Fact checking misinformation and beliefs about the moon

[Skeptic]

I watch some of the kooky science videos like Stargate and unknown YouTube podcasters that make wild claims but there's some factual evidence of claims here and there. A trend that I noticed within these videos is criticizing the moon and scientists that study the moon. These enthusiasts say that the moon landings were fake, the moon is a hollow space station and why aren't lunar craters as deep as they are on earth? All of their questions were answered before they started criticizing lunar science. I would like to discuss those things and whatever else I missed.

First off, the moon landings were real. Don't even try arguing that.

There's a theory that the moon is a hollow space station. This idea was arrived at when enthusiasts noted that the moon rings like a bell for hours when a high speed object crashes upon the lunar surface. They point to a fact about the mass of the moon and its gravity and magnetism being disproportionately weaker and lighter when compared to other planets and moons like Venus and Titan. They say that the craters and impact basins aren't deep enough and it all adds up as evidence that the moon has an empty middle. They make a convincing case. They're wrong. They don't have a full knowledge of science and therefore their ignorance is like holes and so many holes that professional scientists don't answer them. Space science is very large and requires much more than rudimentary picture viewing.
We would all like to think there's secret lunar bases. Perhaps there's some there but absolutely not drifting around inside an empty moon like a feather inside a balloon. That would be physically impossible because of gravity. The moon would crush itself into a smaller sphere or the earths gravity would tear the moon into asteroids even if it were made of diamonds. So that leaves the question of why is the mass density of the moon so much lower than most planets and moons? The answer is simple. There isn't liquid, plasma or heat or moisture in the moon. No water, no magma. Nothing is moving. 1/2

[Skeptic]

Magnetism and power is generated when there is movement and fluid magma circulating in the middle of a planet. The moon is bone dry.

A pale of wet sand is much heavier than a pale of dry sand. Without moisture or an atmosphere and with much of the moons crust containing Titanium and other metals from billions of years of bombardment of space debris this makes for a hard solid surface. When a comet hits earth it smacks into the moist and weak soil making a much more disruptive impact that can echo and reverberate through the crust and cause earthquakes and crustal shifts all because of the softer materials and differing makeup throughout earths crust. The lunar surface on the other hand is dry and solid and without shifting fissures all the way around, covered in asteroid and comet dust that is made of mostly metal elements. No wonder the moon rings with impact, theres no differentiation between techtonics to absorb the shaking so it circles around the whole globe repeatedly with little decay, just like a bell, because essentially these are the same properties as a bell.

What about the craters being flat and circular why dont we see other kinds of scarring? These questions are also easily answered with the same data that the dry Titanium filled surface is too hard and without moisture or plasma to weaken it, therefore when an object hits the moon it explodes violently. Theres no soil to give way, just metal rock. These impacts melt the crater floor and the insides of the crater rims and when the lava cools you get a smooth flat bottom. On earth the comet can burrow deep and displace more mass with less resistance. As for there not being visible gouges on the lunar surface at more noticeable angles, same thing. The surface is so hard and dry that a high speed object would simply explode at pretty much all angles. Theres nothing soft on the surface except for fine dust, dust made of the same dry rocky metal elements. While that makes for a very undiverse scarring of the lunar surface, 2/3

[Frank Cannon]

First off, the moon landings were real. Don't even try arguing that.

I read that far before I smelled bullshit. Next their going to be talking about the invalid nature of the Cheese Theory. Pish Posh!

[RoosGirl]

First off, the moon landings were real. Don't even try arguing that.

I read that far before I smelled bullshit. Next their going to be talking about the invalid nature of the Cheese Theory. Pish Posh!

Proof

[Frank Cannon]

Proof

Exactly. Pieces like this are how junk science get started.

[Skeptic]

The moon isn't fully devoid of these angular scars, you cant easily see them. The lunar orbiter finds these non-circular lunar scars all of the time, you would be hard challenged to see more than craters from earth with a telescope.

3/3

[Wingnut]