John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

I thought I would post these pics of Aristarchus crater as I had not seen them before.

You never seem to see this side of Aristarchus (crater ?) when it is usually displayed.

What interests me is the apparent structure that is exposed and would seem to prove it's convex nature which is unlike a crater.




www.lpi.usra.edu...



www.lpi.usra.edu...




www.lpi.usra.edu...



www.lpi.usra.edu...

I'm struggling to find the fusion/fission reactor in that photo? Can somebody outline it for me

Originally posted by sherpa
What interests me is the apparent structure that is exposed and would seem to prove it's convex nature which is unlike a crater.

I have noticed many times that I have a hard time trying to judge if something is a dome or a crater, so, in cases like this, I rotate the image 180 degrees to see what it looks like.

If it still looks like a crater or a dome, then that's OK, but if it looks like the oposite of what it was looking before I rotated it then I am being fooled by the light.

See what you think of this.

Rotated 180º

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

I'm struggling to find the fusion/fission reactor in that photo? Can somebody outline it for me

I can't find it either WTF. I don't think that Sherpa's photos are really Aristarchus although the government agencies that produced them have labeled them as such. I think they may be subsitute craters. You know, like in school when you get a substitute teacher because the regular teacher is sick. Maybe the real Aristarchus was sick. I was looking at Aristarchus with my 8 inch Celestron last night and this is what I saw:

reply to post by ArMaP


Hm..yes I see what you mean.

It still has an interesting interior though.

Oh, and you were absolutely right it was Humboldt.

All I need now is some real pictures, do I hold my breath for Kaguya ?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Soloist

Aside from the Leonids, which I'm sure you would have no problem looking up, here's one from 2006 - science.nasa.gov...

Do we have an image of the "meteor" that caused this flash? To me, it looks like an explosion, but we cannot discern the causative factors involved with the explosion To call it a meteor is to accept the same lack of "proof" that most would say is the downfall of "UFOlogy".

It *is* an explosion. That's what happens when a meteor smacks into the surface of the moon. I am unaware of any way to actually photograph a previously unknown meteor as it comes close enough to slam into the moon.

To be unable to accept the fact that meteors hit and explode on the surface of the moon leaving impact craters most would say is the downfall of "science" and "astronomy" as we know it.

Any cases where the meteor was tracked before impact? Without that, it is just lunar explosions (which might also be construed as supporting the Plasma Cosmology model).

I know of no such meteor tracking devices for the moon. Were all the Leonids tracked???? Or any other accepted occurrence of a meteor impact?

Originally posted by SoloistTo be unable to accept the fact that meteors hit and explode on the surface of the moon leaving impact craters most would say is the downfall of "science" and "astronomy" as we know it.

I believe it would be wise to concede on this matter. I concur with Soloist's findings and am willing to rework my own viewpoints for a clearer understanding.

Thank you Soloist for digging up that article, it was well done!

Originally posted by Matyas

Originally posted by SoloistTo be unable to accept the fact that meteors hit and explode on the surface of the moon leaving impact craters most would say is the downfall of "science" and "astronomy" as we know it.

I believe it would be wise to concede on this matter. I concur with Soloist's findings and am willing to rework my own viewpoints for a clearer understanding.

Thank you Soloist for digging up that article, it was well done!

The reason i ask this question is because we take what are seemingly mundane occurances and place them in an explanation that seems logical.

The error in this is that we spend so much time trying to classify things that don't fit i think we miss evidence for some profound actions.

The .gif i saw showed an explosion. presumably it is a meteor. but the possibilities extend beyond meteors if you study alternative schools of thought (such as plasma cosmology).

I guess it bothers me to see people take things that are theoretical, treat them like fact, and then use these "facts" to ridicule others. I have never worn my collar up, but that doesn't mean that i can't dress, right? I just don't like the things that are popular, i guess.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan...but the possibilities extend beyond meteors if you study alternative schools of thought (such as plasma cosmology).

I guess it bothers me to see people take things that are theoretical, treat them like fact, and then use these "facts" to ridicule others.

I am as much a proponent of the EU Theory as you are, but I do not want to slip into a state where I view evidence presented through tinted glasses.

I see your reference to ridicule, and for sure there has been a good deal of it lately. To me, however, Soloist did not come across as such unless I am missing something. I can respect anyone that can back up their claims with convincing evidence, and as usual one must be simultaneously mindful nothing is ever absolute, perfect, and watertight. So in the interim Soloist's evidence is more convincing to me to explain this explosion than EU Theory is.

And I would suspect something seriously wrong if I caught you wearing your collar up...

Originally posted by Soloist


To be unable to accept the fact that meteors hit and explode on the surface of the moon leaving impact craters most would say is the downfall of "science" and "astronomy" as we know it.

I think you have a word wrong in there ...

To accept all explosions as impacts from meteors most certainly would be the downfall of science and astronomy.

A clear open mind, willing to believe anything is possible, no matter how impropbable, is what is needed to be able to give science the ability to grow and expand into new realms of understanding.

Believing everything we have proved is all there is to know would be detrimental to future science and hold us back mentally from understanding further scientific discoveries in many fields.

You are truly wise when you realize how little you truly know.

You also must place the same burden of proof upon yourself as you place upon things you are skeptical of. If you do not see what impacted, you cannot take a leap of faith to what is logical, for logic deals only with what you have known and proven, not all that is out there.

I will take that to the next level. You say there may be no proof of structures on the moon, well, there is no proof of there not being structures on the moon. Since there is blurred areas, low resolution images (compared to Google Earth even), and a good chance none of us have been there personally ... all this discussion is theory, even the so called debunkers and nay-sayers. That is the TRUTH.

If you have clear scans of the entire moon's surface in a resolution of I would give you ... 1 ft per pixel, and there is still no evidence of anything ... then you have proved the surface is structure and machine free. If you cannot provide such images, then, it is all conjecture.

I will not be in support of the ignorance of disbelief because of improbability, nor believe people who have lied to me many times before ... and at best, if they haven't directly lied, then they have been seriously mistaken many times on many issues.

I have said this somewhere before, but, prove to me whether I am a human typing, or an artificial intelligence, programmed to simulate common spelling and grammar errors. Can you truly prove either way? I would have to say no. Does that make me not exist? No. I am here despite the fact you have no proof, no pictures, no evidence. A picture could just as well be doctored, created anyway ... I could show you Brad Pitt, or I could create a face as do some advertisers ... easily in the grasp of a sophisticated AI.

I am not trying to say there are furry blue elves living inside the moon. I can't say there isn't though I can say with certainty, the moon isn't made of cheese! (then again, I haven't been there )

I just hope in my lifetime, we learn half as much as they did last century ... we might actually get somewhere. But we seemed to stall out in the public eye in the 70s. Something is definitely not what it appears if you think about it with your logic. To the moon with the power of wrist watches ... to L.E.O. with the power of supercomputers in the average home. It just doesn't add up, honestly.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Soloist

Aside from the Leonids, which I'm sure you would have no problem looking up, here's one from 2006 - science.nasa.gov...

Do we have an image of the "meteor" that caused this flash? To me, it looks like an explosion, but we cannot discern the causative factors involved with the explosion To call it a meteor is to accept the same lack of "proof" that most would say is the downfall of "UFOlogy".

all that link is evidence of is TLP, which we have quite a few accounts of already.

Wow Thanks soloist for that post! That is an AMAZING flash... I wonder why it is so bright (7th magnitude). Since there is no atmosphere on the moon what would cause it to burn in a bright flash?




In either case it is a nice video of as Mr Furry says... a TLP



[edit on 25-9-2007 by zorgon]

Here is a rare thing a picture taken by Zond not sure which one.

Looks like they have gots bugs in the pool again them moonies will be as mad as hell.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I'll see if I can dig them up. Do you have a problem with me linking to some pictures you already posted? I am way too lazy to go through the NASA image files to find the ones that I need, and the ones that I am referring too have been plastered here and on the internet for some time (for good reason, they could be the real deal)

No problem at all, at least we would have input and see what you see... and if I missed any you posted I apologize. I realize the threads are huge and many... and laziness is a catching ailment here

as to the 'real deal' There is a point to be made here...

all we need is ONE image that all can easily see 'something' that shouldn't be there... just ONE that would be enough. Personally I believe one of the better ones is the "compound" because even the skeptic news caster in San Jose from CBS could see that one and all I had to show him was a small clipping..

Originally posted by sherpa

Originally posted by 2timesOO
I'm new to this subject and to this forum so I wonder if you ever saw this image AS16-121-19407

Oblique view of rim of Guyot crater on lunar farside as seen by Apollo 16

That one also goes by another name Lobachevsky Crater Look it up on google both Lobachevsky and Guyot

Weird

Originally posted by Matyas

I am as much a proponent of the EU Theory as you are, but I do not want to slip into a state where I view evidence presented through tinted glasses.

I see your reference to ridicule, and for sure there has been a good deal of it lately. To me, however, Soloist did not come across as such unless I am missing something. I can respect anyone that can back up their claims with convincing evidence, and as usual one must be simultaneously mindful nothing is ever absolute, perfect, and watertight. So in the interim Soloist's evidence is more convincing to me to explain this explosion than EU Theory is.

And I would suspect something seriously wrong if I caught you wearing your collar up...

I think we are all on the same page. I think in terms of probability and possibility, and just like to keep this page open for future consideration (when more data is available).

however, given the current understanding, and the lack of acknowledged visual evidence of electrical outbursts, for the most part, on heavenly bodies seems to be a fatal flaw.

However, to answer Zorgon's question of what made that bright flash, i would say it is possible the same thing that caused that bright second flash on the comet: electrical activity.

regardless, i can certainly agree that Soloist presented a very good post.

Hello what was the date on the moon flash?

Since I don't want to go back through all 200 plus pages, has anyone mentioned this yet?

space.newscientist.com...

Spacecraft strikes Moon with intense flash
09:57 03 September 2006

Here's another, has this been mentioned?


www.space.com...

Using data from decades-old observations, Crotts and colleagues have now found a strong correlation between TLP sightings and regions where lunar orbiting spacecraft have detected gas leaking out from beneath the lunar surface.

If lunar outgassing is a source of CO, CO2 or H2O, this could prove useful to future lunar colonies, supplying drinking water and fuel for example and saving billions of dollars in transportation costs. Hauling freight from Earth now costs about $10,000 per pound just to get from the launch pad to space.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by zorgon

Wow Thanks soloist for that post! That is an AMAZING flash... I wonder why it is so bright (7th magnitude). Since there is no atmosphere on the moon what would cause it to burn in a bright flash?

[edit on 25-9-2007 by zorgon]

According to Jay Melosh, a planetary scientist at the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Lab and an expert on planetary impact cratering -

According to Melosh, here's what happens when the Moon and a 10 kg Leonid collide:

Much of the ground within a few meters of the impact point would be vaporized, and a cloud of molten rock would billow out of a growing crater. "At first the cloud would be opaque and very hot, between 50,000 K and 100,000 K," explains Melosh. "But the temperature would drop rapidly. Milliseconds after the initial blast, the cloud would expand to a few meters in diameter and cool to 13,000 K. That's the critical moment," he says, "when the vapor becomes optically thin (transparent); then, all the photons rush out and we can see a flash of light from Earth."

You can read the rest of the article here - science.nasa.gov...

which also has more information on the Leonid impacts as well.

Originally posted by Soloist

You can read the rest of the article here - science.nasa.gov...
which also has more information on the Leonid impacts as well.

Cool thanks...

I do notice the words 'billowing cloud" in that report but I really have no problem with meteorites striking the moon... I have already collected documentation on MANY that have hit the Earth (Still a work in progress, there are hundreds)

Craters on Earth



And I had posted the Leonids... that curiously hit where the best anomalies are LOL

NASA Science News for December 1, 2006
Leonids Strike the Moon




Anomaly locations




So ummm how hard is it to aim those suckers anyway?

Originally posted by zorgon

And I had posted the Leonids... that curiously hit where the best anomalies are LOL

NASA Science News for December 1, 2006
Leonids Strike the Moon

I recall the day those locations were presented. I figured someone was either blowing up stuff to cover up tracks, or doing some clearing for construction. Either way, reliable meteor showers are a great opportunity to get some heavy work done up there while people down here are watching.

Another round of Leonids and Geminids coming up in Nov/Dec

Let's see where they hit

Well, perhaps they have, or have not been mentioned,

If lunar outgassing is a source of CO, CO2 or H2O, this could prove useful to future lunar colonies, supplying drinking water and fuel for example and saving billions of dollars in transportation costs. Hauling freight from Earth now costs about $10,000 per pound just to get from the launch pad to space.

This however peeks my interest, think about it, if this is true then that would explain shipping up the DNA.

Space ark Moon.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Stormdancer777]