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.

 

Richard Hoagland proves the moon has no atmosphere!!

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:34 AM
link   






Now if you go to the second video and go directly to 60:00 minutes, Richard will state that John Lear is wrong about the moon having an atmosphere…..

I'll be waiting for your reply John



[edit on 2-2-2008 by andre18]




posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Bart Sibrel would interpret almost everything that Richard Hoagland says in video two as proof that the entire lunar landing adventure took place here on earth. When you listen to Hoagland's presentation with Sibrel in mind, it is almost comical (and I like and appreciate Richard Hoagland.)

Hoagland even shows a photograph revealing light dispersion in the backround typical of a sunset here on earth and fails to draw the conclusion that the photo was likely taken on earth.

His proof that the moon has no atmosphere is his assertion that stars don't twinkle as they disappear behind the lunar surface as the moon orbits the earth. Personally, I would like a little more amplification of that one.

Thanks for posting the video interviews though. I hadn't seen them. I really enjoy Richard Hoagland's stuff. He's a provocative investigator and does ask a lot of the right questions. He is undoubtedly right about a lot of stuff, but I for one am seriously beginning to suspect that the moon does have an atmosphere.



[edit on 10-4-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Here are a couple of supplementary links:

www.windows.ucar.edu...=/earth/moon/lunar_atm.html


People used to think that moons such as the Earth's moon or the moons of Jupiter had no atmosphere whatsoever. Now, however, measurements have shown that most of these moons are surrounded by a *very* thin region of molecules which can *almost* be called an atmosphere. Such is the case with the Moon.


en.wikipedia.org...


The elements sodium (Na) and potassium (K) have been detected using Earth-based spectroscopic methods, whereas the element radon-222 and polonium-210 have been inferred from data obtained by the Lunar Prospector alpha particle spectrometer.[2] Argon-40, helium-4, oxygen and/or methane (CH4), nitrogen gas (N2) and/or carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2) were detected by in-suit detectors placed by the Apollo astronauts.[3]


science.nasa.gov...


Although lunar volcanism was supposed to have ceased billions of years ago, there's at least one place on the Moon where "outgassing" may have happened within the past 10 million years--and may still be happening today (Schultz, Staid and Pieters, Nature, 444, 184).



[edit on 10-4-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I thought I might write down what led me to this thread, because I think it is interesting. I'm not a science guy. I take an interest in it as a layperson or maybe as a "wannabe." I didn't know about the links posted above until I did a little googling a few minutes ago. However recently as the moon waned toward "new moon" I was looking at it and started to puzzle over something that I could observe from earth with my own naked eyes.

The moon was a thin sliver of a crescent, but detectable above it was the black portion of the rest of the moon in shadow. What puzzled me was why I was able to observe the rest of the globe of the moon. I thought that it should be invisible against the darkness of the sky, that it should be uniform with the backround blackness and therefore invisible. But I could see it.

After a few minutes of observation and cogitation I realized that what made that blackened portion of the moon a little lighter than the black backround of space was earthlight. Just as the earth can be bathed in moonlight, the moon can be bathed in earthlight! That is what enables us to observe the occluded portion of the moon during various phases.

However I noticed something else. Around the edge of the occluded portion of the moon there was a ring of faint light, just slightly brighter than the surface of the occluded portion. I wondered what could be the cause of this faint ring of light circling the globe of the moon. It finally came to me in a flash. The moon must have an atmosphere!

Then I got onto ATS and hunted for a discussion of this topic.



[edit on 10-4-2008 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 10-4-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I believe the moon has NO atmosphere per se, of what we would strictly define as one. It may have a transient atmosphere though, one that is sporadic at best, not in any significant concentrations. What causes it? The moon may not be completely 'dead' or inactive, may still have a warm center, causing things like venting, TLP's and the like..



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by battlestargalactica
 


Are you familiar with Bart Sibrel's films and ideas, i.e. that the moon landings were faked? I couldn't help thinking of him when I was viewing video two of the ones linked. Has Richard Hoagland, with his pictures of backround structures in the astronaut photos of the moon, provided the "extraordinary proof" necessary to sustain Sibrel's extraordinary claim?

It is interesting to note that while claiming that the moon has no atmosphere, Hoagland shows a photo that shows sunset-like light dispersion, similar to the atmospheric effect seen on earth. He didn't account for it in the video. I was wondering what his explanation would be.

If the moon truly does not have the sort of atmosphere that could account for this effect, it would tend to bolster Sibrel's claims, unless there is some explanation that Hoagland didn't mention in the video to account for the effect.


[edit on 10-4-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by battlestargalactica
 

Are you familiar with Bart Sibrel's films and ideas, i.e. that the moon landings were faked? ... Has Richard Hoagland, with his pictures of backround structures in the astronaut photos of the moon, provided the "extraordinary proof" necessary to sustain Sibrel's extraordinary claim?

It is interesting to note that while claiming that the moon has no atmosphere, Hoagland shows a photo that shows sunset-like light dispersion, similar to the atmospheric effect seen on earth. He didn't account for it in the video. I was wondering what his explanation would be.


I will have to check out Bart Sibrels material, thanks much.

Hoagland addresses the 'faked moon landing' question in the video as stating that there's probably 0% chance of it being faked. This was stated in video #2 of the OP.

As far as your other question concerning the 'sunrise, he also addressed this in the end of video#2 as: Sunset or sunrise effect not caused by an atmosphere but by the very things that he shows evidence for throughout the video, that is glass structures on the moon, and the optical effect from light producing the optical and prism effects.



[edit on 10-4-2008 by battlestargalactica]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Actually, I have read his book and if you watch the complete interview Hoagland is convinced that we DID go to the moon and NASA is trying to cover up what they found there.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Once again, Hoagland does not believe that we DIDN'T go to the moon. He states that we DID, in both his book and the video.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by QBSneak000
 


Yes, we did go to the moon 100%, however with that said, I think its possible that a very few images are not true lunar imaging, for various reasons, perhaps some promotional or training images were mixed in by accident or by purpose.

Or perhaps some images are mis-labeled or mis-interpreted by the viewer as well.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Of course we went to the moon, the discrepancies of some pictures is down to some pictures being taken here on earth, and there could be numerous explanations for them, 1 as someone said to try and cover up what they found up there, 2 in case there was a disaster on the way and they didnt want to admit failure, or 3 they couldnt get good pictures whilst there because of the cameras malfunctioning,

Too much time has passed for there not to have been someone involved at nasa not to come forward, and that was a lot of people, the guys who first came up with these claims have had their 15 mins of fame, and been totally proven wrong on a lot of occasions.

Its down to human nature to destroy anything worthwhile or the achievements of hero's, every day we hear of somebody trying to discredit those who achieve greatness IMO.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I haven't really made up my mind about the things we are discussing, except for the question of whether the moon has an atmosphere or not. It seems clear that the pendulum among scientists is swinging toward the notion that there is an atmosphere of some sort on the moon. Atmosphere is a loaded term that scientists seem to be cautious about using. However you want to refer to it, there seems to be evidence for a quantity of gases on the lunar surface.

As I understand him, Richard Hoagland believes that American astronauts landed on the moon, photographed the interior of large glass domes, returned to earth and were brainwashed into forgetting most of their experiences, except for Neil Armstrong, who has remained largely silent about his experiences. Armstrong of course, referred to protective veils covering the truth.

Anyone who saw Sibrel's films would interpret most of what Richard Hoagland said in video two as confirmation that Americans never set foot on the moon. I tried to embed Sibrel's, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, but it seeems to be no longer available on YouTube or Google video.

This thread is not really about Sibrel's thesis anyway. I still enjoy Richard Hoagland's speculations and I don't think there is much doubt that the government who gave us the JFK assassination, the RFK assassination, the MLK assassination, 911, the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq are perfectly capable of pulling the wool over our eyes at NASA.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Snap…..I didn’t realize this thread had started to take off……Well seeing how John isn’t here anymore I’d rather keep this thread’s topic on Hoagland and his outstanding work……thanks



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
After a few minutes of observation and cogitation I realized that what made that blackened portion of the moon a little lighter than the black backround of space was earthlight. Just as the earth can be bathed in moonlight, the moon can be bathed in earthlight! That is what enables us to observe the occluded portion of the moon during various phases.


A point of correction:

Having thought a little more, I believe that the above phenomenon is caused by sunlight diffracted by the earth's atmosphere, not reflected from the earth's surface. It makes a little more geometrical sense.

I think the point about the lighter ring around the globe of the moon still stands though.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


No you were right the first time, it's called 'earthshine' though. You can google that term with more success I think. Earthshine is sunlight reflected from the Earth illuminating the otherwise dark portions of the moon (when the moon is in shadow).



[edit on 11-4-2008 by battlestargalactica]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by battlestargalactica
 


Further underlining the point that I am not a scientist.

With all the talk about the moon, Bart Sibrel's videos are kind of the elephant in the room. He asks a lot of very good questions and has some shocking footage in "A Funny Thing . . . " His filmed interviews with former astronauts are also well worth looking at, especially in the light of what Richard Hoagland said about brainwashing.

I downloaded the videos months ago and have them burned to CD, but I believe that you can only see excerpts of them on the web at the moment.
It's a pity.

One thing to keep in mind before arbitrarily dismissing Sibrel is that Van Allen himself (the guy the Van Allen radiation belts are named after) said that he did not think it would be possible for astronauts to pass through them without receiving massive doses of radiation. Van Allen later changed his mind on that. If memory serves me this occurred after the first moon landing and Sibrel hints that Van Allen's change of opinion may have come as a result of pressure of some sort. A real scientist could probably get to the bottom of this point.

Maybe a strong magnetic field could be generated around a spacecraft going through them, thus shielding the astronauts from harm. The current explanation, that they zipped through them at a high rate of speed which minimized their exposure, strikes me as being a little glib. Of course, once again, I am not a scientist.

In "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" Sibrel points out other technical conundrums and shows the astronauts, in near earth orbit, faking a shot of the earth to make it look like they are half way to the moon.

When you throw Hoagland into the mix, Sibrel starts to look better and better. But maybe Hoagland is right, maybe they went to the moon, photographed giant glass domes and then were brainwashed to forget about it. Maybe there are top secret technical ways to shield from radiation and traverse the Van Allen belts. Maybe there are top secret ways to dissipate heat on small space vehicles with no room for powerful refrigeration units.

It is very odd though that we haven't been back since the Apollo missions. Hoagland would say that the return flights have "gone black." It's possible. I find it a little hard to believe that the world's amateur astronomers and radio hams wouldn't have detected this activity. Maybe they have and I am simply uninformed. Whatever the case it's a fascinating subject.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
John Lear say moon has atmosphere, Hoagland says no. Which crank do you believe ?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   
www.clavius.org...

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen


The above link is to an interesting discussion of radiation issues as they relate to the Apollo and Gemini missions in space. There are other good discussions of issues related to radiation and problems of shielding from it on the web. Having looked around a little, I'm more inclined to believe that NASA evaluated the risks of traversing the Van Allen belts and took a number of measures designed to limit exposure to levels that a daredevil would accept.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
However I noticed something else. Around the edge of the occluded portion of the moon there was a ring of faint light, just slightly brighter than the surface of the occluded portion. I wondered what could be the cause of this faint ring of light circling the globe of the moon. It finally came to me in a flash. The moon must have an atmosphere!


Well, the moon might have an "atmosphere", depending upon one's generosity, but it appears that the "faint ring of light" might be caused by something else.

www.space.com...


The effect on the moon was first noticed in 1968, when NASA's Surveyor 7 lander photographed a strange glow on the horizon after dark. Nobody knew what it was. Now scientists think it was sunlight scattered by electrically charged moon dust floating just above the surface.


According to a new finding announced this week by NASA, the moon is "whipped" by the earth's magnetosphere at times of full moon. Although the article does not include "new moon" in this phenomenon I suspect that similar effects might be observed with perhaps the only difference being in magnetic polarity of the magnetic whip and direction of the dust flow observed.

In a couple of weeks, when the moon is close to being "new" i.e., almost completely in shadow, take a look. I'm convinced I can actually see a ring of light around the circumference of the darkened orb. This is something that might vary somewhat with the strength of the solar wind, but to my eyes it is visible from right here on terra firma.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I thought it might be fun to finish these thoughts with two predictions:

Photographs of the moon will be shown to reveal patterns of dust erosion, similar to erosion caused by winds on earth.

If the moon has a significant atmosphere there will be sunrise and sunset effects (already observed, I believe), if not, then the dust clouds will produce aurora like effects similar to the ones seen in the earth's ionosphere at certain latitudes, since the moon's dust particles should gather along magnetic lines like iron filings along the moon's magnetic lines.

Here's an interesting link:
en.wikipedia.org...

The moon's crustal magnetic field:





[edit on 23-4-2008 by ipsedixit]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join