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.

 

Liquid Water Found on the Moon?

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2008 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Hi, ArMap, thanks for your replies! And thank you for letting me know that you are aware that the "liquid" theory is not mine. I really don't like to have my ATS member name stuck to that one...

About the image of the spacesuit you posted (taken outdoors and in natural light), yes, the spacesuit sure looks very fresh and clean and white. But you have to remember that this spacesuit hadn't been used on the moon's surface, no astronaut had worked with it in moon soil and dust. I think it is just logical that the spacesuit used by astronaut Scott in the Apollo 15 mission looks different than a spacesuit which hasn't been used on the moon. Scott's spacesuit is simply dirty. (My own white T-shirts sure doesn't look very fresh and clean and white anymore after I have worked in my garden!)


Moondust was incredibly clingy, sticking to boots, gloves and other exposed surfaces. No matter how hard they tried to brush their suits before re-entering the cabin, some dust (and sometimes a lot of dust) made its way inside.


This is taken from an article called "The Smell of Moondust" on one of NASA's own websites. Interesting article by the way, did you know that moondust actually smells like spent gunpowder?

Link to the article: science.nasa.gov...


Regarding your question about why NASA would tamper with the color in their images, I think it is excactly because of features like the colored "crystals" in the moon rock in image AS15-86-11570! By making the images bleaker and removing color, features like that is much more difficult to spot. And if nobody spots them, NASA dosn't have to tell us about them or explain what they are.

And another thing, don't you think it is strange that the surface looks the same in every Apollo picture (except from the ones with the orange soil, I have no doubt you already know about them). In image after image, the surface and soil have the same light grey color as for instance scarps and rilles, which in images taken from orbit looks much lighter/brighter than their surrounding areas. This doen't make sense to me, but, hey, I may just be an idiot...

Anyway, I look forward to reading about it if you find any explanation for the small colored "crystals" in the moon rock. I think they are both beautiful and fascinating.

With respect, Ziggystar60.




posted on May, 10 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
I think it is just logical that the spacesuit used by astronaut Scott in the Apollo 15 mission looks different than a spacesuit which hasn't been used on the moon. Scott's spacesuit is simply dirty.
I understand what you mean, but I think that the spacesuit on the photo you posted looks a little yellow all over, not just some areas. For example, the helmet is also more yellow than I think it should be, and even knowing that the dust could reach as high as his head (or his head could reach as low as the dust
), the fact the yellow is so uniform makes me think that this is an effect of the light.

Also, as the bottom part of the suit looks less yellow and more blue, that makes me think that this is also an effect of the light reflecting on the blue ground and background. In conclusion, not the best way of displaying something in which the colours may make a difference.

But having said that, I also would like to point that in no way I think that the dirty knee of the spacesuit would be grey without that light, I only think the light is helping us getting the idea that the spacesuit is more brownish than it really is.


Regarding your question about why NASA would tamper with the color in their images, I think it is excactly because of features like the colored "crystals" in the moon rock in image AS15-86-11570! By making the images bleaker and removing color, features like that is much more difficult to spot. And if nobody spots them, NASA dosn't have to tell us about them or explain what they are.
But what would they say if someone spoted them and they wanted to hide them? What about scientists, that know what they should and should not expect on a Moon rock, what would NASA say to them if (when) they noticed those things?


And another thing, don't you think it is strange that the surface looks the same in every Apollo picture (except from the ones with the orange soil, I have no doubt you already know about them).
Knowing the conditions in which the photos were taken I don't find it that strange. Also, not having a climate, only local activity could change the common look of the ground, I suppose it is normal for it to look the same if it really is the same.

In this photo you can see the different colours of the ground, although I think the brownish look of the right side of the photo is the result of a dirty lens, all photos have the right side more brown than the left.

In photo AS15-87-11719 you can see that the whole region had more or less the same colour.


In image after image, the surface and soil have the same light grey color as for instance scarps and rilles, which in images taken from orbit looks much lighter/brighter than their surrounding areas. This doen't make sense to me, but, hey, I may just be an idiot...
I don't find it strange, the view from a distance of a few kilometres is completely different from a closer view. I am sure you can use Google Earth or Flash Earth to see a place close to you where you can see the different colours that you can not see on the ground.


Anyway, I look forward to reading about it if you find any explanation for the small colored "crystals" in the moon rock. I think they are both beautiful and fascinating.
I thought that I had seen some more photos with things that looked like those "crystals", but I was wrong, the photos I had seen before had some bright spots, but nothing like the "crystals".

The only explanation I have for them is that they are also glass, but being small glass "drops", they behave like small glass beads.

I know that is not a good explanation, but is the only one I have.


To see what I mean, look at this photo. In this I altered the light levels to show better the areas that had more light on the original photo, that is why it looks so dark. But you can see that the reflections look similar to the those of the other glass "drops". There also some more on the top left of the photo.

Full size image here, the previous is at 50% zoom.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I havent read down this entire list of replies so apologies if this has been mentioned previously.

When I first looked at this picture I couldnt help but want to mention a word beginning with s. Having thought a little though, the moon has a direct influence over the tide on the planet.

Im kinda free thinking here without so called common sense but lets say hypothetically there is water on the moon or that this is a substance that is within the moon. Think it could be possible that water is attracted to it from earth thus creating our tides.

Im kind of putting myself out to the blender with that one but im just wondering what others think or maybe it might add a bit of a jigsaw piece to someone.

Cheers




posted on May, 11 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Hi, appreciate your comment. Interesting to read, as always. Regarding the spacesuit, I guess we sort of agree, since you say that you don't think that the dirt on the knee would be grey without the artificial light it is exposed to in the image.

About what NASA would say if scientists spotted features like the colored "crystals", I admit that I really don't know. I have absolutely no idea why they haven't questioned the colors in the Apollo images, at least nobody that I am aware of. If anyone here at ATS has thoughts or knowledge about this, it would be great if they would share it with us.

About the color of the lunar surface, I have found a document which is an abstract of the Apollo 10 Photo Debriefing, written by F- El-Baz on June 12, 1969. The Apollo 10 astronauts stated this:


The lunar maria were described as brown at high sun angles and greyish brown near the terminator (the color reproduced in frame 5149 of landing site 2 was described to approximate the real color in the latter case). The crew reiterated their commentary which accompanied the TV transmission following TEI where they noted a color mottling of Mare Serenitatis, light brown and tan brown, as compared to the darker "chocolate brown'' color of Mare Tranquillitatis. The astronauts emphasized the lack of any green tints which are apparent in some of the color film.
The color of the lunar highlands was described as tan (frame 5079 approximates the real color). Deviations from the tan color are caused by mare material (brown), fresh impact craters (chalky white) and a number of "jet black" layers and blocks.


Link to the whole document: ntrs.nasa.gov...

This is the two color images referred to in the document:

AS10-34-5149:


AS10-34-5079:



Link to the site with both images: www.lpi.usra.edu...

Best regards, Ziggystar60.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by ziggystar60]

[edit on 11-5-2008 by ziggystar60]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Hi again there Armap.


I just want to point out that it's not that hard to arrive at VERY accurate color approximations IF one has a known reference point. That is the reason why there are color calibration targets included and the reason it's a relatively simple process to arrive at how it would look to the human eye.



Levin, a physicist now at Lockheed Martin in Phoenix, knew exactly how to tell if something was amiss. Two years earlier he had written a paper titled “Solving the Color-Calibration Problem of Martian Lander Images.” Like earlier Mars landers, each rover carries a color-calibration target—a set of primary-color squares used as a reference for its cameras. If the settings are correct the, squares seen through the rover’s cameras look about the same as matching squares on Earth. Levin tracked down Mars images that included a view of the colored squares, and what he saw confirmed his fears: “When the color-calibration target is in the same scene as the Martian surface and sky, it looks completely different. The blue panel is red. It’s as if NASA color-coded blue to be red, and green as a mustard-brown color.” The results dramatically transform Mars from an ocher planet to a red one.

The myth of a red Mars should have died in 1998, when the Pathfinder imaging team finished analyzing 17,050 images from the mission. The researchers conclusively showed that the predominant colors of Mars are yellowish brown, with only subtle variations. Subsequent “true color” images of Mars from Hubble duly show a yellow-brown planet. More recently, images from the European Space Agency’s Mars Express orbiter in January and February of 2004 present Mars as a world awash in browns, blues, golds, even olives—hence Ron Levin’s surprise and dismay at seeing the garish old red Mars resurface in the cutting-edge pictures from Spirit and Opportunity

www.discover.com...




The American space agency Nasa has been accused of doctoring its pictures of Mars to make the Martian surface conform to our impression of the famously red planet.
Nasa has been accused of digitally "tweaking" drab brown scenery to make it redder. It has even been suggested that Nasa removed green patches to hide evidence of life.

The theories gained credence after Nasa told New Scientist that "getting the colours right is a surprisingly difficult and subjective job", the magazine reports today.
Most of the pictures have been taken through green, blue and infra-red filters - instead of green, blue and standard red filters, which would have produced more accurate colours.

Dr Jim Bell, who worked with Nasa on the Mars rovers' cameras, said infrared filters were used because they helped geologists to distinguish rock types.
In reality, Mars appears red largely because of the dust in its atmosphere.

www.telegraph.co.uk...;jsessionid=4QRRQRIU1H00FQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2004/01/29/wnasa29.xml


So when NASA tells us that it's 'surprisingly difficult' they are lying for one reason or another. I suspect the same is true for the moon and if you can not see a calibration target in view your never going to know how colors were 'interpreted' or for what reason.

Stellar



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Thanks a lot for you comment! I am very relieved to see that I am not the only one that thinks NASA is lying about the colors both on Mars and our moon. And I have just posted a comment above yours which shows that it must have been sometime between the Apollo 10 and the Apollo 11 mission that they decided to portray the moon as all grey and dull to the world.

Thanks again from Ziggystar60.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Why do people find it hard to believe that there is possibly water on the moon. Our planet is constantly being bombarded by snowballs from outer space that contain water. These same snowballs are probably impacting the moon's surface as well.



He estimates that these cometlike objects have been vaporizing, or changing into water vapor, in Earth's upper atmosphere for 4.5 billion years. They shower the planet with water that eventually becomes lakes, seas, and oceans!

Frank first detected the cosmic snowballs on satellite images taken more than a decade ago. At first, he thought the specks were just "visual static." But recent images from NASA's new Polar satellite orbiting Earth captured similar specks "streaking" toward the planet. The tails of these tiny comets (about 12 meters, or 40 feet, in diameter) seemed to show traces of oxygen and hydrogen--the elements that make water. Frank has calculated that about 43,000 "snowballs" enter Earths atmosphere each day.


Snowballs from space
www.encyclopedia.com...
www.nso.lt...
query.nytimes.com...



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Hi, StellarX!

Thanks for pointing that, I should have said that it is extremely difficult without a standard that we can use, that is the whole reason for the creation and use of that colour strip on the gnomon and the colour rectangles on Mars rovers.

For us without access to the original colour target it is also difficult, we can not know if the grey areas of the target were pure neutral grey or if they were "hot" and "cold" greys.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by kindred
 


Because water can exist in three different states, solid, liquid or vapour, according to the pressure and temperature of the environment.

On the Moon only ice is expected to be found, in places that never get Sun light, because liquid water can not exist at the conditions that are present on the Moon.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

On the Moon only ice is expected to be found, in places that never get Sun light, because liquid water can not exist at the conditions that are present on the Moon.


NASA also says that 100% of the water in your body would be sucked right out, leaving only dust, if you didn't have a nice quality space suit. (attention Gatorade Commercial Marketing team)



Can you tell me why an astonaut turns to dust if they take their suit off while on the moon?

I believe the answer has to do with equilibrium thermodynamics. There is no water in the Moon's (almost non-existent) atmosphere and so the water would get sucked out of the astronaut's unsuited body in an effort to even out the water vapour pressure over the Moon's surface. Since there is so little water in the astronaut's body compared to Moon surface, the water leaves the body very quickly and very completely, leaving behind dry dust.


sse.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


Why do you say "also", it was not NASA that said that the conditions on the Moon do not allow for vapour or liquid water, it was I.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


Once more the problem of the colours arise, even with the same photo.

While, as you pointed out, the Apollo Image Atlas has this image


the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth has this one.


This one is the previous photo after I changed the colours to make the black border really black.


Which one of these is most close to the real colour? We do not have any way of knowing because we do not have anything that we can use to adjust the colours.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop

NASA also says that 100% of the water in your body would be sucked right out, leaving only dust, if you didn't have a nice quality space suit. (attention Gatorade Commercial Marketing team)

sse.jpl.nasa.gov...


The people at NASA should really make up their minds about what constitutes reality and what does not. One really wonders what they know , or why they lie about it, given just how often they change their minds.


HOW LONG CAN A HUMAN LIVE UNPROTECTED IN SPACE

If you *don't* try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a
minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your
breath is likely to damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to
watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum trouble if your
Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal
experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no
immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do
not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.

Various minor problems (sunburn, possibly "the bends", certainly some
[mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue)
start after ten seconds or so. At some point you lose consciousness from
lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate. After perhaps one or two minutes,
you're dying. The limits are not really known.

www.ksc.nasa.gov...


So there's the 'facts' from the 'facts FAQ page' at NASA.


Stellar



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


Why do you say "also", it was not NASA that said that the conditions on the Moon do not allow for vapour or liquid water, it was I.



I meant "in addition to" your point ArMaP

This was a syntax error on my part



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Hi, I know the subject of the true moon colors is very difficult. But I see no reason to doubt what the Apollo 10 austronauts said in the photo debriefing in June 1969. When they described the colors of the moon's surface, they used these words: Brown, greyish brown, light brown, tan brown and chocolate brown. Always the word brown.

In this document: ntrs.nasa.gov...

So I don't think the color in the photo from The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth can be right. On their website they also say that "Most browse images are not color adjusted". And what is that strange green border around the image about? Was green the color used to mask the real color of the image? (Just a thought, I do not claim to know this at all.)

Anyway, I think your color adjusted image is much, much closer to the truth. Thank you very much for providing us with this version of the image, you did an excellent job - as you always do with images.

Best regards, Ziggystar60.





[edit on 11-5-2008 by ziggystar60]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
So when NASA tells us that it's 'surprisingly difficult' they are lying for one reason or another. I suspect the same is true for the moon and if you can not see a calibration target in view your never going to know how colors were 'interpreted' or for what reason.


What never ceases to amaze me is the money they spend on state of the art photo equipment and yet can't give us a decent picture


Look at how long it took the public to see that those old Navy Clementine images were actually taken in high res color, yet they STILL have the old black and white data sets at there main browser sites. If you don't know where and what to look for, you would never know the color ones exist :shk:

www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

OH and BTW the Navy says they won't sell you any land...




posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
reply to post by timelike
 

Hi I would just like to point out ONCE AGAIN that the theory about water on the moon was NOT mine - it was Zorgon's! If you read my comments in this thread you will understand that I have nothing to do with the "liquid" theory, and I really don't want it pinned to me! I also think it is highly unrealistic, you see.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by ziggystar60]


I don't recall saying it was your theory, exactly where in my post do I say "ziggystar60 liquid water cannot exist on the Moon?" etc?

[edit on 12-5-2008 by timelike]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by timelike
 


You are absolutely right, you did not say anywhere in your post say "ziggystar60 liquid water cannot exist on the Moon?" etc?".

I apologize for my last comment to you. It was not called for in any way - and it was just plain stupid. I guess my frustration over the "liquid" theory made me lose both my temper and my brain there.

Best regards, Ziggystar60.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 



No harm done! My skin is thicker than a Draco warrior's!!!



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
Hi, I know the subject of the true moon colors is very difficult.


Hmmm not that difficult


Color Moon shot from Galileo



Color Moon Shot 10 inch scope UK



Color Moon shot Clementine data set Reiner Gamma area



Looks Brown to me



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join