On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 05:54:42 GMT, "Rick Sobie"
<ricksobie@spamnotshaw.ca> wrote:

} 
} "Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting@OMCL.mil> wrote in message
} news:hnvk30l1an7pqkn6m508e6jm645d23iatt@4ax.com...
} > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:33:20 GMT, "Rick Sobie"
} > <ricksobie@spamnotshaw.ca> wrote:
} >
} > } While you are soaking in your vat Carl, here is a little light reading for you.
} >
} > Geez, this outta be good.
} >
} > } The Hollow Moon
} > }
} > } "A theory that suggests that the moon is a large hollow sphere...originated during
} > } seismological tests on the moon following the Lunar landings.
} > }
} > } This occured most notably in November 1969 after seismometers were set up on the
} > } moons surface by the astronauts of Apollo XII. When the Lunar module had taken off,
} > } heading back to earth the astronauts discarded the ascent stage of the lunar module,
} > } dropping it on the moons surface, smashing the craft and creating a tremor that was
} > } picked up by the seismometers and when the NASA scientists heard the data stream,
} > } they couldn't believe what they were hearing. The moon was ringing like a bell and
} > } continued to do so for around an hour.
} > }
} > } After they had had a chance to analyse the seismological information, NASA declared
} > } that the moon seemed to be a hollow sphere with a metallic layer around 34-40 metres
} > } deep."
} >
} > Well, see? Now we can prove the "faked Apollo flights" people wrong.
} > We have proof the moon is hollow based on equipment put there by the
} > astronauts.
} >
} > } http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/articlehollowmoon.shtml
} >
} > In order for the moon to have the mass it does and be a shell only
} > 34-40 meters thick, it would have to be made out of neutronium. It
} > obviously isn't.
} >
} > The seismometer experiments from Apollo actually proved the moon was
} > nearly homogenous inside, rather than layers of materials like the
} > Earth.
} >
} 
} Well I think they underestimated its thickness. For starters it has 4 or 5 miles
} of dirt and rock, and THEN the titanium hull. How else could it have
} survived the Aitken basin impact. The crater is 2,200 km across. And shallow.

If it were 5 miles thick, it would have to be so dense that it massed
the equivalent of 1086 mile radius of solid rock. It would have to be
over 200 times denser than basalt. There is nothing like that.

If there were, and you built a sphere out of it, it would collapse.

From Wikipedia: "Geophysicists expert in impact dynamics are convinced
that a normal impact could not have produced the basin without digging
up vast amounts of mantle materials, but observations thus far have
been highly inconclusive about whether there is any mantle material
present at all. This suggests that the basin was not formed by a
typical high-velocity impact, but may instead have been formed by a
low-velocity projectile that hit at a low angle (about 30 degrees or
less), and hence did not dig very deeply into the Moon. Such a
glancing impact would have sent much of the resulting debris back into
space surrounding the Moon and Earth, which may have provided a source
of projectiles to make other lunar basins, many of which may have been
made in a narrow time interval between 3.85 and 3.95 billion years
ago."

} Like you Carl.

Who is Carl?

} Take a look at the center of Tycho crater and you will see two projectiles
} embedded in the hull.

No, you will see perfectly normal impact crater central spires. You
can model them with a bowl full of mud.

} 50 MB left image, center of crater, zoom in.
} http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clem_collect/hi_res/tyctri.tif
} here is a clip of it
} http://www.members.shaw.ca/rsobie/TheTimelineofEvents_files/image040.jpg
} 
} 
} and are is some real interesting factoids.
} http://www.keelynet.com/unclass/luna.htm

Those are blorfoids. They're made of blorfs, which are short spews of
nonsense on the net. There is no "fact" involved.

} I especially like the story of the early Russian probe which hit the moon
} going full tilt, and the old Ranger attempt which missed the moon by 450 mi.
} The one previous apparently missed and went into orbit around the sun.
} All because they misjudged its gravity.
} 

Luna 2 was *supposed* to hit the moon. Luna was a moon impact mission.

Ranger 3 went off course while still in Earth's gravity well. There
was no midcourse correction rockets to change that. The moon's gravity
had nothing to do with it.