Part 3 : Moongate The NASA/Military Cover-Up...Incredible Findings Concerning the Lunar Atmosphere...Geology and the Earth-Moon System

Moongate The NASA/Military Cover-Up

by William L. Brian II

7 

INCREDIBLE FINDINGS CONCERNING THE LUNAR ATMOSPHERE 

There were many indications during the Apollo missions that the Moon has a Earth-like atmosphere. Television commentators and reporters seemed to ignore these indications and went along with the accepted belief that the Moon is airless. Evidence confuting the vacuum theory will be presented and conventional beliefs given in the previous chapter will be examined in light of the evidence. 

Dust cannot exist in a vacuum; however, the reader probably remembers watching the astronauts walk through it on the Moon's surface. Just before astronaut Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon for the first time, he described the surface as fine grained, almost like a powder.1 Once on the surface, Armstrong confirmed his initial observation by stating that it was fine and powdery. He described how he could pick it up loosely with his toe, and how it adhered in fine layers to the soles and sides of his boots like powdered charcoal. He mentioned that he only went in a fraction of an inch; that he could see his footprints in the fine, sandy particles.2 Orthodox scientists accept that this dust exists, but they continue to deny that the Moon has any substantial atmosphere. There has to be an atmosphere because dust cannot exist in a vacuum. The density of the atmosphere remains to be determined. 

Apollo 11 landed in the Sea of Tranquility which is a lowland on the Moon. If an atmosphere existed, its density would be greater in the lowlands than anywhere else. Since Apollo 12 also landed in the low lying Ocean of Storms, additional atmospheric indications would be expected during this mission. Indeed, soon after the landing, Conrad stated that he thought they were in a lot dustier place than Neil Armstrong was.3 Apollo 17 also encountered dusty conditions. The reader may recall Apollo 17 pictures of the Rover with the "rooster plume" of dust coming off the back wheels. The dust not only stretched behind the Rover, but it curved around and rained down on the astronauts. 

A picture of the deployed Solar Wind Composition Experiment on the Apollo 11 mission is shown in Photo 5. This was a very thin strip of aluminum foil, four feet long and one foot wide, which was to hang straight down from a support rod. It was designed to stop the solar wind particles which would be analyzed back on Earth. The same experiment was performed on the Apollo 12 mission. The following Apollo 12 incident involving the experiment was summarized from an account given by Lewis.4 Earlier in the day, before their second EVA, astronaut Bean noticed something through the LM window which baffled him. The solar wind trap had been hanging straight down when the astronauts entered the LM after their first EVA. Bean reported to Capcom (Capsule Communicator) that the sheet looked like a sail in the wind around the pole, with a bulge in the front and bent back on both sides. Capcom replied that he suspected they had a real solar wind. Bean replied to Capcom that Capcom must be kidding. In turn, Capcom offered an alternative explanation: The front was thermally expanding more than the back; the back was radiating and the front was hot due to a thermal difference across it. Capcom stated that he was receiving a lot of approval from others in Mission Control on the idea. Bean then insisted that it still looked like it was wrapped around the pole as if a wind were blowing on it. 

After the astronauts left the LM for their second EVA, Capcom told Bean to ask Conrad to take a picture of the solar wind composition sheet as it was wrapped around the pole. Another amazing thing then happened as Conrad prepared to take the picture. The foil no longer appeared to be wrapped around the pole.5 Conrad informed Bean that it must have been an optical illusion from inside the Lunar Module. Bean then reported this observation to Houston. 

An analysis of the incident is now in order. The solar wind was expected to be substantial and measurable on the Moon's surface if an atmosphere did not exist. This vacuum condition is why scientists designed the experiment in the first place. The primary constituent particles of the solar wind are supposed to be hydrogen and helium traveling with velocities up to 1000 kilometers per second. However, the solar wind is so miniscule that its density only fluctuates between 1 and 30 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter during quiet Sun activity. The assumption of a solar wind density of 4 atoms per cubic centimeter yields an impact pressure of 10-8 dynes per square centimeter. If 10 times the pressure is assumed for an active Sun, the pressure turns out to be .000000000000034 pounds per square inch. This pressure could not even be measured without specially designed sensitive instruments. The normal atmospheric pressure on Earth at sea level is 14.7 pounds per square inch. A barely noticeable 1-mile per hour breeze on  Earth exerts a pressure of .000018 pounds per square inch and will barely move a window shade. However, this is 53,000,000,000 (53 billion) times as strong as the solar wind! 

Clearly the solar wind was not responsible for causing the composition sheet to bend back against the pole. After Capcom suggested the real solar wind idea, Bean came back with a statement alluding to the joke which he thought Capcom was making. Bean evidently knew that the solar wind was not responsible. Capcom evidently knew it also, but may have been trying to patch the leak. Capcom then countered with an explanation which fell apart when the solar wind sheet mysteriously straightened out. 

Capcom suggested that the front of the sheet was expanding more than the back. This, of course, happens to objects in the Sun, but other evidence destroyed this explanation. First of all, the sheet had been set up in the Sun for many hours without any noticeable effects on it. The astronauts were out working with the instrument and would have noticed the warped sheet on their first EVA. Since the Sun would heat up the sheet very rapidly if a vacuum existed, the warping would occur almost immediately. Once it became warped, it would stay that way until taken down. The Sun would move very little across the Moon's sky in the time of the trip. Therefore, the conditions creating the warped sheet in the first place would remain nearly the same. 

After Capcom made the thermal expansion suggestion, he mentioned that he was getting approval of the idea from other Mission Control people. Evidently they must have thought that it would be an acceptable explanation for the public and other scientists. Bean replied that it still looked like it was wrapped around the pole with the wind blowing on it. The statement by Bean is clear. He seemed convinced that what caused the sheet to bend around the pole was a real atmospheric wind, not the solar wind. His persistence in referring to the wind after the solar wind idea had already been rejected by Capcom and himself is a giveaway. Bean seemed to ignore the explanation by Capcom and may have been fascinated by the atmospheric evidence. 

The final blow to the thermal expansion explanation occurred when Conrad went to photograph the bent sheet. It had mysteriously straightened out in a short time. As explained previously, this would not happen under conditions demanded by a vacuum. The reference to an optical illusion was probably a means to end the conversation about something which should never have been brought up in the first place. Once the cat was out of the bag, Capcom and the astronauts would have to patch up the security breach as best they could. Bean was a trained astronaut and seemingly would not have been duped by an optical illusion. 

If the Moon's atmosphere could produce a noticeable movement of the solar wind composition sheet, it has to be fairly dense. During some of the Apollo missions, dust kicked up by the astronauts had a tendency to drift. This is an indication of a dense atmosphere. In addition, the American flags billowed noticeably during some of the early Apollo missions. The first Apollo missions had flags with horizontal support rods along the tops to make them stand up. This still allowed light winds to cause them to bow out or billow occasionally. 

The author acquired the movie showing the Apollo 14 flag ceremony. Close analysis of this film shows that the flag billowed and waved when the astronauts were not touching it or even close to it. At the end of the flag  ceremony, as one of the astronauts moved away from the flag, it began to wave back and forth. In an apparent attempt to mask any further display of an atmospheric wind, both astronauts blocked the movie camera's view of the flag. The astronaut nearest the flag began running toward and in front of the camera while the other astronaut put his arm in front of the lens. However, it was already too late to cover up the evidence. The author challenges all skeptics to witness this film for themselves and to explain the waving flag by any other logical means than a dense lunar atmosphere. It is amazing that this hard core evidence is available to the public. Even a diehard skeptic should be convinced after seeing this film sequence. The Apollo 14 film was ordered in 1980 from Movie Newsreels, a company located in Hollywood, California. 

On Apollo 16, there was an apparent attempt to reorient the public's thinking about the waving flag evidence already released. This time a heavily starched flag that would maintain a distorted shape at all times was opened. A special point was made on one telecast to stress that the flag was processed in this way to give the appearance of a waving flag in an airless world. The real purpose was undoubtedly to make the flag less susceptible to breezes than previously unstarched flags had been. 

Photographic evidence of light diffusion is one of the best proofs of a dense lunar atmosphere. An Apollo 14 picture of the lunar surface, Lunar Module, and tire tracks from the MET (Modularized Equipment Transporter) is shown in Photo 6. It shows streamers of light across the entire lunar surface and horizon. The diffusion of light from the Sun is so great that most of the visible sky is illuminated. The reader should recall that  references were given in Chapter 6 explaining that in a vacuum the Sun would be extremely bright, but the sky around it would be completely black. Photo 7 is a picture of Apollo 15 astronaut Scott standing on the slope of Hadley Delta with the Apennine Mountains in the background. Photo 8 shows Apollo 16 astronaut Duke scooping samples on the rim of a deep crater with the Rover in the background. The visible sky in both of these photographs is very bright, indicating the even diffusion of light through the lunar atmosphere. Clearly, the photographic evidence does not support the assertion of a lunar vacuum. It provides evidence of a dense atmosphere. 

Another photo revealing the NASA cover-up appeared on the cover of the December 12, 1969 issue of Life magazine, showing Apollo 12 astronaut Bean setting up instruments on the Moon. He is surrounded by what appears to be a halo.6 This picture is shown in Photo 9. Since other photos of astronauts on the Moon do not show a semblance of this halo effect, there seems to be only one reasonable conclusion: In NASA's attempts to suppress visual evidence of an atmosphere, the sky was blackened or touched up in all but a few of the photographs. The halo which appeared around Bean was the result of a poor job of masking or obliterating the sky around him. Since this lunar light effect was so pronounced in this picture, it should have appeared in other photos but it did not. Other writers speculated that it was the astronaut's aura, or radio energy emissions which became visible in the Moon's vacuum. This might have had some merit if it consistently appeared, but cannot be taken seriously in light of the other photos. Significantly, NASA never bothered to give the public a reasonable explanation of why it  occurred; they simply attributed it to spurious reflections from his suit. However, this does not make any sense because the "spurious reflections" would still have be reflected off something in the space surrounding him to account for the phenomenon. In a vacuum, a camera only picks up light photons which travel in straight lines from each point in the picture; therefore, Bean should have been surrounded by a jet-black sky in the space above the horizon. The amount of reflected light surrounding him is so great that only a dense atmosphere can account for it. 

An excellent example of how the blue sky was filtered out of Moon pictures is provided by the movie film of Apollo 14 astronaut Mitchell's descent down the Lunar Module ladder. As he began his descent, the amount of light diffusion from the sky was so intense that the entire sky was almost white with shades of blue. In addition, it was difficult to see specific details of Mitchell and the Lunar Module due to the amount of light. Incredibly, as he made further progress down the steps, the white and blue sky gradually turned to light blue, then to a darker blue, and finally to extremely dark blue or black by the time he reached the surface. By then, all details in the film were clearly outlined with little, if any, light diffusion evident. The next scene in the film was the previously mentioned flag ceremony which had a very dark sky. This film segment of Mitchell shows that either the camera had a filtering capability or the film was altered after it was returned to Earth. In any event, this incident provides evidence of a dense, blue lunar atmosphere in support of evidence already provided by the waving flag on the same movie film. Significantly, it provides proof that the capability existed to filter out the blue sky in Moon photographs and films. Photo 10 is a frame taken from the movie sequence showing the blue sky. Mitchell is descending the LM ladder. 

Mists, clouds, and surface changes have allegedly been seen at various times on the Moon. Many such observations are referenced in an article by Paul M. Sears entitled "How Dead Is the Moon?" which appeared in the February 1950 issue of Natural History. The following is a partial summary of observations referenced in this article.7 Besides twilights which demonstrate the lunar atmosphere, more spectacular proof is provided by observations of bright moving specks which might be luminous meteors in the lunar air. There are monthly appearances of strange dark areas known as variable spots which spread and grow as the Sun climbs, becoming darker in relation to the rest of the surface. Some of these spots fade again toward sunset, while others steadily darken till night prevails. These spots may differ in size and shape from month to month, and some spots even occasionally fail to reappear. Sparse clouds seem to occasionally drift over the surface and obscure surface detail. Some of these clouds are outlined on one edge by their own shadow and there are certain regions where clouds are seen more frequently than others. For instance, six astronomers in the last century claimed to have seen a mist which obscured details in the floor of the crater, Plato. 

The astronomers who made the above mentioned discoveries were not taken seriously because the Moon's one sixth gravity was not supposed to have enabled these phenomena to occur. In Strange World of the Moon, written in 1960, V.A. Firsoff mentioned that experienced observers have recorded changes in the intensity of dark and bright markings during lunar eclipses and other times during the lunar day. He referred to local fade-outs of visibility when the rest of the Moon is not affected. Shades and patches which resemble mists and clouds, as well as glows and lights, have all been observed to appear and reappear in certain localities. Firsoff stated that all of these phenomena cannot be solely attributed to lighting effects or the position of the Moon with respect to the Earth.8 

According to Firsoff, an area of brightness exists in the lunar Alps where some of the peaks appear ill-defined on occasion, even though the surrounding country is sharply outlined. Furthermore, in the southeastern portion of Mare Crisium, near Picard crater, some of the obscured regions have persisted continually for years, completely covering surface detail.9 

Firsoff referred to sunlight seen near the terminator which is redder than under a high lunar Sun. He mentioned that it is difficult to explain this in any other way than scattering by gas combined with tiny crystals. Other colors of green, brown, blue, and violet have been seen in the maria and inside craters. The periodic change in intensity, position, and extent suggests that the color effects are caused by physical or chemical changes which depend on the amount of solar heat. Firsoff even considered that biological activity might account for the observations.10 The above considerations add credence to the NASA-supplied evidence of a substantial atmosphere. 

The occultation of stars by the Moon is additional evidence for the existence of an atmosphere. Charles Fort wrote a book entitled New Lands in 1923 in which he discussed the numerous observations of Moon-occulted stars.11 Apparently, the seeming motion of stars occulted by the Moon was such a commonly observed phenomenon at the time that Fort was certain that the Moon had an atmosphere. Unfortunately, the data regarding occupation which has been collected is made somewhat indeterminate by the irregular shape of the Moon's outline. In addition, the data is so variable that estimates of the density of the Moon's atmosphere cannot be relied upon. The occultation measurements only establish that there is an atmosphere, not its density. 

Eclipse halos have some of the same problems that Moonocculted stars do. An eclipse photo which appeared on the cover of the April 1979 issue of Life magazine may demonstrate this halo effect. However, critics might argue that the halo is made up entirely of the Sun's corona, not the Moon's atmosphere. In any event, disregarding the solar flares, the halo's thickness indicates that it becomes almost imperceptible at an altitude of 150 miles above the surface. At this height, the density of the Moon's atmosphere would be negligible. It would be so thin that the Sun's light would not interact with the rarefied air molecules to any extent. 

Conclusions regarding the Moon's atmosphere have always failed to take into account the extent of dust particles and water vapor suspended in it. These particles may be the greatest factor governing the diffusion of light through an atmosphere. Firsoff mentioned that the lunar atmosphere would probably scatter light like a pure gas, unlike the Earth's atmosphere which contains a high percentage of dust, ice crystals, and water droplets. He stated that even at the altitude of Pic du Midi Observatory (9,351 feet), the Earth's atmosphere will scatter longer wavelength light a lot more than the Rayleigh gas scattering formula predicts because of the large particles in it.12 

The Moon's atmosphere is not likely to experience high winds and other weather conditions to the extent that is common on Earth because of the long days and nights, and the absence of large bodies of water on the surface. Therefore, the atmosphere is probably much cleaner than the Earth's and light diffusion and scattering effects would be minimal. In addition, sunrise and sunset color effects would not be as great and the atmospheric halo would be less apparent at the time of a solar eclipse. Occultation of stars would not be as pronounced as expected and the interpretation of the findings would be that the Moon has an extremely thin atmosphere. The atmospheric density could still be as great or greater than Earth's without being as visible. 

It is logical to assume that the Earth and Moon, and hence their atmospheres, were created in the same way. An atmosphere is probably produced by the discharge of solid and gaseous material from the upper crust. Bodies like the Earth and Moon will possess atmospheres of the same depth if their gravities are the same and sufficient to hold an atmosphere. If one of them has a lower gravity, its atmosphere will be deeper because the gases are compressed to a lesser extent than the atmosphere of the one with the stronger gravity. The depth of an atmosphere is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the gravitational field. This follows from the gas law involving pressure and volume which states that the volume of a confined gas is inversely proportional to the pressure applied to it. In other words, if the pressure is doubled, the volume becomes half as great. 

If the Moon has as much atmosphere in relation to its surface area as the Earth, is there any direct evidence that indicates it? According to Paul M. Sears in the previously cited article, lunar astronomers in the 1930's  began to speculate on the fate of meteors they knew must be striking the Moon. Calculations were made which showed that meteorites weighing ten pounds or more, impacting on the dark portion of the Moon (assumed to be airless), should disintegrate in a flash brilliant enough to be seen with the naked eye. Over 100 such flashes should occur each year. As a matter of fact, only two or three such flashes had been reported in all history. This meant that they were being consumed in an atmosphere before striking the surface. The Moon seemed to be better protected from meteorites than the Earth! 

To explain this paradox, astronomers reasoned that although the density of the Moon's atmosphere at its surface is only 1/10,000 of the Earth's, its density above 55 miles is greater than the Earth's at the same elevation. This was attributed to the Moon's low one-sixth gravity which was unable to concentrate its atmosphere near the surface. However, if the Moon's atmospheric density were only 1/10,000 of the Earth's at the surface, and its gravity were only one-sixth of Earth's surface gravity, the mass or quantity of atmosphere over a unit area would only be 6/10,000 of that protecting the Earth. Since the quantity of air is the most important factor which protects the surface from meteorites, the paradox was not resolved by their explanation. There simply wasn't sufficient air in the lunar atmosphere to account for the burnup of meteors if one-sixth gravity was assumed. 

According to the Sears' article, it was apparent that the brightest meteors, those that would be reported as fireballs if they occurred on Earth, should be faintly visible through telescopes. Therefore, in 1941, one of the most experienced students of the Moon, Walter Haas, began an extended search for lunar meteors. After 170 hours of searching the dark portion of the Moon with telescopes, Haas and his associates had detected 12 bright moving specks which began and ended at points on the Moon. During the same observations, four or five Earth meteors crossed the field of view. One or two of the lunar flashes may have been faint Earthbound meteors, but the laws of probability indicated that the rest occurred on the Moon. 

The reason meteors seemed to be stopped more effectively in passing through the Moon's atmosphere than the Earth's will now be given. Measurements made during the Apollo missions indicated that a bulge exists on the far side of the Moon. This implies that the density and depth of the atmosphere on the near side are much greater than the average density and depth. It is significant that the near side is primarily comprised of the so-called maria. They were originally given this name because they have all the appearances of dried-up or drained-off oceans and seas. The far side was determined to be mostly mountainous, giving the Moon extremes of elevation greater than Earth's. This same condition would occur on Earth if the oceans and seas lost their water. If the average lunar atmospheric thickness is about the same as Earth's, the conclusion is that the atmospheric density on the near side of the Moon is greater than any place on Earth! 

The startling implication of a dense atmosphere is that spacesuits and life-support systems might not be needed in most areas on the Moon if the atmospheric gases are the same as Earth's. This suggests that the Apollo astronauts may have been wearing extremely light backpacks since oxygen requirements could have been supplied by the Moon's atmosphere. It follows  that the suits were probably only used during filming to propagate the cover-up. After completing the filming sequences, the astronauts could discard the suits and backpacks and go about their Moon exploration or other activities completely unencumbered. However, in other areas the gear may have been required, just as on the highest Earth mountains. If the Earth lost its oceans, many mountainous regions and high plateaus would no longer have sufficient atmosphere to sustain life. The atmosphere would seek the lowest level and fill up the ocean beds which reach depths of many miles. Since the Earth's oceans cover the majority of its surface, millions of square miles would probably become uninhabitable. 

It is conceivable that life and vegetation could exist in certain regions despite the long lunar days and nights. Sheltered canyons and valleys at the right elevations and latitudes would not experience the extremes of temperature found in the uninhabitable areas. The extremely long days and nights occurring in the Earth's polar regions might produce very similar conditions to certain lunar regions, and significantly, life forms have adapted well to these extreme conditions on Earth. 

The previous references to drifting clouds and mists suggest surface water. Observations indicate that cloud formations are more extensive in mountainous regions and inside craters where the moisture is trapped between natural barriers. Drifting clouds require winds to move them. In a vacuum, the discharged gases would diffuse out rapidly and would not drift. 

Another indication of a dense lunar atmosphere was provided when Apollo spacecraft and lunar probes orbited the planet at an average distance of 70 miles above the surface. No specific reasons were given by NASA  for choosing this height. In fact, if the Moon had no atmosphere, the best altitude for the Lunar Orbiter satellites would have been much lower. The Lunar Orbiters were sent to the Moon to take pictures; therefore, lower altitudes would have produced more refined maps of the surface. Even the Apollo Command Module orbited at this altitude. An atmosphere forces the minimum permissible orbit to an altitude where frictional air resistance does not slow down a vehicle or satellite substantially. The effects of an atmosphere on a low altitude spacecraft would be a quick decay in the orbit, causing the spacecraft to slow down, burn up, and crash. This is why Earth spacecraft, such as Skylab and other satellites, stayed more than 100 miles above the Earth. It seems that the orbital altitude chosen by NASA was probably due to the Moon's atmosphere since it prevented them from safely orbiting at any lower altitude for any significant length of time. This implies that the density of the Moon's atmosphere may be similar to Earth's. 

One of the significant discoveries of the lunar program was that the Moon has a very feeble magnetic field. The existence of a lunar magnetic field did not clash with orthodox beliefs about the origin of a planet's magnetism because a small iron core could always be used to explain it and the size of the core could be adjusted to fit the extent of the magnetism found. 

The most probable cause of a planet's magnetic field seems to be the rotation of charges which are present in its atmosphere and on its surface. These charges rotate with the planet; therefore, the intensity of the magnetic field generated would be directly proportional to the planet's rotational velocity. Since the Moon's rotational  velocity is less than one percent of Earth's, it also follows that the Moon's field is less than one percent of Earth's. The Lunar Analysis Planning Team came to the consensus that natural remanent magnetism found in Moon rocks suggested that the Moon had a magnetic field strength at one time equal to several percent of Earth's.13 They were still uncertain as to how it was generated. 

A rotating planet can be compared to an electrical solenoid, which is a coil of wire, as shown in Figure 3. When a current is sent through the coil, a magnetic force is generated at right angles to the direction of the wire. Planets carry charges with them in their atmosphere and surface and this generates electrical currents in the direction of rotation, or east-west. The magnetic field is generated at right angles to this or in the north-south direction. Even though the charges are not necessarily moving east-west relative to the surface which is traveling with them, the magnetic field is still created because the planet itself is rotating. Other factors such as surface material, surface anomalies, caverns, winds, and so on would affect the direction and magnitude of local magnetic fields. 

The explanation just presented explains many known facts regarding geomagnetism. For example, sunspots affect geomagnetism by altering the number of electrical charges in the atmosphere and surface. In addition, geomagnetism follows a 24-hour cycle due to the variable number of charged particles reaching Earth from the Sun. Evidence will be presented in the next chapter that the Moon has no iron core. Without an iron core, orthodox physicists would have difficulties in explaining lunar magnetism. However, the new approach is logical and completely adequate to explain planetary magnetism without iron cores. 

Additional evidence of the Moon's substantial atmosphere is provided by statements which some astronauts made to the effect that stars are not visible above the atmosphere. This event was not widely discussed in keeping with the policies of NASA concerning events which deviate from standard beliefs. If this is true, then the lunar atmosphere would affect star visibility in a similar way to the Earth's atmosphere. Stars would then be visible only when viewing them through an atmosphere. On the Apollo 11 mission, less than 13,000 miles before reaching the Moon, Armstrong stated: 

I see the crater Tycho fairly clearly. I can see the sky all around the moon, even on the rim of it, where there's no earthshine or sunshine.14 

Collins then stated: Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. . . . The sky's full of stars. ... it looks like it's night side on Earth.15 

It was also stated that the Moon blotted out some of the Sun, enabling them to see the heavens more clearly. 

The conditions to be expected in a vacuum were presented in the last chapter. References were cited which claimed that the stars would be visible day and night on the Moon without an atmosphere. In actuality, most stars may not be visible to the naked eye without the aid of an atmosphere. An atmosphere acts like a giant lens and causes starlight to spread out. Because stars are considerable distances away, giant telescopes can only resolve or detect the disks of a small number of them. Only a blur of most stars is seen through a telescope and this blur is largely due to scattering and bending effects of starlight passing through the atmosphere. So the human eye, being less effective, might only be able to detect a few of the brightest stars above the atmosphere. Therefore, the ones the astronauts could see with their naked eyes would only appear as tiny pinpoints of light as opposed to blurred or twinkling stars. 

As a consequence of the above analysis, Collins' remark about their ability to see stars again may have had nothing to do with the Moon blotting out part of the Sun. Why couldn't the astronauts have looked in a direction away from the Sun, to an area of space not occupied by either the Earth or Moon? A significant amount of light diffusion should not occur in the space between the Earth and Moon. Therefore, if the astronauts were facing away from bright planets and suns, they should have been able to see stars if it were possible to do so without an atmosphere. When the astronauts reached the vicinity of the Moon, they would be able to see stars and constellations again through the Moon's atmosphere. 

One of the most convincing photos showing a dense lunar atmosphere appeared in the 1971 Encyclopedia of Discovery and Exploration, on page 131 of the 17th Volume, The Moon and Beyond by Fred Appel. This picture, taken by the Lunar Module of the Apollo 10 Command Module in orbit above the Moon, is shown in Photo 11. The Moon's atmosphere appears as a dense band of blue on the lunar horizon. It closely resembles pictures of the Earth taken from Earth orbiting satellites and spacecraft. This same band of atmosphere is what Neil Armstrong may have referred to in the previous quotation. He could not have been more precise in what he described, "I can see the sky all around the moon, even on the rim of it, where there's no earthshine or sunshine."  

It is appropriate to mention the difficulties the author encountered trying to obtain the photograph just referenced. A number of letters were sent to NASA in 1979 requesting the NASA photo number for this picture so that it could be ordered. However, no reply was ever received, even when photocopies were sent to NASA so that they would have no problem identifying it. NASA is supposed to provide this service free of charge to the public. Since this photo appeared elsewhere, it had already been issued. The author then requested the aid of the publisher of The Moon and Beyond, Aldus Books Ltd. in London, England, to obtain the NASA number. 

In December 1979, David Paramor of Aldus Books answered the author's request and identified the NASA number as 69-HC-431. He indicated that NASA had given Aldus Books permission to use it in The Moon and Beyond. The author then ordered photo 69-HC-431 from NASA's photo contractor and sent a photocopy of the picture with the order to assure that the correct photo would be returned. When the order arrived, the author received a photo consisting of 24 separately labeled Apollo 4 rocket pictures on one transparency. The pictures were numbered starting with either 66 or 67, the year the Apollo 4 pictures were taken. However, the author ordered an Apollo 10 picture, 69- HC-431. It is also strange that a label with the number, 69- HC-431 had been placed on one corner of the transparency with masking tape, yet 69-HC-431 could not have possibly been the correct number. The first two digits of the NASA photo number are coded to use the last two digits of the year the photo was taken; hence 69-HC-431 was taken in 1969 and could not have been a photo of the Apollo 4 rocket. It is also significant that this was the only one labeled with masking tape out of over 50 photos ordered from NASA's photo contractor. 

In July 1981, more than a year after the first attempt, the author again requested NASA's help in obtaining the photograph; a photocopy of it was sent; and even the number was sent, 69-HC-431. The author informed NASA of the problems encountered with the photo contractor; that Apollo 4 pictures were sent instead of the Apollo 10 photo. It is regrettable that as of the date this book goes to the printer, NASA has not responded in over a year-and-a-half to the author's requests. However, on the bright side, the author's experiences in trying to obtain it provided almost as much evidence for the NASA-military cover-up as the picture itself. Before tackling lunar geology and the structure of the Earth-Moon system, another incident will be presented which demonstrates how far NASA was willing to go to suppress the facts. On the Apollo 15 mission, a hammer and a feather were supposedly shown to fall at the same rate. The objective was to demonstrate the vacuum condition on the Moon and Galileo's famous experiment on gravitational attraction, that objects of different sizes and weights fall with equal velocity. In view of all the evidence demonstrating a substantial lunar atmosphere, there seems to be only one reasonable conclusion: If the two objects hit the ground at the same time, the feather probably concealed a rather heavy object. 

At the time of the Apollo missions, a number of observers noticed some of the discrepancies mentioned in this book. People like Bill Kaysing were convinced that the Apollo missions were faked and that all the telecasts and photos were made in some remote place on Earth. Kaysing wrote a book in 1976 entitled We Never Went to the Moon. If he still believes that the Moon is  airless and has only one-sixth of Earth's gravity, then he is justified in concluding that the missions were faked. It does not seem probable that NASA, government officialdom, or the astronauts will deny his assertions. They will simply ignore them rather than face the impossible task of explaining away the contradictions. 

By now, many readers may wonder why so much evidence of a dense Moon atmosphere would be ignored by the world's scientists for over a century. The reason is that a substantial lunar atmosphere means a high lunar gravity. In turn, a high lunar gravity means that the superstructure of conventional physics has a shaky foundation and might be seriously damaged if this fact is recognized. The military knows that these facts are the keys to understanding gravity and how to control it. In each case, vested interests are probably watching out for their own well-being at the expense of the general public.

8

MOON GEOLOGY AND THE EARTH-MOON SYSTEM 

Moon geology provides additional evidence that the Moon has a high surface gravity and a substantial Earth-like atmosphere. Other geological information collected by Apollo provides clues about the Moon's internal structure. When most people think about the Moon, they envision craters. However, craters are only one aspect of the Moon. Others deserving attention are the maria or seas, mountains, valleys, cracks, and river-like channels or rilles which meander across the surface and through lunar valleys. The craters often obscure and obliterate the details just mentioned. It is as though the Moon had an Earth-like surface at one time, but was subsequently bombarded by tremendous forces and essentially destroyed. 

Most conventional scientists believe that the Moon could never have had an atmosphere because of the weak one-sixth gravity. They then rationalize that all lunar features are the result of meteors, volcanoes, or solar wind bombardment. Without an atmosphere, there would be no rivers, weathering, and so forth. They claim that the Moon is dead and always has been. The majority of orthodox scientists will not even consider the possibility that civilizations have existed that could destroy a planet's surface or reduce an entire planet to rubble with sophisticated weapons. This attitude then forces them to find natural causes for everything observed on the Moon, Earth, and other planets. This has been the trend of scientific interpretation of lunar geological discoveries to the present. It should also be noted that if civilizations of the past had the capabilities just mentioned, some of them are still undoubtedly in existence today. With a highly developed space technology, the obliteration of one or two planets would not destroy life on all planets. Many survivors of the conflict would occupy other planets and space colonies. If conventional scientists considered intelligent intervention in the Moon's geology in the distant past, they would soon be speculating on remnants of the civilization and subjects like UFOs. 

The primary debate among Moon geology experts has been between those who believe the Moon has a hot interior and those who believe that it has a cold interior. Others believe that at one time it was hot but has since cooled. Some believe that most of the craters were produced by meteors, while others think they are volcanic in origin. One group postulates that the maria or oceans were created by volcanic lava which seeped up from the interior to create these basins after the Moon was bombarded by meteors. These same theorists believe that the craters are not as deep as they should be from meteor impact due to the same seeping lava. Without consideration of the Moon's high gravity, atmosphere, and the possibility of intelligent intervention, conventional scientists are working with very limited information. 

An important discovery which is essentially unknown to orthodox physicists and geologists is the subtle transmutation or transformation of elements into other elements without the release of radioactive by-products or radiation. The researcher Louis Kervran discovered the fundamental relationships which are responsible for Moon  the formation of mineral deposits in the Earth. He also determined that biological organisms constantly transmute certain elements into other elements in a manner unknown to most nuclear scientists. His findings cannot be refuted, yet his work has been ignored by the scientific world because the findings do not fit in with conventional theory. Geologists know that certain minerals are found in conjunction with other minerals in varying proportions. Kervran was able to show that deposits have varying proportions of these minerals because their constituent atoms actually change from one element to another over a period of time without emitting harmful radioactive particles or by-products. The implications of Kervran's findings radically change the fields of physics, geology, and many other scientific disciplines. Mineral deposits and soil can transmute many times faster than conventional science claims. Therefore, the radioactive methods used to date Moon rocks may not give results representative of the true history of the Moon. Similarly, dates given to Earth rocks may be incorrect. Kervran's book, Biological Transmutations, gives a summary of his incredible findings. 

photo 7

photo 12

                                                       photo 15

The Earth's atmosphere is the primary factor responsible for surface erosion and weathering. However, our atmosphere would become very ineffective in causing erosion if the surface water were lost. The Moon's geological features indicate that the Moon had abundant surface water in the past because the lunar hills and mountains are mostly rounded and weathered, and many river-like watercourses and rilles or cracks appear on the surface. Photo 7 shows the rounded and weathered hills in the Hadley Delta-Apennine Mountain region as well as the illuminated atmosphere. Apollo 15 astronaut Scott is standing in the foreground. Photo 12  shows Scott standing next to the Rover on the edge of Hadley Rille (as much as 1,200 feet deep in places) which could easily be mistaken for a water-formed dry gulch or river canyon on Earth. Photo 13 was not taken on the Moon but in Eastern Washington State by the author. It shows the same kind of weathering as many Moon photos. Photo 14 looks North across the Apennine Mountains with a segment of Hadley Rille winding across the bottom center. 

Three-mile high Mount Hadley is the shadow-sided peak above and to the right of the "chicken's head" shape of Hadley Rille. Apollo 15 landed on the plain just above the "chicken's beak" bend in the Rille. Craters Autolycus (25 miles wide) and Aristillus (36 miles wide) appear in the upper left near the eastern edge of the Sea of Rains (Mare Imbrium). These Apollo 15 photos provide convincing evidence that the Moon has an Earth-like gravity and atmosphere to account for the geological formations and erosion. An Apollo 17 picture of astronaut Schmitt standing next to a huge split boulder is shown in Photo 15. The rounded hills surrounding Littrow Valley and the steep slopes of East Massif appear in the background about 5 miles away. Littrow Valley is on the edge of Mare Serenitatis. The same weathering evidence appears here as in the Hadley Delta-Apennine region which is on the opposite side of Mare Serenitatis. 

photo 15

photo 16

A photo of the Moon's Alpine Valley taken by the 1967 Lunar Orbiter IV probe is shown in Photo 16. Starting in the upper right section of the photo, the Alpine Valley runs for 90 miles before it stops at the northeastern edge of Mare Imbrium (bottom left). In the middle of the valley is what appears to be a dry riverbed flowing through it into a dried-up sea (Mare Imbrium). Scientists have referred to such meandering channels as sinuous rilles and some of them even believe that such rilles were carved by water in spite of the Moon's alleged low gravity and consequent vacuum condition. The above photos point out the problems orthodox scientists have in explaining the Moon's features. If there is no atmosphere, how could there ever have been water, clouds, and rivers? There is only one reasonable conclusion from the evidence: The Moon had an atmosphere and abundant water on the surface. Therefore, the Moon had a high gravity to hold the atmosphere. But if it had a high gravity at one time, it must still have one. Since it still has a high gravity, it still has a dense atmosphere. 

Is there any other evidence that water once existed on the Moon? An article entitled "What Is It Like to Walk on the Moon?" by Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott appeared in the September 1973 National Geographic. In it he stated: 

A dark line like a bathtub ring smudges the bases of the mountains.1 These lines have been referred to as watermarks because they look like those seen along a shore. However, scientists are puzzled because water supposedly cannot exist on the Moon in the first place. The astronauts observed that Mt. Hadley displayed distinct linear markings which inclined toward the northeast at a 45-degree angle.2 If these same lines had been found on Earth, they would have been interpreted as sedimentary deposits. However, according to conventional scientists, the Moon has no known processes to account for their existence. On the Apollo 16 mission, the astronauts discovered that Stone Mountain appeared terraced and generated the same kind of lines seen by Scott and Irwin on the Apennines.3  

What happened to the water? Some of the similarities between the Earth and the Moon were pointed out in the chapter on atmosphere. The Moon has vast areas on the side facing the Earth which appear to be like oceans. It is significant that the Moon's oceans have the lowest elevations in relation to the rest of the Moon. Apollo 15 determined that the side facing the Earth is between three and six kilometers lower than the opposite side. In addition, the opposite side is primarily mountainous with few maria or oceans. 

Since the Moon probably has a high gravity and a dense atmosphere, the water could not have easily escaped into outer space. It couldn't have gone into the atmosphere because there is no substantial quantity of water there now. The one remaining place for it to have gone is into the Moon's crust. However, the only way this could have happened is if the Moon's crust is cavernous in nature. In order for the water to have entered underground caverns, openings and cracks must have been created first. This might have happened if the Moon were bombarded by large enough meteors or sophisticated weapons. Once the initial cracks or rilles appeared on the ocean bottoms, the oceans would literally drain into the crust, leaving vast watercourses, dry riverbeds, and eroded rilles all over the Moon. The dry ocean basins would then take on the characteristics of Death Valley. 

If the Moon has a cavernous structure, what evidence exists to demonstrate this? Interestingly enough, Moon probe experiments discovered mascons and Apollo missions conducted seismic experiments. Mascon is short for mass concentration. These were hypothesized by scientists to explain a perplexing discovery: Moon probes were pulled from side to side and moved up and Moon Geology and the Earth-Moon System 115 down as they passed over certain portions of the Moon. Scientists deduced that large meteors were buried a short distance under the surface which caused increases in the local gravitational fields. Some of these meteors were postulated to be 402 miles in diameter and 2 1/2 miles thick to account for the gravity variations. Why are pancake-like meteors floating through space? The higher density of the buried meteors supposedly increased the local gravity. The variations were supposedly higher than those found on Earth. 

The explanation for mascons presented by scientists creates many contradictions. First, the gravity increases are found over the lunar oceans and seas. These are the smooth areas of lowest elevation with essentially no craters. Meteors of the sizes propounded should have produced devastating craters in the oceans and seas. This was explained away by assuming that molten material came to the surface and filled in the holes. A second problem is that if the Moon's upper crust was so molten, the meteors should have sunk much deeper into the Moon instead of being stopped at the surface. Some scientists contended that mascon unevenness could not exist in a hot body. In addition to the above problems, the Moon has a lot of basalt substance produced by volcanism. The meteoritic mascons and a hot Moon, indicative of volcanism, do not agree. 

The above problems seriously undermine mascon theory. This implies that other explanations for the gravity variances must exist. Two factors will now be considered. First, the gravitational attraction over large bodies of water on Earth has been found to be greater than over land masses.4 Second, the assumption of a cavernous Moon can be used to explain the gravity variations, but orthodox scientists ignored this explanation, at least in the official reports. If the Moon's oceans drained into the crust and partially filled up vast caverns, an explanation for the gravity variances is generated. This could also account for some of the watercourse rilles and missing surface water at the same time. 

The meteoritic versus volcanic crater debate is another question which is difficult to resolve without consideration of possible intelligent intervention and the Moon's cavernous nature. Ranger 7 gave scientists their first headache by indicating a surface which looks like a rolling desert instead of the jagged terrain expected on a planet without an atmosphere. Surveyor 1 landed in Oceanus Procellarum and the pictures indicated lunar soil similar to terrestrial soil without water. Surveyor 5 landed on Mare Tranquillitatis near the top of a crater. The chemical analyzer indicated that the soil was a type of basalt which forms the rocks of ocean floors and ridges on Earth. The findings of Surveyor 5 also indicated that the amount of magnetic material was insufficient if the surface were meteoritic.5 

Surveyor 6 produced results similar to Surveyor 5 and led scientists to believe that the chemical composition was common to the lunar maria. Surveyor 7 landed in the highlands and the analysis indicated a less dense material than the mare basalt. In addition, all of the Surveyors indicated that the most abundant lunar elements were oxygen and silicon, as on Earth. Therefore, the Moon was determined to be an evolved planet, not just a source of meteorites.6 Even so, the identification of basalt in the mare basins, indicative of volcanism, did not convince the impact theorists that they were wrong. Consequently, the impact versus volcanic theory was still unresolved among scientists at the end of Surveyor. 

Neil Armstrong consistently discovered glassy patches in the bottoms of small craters. Astronomer Thomas Gold theorized that the Moon had been scorched by a flare-up of the Sun.7 An enigma was created because the patches were apparently untouched by the constant bombardment of micrometeorites and solar particles. In addition, the glaze rested on tiny pinnacles and stems of the lunar soil. Gold surmised that the flare-up had therefore occurred less than 30,000 years ago and lasted for only 10 to 100 seconds. An alternative explanation is that sophisticated weapons were used to bombard the Moon less than 30,000 years ago. The undisturbed, glassy patches would indicate that micrometeorites are not reaching the surface; therefore, they must be stopped in passing through a dense atmosphere. This is additional evidence debunking the meteorite theory of lunar erosion and supporting the other evidence of the Moon's Earth-like atmosphere and gravity. The location of the Apollo 11 landing was a low lying mare basin near the equator, Mare Tranquillitatis. This would be an area with minimal lunar weather, such as in the Southwestern United States where the military has stored aircraft for years with few deteriorating effects on the planes. In these areas on the Moon, items would be undisturbed for perhaps aeons. The relatively still atmosphere would not disturb the terrain and most meteorites could not penetrate through the atmosphere. 

In Strange World of the Moon, Firsoff suggested that the volcanic theory of lunar craters is difficult to substantiate because there is not much evidence of fire and smoke, or of ash and lava.8 Since the Moon's surface seems to resemble the Earth's in so many ways, it is reasonable to conclude that its period of extensive volcanic activity may be nearly over. The rounded surface features and weathered appearance, as well as the extensive oceans or maria, indicate that volcanism has not been a significant factor on the Moon since the formation of those features. Extensive volcanism would have disturbed the smooth maria and created a more rugged appearance. Since many of the recognizable, Earth-like features have been obliterated by overlying craters, the craters themselves were not created in the period of extensive volcanic upheaval. They had to come after the surface conditions stabilized. 

In a book by Don Wilson entitled Secrets of Our Spaceship Moon, the writer referred to the NASA publication entitled Apollo 17: Preliminary Science Report (1973).9 In it, the conclusion derived from the Apollo 17 mission was that sufficient evidence had been accumulated to indicate that volcanic activity in the last three billion years was virtually nonexistent or highly restricted. This provides additional evidence that frequent lights seen on the Moon are not due to volcanic outgassing. 

The above analysis indicates that many of the Moon's extensive craters may not have been caused by either volcanoes or meteors. Most of these craters were evidently created after the surface reached a state of maturity which made it Earth-like in appearance. The Moon must have had extensive weather, oceans filled with water, and so on. A look at the probable history and origin of the Moon is reserved for a later chapter. 

Seismic experiments were conducted to determine the nature of the Moon's crust and internal structure. Sensitive seismometers were left on the surface by lunar probes and Apollo missions. When the Lunar Module and other objects were sent crashing into the Moon, shock waves were recorded and experts could interpret the data. The results of the experiments were not anticipated by scientists. The Apollo 11 seismometer indicated that the Moon was relatively quiet. To some scientists, this meant that the Moon had a small rather than a large molten iron core. Others believed that the Moon did not have a core at all. Apollo 12 carried a much more sensitive instrument that was designed to operate continuously. After the discarded LM hit the Moon about 40 miles from the landing site, the three long-period seismometers picked up a sequence of reverberations which lasted for more than half-an-hour. This meant that the structure of the Moon was quite rigid because it resonated like a bell when struck. Some scientists contended that the Moon is solid without any liquid inside. This was another blow to the molten core hypothesis. Others concluded that the Moon was hollow, but this did not seem to agree with gravity theory. 

The Moon's high surface gravity indicates that there must be a serious flaw in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. This flaw is a key to understanding the true nature of gravity for the first time. Since Newton first formulated his Law in 1666, not a single explanation for the nature of gravity has been generated and accepted by the academic community. Even Newton did not claim to understand the nature of gravity. He merely attempted to describe the effects of gravity on falling bodies in mathematical terms. Newton assumed that whatever this mysterious gravitational force was, it somehow acted on all matter uniformly and was not scattered or attenuated as it penetrated the matter of planets thousands of miles below the surface. His theory implied that gravity was something associated with every particle of matter, regardless of its position in space. 

The probable major flaw in his Universal Law is the inherent assumption that gravity effects penetrate matter with no interacting, scattering, or multiplying effects other than the normal decrease due to the inverse-square law. Without these effects, a gravitating body's attraction for any other body is not affected by matter placed in between these bodies; hence, gravity could not exert any forces on masses. Since gravity does exert forces on matter, these effects must exist. Therefore, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation violates the law of conservation of energy. Since forces require energy, the insertion of matter between two gravitating bodies will generate energy interactions and cause the gravitational forces between the two outer bodies to decrease, unless there are additional gravitational effects generated by the inserted matter. 

The scattering of gravity seems to be demonstrated when mountain masses do not pull plumb bobs out of line to the extent demanded by Newtonian Gravitation theory. Geologists have tried to explain this by assuming that the average density of matter under mountains is less than that of matter under oceans. A more likely explanation is that gravity effects produced by matter inside mountains are partially dispersed or attenuated by overlying masses. This is one factor which may account for the differences. The above information and the Moon's high gravity suggests that gravity is produced by a very penetrating radiation. Although it penetrates matter to considerable depths, the ability is still limited. 

It is significant that the Moon's high surface gravity implies an impossible mass for the Moon if the Universal Law is used. If 64 percent of Earth's gravity is assumed, the Moon would need an average density of 13.0 gm/cm3 (grams per cubic centimeter) according to the Gravitation Law. This is greater than the density of lead which is nearly 50 percent heavier than iron. 

From a determination of the center of mass between the Earth and Moon, the Earth would require 81.56 times the Moon's mass which would give it a density of 21.5 gm/cm3 . This is about twice the density of lead; therefore, even the iron core hypothesis cannot solve the mass enigma. It should be noted that the flaw in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation inspired the hypothesis of the Earth's iron core. Once the Earth's mass had been assumed, the Moon's mass was determined by the gravitational force at its surface. It is probable that only a limited thickness of the Earth's crust contributes to the majority of the Earth's surface gravity due to the scattering of gravity radiation originating from masses below a certain depth. This implies that the Earth's mass cannot be accurately predicted using the conventional method. If the planets had empty or hollow centers, the surface gravity might not be much different than if they had iron cores, or even lead cores. This seems to explain why the Moon has such a high gravity for its size. Because of this effect, the conclusion is that Newton's Universal Law overstated the mass of the Earth in the first place. 

The Earth's iron core was hypothesized because the average density of the crust was not adequate to account for the whole Earth's predicted mass. The Earth's crust has an average density of 2.7 gm/cm3 compared to the Moon's average crust density of 3.3 gm/cm3 . To satisfy Newton's Gravitation Law, the Earth's average density had to be 5.5 gm/cm3 . This led to the Moon's average density of 3.34 gm/cm3 . The slight difference between  the Moon's surface density and the predicted total average density enabled a small iron core to be postulated to account for the slight magnetism found. This is where orthodox Moon theory stands today. In the last chapter, geomagnetism was explained using a theory which does not depend on the existence of an iron core. 

Scientists believe that they have verified the existence of the Earth's iron core by measuring shock waves reflected off it and through it. However, they might also get a reflection off large caverns inside the Earth or off the inner surface if the Earth were a hollow shell. Similar experiments were conducted on the Moon and shock wave measurements convinced scientists that they had found the Moon's mantle. However, the evidence provided by Apollo seismic experiments also points to the conclusion that the Moon is hollow and relatively rigid. 

It is not commonly known that the Earth displays the same bell-like ringing or reverberation as the Moon. Since the Earth is 81.56 times more massive than the Moon, it takes a much larger explosion or shock wave to generate this effect. Joseph Goodavage referenced such occurrences in his book, Astrology: The Space Age Science.10 He mentioned that the ringing effect was recorded during the May 22, 1960 Chilean earthquake. This was supposedly the most violent earthquake that had been recorded since the establishment of official world records in 1881. Goodavage provided a description of the effect which was given at the 1961 World Earthquake Conference, held at Helsinki, Finland. The description stated that the shock was so severe that the entire planet rang like a bell. The ringing continued for a considerable length of time in a regular series of slow impulses which were recorded at various independent  seismic stations. Goodavage also noted that the planet rang again as a result of the Anchorage, Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964. It seems somewhat hard to believe that scientists were so appalled in finding that the Moon rang like a bell. After all, the Earth displays the same characteristic. 

The hollow Moon concept was extensively explored by Don Wilson in the previously mentioned book, Secrets of Our Spaceship Moon. In it, Wilson referenced a Saga interview conducted by Joseph Goodavage with Dr. Farouk El Baz, a former NASA geologist who trained the astronauts.11 According to El Baz in the Saga article, not all NASA discoveries were announced: For example, he mentioned that there were many undiscovered caverns within the Moon; that several experiments were performed to see if caverns existed along with subsurface ice.12 What does the hollow Moon concept do to the Newtonian concept of gravity? It indicates a lower Moon mass than that predicted by the famous Newtonian Law. It provides evidence for the limited penetrating ability of gravity as previously explained. Finally, a hollow Moon also implies that the Earth is hollow. Before providing additional evidence, an important point needs to be stressed once again: Scientists have determined the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system. This enables them to accurately calculate the ratio of Earth mass to Moon mass. The problem then is to correctly determine the mass of either one of the planets (Earth or Moon). But if they are hollow, the shell thickness must be known to determine the planet's volume. In addition, the average density and extent of caverns must be known. Without iron cores to worry about, the average density can be approximated based  on the density of the crust, but the shell thickness is difficult to estimate, even with a number of incredible Earth photos. One of these is presented for the reader's inspection in the next chapter.

next

https://exploringrealhistory.blogspot.com/2021/02/part-4-moongate-nasamilitary-cover.html

SATELLITE PHOTOS AND BIZARRE EARTH FINDINGS

notes

CHAPTER 7 

1. Richard Lewis, The Voyages of Apollo, (New York: The New York Times Book Co., 1974), p. 67. 

2. Ibid., p. 67. 

3. Ibid., p. 107. 

4. Ibid., p. 116. 

5. Ibid., p. 116. Footnotes 223 

6. "Apollo 12 On The Moon," Life, December 12, 1969.

7. Paul M. Sears, "How Dead Is The Moon?," Natural History, February 1950, pp. 63-65.

8. V.A Firsoff, Strange World of the Moon, (New York: Basic Books, 1960), pp. 76-77. 

9. Ibid., p. 81. 

10. Ibid., p. 110 

11. Charles Fort, New Lands, (New York: Ace Books, 1923), p. 42. 

12. Firsoff, Strange World of the Moon, p. 129. 

13. Lewis, The Voyages of Apollo, p. 134. 

14. Howard Benedict, "Moon 'Eerie Sight', Apollo Chief Says," The Indianapolis News, July 19, 1969, p. 1. 15. Ibid., p. 1.

CHAPTER 8 

1. David R. Scott, "What Is It Like to Walk on the Moon?," National Geographic, September 1973, p. 327. 

2. Richard Lewis, The Voyages of Apollo, (New York: The New York Times Book Co., 1974), p. 218. 

3. Ibid., p. 253. 

4. William Gordon Allen, Overlords, Olympians, and the UFO, (Mokelumne Hill, California: Health Research, 1974), p. 110. 

5. Lewis, The Voyages of Apollo, pp. 51-52. 

6. Ibid., pp. 54-56. 

7. "Glazing the Moon," Time, October 3, 1969, pp. 72-74. 

8. V.A. Firsoff, Strange World of the Moon, (New York: Basic Books, 1960), p. 62. 

9. Don Wilson, Secrets of Our Spaceship Moon, (New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1979), p. 33. 

10. Joseph Goodavage, Astrology: The Space Age Science, (West Nyack, New York: Parker Publishing Co., Inc., 1966), p. 60. 

11. Wilson, Secrets of Our Spaceship Moon, p. 107. 

12. Joseph F. Goodavage, "What Strange and Frightening Discoveries Did Our Astronauts Make on the Moon?," Saga, March 1974, p. 36. 

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a journalist, I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of artistic, cultural, historic, religious and political issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyrighted material can be removed on the request of the owner.