Originally posted by Havalon

[/img]

There ya go!

Excellent, although i think he looks more like a Grey/Human Hybrid

Anyway, good point about Tycho, why is that crater the hottest on the IR image ?

Peace.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by 1234567]

This shot of Tycho is quite interesting, it is the (allegedly) the youngest large crater (about a 100 million years old!)
The impact zone (if that is what it is) spreads over quite a large area of the moon. My point is, could this be a cooling area, (rather like a radiator on car) it is quite huge.


[/img]

www.halien.net/TAS/Gallery/lunar/index.htm

It stands out on the IR like a dogs B.


[edit on 9-8-2007 by Havalon]

on ctc the other night Richard Hoagland said he has a pic of a rainbow on the moon .. that would be something rain on the moon.

Something I wondered about. Since the moon is without atmosphere shouldn't it heat up realtivly uniformly?

Also while there doesn't seem to be many "three in a row craters" in the IR photo, there are some "three in a row" craters. Anyone wanna speculate on that?

Originally posted by titorite
Something I wondered about. Since the moon is without atmosphere shouldn't it heat up relatively uniformly?

Apparently not. The heating process and the resulting cooling are affected by a range of factors and, in particular, by the type of rock involved. Igneous rocks which are more common in relatively young impact craters, (like Tycho and Aristarchus) tend to retain heat better than some others and the amount of dust on the surface will also have a significant impact.

I know a little about the generality of this, (but not really enough to be honest), and I've been trying to find a good detailed link somewhere but I'm struggling at the moment. In the mean time I remain open to be corrected of course.

ok, let's think about this ...

Why should the age of the crater make any difference?!

If the moon is geological inactive ... and has no atmosphere ... how in the world would it make a difference if the crater was a week old, a century old, or 100,000 years old?

There shouldn't be dust clouds blowing about, if there is no air to blow. The dust from an impact should create a specific pattern, not be spread about evenly, since there is not atmosphere to change the direction of the dust ... so in essence, you can use physics formulas based on a vacuum and get the exact spread and distance of the dust. The shockwave ... well ... it would be in the moon itself, since there is no air to transfer the shockwave across the surface, correct?

I go back to the point ... if it isn't the composition ... which by the photos released showing distribution of minerals shows where the concentrations are (mostly around the site Mr. Lear shows the mining to occur on the moon photos thread) ... then the residual heat in the craters makes even less sense.

Ok ... another thing ... how is this heat radiating off the moon so fast to create such cooling across the majority of the surface ... without an atmosphere! Eclipses aren't terribly long for there to be such a difference between those craters and the rest of the surface, unless ... there is some form of an atmosphere that circulates the hot air from the bright side to the cold air on the dark side ... and the ridge of the craters prevent this wind from cooling the inside enough to negate the fact that hot air rises.

I am just trying to look at it from different perspectives and try to see different answers.

I am no expert on thermal dynamics, but the more I look and think about it, the more odd it seems.

Still not sure about an artificial source ... but it does make sense to some extent. If there was an underground network of facilities, they would need to exhaust somewhere ... it isn't everyday an IR camera is pointed at the moon during a total eclipse ... I still hold out that anything is possible until we see clear, undoctored photos.

Originally posted by Project_Silo
ChocoTaco36,

Oh so you think we have bases on the moon and the earth is flat....

Where did I say that I believe there are bases on the moon or that the Earth is flat? I'm just wondering how a guy like you that's never been off this planet got to be so knowledgable about everything? I wish I knew it all

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
ok, let's think about this ...

Why should the age of the crater make any difference?!

If the moon is geological inactive ... and has no atmosphere ... how in the world would it make a difference if the crater was a week old, a century old, or 100,000 years old?

There shouldn't be dust clouds blowing about, if there is no air to blow. The dust from an impact should create a specific pattern, not be spread about evenly, since there is not atmosphere to change the direction of the dust ... so in essence, you can use physics formulas based on a vacuum and get the exact spread and distance of the dust. The shockwave ... well ... it would be in the moon itself, since there is no air to transfer the shockwave across the surface, correct?

I go back to the point ... if it isn't the composition ... which by the photos released showing distribution of minerals shows where the concentrations are (mostly around the site Mr. Lear shows the mining to occur on the moon photos thread) ... then the residual heat in the craters makes even less sense.

Ok ... another thing ... how is this heat radiating off the moon so fast to create such cooling across the majority of the surface ... without an atmosphere! Eclipses aren't terribly long for there to be such a difference between those craters and the rest of the surface, unless ... there is some form of an atmosphere that circulates the hot air from the bright side to the cold air on the dark side ... and the ridge of the craters prevent this wind from cooling the inside enough to negate the fact that hot air rises.

I am just trying to look at it from different perspectives and try to see different answers.

I am no expert on thermal dynamics, but the more I look and think about it, the more odd it seems.

Still not sure about an artificial source ... but it does make sense to some extent. If there was an underground network of facilities, they would need to exhaust somewhere ... it isn't everyday an IR camera is pointed at the moon during a total eclipse ... I still hold out that anything is possible until we see clear, undoctored photos.

I like your thinking FreeThinkerIdealist....great theory, and i am now tending to agree with you. Excellent.

I wonder what John Lear can suggest regarding the IR image and the hot spot craters ? Your opinion is always very welcome John.

Peace.



[edit on 9-8-2007 by 1234567]

Originally posted by johnlear
I would like to respectfully propose that one (but not the only) reason you can't see anything in these photos is because you are not ready to accept reality. Either not ready or not able (for whatever reason).

Builidings on the moon reprresent a direct threat to ones sense of reality and if one is having trouble with reality even without aliens on the moon, or is perfectly content with ones perception of reality one is certainly not going to accept anything that represents a threat to his or hers perception of 'reality'. Just a guess. And thanks again for your input.

John, confirming the existence of intelligence outside our home here on earth is an exciting proposition to many of us. Some may feel threatened by the existence of more intelligence beings, but I don't count myself amongst them. Actually I, and I think others, would find it somewhat comforting.

However, I can't allow my personal desires to influence my judgement.
I don't see any man made structures, roads, buildings or reactors in those pictures -- as cool as they are.

Might I respecfully propose that you are seeing structures in those pictures because you want so badly to believe that you may be unconsciously willing to allow your imagination to fill in the blanks?

Ok..on the subject of craters this seems interesting to me, whether it is relevant or not to this discussion is another thing.

The depth of the craters on the Moon seem to average between 1.2 to 2.76 miles regardless of their diameter.

Professor Kirill Stanyukovich, (Russian physicist circa 1937), stated that

"A "missile" of a sizable character (say 6 miles in diameter) must, on collision with the Moon, penetrate to a depth equal to 4 or 5 times its own diameter (24-30 miles).

So what is going on here, if our learned friend above is correct than surely the Moon is made of sterner stuff than has been theorised so what is that sterner stuff ?

Of course I will always stand to be corrected.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369

Originally posted by Project_Silo
ChocoTaco36,

Oh so you think we have bases on the moon and the earth is flat....

Where did I say that I believe there are bases on the moon or that the Earth is flat? I'm just wondering how a guy like you that's never been off this planet got to be so knowledgable about everything? I wish I knew it all

Riight because i claimed to know it all huh budd.Have you been off this planet?Ok then shush.

Where's the indisputable (not undesputable ) evidence that the Earth is a sphere (well, really an ellipsoid, it ain't perfect )?"""
Oh btw you said this """

And please stop bringing up the fact that I'm not an astronaut.Either is anyone else on this entire forum as far as i can tell.Really im guessing like 98% of the worlds population has not left this earth before,so what exactly is your point?

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Project_Silo]

So did anyone figure out yet if craters for some reason would be hotter?If not then the infared is a crazy crazy picture.We must figure this out.

Originally posted by Havalon

Here is another angle of Aristarchus taken by Torbay Astronomical Society

Here is an enlargment of the Torbay Aristarchus:



Below is an enlargment of the real Aristarchus. by comparing this photo/drawing with the Torbay photo/drawing you can see how they have tried to make the arch seems like it lays flat in the crater.

What I am curious about, and if John is around perhaps he could comment,
is what about Tycho - is this the propulsion outlet, once the crater slides open? It is the hottest on infra red!

I believe that that entire alleged infra red image was fabricated to direct your attention from Aristarchus. There is no reason that Tycho should show up like it did unless somebody specifically wanted your attention drawn to Tycho and away from someplace else. We live in a world of misdirection. Whenever something like this infra red photo shows up ask yourself 2 questions:

What am I looking at?

What am I really looking at?

Originally posted by sherpa

So what is going on here, if our learned friend above is correct than surely the Moon is made of sterner stuff than has been theorised so what is that sterner stuff ?

Its the same stuff that they make interplanetary space barges out of so that when they tow them from solar ystem to solar system they can withstand the occasional impact of meteors, comets and other space debris.

These space barges are really expensive to make and there is a lot of stuff insdie like laboratories and living quarters and they can't afford to have this stuff all jostled around by direct hits. So when the Apollo astronauts tried to drill into moon they were actually trying to drill into an interplanetary space barge of incredible strength. Thats why they could only drill a few inches or so.

Originally posted by johnlear

I believe that that entire alleged infra red image was fabricated to direct your attention from Aristarchus. There is no reason that Tycho should show up like it did unless somebody specifically wanted your attention drawn to Tycho and away from someplace else.

Hi again John. I wonder if you could answer a question reagrding this statement please. How do you know that Tycho is not supposed to look like this, but Aristarchus is? Many thanks

Originally posted by RedEyes

Hi again John. I wonder if you could answer a question reagrding this statement please. How do you know that Tycho is not supposed to look like this, but Aristarchus is? Many thanks

Tycho is a crater.

Aristarchus is a nuclear reactor.

Therefore Aristarchus should have a much brighter signature on an infra red photo than Tycho.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by RedEyes

Hi again John. I wonder if you could answer a question reagrding this statement please. How do you know that Tycho is not supposed to look like this, but Aristarchus is? Many thanks

Tycho is a crater.

Aristarchus is a nuclear reactor.

Therefore Aristarchus should have a much brighter signature on an infra red photo than Tycho.

Thx for the reply John. I had a feeling you might say that. I'll be more clear. Why do you believe that Aristarchus is a nuclear reactor and not Tycho?

Originally posted by jamestkirk
this is the only moon photo that i actually can perceive some sort of structure and is the most compelling evidence for me. i have a hard time with the copernicus photo's.

Well come on over to my house, Cap't and I will take you on a tour of Copernicus

hhhmmm, seems kinda hard to do once you're out of fuel and spinning??

Curious that isn't it? Well tomorrow I will toss in the whole story. Have a little job to finish in the next couple hours...

BUT Clementine left the Moon after it finished it's mission and headed to an Asteroid "Geographicos" on the way there it had issues and lost its fuel, lost its computer, lost its thrusters (depending on which version you read ) went into a spin so they had to cancel the asteroid mission because the images would be useless and then they sent it back to earth where it went into orbit, did work on the Van Allen belts and then went into a solar orbit... returning to earth 2005-6... I do not know where it is right now...

Uh huh yeah sounds like thats right.... I will fill in details tomorrow... your gonna love it!


I have more on Aristarchus too... so hang tight.... but one thing I want you to think about.... is that "The Lights Are Not Always On"

I will explain that tomorrow but think about it... it would explain much




OH! One last note about "Hot" spots... there is a LOT of Thorium lying about Tycho crater

I'll be back

{just what I need..... another #^(*&%^&)_) moon thread to work on....)



[edit on 9-8-2007 by zorgon]

Indeed the only reason for any vairance of tempature on the surface of the moon, that I can see, is related to the prime meridian lines. And even then I am not too sure because there is no atmosphere so I think the temp should be the same all over reguardless of the amount of time the sun hits moon surface...BUT maybe the standard atmosphereic logic applies and the longer the sun hits moon surface the more it heats up...Applying this logic the heat should be evenly distributed Prime meridian wise(Yea I confuse long and lat anyways) SO it makes no sense that craters on the bottom should be hotter then craters on the top...

Understand the inconsistency I'm trying to relate?