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.

 

Jesuit priest debunked the lunar breathable atmosphere theory!

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear...if you have ever looked up at the Moon you can see that there a very few clouds and little indication of wind which would mean that if there was an atmosphere that it was very stable.


Er, another explanation for the apparent lack of clouds and wind would be that there's no atmosphere to speak of.

Your notion of 'stable' atmosphere without any differences in pressure is more preposterous nonsense which demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of even the simplest of physical principles - the same phsical principals which you, as a pilot, are fully aware of.

Atmospheres are made of gases and gases by their nature are dynamic ever moving systems.

Even you will not deny that the moon is repeatedly exposed to the full glare of the sun followed by complete shade - night and day.

The heating (or cooling) of a gas has a direct relationship to it's pressure and volume.

That's the science and you are well aware of it. As a pilot you were taught about the atmosphere and how it works. Every time you set QNH you explicitly acknowledge the reality of it.

Your mindless speculation about a stable atmosphere without changes in pressure is in direct contradiction to established principals which you were taught, were examined in, *passed* exams in and use(d) on a daily basis to ensure that you didn't plough your plane into a runway which your altimeter says is 200ft lower.

Why don't you explain these principals to us and then explain why they don't apply on the moon?

But explanations are not your thing, are they..? Speculation suits you much better.




posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Mudshark
 

Hi Mudshark,
Is it possible that if the atmosphere surrounding the Moon is as John Lear says, equivalent to Earth's atmosphere at 15-18,000 ft that it would be far less dynamic? Without the denser air below, and the lighter air above, it does not seem reasonable to make a straight comparison with Earth's atmosphere. Clearly there is some sort of movement of air of sorts as smoke ,dust, etc can be seen on numerous photo's.
You may not like my belief either, that most of the far side hemisphere of the Moon is hollow, and that the atmosphere is generated from within, there are many 'holes' in the Moon big enough fo a 747 to fly in and out, assuming of course some atmosphere.
For the reasons stated, I would not expect to see extreme or violent weather patterns on the surface of the Moon, even considering the daily exposure to the Sun.
Regards,
Horsegiver.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by horsegiver
Is it possible that if the atmosphere surrounding the Moon is as John Lear says, equivalent to Earth's atmosphere at 15-18,000 ft that it would be far less dynamic?


No it's not! I've spent plenty of time at these altitudes, in my mountaineering years, and the winds and all sort of atmospheric phenomena are pretty brutal up there. It is inescapable -- the heated surface of the planet will give rise to massive convection patters; the surface itself is not heated evenly; there is a large temperature changes between the night and day sides of the moon; and so on ad infinitum.



You may not like my belief either


I'm afraid I don't, even though 'beliefs' belong more on a religious forum than on pop/alternative science one.


that most of the far side hemisphere of the Moon is hollow, and that the atmosphere is generated from within


Oh I see it's getting better and better. Given the massive, and I mean massive, cavities within the far side of the Moon according to you, its center of gravity must be way off from its geometric center, which would have led to all sorts of phenomena which we apparently do not observe.


there are many 'holes' in the Moon big enough fo a 747 to fly in and out


Would you say that the latest European jumbo jet would also fit in? Or is it too large?


For the reasons stated, I would not expect to see extreme or violent weather patterns on the surface of the Moon


Well I'm so very sorry but you haven't stated any reasons whatsoever except for your "belief" that 747s could be flying in and out of the hollow Moon (on the far side, of course). That's not a "reason".



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Dear BS,
Thank you for your lively response, but I am still inclined to my view of the Moon, given that the Moon is about a quarter of the size of the Earth and the overall volume of it's percieved atmosphere considerably less than that. it is in this context that I feel it unreasonable to make a direct comparison with Earth's atmosphere, and why I believe it to be less violent.
If the Moon were to be largely hollow on the farside, surely that would explain why we only see the same face, as the Earth's gravity would exert more force on this nearside. If the Moon were perfectly balanced, then perhaps it would rotate?
It might amuse you to know that Galileo referred to both craters and 'holes' in the Moon in his Siderius Nuncius, and I also have the temerity to believe that this description gave rise to the notion that the Moon was made of cheese!
If you look at enough photo's from the Clementine Lunar Atlas you will eventally see some air/space craft that are much larger than anything we have down here. Why not take a look, there are some here on ATS.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I am sorry, but... since when that priest his trustble?
He is a scientist BUT....he answers first to THE CHURCH, and not the science!
The Church had lied to humanity and twisted history facts due to control and a seek for power for centurys.
A Vatican priest scientist will never be a trustble source for absolutly nothing!! He will just say what the Pope want he says!



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by horsegiver
 


Hi horsegiver I admire your tenacity, but are you saying the Moon does not rotate ?



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


Hi Sherpa,
The Moon only shows us one face, so it surely is not rotating relative to the Earth, but of course it rotates along with the Earth, and the Sun shines all around it as the Earth rotates. There is no 'dark side' only a farside,[eclipses apart].
Thank you for your kind words,
Regards,
Horsegiver.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Hello...

I know this thread is dedicated to a discussion about the possiblility, or plausibility, of a breathable atmosphere on Earth's moon. However, what I've begun to notice instead is a slightly snide tone beginning to creep into some posts, in my opinion. (And not just on this thread). My understanding is that ATS should be a 'scholarly' discussion forum.

When I mentioned 'snide' I was referring to the unfortunate use, by some, of initials when responding to a user's post instead of their full screen name. I will not cite specific instances -- I think as you read you'll get my point. Just saying, here, that respect should always be paramount, even when you disagree with what someone writes.

Thanks, now back to our regular programming....



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   
if anyone is curious, this is what an atmosphere looks like







compared this to a non-nasa source of the lunar surface(to eliminate satanic free masons corrupting everything)




[edit on 25-11-2007 by syrinx high priest]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   
The videos of earthrise and set from the Japanese orbitter show no effects that could be attributed to any atmosphere or were they hastily edited? (frame by frame too)
Or is the atmosphere so perfect it doesn't have any refractive properties even when looking across the horizon?

We should also note that they were shot from the 'dark' side.

I'm backing the Jesuit priest's logic here.

Always wondered what the supporters of a lunar atmosphere have to say about 'Bailey's Beads' observed during a total eclipse.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by horsegiver
reply to post by sherpa
 


Hi Sherpa,
The Moon only shows us one face, so it surely is not rotating relative to the Earth, but of course it rotates along with the Earth, and the Sun shines all around it as the Earth rotates. There is no 'dark side' only a farside,[eclipses apart].
Thank you for your kind words,
Regards,
Horsegiver.


Hello Horsegiver,

You are correct in using the term 'farside' of course, instead of the over-used 'darkside'. Its rotation about its axis almost exactly coincides with its orbital period...we actually see about 59 percent of the 'near' hemisphere.

My question for you about the atmosphere is this: We know the Martian atmosphere is very thin, mostly co2, and a human would require a pressure suit on the surface. Yet we can see duststorms and other phenomena even with telescopes from Earth, and of course with orbiting cameras. SO, if there are sufficient pascals on the Moon to allow a shirtsleeve environment, and the Moon is a good deal closer to the Sun than Mars, thus receiving more infrared radiation, why have we yet to see signs of weather?

Thanks for your indulgence.


[edit on 25-11-2007 by weedwhacker]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
My question for you about the atmosphere is this: We know the Martian atmosphere is very thin, mostly co2, and a human would require a pressure suit on the surface. Yet we can see duststorms and other phenomena even with telescopes from Earth, and of course with orbiting cameras. SO, if there are sufficient pascals on the Moon to allow a shirtsleeve environment, and the Moon is a good deal closer to the Sun than Mars, thus receiving more infrared radiation, why have we yet to see signs of weather?


Any takers on this?

Excellent question, TJ/WW!

By the way, I bet you'll hear that the atmosphere on Mars is quite dense and the numbers in our books are all cooked. Which still does not explain the issue about which you inquire



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Originally posted by weedwhacker




My question for you about the atmosphere is this: We know the Martian atmosphere is very thin, mostly co2, and a human would require a pressure suit on the surface.



Thanks for the post ww. It is my opinion that Mars has a breathable atmosphere and this opinion is base partly on NAZA's propensity to lie and give false information and partly on a statement by a former NAZA empoyee who was monitoring a video by an on board camera on one of the Viking Mars Landers and watched a man walk across the landscape in front of the camera. At this point the NASA employee watched her monitor go blank. She says she and several others ran upstairs to the main monitor and found the door locked. The man had no spacesuit, was not breathing supplemental oxygen and was wearing street clothes.



Yet we can see duststorms and other phenomena even with telescopes from Earth, and of course with orbiting cameras. SO, if there are sufficient pascals on the Moon to allow a shirtsleeve environment, and the Moon is a good deal closer to the Sun than Mars, thus receiving more infrared radiation, why have we yet to see signs of weather?


It is my opinion that the distance from the sun of a planet has nothing to do with that planets temperature. In others words Mercury is not hot enough to melt lead and Pluto is not an ice cube.

It is my belief that the sun is an eletromagnetic sphere and that its energy is filtered by a planets atmosphere to provide comfortable temperatures for those living on Saturn, Mars, Venus, Uranus and other planets in our solar system.


Thanks for your indulgence.


And thank you for your posts and comments, they are truly appreciated.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Umbra Sideralis
 


I just want to say that I agree with you 100% Umbra Sideralis. If I could give you 5 stars for that post I would.


You have basically said it all, no debate needed.


[edit on 11/28/07 by housegroove23]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Originally posted by syrinx high priest




compared this to a non-nasa source of the lunar surface(to eliminate satanic free masons corrupting everything)


Thanks for the post high prient. The photo you posted, allegedly from Kayuga, in my opinion is a fabricated video to the extent the moon is a model, probably carefully built with plaster of paris or someting like that and the earth is a rendering, cut out and pasted onto a stick in the background which was raised or lowered depending on whether the earth was rising or setting.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Capt. Lear, you are a fascinating person, and I tip my hat to you for being a gentleman.

Cheers!



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
The photo you posted, allegedly from Kayuga, in my opinion is a fabricated video


And your opinion is based on...?
Do you have sources in the Kayuga program?



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Hello Weedwhacker,
Thank you for your comments, I will try to answer your question to the best of my ability as a non scientist. The absence of visual evidence of a weather system could be at least partly explained by several possibilities. 1. Very low moisture content, 2. There is a weather system contained within the Moon,[I can almost hear Buddasystem jumping up and down at this suggestion] but just cast your minds back to the time when clouds formed inside the Saturn Rocket Hangar and it rained, I have to confess that I thought it was hilarious at the time.
I think that scale, is an important factor to consider, and making direct comparisons with other celestial bodies, is not always fair or at times, relevant.
The actual surfaces of Mars and our Moon are too quite different. Mars looks more natural and the Moon looks very artificial, very much reworked at least, and has either been 'cooked' by some passing comet, or large areas have been atificially heat treated on an enormous scale.
Because I believe the Moon to be inhabited, it seems logical to generate a breathable atmosphere, and over time, it seems logical that it would eventually 'leak out' and gradually build up around the outer surface.
If indeed there were inhabitants, then is it not possible that water, being a precious commodity, is extracted via an internal weather system?
Just a thought, surely the Lunar landers must have taken barometric readings along with all the other data? which would surely have been useful to know just prior to take off as it is down here.
I may not be right Weedwhacker, I simply think it's possible.
Regards,
Horsegiver.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by horsegiver
 


Thanks, horsegiver, fascinating stuff as always.

ATS, in the various threads, provides a lot to chew on. While I can never claim to know all and be all, I appreciate the opportunity to at least post and express what I do know, however small it may be, and see what others will then contribute to the overall knowledge base that is ATS.

What I meant was - my skill base and personal knowledge includes flying airplanes and working within an airline environment. Since I've never actually been to the Moon or Mars I, like most of us, have to imagine what it would be like based on what we read/hear from various sources. I will try to continue to use my critical thinking skills to understand as best I can...



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Just curious... China's moon orbiter (Chang'e I) and Japan's Lunar Probe (Kaguya) are both orbiting the moon as we speak, wouldn't "breathable air" be one of the FIRST things either one of these probes would detect??

I'm not very familiar with their mission details or the specifics as to what these two spacecrafts missions will cover or look for, but wouldn't breathable air be a pretty obvious find regardless of what their actual "mission objectives" were?

Sorry folks, I'm not a test pilot, scientist or a physicist so I apologize in advanced if my question seems "dumb" (for lack of a better term), but it would seem to me that "breathable air" on the surface of the moon would be a pretty big deal and something that either one of these spacecrafts would detect. After all, isn't Oxygen (aka- breathable air) and "atmospheres" one of the first things us humans look for when probing other planets and/or moons??

Again, I'm sorry for my "Two Dimensional" way of thinking, I'm sure many of you here are much more knowledgable regarding these topics than I am, but it would seem pretty obvious to me that if there were an atmosphere and breathable air on the surface of the moon, we (mankind) would know about it already.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join