This is very interesting…
Interesting theory how the moon was built and why it was built:
Christopher Knight’s first book ‘The Hiram Key”, which he co-authored with Robert Lomas was published in 1996.
Quickly becoming a best seller, The Hiram Key was acclaimed a classic in the field of alternative history, going on to influence a generation of researchers among them The Da Vinci Code’s Dan Brown.
In the last ten years Knight has written six books, four with Robert Lomas and two, including his latest Who Built the Moon?, with Alan Butler. In Who Built the Moon?, Knight and Butler raise some fascinating and challenging questions, foremost: Could it be that the Moon is artificial? Could it even be hollow? And does the Moon really exist through some happy accident, or is a blueprint apparent – and if so, who was the architect?New Dawn recently spoke with Christopher Knight about his controversial book and his astonishing conclusions.
NEW DAWN: All of mankind’s visits to the Moon have not answered some of the most basic questions about its origin and importance. Your new book Who Built the Moon? (co-authored with Alan Butler) brings to light some extraordinary facts about the Moon, and comes to a mind-blowing conclusion about its origin. Could you briefly outline some of these little known and ignored facts?
CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT: The Moon sits very close to the Earth yet it is widely regarded as the strangest object in the known universe. It is a bit like knowing that every person in the world is completely normal except the person you live next door to, who has three heads and lives on a diet of broken razor blades.
The book lists the strangeness of the Moon, which includes the fact that it does not have a solid core like every other planetary object. It is either hollow or has a very low-density interior. Bizarrely, its concentration of mass are located at a series of points just under its surface – which caused havoc with early lunar spacecraft. The material the Moon is made from came from the outer surface of the Earth and left a shallow hole that filled with water and we now call the Pacific. This rock left the Earth to produce the Moon very quickly after our planet had formed around 4,6 billion years ago.
The Moon is not only extremely odd in its construction; it also behaves in a way that is nothing less than miraculous. It is exactly four hundred times smaller than the Sun but four hundred times closer to the Earth so that both the Sun and the Moon appear to be precisely the same size in the sky – which gives us the phenomenon we call a total eclipse. Whilst we take this for granted it has been called the biggest coincidence in the universe.
Furthermore, the Moon mirrors the movement of the Sun in the sky by rising and setting at the same point on the horizon as the Sun does at opposite solstices. For example, this means the Moon rises at midwinter at the same place the Sun does at midsummer. There is no logical reason why the Moon mimics the Sun in this way and it is only meaningful to a human standing on the Earth
ND: What led you to write Who Built the Moon? And does this latest book relate to your earlier research when writing Civilization One and Uriel’s Machine?
CK: All of the six books I have had published over the last ten years are part of a continued single piece of research. I came to write Who Built the Moon?with Alan Butler after we had finished Civilization One, because our research led us to study the Moon very closely.
We had found that the superbly advanced measuring system in use over 5,000 years ago was based on the mass, dimensions and movements of the Earth.
However, for thoroughness we checked every planet and moon in the solar system to see if there was any pattern. Amazingly, it worked perfectly for every aspect of the Moon but did not apply at all to any other known body – except the Sun.
It was as though we had found a blueprint where the Moon had been ‘manufactured’ using very specific units taken from Earth’s relationship with the Sun. The more we looked, everything fitted – and fitted perfectly in every conceivable way.
ND: Most astoundingly, you found that an ancient system of geometry and measurement used in the Stone Age works perfectly on the Moon. What exactly is this system and how could the ancients have attained this knowledge?
CK: It is not possible to describe the greatness of this ancient system of geometry and measurement without repeating the content of Civilization One.
The work of Alexander Thom, a brilliant professor of engineering from Oxford University, was our starting point. He identified the existence of what he called the Megalithic Yard. This was a precise unit of measurement that was the basis of late Stone Age structures across Western Europe – such as Stonehenge. Most archaeologists have written his work off as a mistake but when one looks coldly at their objections they are baseless.
Alan and I were able to show how they made these highly precise linear units based on the rotation of the Earth and how they were also the basis of all time, capacity and weight units in use today. Once again these are exact – not approximations or close fits.
Where the ancients got such knowledge is quite baffling. All we can be certain of is that they were way ahead of us today! It’s easy to check out by anyone with a calculator.
ND: Your conclusion is there are more than enough anomalies about the Moon to suggest it is not a naturally occurring body and was quite possibly engineered to sustain life on Earth. How did you reach this conclusion?
CK: Not only is the Moon an apparently impossible object, it has some unique benefits for us humans. It has been nothing less than an incubator for life. If the Moon was not exactly the size, mass and distance that it has been at each stage of the Earth’s evolution – there would be no intelligent life here. Scientists are agreed that we owe everything to the Moon.
It acts as a stabiliser that holds our planet at just the right angle to produce the seasons and keep water liquid across most of the planet. Without our Moon the Earth would be as dead and solid as Venus.
ND: If the Moon is an artificial construct, what are your theories on who or what built it, and why?
CK: In Who Built the Moon? we explain that we could not come to any other conclusion than the Moon is artificial. Because it is certain that it is 4.6 billion years old that raises some interesting points. Another factor was the obvious message that has been built into the Moon to tell us it’s artificial. The language of the message is base ten arithmetic so it looks as though it is directed to a ten digit species that is living on Earth right now – which seems to mean humans.
The question of why the Moon had to be built is easy to answer: To produce all life, especially humans. As to who did it – well that’s a lot tougher! We give the three possibilities we can think of, namely: God, aliens or humans. The only one of these that is 100% scientifically possible is the last one. Time travel is universally accepted as being physically possible and a number of scientists are close to sending matter back in time. We can envisage that machines could be built in the future that could be sent back to remove matter from the young Earth to construct the Moon – probably using mini black hole technology.
Read more from Auricmedia:
I have been always interested in Space and all it’s oddities. One of them is the moons of Mars. They are just full of mystery and it feels that something is not right. Same thoughts have Dr. Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky and here they are, enjoy:
Astrophysicist Dr. Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky calculated the orbital motion of Martian satellite Phobos and came to the jaw-dropping conclusion that the moon is artificial, hollow, and basically a titanic spaceship.
Phobos is spaceship says famous scientist Dr. Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky
The scientist is world-renown for penning the classic science book, “Intelligent Life in the Universe” with famous Cornell University professor, the late Carl Sagan of PBS and Voyager space probe fame.
Fear and Horror
Mars’ two moons, Phobos and Deimos, translate into “fear” and “horror.” As Mars is named after the god of war, the names seem appropriate. Both satellites were discovered in 1877 by U.S. astronomer Asaph Hall who never guessed they were artificial.
Both moons are extremely odd, especially the tumbling moon of fear: Phobos. Shklovsky puzzled over them.
Deeply troubling facts
Two facts deeply troubled Shklovsky.
First, both moons are too small. No other planet in the solar system has moons as tiny as the Martian moons. They’re unique.
Second, their origin bothered him. Were they captured asteroids as others assumed? No, they could not be! Their orbital plane was all wrong. And they’re too close to Mars. Much too close. Even more amazing–Phobos changes its speed from time to time.
Impossible, yet true!
Russian astronomer Dr. Cherman Struve spent months calculating the Martian moons’ orbits with extreme accuracy early in the 20th Century. Yet, Shklovsky astutely noted, as the years progressed into decades the mystery moon’s orbital velocity and position no longer matched its mathematically predicted position.
After lengthy study of the tidal, gravitic, and magnetic forces, Shklovsky came to the inescapable conclusion that no natural causes could account for the origins of the two odd moons or their bizarre behavior, particularly that exhibited by Phobos.
The orbit of that fantastic moon was so peculiar, so bizarre, that Phobos had to be a gigantic spaceship.
Every other possible cause was carefully considered and resignedly rejected. Either alternate explanations had no supporting proof or the math was wildly off.
So, Phobos had to be accelerating as it lost altitude, yet could the outer fringes of the thin Martian atmosphere be affecting it? Was the atmosphere actually causing a braking action like the deteriorating orbit of a slowing Earth satellite?
Phobos is a hollow, empty tin can
During an interview about the peculiarities surrounding Phobos, Shklovsky said, “In order to make this braking action so significant, and taking into account the extremely rarefied Martian atmosphere at this altitude, Phobos should have very small mass, that is, very low average density, approximately one thousand times smaller than the density of water.”
A density that low, less than an Earth cloud, would have dispersed Phobos eons ago. That could not be the solution.
“But can a continuous solid have such low density, probably smaller than that of air? Of course not! There’s only one way in which the requirements of coherence, constancy of shape of Phobos, and its extremely small average density can be reconciled. We must assume that Phobos is a hollow, empty body, resembling an empty tin can.”
A tin can indeed! Like a spaceship is a tin can in the cosmos. For all intents and purposes, the Apollo Lunar Excursion Module was a tin can exceedingly smaller than Phobos, of course.
“Well, can a natural celestial body be hollow? Never! Therefore, Phobos must have an artificial origin and be an artificial Martian satellite. The peculiar properties of Deimos, though less pronounced than those of Phobos, also point toward an artificial origin.”
Alien spaceships the size of small moons orbiting Mars? That makes the so-called “Face on Mars” look ridiculously feeble by comparison!
Strange monolith on surface of Phobos
Yet, no less than the United States Naval Observatory weighed in on the Russian astrophysicist’s amazing revelation, stating: Dr. Shklovsky quite correctly calculated that if the acceleration of Phobos is true, the Martian moon must be hollow, since it cannot have the weight of a natural body and behave in the prescribed manner.
Thus, even that august American institution conceded that mysterious alien ships might be orbiting Mars…the objects’ strange origins and ultimate purposes completely unknown.
Speculations over what the giant artificial spaceships might be have ranged from massive Martian space observatories, to half-completed generational interstellar spaceships, or even gargantuan planet-killing space bombs left over from an interplanetary war waged millions of years ago.
Shklovsky’s “Hollow Phobos” hypothesis
In the late 1950s and 1960s, the unusual orbital characteristics of Phobos led to speculations that it might be hollow.
Around 1958, Russian astrophysicist Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky, studying the secular acceleration of Phobos’s orbital motion, suggested a “thin sheet metal” structure for Phobos, a suggestion which led to speculations that Phobos was of artificial origin. Shklovsky based his analysis on estimates of the upper Martian atmosphere’s density, and deduced that for the weak braking effect to be able to account for the secular acceleration, Phobos had to be very light — one calculation yielded a hollow iron sphere 16 kilometers (9.9 mi) across but less than 6 cm thick. In a February 1960 letter to the journal Astronautics, Fred Singer, then science advisor to U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, said of Shklovsky’s theory:
If the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore Martian made. The big ‘if’ lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them.
Subsequently, the systemic data errors that Singer predicted were found to exist, and the claim was called into doubt, and accurate measurements of the orbit available by 1969 showed that the discrepancy did not exist. Singer’s critique was justified when earlier studies were discovered to have used an overestimated value of 5 cm/yr for the rate of altitude loss, which was later revised to 1.8 cm/yr. The secular acceleration is now attributed to tidal effects, which had not been considered in the earlier studies.
The density of Phobos has now been directly measured by spacecraft to be 1.887 g/cm3. Current observations are consistent with Phobos being a rubble pile. In addition, images obtained by the Viking probes in the 1970s clearly showed a natural object, not an artificial one. Nevertheless, mapping by the Mars Express probe and subsequent volume calculations do suggest the presence of voids within the moon and indicate that it is not a solid chunk of rock but a porous body instead. The porosity of Phobos was calculated to be 30% ± 5%, or a quarter to a third of the moon being hollow. This void space is mostly on small scales (millimeters to ~1-m), between individual grains and boulders.
And because I am also interested in remote viewing of course I had to find something about that too. So here remote viewer Edwrd Riordan remote views Phobos:
And here Richard c Hoagland talks about Phobos on Coast To Coast:
So again it’s up to you make the decision what is the Truth.
Ok let’s start this business with easy topic, space weather. Everyone is talking about how the Earth is warming. I think, that it is a normal phenomenon, because all the other planets are warming also. And is there factories for example in Mars? Hmmm we get to that later, but for now you can check this cool space weather site…
Have a nice space weather 😉