Bob's Red Pill #6 - The Moon

by Crypto Psi

Long time coming, this one. One of my favorite rabbit holes. Let’s go.

The Moon is an anomaly of our solar system. Even if you’re the biggest normie, you have to admit the moon is special. It’s far too big compared to the Earth to be classified as a normal moon. It’s origin is still a mystery that has been artificially solved by NDT-NASA reddit-types. In fact, it wasn’t that long ago that mainstream scientists and thinkers openly questioned the origin story of the Moon.

Even “safe” sci-fi guys like Isaac Asimov were clued in to Moon anomalies:

We might look upon the Moon, then, as neither a true satellite of the Earth nor a captured one, but as a planet in its own right, moving about the Sun in careful step with the Earth.

To be sure, from within the Earth-Moon system, the simplest way of picturing the situation is to have the Moon revolve about the Earth; but if you were to draw a picture of the orbits of the Earth and Moon about the Sun exactly to scale, you would see that the Moon’s orbit is everywhere concave toward the Sun. It is always “falling” toward the Sun.

All the other satellites, without exception, “fall” away from the Sun through part of their orbits, caught as they are by the superior pull of their primary [planet] but not the Moon.

The moon was used as a scientific instrument to prove Einstein’s General Relativity in 1919, during a solar eclipse. This event allowed us to observe the Sun’s gravity bending light from stars behind it, perfectly in line with Einstein’s predictions.

Of course, this story hides another Moon anomaly in plain sight: the fact that it is nearly identical in size to the Sun from an Earth-bound human’s perspective, creating stunning solar eclipses. For reference, the Sun is 400 times bigger than the Moon.

all of these observations are good flat-earth rebuttals too btw

Now, when this simple observation is brought up in polite conversation, the average Bill-Nye-tier redditor will immediately scoff and call it a coincidence. After all, there are a few other examples of this phenomenon in our solar system, right?! (but not really, cope) … the combination of uniqueness of the Moon’s relative size compared to Earth, and the fact that it covers the Sun near-perfectly during an eclipse, is quite a stunning anomaly. Yet we’re just getting started for those still skeptical.

Imagine the Moon brought straight to the surface of the Earth so they touch. Do any mathematical phenomena reveal themselves? Yes:

The circumference of the Earth-Moon “super-circumference” is the same length as a square constructed around the Earth. Keep in mind for later that the Earth-Moon diameter ratio is around 11:3 — common shorthand ratio for “squaring the circle”, one of humanity’s oldest mathematical quests. Now, of course, squaring the circle with whole rational numbers is mathematically impossible, given the irrational nature of pi. But isn’t it fascinating that the smallest whole number ratio approximating this phenomenon is reflected in the dimensions of our planet and its moon?

11:3

Could these simply be epiphenomena of gravitational physics equations and constants? While examples of this are replete throughout our solar system (as one would expect), I still haven’t ever heard a convincing, non-hand-waving explanation for why this would explain these Moon anomalies. For one, the Earth-Moon size is already unique among all bodies in the solar system, without digging in to the specific numbers, which makes it all the weirder. Shouldn’t we see tons of other Earth-Moons if this were the case? Furthermore, there’s even more weirdness.

Before we continue, I’d like to again stress that all Moon anomalies were once considered as such, and hotly debated among academics and scientists. Now, the party line is to chalk everything up to coincidence and call you insane for questioning any further. This, of course, mirrors so many other taboo subjects in our culture.

Robin Brett, NASA scientist, was a known dissenter from Moon origin orthodoxy. From his Washington Post obituary:

Three theories on the origin of the moon had been debated before that first lunar mission, New York Times reporter John Noble Wilford wrote in his book “We Reach the Moon,” published shortly after the first lunar landing.

“The first theory held that the moon was torn from the earth by a fission process,” Wilford wrote. “The second was that the moon was formed at the same time as the earth as a sort of twin planet. The third was that the moon was unrelated to the earth and was captured by earth’s gravity.”

Wilford quoted Dr. Brett: “All three theories have weaknesses. The composition of the returned lunar samples makes it difficult to derive them from anything like the composition of the earth’s mantle. This, therefore, makes the fission theory extremely unlikely. And if the moon was formed as an identical twin planet with the same composition as the earth’s mantle, the same argument applies against that theory. The capture theory presents difficulties in celestial mechanics and is regarded as statistically fairly improbable.”

So, concluded Dr. Brett, “It seems much easier to explain the nonexistence of the moon than its existence.” [emphasis: Psi]

(Note: this opens up the “did we even go to the Moon?” can of worms. I’m purposefully avoiding this topic for this piece, more on why later)

Just a NASA scientist (pre-reddit era) casually pointing out that none of the prevailing Moon theories make any scientific sense. Moving along.

There’s a short piece by Fred Cameron called Our Impossible Earth and Moon, which I’m basically ripping off in this BRP installment. If this BRP inspires you, may I suggest Fred’s piece as your second stop down the rabbit hole. Fred says:

If we compare the size of the Moon with the size of the Earth, we find that the Earth is 3.66 times as big as the Moon. Taking the reciprocal, the Moon is .273 times as large as the Earth. We will find these two numbers—sometimes with the decimal point in different places—repeated over and over in the message, sometimes in the sky, but sometimes here on Earth and in our own bodies. In information theory, it is the repetition of a pattern or a number that changes it from mere noise into information.

He’s talking about this weird “constant” that keeps showing up, 273, or 2732. For example:

• The ratio of Earth’s diameter to Moon’s diameter is 0.273. (The moon is 27.3 % the size of the Earth)

• 27.32 earth days is the sidereal period of the moon

• -273.2 degrees Celsius is the temperature of Absolute Zero

• 27.3 days is average menstruation, 273 days is average length of human pregnancy

• Sunspots revolve about the Sun’s surface in 27.3 days

• 273 days from the summer solstice to the vernal equinox

• 2,730,000 is the circumference of the Sun in miles

• The Cosmic Background Radiation is 2.73 K

“But Psi, these are just arbitrary units in a lot of cases! Miles?! who cares about an archaic measuring system?”

OK Neil, explain why dozens of examples of these numbers keep cropping up? I’ll let Cameron explain more:

There is one more fundamental appearance of the digits 2732 we need to note. Consider a square of two units length on each side as in the diagram below. Draw a circle inside the square; the circle will have a radius of 1 unit. The area of the square is 4 and the area of the circle is πr^2 which equals just π or 3.1416 since r = 1. What is the difference in area between the square and the circle? It is 4 – π. This is represented by the shaded area in the diagram. Finally we ask what fraction of the area of the circle is this shaded area? It would be the shaded area (4 - π) divided by the area of the circle, π. Using a calculator to solve the expression (4 - π) / π we get 0.2732 to four decimal places. Here are the same digits we have already seen many times. The same exact digits we have seen above now appear as a pure, dimensionless number. This diagram doesn’t appear to be connected to the Moon, the Earth, water or babies; it is more abstract and probably more fundamental.

Organic chemist Peter Plichta in his book God’s Secret Formula says that the number 0.2732 must be a new mathematical constant, never before discovered. But we have seen the same sequence of digits describe temperature based on the properties of water, the sidereal period of the Moon and the human gestation period. Are these phenomena related to the same mathematical constant? What sort of undiscovered universal “constant” would govern the human gestation period? Are there some construction parameters that govern the orbital period of the Moon? Could these same parameters govern the properties of water and a temperature of absolute zero?

This all must be some kind of trick! Where did all these 2732s come from, never mind the decimal point? The Earth. The Moon. The Sun. Solar eclipses. Temperature relative to the properties of water. The human gestation period. The ratio of the area of a square to an inscribed circle – simple geometry. Numerical and visual “coincidences,” all mediated by the digits 2732 or its inverse, 366.

Notice that none of the numbers we have used depend on the units the numbers are expressed in, except for the Earth day. Even the temperatures we used only depend on dividing the difference between the freezing and boiling points of water into 100 equal units. There is no explanation why these things should be so. We could write one or two of them off to coincidence, but not all of them. [emphasis: Psi]

I don’t really have an explanation for this. I just know ignoring it is probably a mistake.

The Moon has always been shrouded in mystery. In the great 20th century effort to explain every mystery (especially regarding space and the cosmos), we’ve left a lot of Moon oddities tragically hand-waved away. As someone who was obsessed with space as a kid, I recoil in horror at the NeilDeGrassTysonification of such subjects, with two main results: turning actually curious intelligent youths away once they realize what a scam it has all become, and only allowing through those types who will become faithful foot-soldiers for the regime, coming up with exactly zero new ideas, completely afraid to ever be seen as heterodox.

I realized while writing this piece that it falls under the category of “Earth Mysteries”, a phrase I’ve never heard before. It has a wikipedia page:

By calling such ideas “pseudoscientific”, Wikipedia has revealed to us that they are in fact right over the mark, on the money, and to be trusted and explored further. This heuristic applied to anything written on Wikipedia has yet to fail me.

I can think of endless explanations for Moon phenomena that rest outside of the materialist dogmatic framework. Perhaps advanced extraterrestrials control the Moon and installed it. Perhaps what we call God had a more direct hand in setting off our solar system, for whatever reason. Perhaps we’ve (advanced humans) encoded numerical clues into these systems so that we ourselves can discover them at a later date.

ingo

One more Moon story. You may have heard of Ingo Swann, perhaps the greatest remote viewer of all time. He claims to have been hired by the US government to remote view certain sites on the Moon. He claims to have observed alien buildings and bases at these exact locations provided to him as RV targets. He also claims to have seen active alien life at such locations, and describes that this is the first and only time he’s remote viewed a subject that knew they were currently being “viewed”, and reacted to Ingo’s “presence”. This was apparently one of Ingo’s scariest moments in the entirety of his psychic career.

Why would the US government hire a psychic to probe certain locations on the Moon? Ingo was known for two qualities, being extremely talented in psychic/telekinetic realms, and being brutally honest about his experiences. Since this occurred after humans supposedly landed on the Moon, what knowledge was (allegedly) gained during such mission?

Which brings me to my final point, as promised: the Moon landings and Apollo program. I personally believe with conviction that many if not all aspects of the footage were faked. This implies that we faked the entire landing as well, but I’ve always maintained that it’s possible we went and also faked the footage. I don’t want to minimize the Apollo authenticity debate, but I will say I’m tired of this particular debate sucking all the oxygen (pun intended) away from these other much more interesting and axiomatic Moon-pills. Although I will recognize that many of the Apollo-mission-believers are the same that are most quick to completely dismiss the thesis of this piece.

What aspects of the Moon are most intriguing to you?