From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Keywords: Ten Embarrassing Questions about the Moon
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:16:45 GMT

In article <4603@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>
>                    TEN EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOON
>
>   1.) Where did the moon come from , and how did  it  attain  it's  present
>       orbit?
>
>     Scientists have generally offered three major theories to  account  for
>   the  moon  in  orbit around our planet. All three are in serious trouble.
>   Amazingly, the least likely theory prior to the Apollo  missions  emerges
>   as  the  "favorite"  theory.   Evidence  gathered  by  the Apollo program
>   indicate that the moon and  the  earth  differ  greatly  in  composition,
>   thereby degrading the two theories that prevailed prior to these flights.
>   The  first and most popular idea among these scientists was that the moon
>   had been born alongside the earth out of the same cloud of gas  and  dust
>   about  4.6  billion  years  ago. Another theory was that the moon was the
>   earth's "child", ripped out of the Pacific basin ,possibly.
>
>     However,evidence gathered by the Apollo  missions  indicates  that  the
>   moon  and  earth  differ  greatly in composition.  Scientists now tend to
>   lean toward the third theory -  that  the  moon  was  "captured"  by  the
>   Earth's  gravitational  field  and  locked into orbit ages ago. There are
>   incredibly   difficult   celestial   mechanics   involved   in   such   a
>   capture,however.  If  the moon just "happened" to wander into the earth's
>   vicinity ,Newton's  Laws  of  gravitation  would  almost  certainly  have
>   assured  an  acceleration  great enough to send it out into the depths of
>   space  again.   The  logically  consistent,  but  socially   unacceptable
>   alternative  to  this conclusion is that a steering or braking "manuever"
>   had been performed by some mechanism "aboard" the  moon.  NASA  Scientist
>   Dr.  Robin  Brett  sums  it up best: "It seems much easier to explain the
>   nonexistence of the moon than it's existence".

A capture theory requires the influence of a third body, or as you state,
artificially generated thrust. Both are extremely unlikely. Currently,
the most popular theory is that the Moon is a result of a collision with
the primordial Earth by a third body similar in mass to the present day
Mars. The result of the collision is the much smaller present day Earth
and the Moon. There is ample evidence throughout the solar system for such
collisions in the early solar system. The Lunar surface composition is 
consistent with being formed from the primordial Earth's mantle.

>   2.   Is  the  "  apparent " size similarity (as viewed from earth) of the
>     sun and moon a mere coincidence?
>
>    Yes. The fact that the moon subtends an angle of arc, as viewed from the
>   earth  ,  equal  to that of the sun ,is a " coincidence" which causes the
>   occasional solar eclipse spectacle . Only the Earth , alone  of  all  the
>   planets  in  the  solar  system , is known to harbor life and a satellite
>   with this peculiar quality . The theory that the moon was placed here  by
>   intelligent  being(s) as a sort of "planet marker " , is only a  theory .
>   As we all  know  ,  theories  are  not  necessarily  the  same  thing  as
>   "Science."

Indeed, Occam's Razor says coincidence is sufficient explanation without
calling on putative "aliens." When looking at any sufficiently large number
of random actions, remarkable coincidences can always be found. When you
roll the dice, *some* number has to come up. We find the number that came
up remarkable only because we are here to observe it. This is the anthropic
principle at work.

>    3. Why are moon rocks so much older than earth rocks?
>
>     99 percent of moon rocks brought back turned out upon  analysis  to  be
>   older than 90 percent of the oldest rocks that can be found on earth . If
>   we  assume  that the moon came from a different area of the solar system,
>   where the component material might have been different  ,this  assumption
>   would  still  not  account  for  the  disparity in the average age of the
>   matter composing the two bodies.

It's not a different age of "matter", it's a difference in the average age
of *surface* rocks. Since the Moon is a smaller body and cooled earlier,
it has no ongoing subduction processes to bury old rock, and since it has
no sensible atmosphere, there are no weathering processes going on. Thus
it's obvious why early rocks are still available on it's surface long after
such rocks have weathered or been subducted on Earth.

>     The first rock picked up by Neil Armstrong after landing on the Sea  of
>     Tranquility  turned  out  to be more than 3.6 billion years old . Other
>     rocks turned out to be even older; 4.3 , 4.5 ,4.6 and one alleged to be
>     5.3 billion years old. The oldest rocks found on earth  are  about  3.7
>     billion  years  old.  Based  on  such  evidence  ,some  scientists have
>     concluded that the moon was formed among the stars long before our  sun
>     was born.

Obviously not geologists with any understanding of the weathering and
subduction processes on Earth.

>  4. Why are the "maria" or "lunar seas" located almost entirely on one side
>     of the moon?
>
>    The dark areas on the moon are known as "maria" ,some of which form  the
>   familiar  "man  in  the  moon". Maria are significantly absent on the far
>   side of the moon. The ones on the near side area consist mainly of  lunar
>   soil and smaller rocks.  Astronauts found it extremely difficult to drill
>   into  the  surface  of  these dark, plain - like areas. Soil samples weer
>   loaded with rare metals and elements like titanium,  zirconium,  yttruim,
>   and  berylium. How the moon could have been formed by some random process
>   with  such  high  concentrations  of  rare  elements   has   never   been
>   satisfactorily explained.

This is simply wrong. The surface minerals found on the Moon are consistent
with elemental concentrations in the Earth's upper mantle, *if* you subtract
the heavy elements in the Earth's mantle present due to subduction mixing.
Titanium is not rare in the Earth's mantle. The other elements mentioned
are rare in both bodies. What's remarkably missing from the Moon rocks is
*iron*. Iron is a highly abundant element in the cores of rocky bodies
formed by accretion. It's absence from the Lunar material is significant
since it shows that the Lunar material must have come from a *differentiated*
body such as the primordial Earth.

>  5. Was rustproof iron found on the moon ?
>
>    Samples  brought  back to earth by both Soviet and American Space Probes
>   contain particles of pure iron. The  Soviets  announced  that  pure  iron
>   particles  brought back by the remote controlled lunar probe Zond 20 have
>   not oxidized even after several years on earth. Pure iron particles  that
>   do  not  rust  are  unheard  of in the strange world of science, although
>   there is a solid pillar of iron of unknown age  near  New  Delhi  ,India,
>   that has never rusted ,and no one knows why .

Simply wrong. A lie from _Chariots of the Gods_.

>  6 . Is the core of the moon hot or cold ?
>
>    When  the  Apollo  15  astronauts  used  thermal  equipment  to  measure
>   temperatures  below the surface , they got unusually high readings, which
>   indicated high subsurface temperatures near the  Apennine  mountains.  It
>   was  speculated  that  ,  since  the  presumed  density of the moon would
>   preclude the possibility of lava flows, magma and the like (volcanism has
>   never been observed  on  the  moon)  that  the  high  readings  could  be
>   explained   by  highly  radioactive  elements  just  under  the  surface.
>   Actually, the amount of radioactive materials on the SURFACE of the  moon
>   is  "embarrassingly  high"  .   Where  did  all  of this hot ,radioactive
>   material ( uranium and thorium ) come from ? And  if  it  came  from  the
>   interior  of  the  moon  (very  unlikely)  ,how  did it get to the moon's
>   surface?

There are no "embarrassingly high" levels of uranium and thorium in the
Lunar samples. In fact the levels are "embarrassingly low" for any Lunar
formation theory except collision calving from a differentiated body. 
Subsurface temperatures are unusually high only until you realize the 
insulating properties of the lunar regolith and note the absence of water 
and atmosphere to fill the vacuum voids in the material and carry heat
away by any process except radiation. Once you understand the thermodynamics
of the situation, it would be unusual if subsurface temperatures were *lower*
than those measured.

>  7. Were immense clouds of water vapor ever observed on the moon?
>
>     The few lunar excursions indicate that the moon is a  very  dry  world.
>   One  Lunar  expert  said that the moon was "a million times as dry as the
>   Gobi Desert" .  The early Apollo missions did not even find the slightest
>   trace of water. But after Apollo 15, NASA experts  were  stunned  when  a
>   cloud  of  water vapor more than 100 square miles in size was detected on
>   the  moon's  surface.  NASA  officials  suggested  that  two  tiny tanks,
>   abandoned  on the moon by U.S. Astronauts, had somehow ruptured. But  the
>   contents of  these  tanks  could  not  have  produced  a  cloud  of  such
>   magnitude. The water vapor appears to have come from the moon's interior.
>   Mists, clouds and surface changes have been allegedly seen over the years
>   by  astronomers  .   For  instance  , six astronomers in the last century
>   claimed to have seen a mist which obscured the details on  the  floor  of
>   the  crater Plato. Clouds of any kind would be an extremely odd phenomena
>   on the moon, because of the supposed low gravity, which presumably  could
>   not  hold an atmosphere.  Water trapped beneath the surface, then venting
>   by some unknown process , is one possible explanation - but then what (or
>   WHO) is "letting off steam"?

Strange "clouds" have been observed on the Moon for hundreds of years, since
the availability of telescopes. It should be noted that the Moon has no 
sensible atmosphere so the "clouds" are considerably different phenomina 
than the clouds seen in Earth's *atmosphere*. Ten kilograms of sodium vapor 
was released in Earth orbit and created a visible "cloud" over half of Earth 
for a short time. The same kind of process in the vacuum of the Moon can allow 
a small outgassing to generate a huge "cloud" that's visible from Earth. Even 
after exposure to vacuum and high surface temperatures due to solar heating 
for 5 billion years, it would be remarkable if *all* volatiles were missing 
from the Moon. Small pockets, either in permanent shadow or insulated by Lunar
regolith should still exist on the Moon. Heat "creep" via conduction 
through the poorly conducting Lunar soil should occasionally volatilize
a remaining pocket and cause a small outgassing. This is the same mechanism
that gives comets their tail.

>  8. What caused the "Glaze" on the lunar surface?
>
>     Lunar  explorations  have  revealed  that  much of the lunar surface is
>   covered with a glassy glaze , which indicates that the moon's surface has
>   been scorched by an unknown source of intense heat .   Expert's  analysis
>   shows  that  this  did not result from massive meteorite impactings . One
>   explanation forwarded  was  that  an  intense  solar  flare,  of  awesome
>   proportions  ,  scorched  the moon some 30,000 years ago. Scientists have
>   remarked that the glaze is similar to the glaze created by atomic weapons
>   on earth soil.

If a solar flare sufficient to remelt Lunar soil occurred 30,000 years ago,
there would be no life on Earth. This is nonsense. The maria are the result
of basaltic flows formed during the initial cooling of the Moon. Since there
is neither weathering nor subduction to disturb it, the Lunar surface most
resembles a *fresh* volcanic flow on Earth. If you observe a fresh volcanic
flow, you'll find the characteristic "glassy" look to the rocks. The "front"
of the Moon is protected to some extent from heavy meteoric bombardment by
the orbital mechanics of the Earth-Luna system. Thus there are fewer impact
craters on this side of the Moon than on the "outside" side.

>  9. What are "mascons" and how did they get there?
>
>     In 1968 ,tracking data of lunar orbiters first indicated  that  massive
>   concentrations  (mascons) existed under the surface of the circular lunar
>   maria.  NASA  even reported that the gravitational pull caused by themwas
>   so  pronounced  that  the  spacecraft  overhead   dipped   slightly   and
>   accellerated  when  flitting  by  the  lunar  plain  , thus revealing the
>   existence of these hidden structures,  whatever  they  are.  Calculations
>   show that they are enormous concentrations of dense heavy matter centered
>   like a bull's eye under the  lunar  maria.  NASA  has  never  offered  an
>   explanation of their existence.

Of course they have. *Every* rocky body in the solar system has mascons.
The Earth does, and Venus is presently being gravity mapped for mascons.
There are several processes that can cause mascons. The most common is
cooled magma chambers. Another is buried remains of large meteor strikes. 
On bodies with active vulcanism, subduction has erased all traces of primeval
meteor strikes and magma chambers, replacing them with contemporary vulcanism.
But on Luna, the body has completely cooled from it's formation and these
features are frozen in time from it's creation. They are all the more striking
because of the lack of a differentiated core in the Moon. 

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy