Moon`s orbit is so weird indicates influences by another planetary body!

I wrote about this before but now something else indicates why the orbit of the moon is wrong. First the moon is out-of-place. It has risen too late and way too much south now. But I have always thought of the moon as to say at least weird since I read 15 years ago about the anomalies found there. which was reported or leaked by Rick Monteverde and Jim Ostrowski and Fred Epps in an email conversation. This observations were never reported to the public. I present the email conversation below as is :

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 its 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, because 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 its 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 website and see what I mean. With Hoagland you musn’t confuse the message with the messenger.

Fred

So what`s this got to do with the moons weird orbit? Well first of all 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 which didn’t add up.

The Giant Impactor Theory (sometimes called The Ejected Ring Theory) : This theory proposes that a planetesimal (or small planet) the size of Mars struck the Earth just after the formation of the solar system, ejecting large volumes of heated material from the outer layers of both objects. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually stuck together to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth. This theory can explain why the Moon is made mostly of rock and how the rock was excessively heated. Furthermore, we see evidence in many places in the solar system that such collisions were common late in the formative stages of the solar system. This theory how ever does not hold ground either after testing the age of the melted rocks on the moon, which ended up much younger than previously thought.

It’s the Earth’s baby brother. As the Earth was forming through accretion, the moon might have formed the same way, right next door. Scientists doubt this one because the moon doesn’t have the same physical composition as the Earth so therefore NO!

Another maybe wild theory is brought forward by the Russians, and that is, that one of Nibiru`s Moon`s does complete orbit around Earth’s Moon for over 1 week and that the moon is a leftover as one of Nibiru`s moons. When Nibiru`s existence is now authenticated by the Russians this could be a possibility to! RenTv source :  Here

The last theory which is probably the most trustworthy one is, 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 maneuvered 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 vicinity of the earth from elsewhere in the solar system has an initial velocity imparted by the sun’s gravitational influence. The only confirmation that could possibly result in a rendezvous with the earth would appear to be one where the moon had originated somewhere within the orbit of the earth around the sun.

The possibility of this occurring 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 elsewhere 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 approaches 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. Could the weird orbit have anything to do with all this?

Moon`s orbit is so weird this indicates it`s influenced by another planetary body!

Anderson & Nieto recently reported an anomalous secular increase of the eccentricity 1 e of the orbit of the Moon. Among the various explanations Anderson & Nieto brings up, is the existence of Planet X. A series of mysterious observations of objects within the solar system could indicate the existence of exotic new physics as a 10th planet?. At the end of the 19th century, astronomers discovered that the perihelion of Mercury (its closest point to the sun during its orbit) was slowly advancing in a way that could not be explained by Newtonian physics. The anomaly was small, so tiny that most believed that a simple explanation would soon be found. It turned out, of course, that Mercury’s orbit was a clue to the existence of an entirely new physics concept, called general relativity, which fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe. If there’s a lesson there, it is to pay attention to small anomalies.

Which is why a list prepared by John Anderson at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California and Michael Nieto at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico makes for interesting reading. The two scientists have compiled details on four unexplained anomalies that astronomers are currently scratching their heads over (I’ve added a fifth). Let’s take a look.

1. First up is the flyby anomaly, which we’ve discussed on the arxivblog. This is the discovery that spacecraft flying past Earth experience a small but significant change in acceleration, an effect that has been studied in detail by Anderson and shown to be real rather than an artifact of some kind.

2. Next is the slow but sure increase in the length of the astronomical unit (AU), a unit of measure roughly equal to the mean distance from Earth to the sun. This has been calculated as 149,597,870,700 meters, plus or minus three meters, and it is by far the most accurately determined constant in astronomy, the data coming from distance measurements between Earth and various Mars orbiters and landers dating from 1976 to the present. However, these data indicate that the AU is increasing by about 15 centimeters per year.

One explanation is that the mass of the sun is increasing (there is a mathematical relationship linking the AU to the mass of the sun). In fact, the mass of the sun ought to be decreasing because of mass loss to solar radiation and the solar wind. To explain the increase in the AU, the sun would have to be increasing its mass by 10^18 kilograms per year. That’s equivalent to swallowing a good-sized planetary moon or about 40,000 comets per year. Surely we’d have noticed that.

3. Then there is the Pioneer anomaly, the small but steady slowing of the Pioneer spacecraft as they move out of the solar system. Nobody has been able to satisfactorily explain what’s pulling them back, although there has been no shortage of attempts.

4. Finally, Anderson and Nieto point to the increase in eccentricity of the moon’s orbit, as measured by laser-ranging measurements between 1970 and 2008. These data show that the moon’s apogee and perigee have increased in distance by about 3.5 millimeters per year.

5. Anderson and Nieto could add a fifth puzzle to their list: The recent anomalies measured in Saturn’s orbit.

But they also considered yet another possibility (which you can read about in the PDF report) and that was the influence from a planetary body like Planet – X / (Nibiru) / Nemesis / Tyche. (See Sec 3.6) Where you find :

3.6. A distant massive object : Planet – X / (Nibiru) / Nemesis / Tyche

A promising candidate for explaining the anomalous increase of the lunar eccentricity may be, at least in principle, a trans-Plutonian massive body of planetary size located in the remote peripheries  of the solar system: Planet – X / (Nibiru) / Nemesis / Tyche (Lykawka & Mukai 2008; Melott & Bambach 2010; Fern´andez 2011; Matese & Whitmire 2011). Indeed, as we will see, the perturbation induced by it would actually cause a non-vanishing long-term variation of e. Moreover, since it depends on the spatial position of X in the sky and on its tidal parameter…More in the Full PDF document.

About these ads