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.

 

Is the Moon Inhabited?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


Yes it is!

You're one of the educated and advanced thinking people I like to watch and LEARN about such things. Thank you for another perspective, and welcome to ATS.




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Right, Arbitrageur, On the Moon, from what we know, not there is water that can afford a sliding of this kind, there is a lowest gravity and some meteorite that crashes on the surface but however, .........
ROCKS NOT CLIMB ON HILLS...



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Here is a panorama of images of the North Massif taken on the surface.
history.nasa.gov...

Here is another shot with the North Massif in the background. You can see the large boulder track behind the rear of the rover.
history.nasa.gov...

More:
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by Imagir
 


Yes it is!

You're one of the educated and advanced thinking people I like to watch and LEARN about such things. Thank you for another perspective, and welcome to ATS.


Thanks.


But I have already seen your smiling face....

Oh yes, The MOON!



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 

As I pointed out, the elevations seen on Google Moon are not necessarily accurate.

But if a rock is rolling fast enough down a large hill, it can roll up and over a small hill or across a crater.


[edit on 9/4/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Right Phage, but all of those boulders they fall towards down and they do not scramble up along hills.




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 

The height data for the Moon is not accurate enough to make a good 3D model with the same detail as the photos we now have, as far as I know (and I could be terribly wrong in this) the best data we have has a resolution of 100 metres, meaning that they can only make a 3D model with height points separated by 100 metres, and in between those points they do not know if there are any variations in height.

Some of those variations can be seen in the photos, but it's difficult to get an accurate value.

You can see from the Apollo 17 photos posted by Phage (he was faster than me, I had the same photos waiting for my post
) that if they could see the large rock at the end of the track from the LM then it's impossible that there was something like that impossible looking crater on the slope of the North Massif.

Also, if you want to see the details on the photos forget Google Earth, Google Earth (or Moon, or Mars) is useful to locate the photos but useless if you want to see the details. These are those three boulders that we can see on Google Moon.

(click for full size)


Another thing, if the boulder was rolling down hill, simple physics say that, if we disregard the loss of energy during the descent, the boulder could return to the same altitude it was when it started rolling, so rolling up a slope that is just 10% or less the height of the one the boulder rolled down would be an easy task.

PS: the "Tracy boulder" photo you posted should be on the outside slope of the "impossible crater", if we believe the data from Google, right?


PPS: does it only happen to me or does the Apollo 17 route on the Moon becomes a "floating" route when seen with the terrain option active?

Edit: it was just my Google Earth not working as it should, now the route is close to the ground again, sorry for the distraction.


[edit on 4/9/2009 by ArMaP]


+17 more 
posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Big Bad Phage always so quick on the draw to call "HOAX" picking on the new guy?



Well at least he apologized


And dang it I see ArMaP beat me to it again... What you guys don't have a life off ATS or something always lurking about?

Well anyway gonna make my post...

Exhibit A

The 'rolling rocks leaving tracks'



Exhibit B

The LONG TRACK left by said rolling rocks...




Exhibit C

The identification of that rolling rock



Exhibit D

Description of that rolling rock how its split in two and left a track...



164:52:44 Schmitt: Okay. I'm going to stay out from between the rocks. It's a beautiful east-west split rock. It's even got a north overhang that we can work with. (Pause) And let me see what it (the boulder) is! We're right at station 6. You wouldn't believe it.

164:53:08 Cernan: I would. Oh, man, what a slope!

164:53:11 Schmitt: And this boulder's got its own little track! Right up the hill, cross contour. It's a chain-of-craters track, and it looks like it stops (static) off where it started. It starts in, what looks to be, a lighter-colored linear zone. Trying to give you perspective, it's probably only about a third of the way up the North Massif. (Pause)


www.hq.nasa.gov...

Exhibit E

The rolling rock...



Now Zorgon is waiting for the experts to explain to him the mechanism that allows a rock of this size and this shape to roll down a hill









[edit on 4-9-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Thermal effects? Impact? Gophers?
Moonquakes?

Why are there so many moonquakes? A recent reanalysis of seismometers left on the moon by the Apollo moon landings has revealed a surprising number of moonquakes occurring within 30 kilometers of the surface. In fact, 28 moonquakes were detected in data recorded between 1972 and 1977. These moonquakes were not only strong enough to move furniture but the stiff rock of the moon continued vibrating for many minutes, significantly longer than the soft rock earthquakes on Earth. The cause of the moonquakes remains unknown, with one hypothesis holding that landslides in craters cause the vibrations.

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

It's thought that the Taurus-Littrow massifs are ejecta from a massive impact, loose stuff.

[edit on 9/4/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
No offense but are you special ed?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imagir
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Right, Arbitrageur, On the Moon, from what we know, not there is water that can afford a sliding of this kind, there is a lowest gravity and some meteorite that crashes on the surface but however, .........
ROCKS NOT CLIMB ON HILLS...


Of course rocks can roll uphill, it's not hard to understand. I said it could be momentum or inertia from an impact, Phage said it could be momentum or inertia from rolling down a hill that makes it roll up a hill. Remember it's also a lot easier to roll a rock uphill on the moon with its lower gravity.

Hundreds of years ago people thought arrows couldn't just move through the air without something pushing them, they invented elaborate theories about what made arrows move because they didn't understand inertia. I thought nowadays we all understood inertia, so I'm not sure why you would think rocks can't roll uphill, they most certainly can, according to the laws of physics, as long as they have inertia.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur


Nice speech


Now go look at my post to see the rock we are talking about... then get back to me



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Zorgon,

That rock is so flat it would be hard to roll downhill! (from just gravity). If a rock from space impacted it then it could knock it around but I wouldn't exactly call that "rolling".

But I see no evidence that rock (Tracy's Rock) has rolled. Is there some and I missed it?

It looks like the rock a little above Tracy's rock on the map HAS rolled, but the image on the map is too fuzzy for me to tell the shape of the rock that rolled.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Yeah, it rolled (and bounced). There are images that show the track (more like a trench).

Looking up at the North Massif, Schmitt noted that the boulders seemed to have come from lines of outcrops. Whereas on the South Massif the outcrops were above the break in the slope, in this case they were on the lower flank. The tracks did not run straight down, but ran cross-slope, often zigzagging, and in many cases were chains of indentations where a boulder had bounced. Several rocks were clearly house-sized



Read about Tracy's Rock here:
souce



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   
What is really strange and indeed incredible it is the path of the Purple rock.
Its starting point is a pit.
It exits from the pit and climb the depression in order then to slip towards the low.

Some law of the physical does not work on the Moon…





posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Does someone know if and where it is possible to obtain the source original and official of this image?

Thanks.




posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


Do you have any reference to it? It would be easier.

On topic, I think that you should disregard the terrain on Google Earth for smaller areas. To show a mountain it's (relatively) useful, to show a hill its lack of accuracy is a problem. I never rely on it for anything. If you live in (or know) an area with some hills, go to Google Earth and see how it shows it, in my case it has little to do with the real terrain.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Yeah, it rolled (and bounced). There are images that show the track (more like a trench).

Looking up at the North Massif, Schmitt noted that the boulders seemed to have come from lines of outcrops. Whereas on the South Massif the outcrops were above the break in the slope, in this case they were on the lower flank. The tracks did not run straight down, but ran cross-slope, often zigzagging, and in many cases were chains of indentations where a boulder had bounced. Several rocks were clearly house-sized


Read about Tracy's Rock here:
souce


If I'm reading that source correctly, they are saying Tracy's rock ended up there as a result of an impact event.

If someone thought it rolled down a gentle slope due only to the force of gravity I could see why they might be puzzled how that could be possible.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

That is not a gentle slope.

Although it may look like it in some photos, other photos show that is a steep slope.

Edit: also, looking at the photos can see that it rolled along its longer axis, so when we look at it we should think more of a cylinder (instead of a ball) rolling down hill.

[edit on 5/9/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 




Thanks, ArMap
I have tried to disregard the 3D but all it has become an enormous plain and the mountains are disappeared. It is all flat.
The strange thing is that when I insert the 3D, the difference in height between the summit of the last hill, where is the object of the red path, and the bottom is of beyond 100 m.
I believe that if were a bug it would not have to give these reported data to the altitudes.
What you think?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join