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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 144
377
<< 141  142  143    145  146  147 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   


I'll put it to you this way, mistakes in movies can be due to a variety of reasons:
www.moviemistakes.com...

And a variety of reasons are being pointed out in the Apollo footage and photography.


And you appear to misunderstand, or perhaps my English is bad regarding this point. I think you would agree its a bit redundant/patronizing to link me to a website called moviemistakes.com.

The point made is quite simple, and elaborated on in my previous post. Unfortunately you do not understand VFX, or film making as a medium which allows you to make useful points to the ATS forum about it.

Lacking this prerequisite knowledge you must either attain it, or relent that you do not know enough to adequately debate from this angle.

You're welcome to ask questions about any of it. I would be first to point out something I noticed that was amiss on the moon landing.

My point being that if you think all visual effects are obvious and require no training to see then you'll probably be a bit shocked to find that love stories, dramas, and talk fests feature them subtly and regularly.

Am also noting that this current stance that effects shots are always obvious seems to go against your previous stance that they're not earlier in this massive thread. Though my memory may be off!

I found the article about moon fountains fascinating but misleading without reading the whole article. It is full of maybes and mights and clear descriptions of why the astronauts would not have encountered such things:


If that's what happens on the day side of the Moon, the natural question then becomes, what happens on the night side? The dust there, Stubbs believes, is negatively charged. This charge comes from electrons in the solar wind, which flows around the Moon onto the night side. Indeed, the fountain model suggests that the night side would charge up to higher voltages than the day side, possibly launching dust particles to higher velocities and altitudes ... [sic]

For example, there are deep craters at the lunar poles that never see sunlight. Would these craters have a strong surplus of negative charge? Astronauts need to know, because in the years ahead NASA plans to send people back to the Moon, and deep dark craters are places where they might find pockets of frozen water--a crucial resource for any colony. Will they also encounter swarms of electric dust?


I don't see any reason why the astronauts would discuss any of this.




posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



No S/He Didnt. Did you just say NASA is part of the DoD and thats why tech from NASA is classified? Well yes you did. Do you realize you have just contradicted many other persons on the Apollo Defense Force? The Propagandists? Who claim that NASA is a civilian agency and their technology and programs, especially Apollo, are open to the public?

Do you realize you just opened the door to Apollo being faked?


I thought you believed in your gut that the door to Apollo being faked was already wide open. If this is your best opening, too bad. Someone mis-spoke. NASA is an independent agency inside the Executive Branch:

www.usa.gov...

Consider the door slammed firmly shut.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Funny after I just made several lengthy posts looking deeply into Apollo photography and video. And the reactions I got? Not many, nothing substantial. The only one that was clearly answered was the white blob being Neil Armstrong... (btw I may have a few comments of that in the future )

But everything else was just mediocre theories.


I won't address the depth of your examination of Apollo photography, you still haven't acknowledged that the "photo analysis" JW did on his first video was rubbish. Your questions were answered in great detail, sorry if you did not understand them.

So if the blue reflection on the astronaut's helmet are spotlights, why aren't they visible in other shots?

And why are you so hung up on bringing a telescope to the Moon? They were on the Moon, what would they need a telescope for? And in any event, how could they look through the eyepiece with their helmets on? And if they did fake the lunar landings, they could fake that too, so what's your point?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Double post

[edit on 22-7-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



No S/He Didnt. Did you just say NASA is part of the DoD and thats why tech from NASA is classified? Well yes you did. Do you realize you have just contradicted many other persons on the Apollo Defense Force? The Propagandists? Who claim that NASA is a civilian agency and their technology and programs, especially Apollo, are open to the public?

Do you realize you just opened the door to Apollo being faked?


I thought you believed in your gut that the door to Apollo being faked was already wide open. If this is your best opening, too bad. Someone mis-spoke. NASA is an independent agency inside the Executive Branch:

www.usa.gov...

Consider the door slammed firmly shut.




NASA IS PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE!

Every technology that comes from the space program is classified by the DOD so that enemies could not use the technology against us.

You do know during the time of Apollo, we were engaged in a Nuclear Cold War right????

WHERE IS YOUR COMMON SENSE...


See that, I dont know why you are addressing this post to me. You better go on and straighten your buddy



NASA is just a front company for the DoD.
It was put together to get recruit best scientists the US had who would normally
not work for the DoD out of moral grounds. But make no mistake about what Apollo technology was actually being used for. Much of this was revealed earlier in this thread, more will be revealed later




posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Africa





Here Jarrah repeats a ridiculous Kaysing claim that you could run a simulated signal into the radio antenna inputs at each tracking station by using standard telephone wire. Service Engineer Kaysing, with his BA in English, didn't realize that the microwave receiver at each DSN station is hardwired into the termination of the waveguide antenna. There's nothing to attach telephone wires to. Furthermore, you can't shove a microwave signal down Bell wire. Assuming you can actually get CAT-5e to run at 500 Mbit/s, each of the four twisted pairs can run near 125 Mbit/s. The theoretical maximum analog signal would then be 62.5 MHz for up to 100m. Even if you could push a 62.5 MHz signal through 1960's telephone wire, over short distances, you still fall short of the microwave frequencies used by Apollo. It just won't work.


Im not posting this about the issue of the telephone wire, JW can do a video response on that, Im posting this because Phil states Kaysing mentioned that there was a tracking station in Africa. Which reminded me of this recent video:




NASA tells us they had 3 stations Spain, Australia and in the USA? NASA did not know about this base in Morocco?
Google Earth
34 16'36.09 N
06 17'29.53 W


Was this what Kaysing was talking about? And if so, how did he know?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



No S/He Didnt. Did you just say NASA is part of the DoD and thats why tech from NASA is classified? Well yes you did. Do you realize you have just contradicted many other persons on the Apollo Defense Force? The Propagandists? Who claim that NASA is a civilian agency and their technology and programs, especially Apollo, are open to the public?

Do you realize you just opened the door to Apollo being faked?


I thought you believed in your gut that the door to Apollo being faked was already wide open. If this is your best opening, too bad. Someone mis-spoke. NASA is an independent agency inside the Executive Branch:

www.usa.gov...

Consider the door slammed firmly shut.




NASA IS PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE!

Every technology that comes from the space program is classified by the DOD so that enemies could not use the technology against us.

You do know during the time of Apollo, we were engaged in a Nuclear Cold War right????

WHERE IS YOUR COMMON SENSE...


See that, I dont know why you are addressing this post to me. You better go on and straighten your buddy



NASA is just a front company for the DoD.
It was put together to get recruit best scientists the US had who would normally
not work for the DoD out of moral grounds. But make no mistake about what Apollo technology was actually being used for. Much of this was revealed earlier in this thread, more will be revealed later



You will, of course, provide copious documentation for this claim. In any event, the CIA is also an independent agency within the Executive Branch, so technically they, too, are a civilian agency. The Pentagon hates that. DARPA, on the other hand is DoD and they were well in advance of NASA in the early days of space exploration. NASA is just that, a civilian agency. Granted, much of the technology they developed could be considered "dual usage," but as you yourself pointed out earlier, the Air Force had it's own "military app" projects like MOL. How do you manage to square NASA cooking up fiendish military technology that works with your belief that the entire thing was a sham? You've never quite explained that.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Africa





Here Jarrah repeats a ridiculous Kaysing claim that you could run a simulated signal into the radio antenna inputs at each tracking station by using standard telephone wire. Service Engineer Kaysing, with his BA in English, didn't realize that the microwave receiver at each DSN station is hardwired into the termination of the waveguide antenna. There's nothing to attach telephone wires to. Furthermore, you can't shove a microwave signal down Bell wire. Assuming you can actually get CAT-5e to run at 500 Mbit/s, each of the four twisted pairs can run near 125 Mbit/s. The theoretical maximum analog signal would then be 62.5 MHz for up to 100m. Even if you could push a 62.5 MHz signal through 1960's telephone wire, over short distances, you still fall short of the microwave frequencies used by Apollo. It just won't work.


Im not posting this about the issue of the telephone wire, JW can do a video response on that, Im posting this because Phil states Kaysing mentioned that there was a tracking station in Africa. Which reminded me of this recent video:




NASA tells us they had 3 stations Spain, Australia and in the USA? NASA did not know about this base in Morocco?
Google Earth
34 16'36.09 N
06 17'29.53 W


Was this what Kaysing was talking about? And if so, how did he know?






Is this what you're talking about?


After Operation Torch , the Americans used the French facilities as a military base. Craw Field , named for Medal of Honor recipient Colonel Demas T. Craw who was killed during Operation Torch, was the final destination of the six K-ships of United States Navy Blimp Squadron ZP-14 (Blimpron 14, The Africa Squadron) that made the first transatlantic crossing of non-rigid airships in 1944.. Later, the base at Kenitra was expanded to become a U.S. Naval Air Station . The base was shared by both the USA and Morocco through " The Cold War ". A small out-station at Sidi Yahya closed in the mid 1970s. The Air-Station was closed in 1991.


www.kosmix.com...

Edit to add: Do those antennae look like this?

deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov...

[edit on 22-7-2010 by DJW001]

Edit to add: Is it possible Kaysing had no idea what he was talking about and just made things up?

[edit on 22-7-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Just a curious link one of my friends sent me (Not sure if its been posted?):

Check the links: letsrollforums.com...

Interesting forum. Its concerning that Jarrah would extend to say that NASA was directly engaged in 9/11. I know this thread is about the moon, but I have to use this as a reference to his researching skills ... I did not rate the documentary 'Loose Change' at all, and I personally believe its an insult to anyone seeking the truth.

I encourage people to have a glance at the forum, too. There are some familiar names there, and some familiar typing styles. The users there also believe the 'moon propagandists' are paid by the government. Edit: had a brain forgetful moment .. its already fairly documented that the original poster and others have posted the exact same thread on the entire internet. Grrrr ... people.

I'm curious if anyone has any real evidence (other than the usual suspects) but I'm not on any pay roll and I seriously doubt anyone else here is either.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Pinke]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Scroll down to "Jarrah White"s post of 1 April, 2006 @ 20:09.

He is (was)....well, obviously still is, delusional, wrong, an idiot, incredibly unable to do research....


.... OR....having a lark with everyone. Pulling their legs. Wool over the eyes. Playing games. Joking....(any other euphamisms I missed?)

...yeah....that must be it....because NO ONE could be that moronic and be able to function day-to-day....



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke



You're welcome to ask questions about any of it. I would be first to point out something I noticed that was amiss on the moon landing.


See thats what I wonder. How can you, if you indeed work in the AV industry, not see what many others see? Tell me, if you were born in the USSR and since childhood told that the moon landings were faked, would you look at the photos and videos and say that your government lied to you? That indeed, the visual evidence looked real and the US did land their men on the moon?

Would you look at the following video and say- I dont see any problems, even though this video is what made many people think what they saw was fake:

The see through astronauts, the double exposure,


What about this strange puff of a dustball?


Missing tracks

Whats causing it?

Stage lights


Disney movie sounding script


So you really dont see anything wrong here?
You can explain it all away?



My point being that if you think all visual effects are obvious and require no training to see then you'll probably be a bit shocked to find that love stories, dramas, and talk fests feature them subtly and regularly.

No, why would you think that would be shocking?
Point is, I dont see why you need training to identify a mistake in S/VFX? Case in point, in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

Revealing mistakes: In the bathroom scene, you can clearly tell that Logan's knives are CGI.


We as the audience knows its all fake, but when the job is done incorrectly, it takes us out of the fantasy. Nobody goes into the movie theater to see a sci-fi/fantasy flick thinking its real what they are seeing, but the audience does want to filmmaker to suspend their belief. When mistakes are made in even fantasy films, the audience becomes disengaged from the film.

But what happens when the audience doesn't realize they are witnessing a piece of fiction? Well then the audience has a difficulty discerning reality from fantasy even if what is presented is generally considered unbelievable.

The War of the Worlds

Some listeners heard only a portion of the broadcast, and in the atmosphere of tension and anxiety just prior to World War II, took it to be a news broadcast. Newspapers reported that panic ensued, people fleeing the area, others thinking they could smell poison gas or could see flashes of lightning in the distance.

Richard J. Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some six million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'".[1] While Welles and company were heard by a comparatively small audience (in the same period, NBC's audience was an estimated 30 million), the uproar was anything but minute: within a month, there were 12,500 newspaper articles about the broadcast or its impact, while Adolf Hitler cited the panic, as Hand writes, as "evidence of the decadence and corrupt condition of democracy."

Many listeners were apparently confused. It must be noted that the confusion cannot be credited entirely to naïveté. Though many of the actors' voices should have been recognizable from other radio shows, nothing like The War of the Worlds broadcast had been attempted in the United States, so listeners were accustomed to accepting newsflashes as reliable.

Future Tonight Show host Jack Paar did announcing duties that night for Cleveland CBS affiliate WGAR. When the phone lines to the studio started to light up with panicking listeners calling in, Paar attempted to calm them on the phone and on-air by saying, "The world is not coming to an end. Trust me. When have I ever lied to you?" When the frightened listeners started charging Paar with 'covering up the truth', he then called WGAR's station manager for help. Oblivious to the situation, the manager advised Paar to calm down, saying it was "all a tempest in a teapot."


And thats the KEY. Apollo was presented as real event, like Vietnam, or any other daily news at that time over a long period of time. Including real deaths, and drama. Americans were already in disbelief that their President was assassinated



I found the article about moon fountains fascinating but misleading without reading the whole article. It is full of maybes and mights and clear descriptions of why the astronauts would not have encountered such things:

If that's what happens on the day side of the Moon, the natural question then becomes, what happens on the night side? [sic]
For example, there are deep craters at the lunar poles that never see sunlight. Would these craters have a strong surplus of negative charge?
I don't see any reason why the astronauts would discuss any of this.


Misleading? How was it misleading?
You didnt say anything about the clear pictures and movies that are in contradiction to the surveyor pictures.

Watch this


Dust

And this



More Dust

Tell me why the Astronauts did not see the dust fountains?


Current lunar models do not predict large amounts of dust could exist in the moon's sky.

Moon dust fountains

The new theory suggests that particularly strong electric fields found at the boundary between day and night are capable of launching charged moon dust particles into orbit through sheer repulsion.

Sunlight hitting the moon's surface causes dust grains to eject electrons, the premise goes. Due to this constant ionization, the entire day-side of the moon would exhibit a positive charge.

At night, the opposite would occur. Exposed to the plasma blowing from the sun, grains of dust receive electrons and become negatively charged.

Electrostatic repulsion among like charges could cause dust particles to levitate 3.3 feet (1 meter) above the surface all over the moon, scientist Denis Richard of NASA's Ames Research Laboratory told SPACE.com.

www.space.com...

Nothing to be discussed? Just like the lack of stars in the sky?

[edit on 22-7-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Double exposure?
I thought it was filmed on a Stage.
Why would they need to resort to double exposure?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So you really dont see anything wrong here?
You can explain it all away?

No. What do you see wrong here? Can you not tell the difference between a lens flare and stage lighting? In your own words, explain what you see as wrong. I think it odd that you choose to continue to use AwE's Youtube videos after the first one you posted revealed his total lack of credibility.


How can you, if you indeed work in the AV industry, not see what many others see?

Please provide a list of Hollywood effects artists who see what you see. You have not named a single one in 144 pages. Please stop making unsupported statements like that if you want to be taken seriously.


Tell me, if you were born in the USSR and since childhood told that the moon landings were faked, would you look at the photos and videos and say that your government lied to you? That indeed, the visual evidence looked real and the US did land their men on the moon?


This is entirely hypothetical, of course, as the Russians do teach their children that the US landed men on the Moon.

www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru...


Tell me why the Astronauts did not see the dust fountains?


Because they are transient phenomena. Some astronauts did report seeing a dusty glow under certain circumstances. I know how you like pictures, here:



The electrostatically charged dust is very tenuous. It is unclear whether the astronauts would even have noticed if such an event were occurring. In any event, they are rare. Not all the astronauts saw the horizon glow from orbit, and only a few photos from the Surveyors.

science.nasa.gov...

Are you implying that NASA went to all the trouble to research what a Moonscape would look like but simply forgot to include horizon glow?


Nothing to be discussed? Just like the lack of stars in the sky?


You still don't understand exposure, do you.

Edit to fix formatting.
Pesky brackets.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by DJW001]

[edit on 22-7-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
NASA’s Cosmochemistry Program funded the research:

UT researchers discover water on the moon is widespread, similar to Earth's

Researchers uncover evidence of water on the inside of the moon

Researchers at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, are once again turning what scientists thought they knew about the moon on its head.

Last fall, researchers, including Larry Taylor, a distinguished professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, discovered "lunar dew" on the moon's surface -- absorbed "water" in the uppermost layers of lunar soil. This discovery of water debunked beliefs held since the return of the first Apollo rocks that the moon was bone-dry.


Lets focus on that again.

his discovery of water debunked beliefs held since the return of the first Apollo rocks that the moon was bone-dry.


How much soil samples and moon rocks were brought back from different sites on the moon? And didnt one of the mission take along a geologist?


Now, scientists, including Taylor and Yang Liu, research assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, have discovered that water on the moon is more widespread -- on the outside and inside of the moon -- with some similarities to water in volcanic systems on Earth.

Their research will be featured in the article, "Lunar Apatite with Terrestrial Volatile Abundances" in the July 22 edition of the scientific journal, Nature.

Unlike lunar dew which is believed to come from an outside source such as solar wind which brings hydrogen into contact with the Moon's oxygen, the water discovered by Taylor and Liu is internal, arising from an entirely different origin. How it got there is not yet known. The water may have been added by impacting comets, which contain ice, during or after the formation of the moon and Earth.


What is NASA up to?


"If water in the Moon was residue water kept during the giant impact, it is surprising that water survived the impact at all because less volatile elements, such as sodium and potassium, are strongly depleted. The details of the impact theory need to be re-examined," Liu said.

www.eurekalert.org...

Well where there is water there is bacteria...?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   




Tell me, if you were born in the USSR and since childhood told that the moon landings were faked, would you look at the photos and videos and say that your government lied to you? That indeed, the visual evidence looked real and the US did land their men on the moon?



This is entirely hypothetical, of course, as the Russians do teach their children that the US landed men on the Moon.


Thank you for stating the obvious.






Tell me why the Astronauts did not see the dust fountains?


Because they are transient phenomena. Some astronauts did report seeing a dusty glow under certain circumstances. I know how you like pictures, here:



The electrostatically charged dust is very tenuous. It is unclear whether the astronauts would even have noticed if such an event were occurring. In any event, they are rare. Not all the astronauts saw the horizon glow from orbit, and only a few photos from the Surveyors.



Why would this be rare?
Why would it not be a continuous event?




Are you implying that NASA went to all the trouble to research what a Moonscape would look like but simply forgot to include horizon glow?


They most likely didnt have enough information about it and even if they did, it would probably be more difficult to fake. Just like the stars. You know what they say K.I.S.S.





Nothing to be discussed? Just like the lack of stars in the sky?


You still don't understand exposure, do you.


I understand exposure very well.
But you must think that the astronauts were blind.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Once again you bought into the conspiracy theory hook line and sinker.First that isnt a double exposure. You have to understand the technology used to send the picture from the moon to earth. There was no cable attached from earth to the moon so the image is a broadcast. Now ask your self how did they do that lets talk about 1960S tech shall we.

The Apollo 11 television cameras used an "orthicon" tube, which is a type of vacuum tube that translates light falling on its surface into electrical impulses that can be transmitted over a radio signal. You use a regular lens to focus the image onto the orthicon surface. Where light falls, the energy from the photons causes an electrical charge to build up at that specific point. The tube scans an electron beam across the rear of the surface. Where a charge has built up, the electron beam causes the charge to jump the gap between it and a collector plate. (works very similar to a laser printer).The combination of the charge received on that plate and the location of the electron beam determines the brightness of the dot at that specific spot. The beam scans the entire surface once for each video frame.

The electron beam also discharges the orthicon surface at the same time so it can be ready to pick up light for the next frame. But the orthicon is was made to work in low light conditions.There for it doesn't take much of a charge to jump the gap. When a very bright light (such as from the shiny sides of the LM) falls on the orthicon surface, it builds up a very great charge such that it doesn't fully discharge between frames; the electron beam causes some of the electrons to jump the gap, but some remain behind and may get picked up on a subsequent pass.

That means if you aim an orthicon camera at a scene that doesn't change much, the static parts of the image slightly "burn" into the orthicon. (I know you have seen older monitors do this before everything went digital why they used to use screen savers). As the astronaut walks between the LM and the camera, the light from the background is briefly interrupted and stops falling on the orthicon at that point. But the residual charge on the orthicon surface is being picked up by the scanning beam.Which means we still see the background image as well making the astronaut look transparent!

No one who understands anything about TV broadcasts look twice at this except some teenage conspiracy nuts who have never seen a CRT and think they used digital broadcast in the 1960S.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Either that, or for some reason they used see-through astronauts during the shoot of the 'faked moon landings'.. maybe to make things look more intereting and 'space'. Which is stupid, because we know that real astronauts aren't see-through, and therefore the footage of the landings was faked. Obviously.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Why would this be rare?
Why would it not be a continuous event?


Because people have been observing the Moon through telescopes for 400 years and TLPS (such as dust fountains) have only rarely been observed:

www.daviddarling.info...

I myself observed Aristarchus through a color wheel during a lunar eclipse in the hope of seeing one. Unsuccessfully. I argue here from statistics, not fundamental plasma theory. I have no idea why they are not more common.

Edit to add:


I understand exposure very well.
But you must think that the astronauts were blind.


No, their eyes simply weren't dark adapted on the surface. Are you sure we haven't covered this before?



[edit on 22-7-2010 by DJW001]

[edit on 22-7-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Simple answer to why the astronauts didn't see it is they were in the wrong place. NASA knew they occurred just didn't know why until recently. This phenomenon mostly occurs at the terminator between light and dark side. Negative dust particles on one side positive on the other. Every once in a while those charges repel and dust flies into the air. Really cool when you think about it would make a great toy for kids.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
NASA’s Cosmochemistry Program funded the research:

UT researchers discover water on the moon is widespread, similar to Earth's

Researchers uncover evidence of water on the inside of the moon

Researchers at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, are once again turning what scientists thought they knew about the moon on its head.

Last fall, researchers, including Larry Taylor, a distinguished professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, discovered "lunar dew" on the moon's surface -- absorbed "water" in the uppermost layers of lunar soil. This discovery of water debunked beliefs held since the return of the first Apollo rocks that the moon was bone-dry.


Lets focus on that again.

his discovery of water debunked beliefs held since the return of the first Apollo rocks that the moon was bone-dry.


How much soil samples and moon rocks were brought back from different sites on the moon? And didnt one of the mission take along a geologist?


Now, scientists, including Taylor and Yang Liu, research assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, have discovered that water on the moon is more widespread -- on the outside and inside of the moon -- with some similarities to water in volcanic systems on Earth.

Their research will be featured in the article, "Lunar Apatite with Terrestrial Volatile Abundances" in the July 22 edition of the scientific journal, Nature.

Unlike lunar dew which is believed to come from an outside source such as solar wind which brings hydrogen into contact with the Moon's oxygen, the water discovered by Taylor and Liu is internal, arising from an entirely different origin. How it got there is not yet known. The water may have been added by impacting comets, which contain ice, during or after the formation of the moon and Earth.


What is NASA up to?


"If water in the Moon was residue water kept during the giant impact, it is surprising that water survived the impact at all because less volatile elements, such as sodium and potassium, are strongly depleted. The details of the impact theory need to be re-examined," Liu said.

www.eurekalert.org...

Well where there is water there is bacteria...?



Oddly enough, the original posting from UT does not use the expression "debunked." Scientists don'y "debunk" one another, they "dispute." The earliest analysis of the Apollo samples suggested that water, that is, H20 was rare. More recent analysis of more recent data suggests that molecular water may be more common than previously believed, due, in part, to a continual stream of hydrogen radicals from the solar wind. It's not like the Moon is awash in water. Estimates have been revised upwards. Given that the human body is 90% water, calling the Moon "bone dry" is a bit of an upward exaggeration. As for the bacteria... yes, astonishing. It lends credence to theories of panspermia... but then, you don't believe that Apollo went to the Moon in the first place... do you?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 141  142  143    145  146  147 >>

log in

join