Dark side of the moon: 55-year-old mystery solved

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Margana

The picture is split in the middle. I guess they couldn't take one complete picture? hmm




posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Also why isnt there a satilite orbiting the moon right now allowing American school children to see LIVE, COLOR images of the landing sights? How much would you pay to access that live feed and be able to manipulate a camera to pan and zoom in on the pride of a nation.

You know why this wont occur. Lies are much easier to keep, when you keep people in the dark.

First rule of control, make them fear the truth more than they fear the lies we want them to believe.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace




Secondly why doesn't it spin like the earth. Kinda messes with the big bang idea doesn't it? We need an somone with an astronomy education to sort this out.


You mean on its own axis, if so it does and this is the reason the far side cant be seen from earth.

It rotates on its axis at a speed to match its orbit around earth so that only one side faces us.

If it didn't rotate every side of the moon would be visible at one point or another from an earth perspective.

I haven't much astronomy education but that is how I understand it.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Something I do not understand is how the far side of the moon would not be more cratered than the side that faces earth. Perhaps I do not understand how impacts occur or something, but here is my reasoning...The same side of the moon is always facing earth. Therefore for a celestial body of some type to hit this side, it must pass relatively closely to earth. It would have to pass one of the earth's "sides." Or at some point on the sphere. Of course it would not really be "close," but to hit the side facing earth it seems to me that it would first have to miss earth, maybe coming in at an angle or something, and not be affected by the earth's gravitational field to a degree that would throw it off from a lunar impact.

I suppose the explanation might be that the moon is not that close to the earth. There is plenty of room for a body to get by and impact our side of the moon. But it just seems that since the other side is facing toward open space that it would receive more impacts. Perhaps the gravitational field of the earth actually helps to direct certain impacts into the lunar surface. I just don't know.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Based on my understanding of the astrophysics, it's actually somewhat less likely for an incoming mass to strike the far side of the moon due to the Earth's influence. It's not impossible, but less likely.

I was taught that the Earth, being of much greater mass than the moon, has a greater influence. Anything approaching from the wrong angle or at the wrong velocity wouldn't intersect the Earth but might have its orbit altered enough to force a lunar impact.

As far as the article goes, it's exactly what I was taught as well. The moon cooled from a molten state at different rates due to tidal locking, therefore causing a noticeable difference in the two sides.

Great thread!



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Due to the size of the Earth, size of the moon, and the distance the moon is from the Earth, the Earth is not going to block too many asteroids from impacting with the near side of the moon.

Here's a animated GIF showing how long it takes light to get from Earth to the moon. It shows relative size, and the distance too:




posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
Something I do not understand is how the far side of the moon would not be more cratered than the side that faces earth. Perhaps I do not understand how impacts occur or something, but here is my reasoning...The same side of the moon is always facing earth. Therefore for a celestial body of some type to hit this side, it must pass relatively closely to earth. It would have to pass one of the earth's "sides." Or at some point on the sphere. Of course it would not really be "close," but to hit the side facing earth it seems to me that it would first have to miss earth, maybe coming in at an angle or something, and not be affected by the earth's gravitational field to a degree that would throw it off from a lunar impact.

I suppose the explanation might be that the moon is not that close to the earth. There is plenty of room for a body to get by and impact our side of the moon. But it just seems that since the other side is facing toward open space that it would receive more impacts. Perhaps the gravitational field of the earth actually helps to direct certain impacts into the lunar surface. I just don't know.


Why don't you read the article that tells you the answer as to why the far side of the moon is the way it is, or heck look at the posts (2 done by me & a couple by Eriktheawful) that gives the answer as to why the far side of the moon is the way it is.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kuroodo
a reply to: Margana

The picture is split in the middle. I guess they couldn't take one complete picture? hmm

Why don't you read my post that talks about the picture looking like that.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: subtopia
Also why isnt there a satilite orbiting the moon right now allowing American school children to see LIVE, COLOR images of the landing sights? How much would you pay to access that live feed and be able to manipulate a camera to pan and zoom in on the pride of a nation.

You know why this wont occur. Lies are much easier to keep, when you keep people in the dark.

First rule of control, make them fear the truth more than they fear the lies we want them to believe.


*facepalm*
There used to satellites orbiting the moon, there probably is still one or two orbiting the moon so yes American school children can look at images of the moon.
What landing sights are you talking about? Oh right, the imaginary people living on the moon *roll eyes*

First rule of control: keep people stupid & keep information limited so people stay stupid & can be controlled.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: subtopia
Once again a poor, grainy, BLACK AND WHITE picture of the moon. We are in the 21st century earthlings!!!!! and this is the best we get of the CLOSEST ORBITING BODY TO OUR PLANET, with all the billions spent at NASA and other space agencies. Give me a break. What critical thinking person could agree to this being the best that we have available with our present visual technology. Mushrooms fed sh#t and kept in the dark until harvest time.


There is Google Moon: www.google.com...



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kuroodo
a reply to: Margana

The picture is split in the middle. I guess they couldn't take one complete picture? hmm


Er, how high resolution do you think it would be if it was the whole moon in one frame? The whole point of the LRO is that it is in low orbit to take close-up pictures. How could it take a photo of the whole moon from 50km up?

There is incredible detail available of the lunar far side.

The LROC imagery is all available here:

target.lroc.asu.edu...

Click the menu, then click the globe at the top and choose "Orthographic (farside)". You might want to untick "sunlit region".

Then you can zoom right in to 1 metre per pixel or even 50 centimetres per pixel in many areas. Here is an example of the imagery available on the far side. Note the scale bar. You can make out craters down to a few feet across.



edit on 17-6-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: subtopia

You're talking to the same people who don't question why there's 3x more classified photos of the lunar far side than those made public. Clementine being a major example. There will NEVER be a live satellite imaging feed on the moon.

Same people who don't wonder why NASA has admitted to airbrushing lunar photos in the 90s or why there's countless proofs of images being smudged and edited before that. Now photoshopped.

Looks like this OP got punished for sock puppetry or just being weirdo loser. Good riddance.
edit on 6/18/2014 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLegend
a reply to: subtopia

You're talking to the same people who don't question why there's 3x more classified photos of the lunar far side than those made public. Clementine being a major example. There will NEVER be a live satellite imaging feed on the moon.

Did you miss the post directly above showing imagery at 50cm - 1 metre per pixel of the far side of the moon? As for "live imagery", how do you propose sending live images from a satellite on the far side of the moon? And why do we need "live images" of a desolate and virtually unchanging landscape?


Same people who don't wonder why NASA has admitted to airbrushing lunar photos in the 90s

Now that would be big news! Got a link to this major story that apparently the entire world missed?



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Until live images are available, we do this on earth every single second from any positional linking sats are linked up to a base station with optic fibre connections then any critical thinking person is compelled to state 'FOUL PLAY'.

'FOUL PLAY'

LIVE FEED IS A SCIENTIFIC REQUIREMENT. In the absence of direct observation that can be continually repeated, the fact is all we have then is theory and belief.



a reply to: Rob48



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: subtopia


Foul play? Er, it's the moon. There's nothing happening there. You can compare photos taken in the 1960s with photos taken now. Nothing has changed, barring the odd meteor impact.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: subtopia

There is an impossibility of meeting your terms. Besides the fact that the moon is >2 light-seconds away, as soon as someone comes out with what they say is a "live" feed, conspiracy theorists will just say it's not. So nanny nanny boo boo.

The exact thing happened with moon hoax people. For decades it was, "Why aren't there any pictures?" In 2009, we finally had a telescope in orbit capable of taking images of the sites, they did, and what happened? "Oh, those are just Photoshopped!" There's never any way to disprove a conspiracy when you want to believe it because it can keep going deeper and deeper and you can keep coming up with more excuses.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: subtopia
we do this on earth every single second from any positional linking sats are linked up to a base station with optic fibre connections


What?

Do you even have an idea of what you're talking about?

Anyhoo, there's no reason for live feed of the Moon. LRO has covered the whole Moon at high resolution (in some places, down to 25 cm/pixel), and even provides "fresh" images to monitor meteor impacts or any other changes on the surface.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Stop trying to use 50-60s photos of lunar far side. Have you even seen those photos? Their utility value is 0 to any side of the argument. E.g. Luna 3:
www.dvice.com...

On the other hand, many high resolution photos from the Clementine Mission in the 90s had evidence of tampering, available publicly. A few examples:
www.thelivingmoon.com...
www.thelivingmoon.com...
www.thelivingmoon.com...
Donna Hare with top-secret clearance and later Dr. Ken Johnston were some of the whistle blowers who came out and said it was their job to edit photos of any extraterrestrial presence. Gary McKinnon also hacked into NASA and the Pentagon and confirmed this. Several astronauts included.

LRO has no value other than examining unclassified portions. It's owned by NASA. They have edited photos and made countless lunar photos classified in the past since the Lunar Orbiters 1-5 and Apollo. They have admitted to this. They then made countless photos classified in the 90s with Clementine's high resolution photography - almost all from the lunar far side. In other words, the fact the U.S. government has classified lunar photos means you can discount LRO since any part on the moon they have previously classified would now be edited in the LRO data.

So I will ask once again: what is there that's "classified" on the moon, particularly the far side, or that needs editing? Why are whistle blowers and astronauts coming out and declaring they've been told to conceal certain alien evidence? Is it all a big joke?



How do you propose sending live images from a satellite on the far side of the moon?

NASA had one of their twin GRAIL probes, the Ebb, comprehensively film the lunar far side in January, 2012. Even before 2012 it would have been a simple fix to make it a streaming video. Instead they released the footage 2-3 weeks after they edited it and the video itself was only 25 seconds long. People compile, edit, and produce music videos that are minutes long and far more complex in a matter of hours. They have no explanation for this time gap or for releasing such short footage in fast-forward.

P.S. your avatar is from the Apollo 17 mission, lead by Commander Eugene Cernan. Gene stated before that UFOs are from "other civilizations" and that "other Earths exist". Other astronauts even went so far as to say they were being monitored by UFOs while they walked the moon. Do you not believe him?
edit on 6/18/2014 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Ok, the OP got banned?



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
ROB 48 If you think those photos from 2009 are the best your government can come up with of one of the most significant occurrences in known human history, being the first to walk on another celestial body, getting there before Russia, an object that has a direct and dramatic effect on our planets weather, oceans,tides and environment then good luck to what else you submit your conscious thoughts to.

Real Truth has some pretty concrete requirements and what the general public is given by NASA is similar to what the Vatican gives to its believers.





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join