of spewing these materials

up to the surface. And the materials are concentrated in the seas so they

could not be the result of passage of the Moon near the Sun.



They COULD easily be explained if these materials were pumped out of the

Moon when it was hollowed out.



In addition these lunar surface materials are very dense, yet the Moon as a

whole has a density about half that of earth.  The Moon would float in water!

So obviously the interior must be very rarified to compensate for this.



Also, the unexplainable Mascons you mentioned are concentrated on the OTHER

side of the Moon, in the opposite location you would expect from tidal forces,

which would tend to pull them around to this side. How do they stay over

there?

>

> There were other anomalies discovered by the space missions that I didn't

> mention . The astronauts found it extremely difficult to drill into the

> surface of the moon below the loose dust layer . When the discarded

> descent stages of the spacecrafts crashed on the moon , NASA noted that

> the moon "rang like a gong or bell " for up to four hours after impact.



Yes, a NASA scientist said the acoustic characteristics were that of a hollow

Titanium sphere 60 miles below the surface. In addition, the scientists saw

EXACTLY the same seismic traces each time a meteorite would hit, as if it were

vibrating some fixed bodies inside the moon.



> So it's important to look at evidence in terms of it's totality , or

> cumulative effect ,



And you have not covered a great deal of the outstanding evidence, Jim.  It

would take 20 pages just to LIST the anomalous features of the Moon!  One I

don't believe you mentioned:  the Moon is placed in orbit at exactly the

distance from the Earth so that it covers the Sun during a solar eclipse.



Isaac Asimov in one of his books commented on the improbability of this

occurring by chance.



> and ask questions as to WHY have we not gone back to

> the moon to find answers. The capabilities of the shuttle would certainly

> make this possible by ferrying - docking lunar exploration equipment into

> orbit piece by piece , instead of boosting everything up there in one shot

> like we used to.



Well, the question is, if we had gone back there, would we the people know

about it?  Brian O'Leary in his first book about his experiences as an

astronaut (sorry I've forgotten the name of the book) says that the military

had a parallel space program in existence, the "blue" program, with its own

manned launch facilities at Merritt island, some distance north of Cape

Canaveral.  I've never been able to authenticate this though.



> > Or maybe someone at NASA knows the moon is an artificial object and there

> ARE artifacts of some kind there that should be kept from public view.



Or maybe we were kicked off.  The question that has to be asked is WHY an ET

race would go to all this trouble to rebuild the Moon and move it into its

present orbit.  I will not speculate on this here, but if you think about it I

you will see certain consequences that call into question our whole view of

ourselves as a species.

>



There are unquestionably large artifacts on the moon.  Although Richard

Hoagland's theories are numerological and cannot be taken seriously, he has

uncovered some evidence that it solid and conclusive.  His "glass domes"

theory doesn't bear up under even cursory examination, because it relies on

evidence at the edges of photographic resolution, but there is other

photographic evidence that is VERY clear. Take a look at the "spire" or the

"city" images on his web site and see what I mean.  With Hoagland you musn't

confuse the message with the messenger.



Fred

---