It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Havalon
[/img]
There ya go!
Originally posted by titorite
Something I wondered about. Since the moon is without atmosphere shouldn't it heat up relatively uniformly?
Originally posted by Project_Silo
ChocoTaco36,
Oh so you think we have bases on the moon and the earth is flat....
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.
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.
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
Here is another angle of Aristarchus taken by Torbay Astronomical Society
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!
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 ?
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 Havalon
[/img]
There ya go!
Here is another angle of Aristachus taken by Torbay Astronomical Society
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!
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.
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.
hhhmmm, seems kinda hard to do once you're out of fuel and spinning??