It looks alot like an excavator, or some watermill wheel.

Blue Glowing Light from Aristarchus and other lunar sites

Could this be caused by Xenon gas under a big glass dome ? You know sometimes the light from modern bright car headlights looks brilliant blue when viewed at a certain angle.

Perhaps they are growing food in these domes or maybe producing the gas for ION PROPULSION.

At any rate, Wikipedia lists the many uses of this gas.

Just waiting for somebody to blow this theory apart now as I know next to nothing and am happy to admit it!

Brian.

The Case of the Disappearing Rays (white ejecta)

Here are 2 photos taken by Apollo. One was taken by Apollo 8 (December 1968) and the other by Apollo 12 (November 1969). Both photos are of the same identical area. The area is on the farside and as you look at the moon it is located just beyond the horizon about the 2 o'clock position.

Here is the first photo which is AS8-12-2209:



Here is what NASA has to say about this photo: "Long narrow rays have been reported in the polar region of the earth facing hemisphere of the Moon. The very bright-rayed crater near the horizon (in this photo) is now thought to be the source of those rays". OK. Sounds logical to me. Remember that the dark-bottomed crater in this photo is Lomonosov (a Russian founder of present-day natural science, 1711-1765.)

Here is the second photo of the identical same area taken by Apollo 12 (AS12-55-8226).



Where did the rays go? We can clearly see all of the craters now even though it is only 11 months later. Apollo 8 took their photo in December of 1968 and Apollo 12 took their photo in November of 1969. But where are the long, narrow rays? And where is the "very bright-rayed crater near the horizon which NASA now thinks is the source of the long-narrow rays reported in the polar region of the Earth-facing hemisphere of the Moon.

To add to the mystery in the Apollo 8 photo you can clearly see the city and the spaceport and all of the tubular structures. And in the Apollo12 photo they are all gone. Where did they go? And where did all the white ejecta go?

Dear Michael Griffin:

What kind of a ship are you running here boy!

On March 13, 2007 you told Congress that "It has been almost 35 years since man last set foot on the moon." I would invite you to look at some of the photos in this thread called "John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS".

Let me respectfully remind you that it is against the law to lie to Congress.

I am respectfully wondering if you would like to rephrase that statement?

Respectfully,

John Lear

Hey greatlakes, I think I found another drop of spilt milk on the farside:

Originally posted by Rilence
Yep Borg, agreed...If there are some other chemical processes involved, organic or not, that could explain the variation in colour with the oxidization on phosphorous we would normally expect..

Now the question is, what could cause that...

Oh goody!!! I LOVE this line of reason....

You DO realize both of you are talking about OXYGEN on the moon, yes?

But I looked all over the web and I cannot find blue or purplish glow associated with phosphorous

Edited - Cos I'm and idjit and dont read properly sometimes

Now now no need for that

Originally posted by zorgon

If the premise is a mining operation... the obvious thing to do is search for anomalies that support a mining operation... You also have to adjust your search to the scale of the image...

Zorgon,

All of the evidence leads to greatlakes and Rilance being professionally sponsored. Let me respectfully suggest that you do not waste any of your valuable time on either of them. Their obstructions follow a time-honored pattern of 'plant and run' where they suggest something which sounds logical but isn't and then leave without explaining or elaborating shouting over there shoulder, "you do the research."

I know that it is easy and fun for you to beat them to a pulp with evidence and facts but we have work to do. They're probably full-time airbrushers with NASA.

Originally posted by braddman
I would interject that none of the pictures "clearly" show anything, so please don't use that term. The pictures are all very low resolution and nothing is clearly anything. If there were CLEAR evidence, like very high resolution photos showing a base on the moon, I guarantee it would be on the news already, because one of us would make that happen.

A lot of the images, such as the rectangular structure in the crater could be attributed to compression artifacts.

I'm not saying those images are or aren't something, I'm just saying be objective, they aren't CLEARLY anything.

Oh they are in Mr Lears world

Have you heard of his "Soul transmission antenna" idea.
That one realy cracked me up.

Originally posted by ArMaP

I think that the features you identified as "city" and "spaceport" are there, in the same place as they were in the other photo, just not that visible.

OK. Let me respectfully ask you to show me.

Here is the spaceport from AS8-12-2209 colorized:



Here it is not colorized from the identical area of AS8-12-2209:





And here is the area from your post where you say the spaceport is but just 'not that visible' from the Apollo 12 photo AS12-55-8226. Thanks.

John, can we all say in unison airbrushed. What better proof can you have then NASA doctored the photo. This is one of the biggest coverups ever in the history of man on this planet Earth. This is the same way with Mars NASA doctoring photos and hiding the truth about what is really on the Red Planet.

Again coverup after coverup. The coverup has been truely contrived, orgastrated and with a concerted effort to hide the truth what actually is on the Moon. I do not know about you but I feel cheated and out right lied to by the powers in control or should I say out of control. Think of the technology we have been deprived of as a human race. Power, money, greed what comes first? But we will all be told this is in your best interest and One World Security. Rik Riley

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by zorgon

If the premise is a mining operation... the obvious thing to do is search for anomalies that support a mining operation... You also have to adjust your search to the scale of the image...

Zorgon,

All of the evidence leads to greatlakes and Rilance being professionally sponsored. Let me respectfully suggest that you do not waste any of your valuable time on either of them. Their obstructions follow a time-honored pattern of 'plant and run' where they suggest something which sounds logical but isn't and then leave without explaining or elaborating shouting over there shoulder, "you do the research."

I know that it is easy and fun for you to beat them to a pulp with evidence and facts but we have work to do. They're probably full-time airbrushers with NASA.

WTF ???!!!

I have read every single post in this thread...And on more than a few occasions I've said I am certain man has been on the moon for over 40 years, and I have also said I agree that many of the anomalies found are likely to be buildings, etc...

Heck, several pages back a posted a cropped image of Agarum where I stated I believed there was at least one building there...

And you make that kind of comment ?

[edit on 26-5-2007 by Rilence]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Rilence

Now, what exactly caused those particular shapes to form, I have no idea at all, other than what I said in that they dont seem to be "natural"

Anything else you want me to take a look at ?

Thank you for that opinion "they don't seem to be natural.."

As to looking at any others... no I don't have any others that you need to look at... after all this thread is NOT about looking at anomalies in detail.. studying them as best we can, and gathering comments and opinions about what others see in these anomalies...



I DO hope the sarcasm came through in that last statement

Seriously Rilence... I posted four of the easiest for others to see anomalies and it truely IS the point of this thread to point out these anomalies... And we have repeatedly said that they must be viewed in a graphics program and for people to double check them in the originals so one can see we are not making this up.

So I would humbly suggest you do look at them in the context they are in in the original photos of Copernicus... The "Ancient Excavator" is on a graded slope near several "buildings" and the sloped grade goes through most of the image in Cop #1

In order to understand the concept of the Lunar mine we are presenting, one must look at the whole of the evidence together not just pick apart a single image.

If the premise is a mining operation... the obvious thing to do is search for anomalies that support a mining operation... You also have to adjust your search to the scale of the image...

All this we have done... and guess what? we find MANY examples to support our theory

Zorgon, I would have thought you had already realised I have seen these anomalies throught the thread, and I've said to you here, and in U2U that I dont doubt for a second quite a few of them are buildings and so on. ?

As to your question a page or so back with regard to phosphorous, indeed there must be oxygen up there causing it to oxidise and glow like that..Probably together with some other substances to give the blue color...

Originally posted by Rilence

And you make that kind of comment ?

originally posted by Rilence
This thread needs people like greatlakes and others to come in, look, analyse and post..Fresh eyes, blood and ideas are always a good thing when trying to make sense of anything.

We've already made sense of what's going on, thanks. I don't particularly care for some "I'm not an expert, but...." trying to post that the fission reactor at Aristarchus is a drop of milk or that we need to 'do the research'.

Thanks anyway.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Aren't those ejecta rays a flat feature? The idea I have of it is that they are like a splash of mud, painting the ground with a layer of the material ejected from the impact.

Here ArMaP take another look. Here is an enlargement of AS8-12-2209. Now does this look like a 'splash of mud'? Does this look like "painting the ground with a layer of the material ejected from the impact."

Does this look like a case of the 'direction of the light could make them (the long narrow rays) invisible because they are not in a position to reflect light, the only characteristic that differentiates them from the rest of the ground being their bigger albedo."

Take a good long look at AS8-12-2209. It is right out of NASA-SP-246:

Originally posted by Rilence
Zorgon, I would have thought you had already realised I have seen these anomalies throught the thread, and I've said to you here, and in U2U that I dont doubt for a second quite a few of them are buildings and so on. ?

Yes I know you did... but I was trying to generate conversation on THOSE particular objects. It seems every time I try to bring those back, they get brushed aside and ignored LOL. I had hoped greatlakes or yourself would take the opportunity to actually analyze what we are seeing. and discuss them...

What happens here is we show hundreds of anomalies and people either say wow, cool images or try to debunk everything as rocks and tricks of light and shadow or ink blots. Only a few work at explanations so when new blood comes in... well.... YOURRRRRR UP!

So when we get a good one, its not surprising the talk is diverted...

As to Johns comment, don't take it so hard...

He takes getting used to

As to your question a page or so back with regard to phosphorous, indeed there must be oxygen up there causing it to oxidize and glow like that.. Probably together with some other substances to give the blue color...

Be careful now... all that oxygen talk will get you in trouble with THEM

[edit on 26-5-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by greatlakes
Try FOCUSING on one image anomaly at a time, is that so hard to do?

Yes apparently so, because I asked you DIRECTLY about 4 images to get your response, and your reply was nothing to do with your opinion of those images...

And instead you come back with this post telling us to focus on one image at a time...

Seems that you are confused.



[edit on 26-5-2007 by zorgon]