Talk:Hollow Moon

From TinWiki.org

This is a discussion page Please finish your message with your signature by typing ~~~~ or by using the signature button in the editing toolbar. Discussion pages are used for discussing the writing and editing of articles. To add a message, click the plus (+) sign tab. To reply, write directly under the post you are replying to, and preferably indent your reply by entering a colon (:) at the beginning of the line. A discussion page is for discussing the article it accompanies, not for discussing the topic described by the article. tinWiki is not a forum, but an encyclopedia. Talk page Policies Tutorial Help

Quick 'evaluation'

This is certainly a very interesting article, and definitely one that belongs in tinWiki. Right now it seems the article needs a little work.

I'd say the headers aren't always as good as they could have been. Also, in the introduction, this sentence seems somewhat out of place: "Some people, such as John Lear, claim that there are many artificial structures on the surface of the moon that can be seen in high resolution photographs." That there might be artificial structures on the moon, is not at all directly relevant to the notion of a hollow moon: Artificial structures on the earth does not in any way indicate that the earth is hollow.

These were just some quick comments. Optimist 00:59, 4 June 2008 (CDT)

I have always thought of that if the moon is hollow, it might be some type of alien spacecraft. I know it sounds crazy, but I have always felt that the two ideas are tide together. On the other hand, it may be as you say, that these really have nothing to do with one another. Maybe this is really an idea for a new article, the alien moon or maybe is the moon a ufo? Just some random thoughts I am throwing out there. I also deleted the comments about the cheerios. It was a funny comment, but not really scientific. :p William One Sac 20:01, 4 June 2008 (CDT)

Yeah, I noticed the cheerios comment, too, and was a little puzzled as to why it was there. Fun, but a little out of place, I agree.

Anyway, on the one hand I do agree, that for those who may know a little bit about the whole subject of a hollow moon, it being a constructed body -- say, like in the famous movies Star Wars where they have that Death Star constructed planet thing slash spaceship -- does go together with the notion that the moon is perhaps hollow. For example, they say the moon has a metallic ring, like a bell, when something is dropped on it, or something like that.

But, strictly speaking, at least in the very beginning of the article, I also think one should start out only focusing very strictly on describing what the hollow moon notion is. Then, farther into the article, perhaps, can the topic be brought up in some detail of precisely how it might be thought the moon came to be hollow. So, maybe the sentence in the introduction mentioning the artificial objects supposedly being seen on the moon, could be replaced with something saying that "some believe that the moon is hollow because it is an artificial body", just something general like that. And then maybe the John Lear thoughts can be presented inside a more specific presentation farther into the article, where perhaps a section is dedicated to the topic of an artificial moon.

Also, like you say, there are probably enough theories and topics about the moon to warrant more than one article. Even, right now there isn't even a Moon article that's just about the moon. Maybe the Hollow moon article here could be structured a little more organizedly (which is maybe not a word..), and then, if the topics of some of the article's sub-sections seem to deserve their very own articles, the sections can have such links at the beginning, that go to the main article, for example:

Main article: Artificial moon theory

I may try and see if I can improve the structure of the article here a little bit. Especially, looking at the headers, I felt that they are immediately an indication that something can be done to improve the structure, or at least that's what my impression was when looking at the article yesterday. Optimist 17:14, 5 June 2008 (CDT)