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.
"Heat waves" as I've always called them require an atmosphere. Heat changes the density of the air by causing it to expand. This changes how much the air refracts light, giving the shimmering effect.
Originally posted by Komodo
So .. why haven't we seen ANY lunar surface heat radiating in ALL the Moon shots in live film ?? If we can see it with the naked eye off the street on a hot day ..
Why can't we see it in ANY of the moon films??
Originally posted by wmd_2008
JW I will repeat is a twat!
Originally posted by Komodo
So .. why haven't we seen ANY lunar surface heat radiating in ALL the Moon shots in live film ?? If we can see it with the naked eye off the street on a hot day ..
Why can't we see it in ANY of the moon films??
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by wmd_2008
JW I will repeat is a twat!
Name calling is not helping your case.
Originally posted by Komodo
the Russian dog NOT make it because he was cooked inside his soup can LMAO
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by wmd_2008
JW I will repeat is a twat!
Name calling is not helping your case.
I take it you watched the youtube video then!!!
The Moon is generally thought to have formed and evolved through a single or a series of catastrophic heating events1, during which most of the highly volatile elements were lost. Hydrogen, being the lightest element, is believed to have been completely lost during this period2. Here we make use of considerable advances in secondary ion mass spectrometry3 to obtain improved limits on the indigenous volatile (CO2, H2O, F, S and Cl) contents of the most primitive basalts in the Moon—the lunar volcanic glasses. Although the pre-eruptive water content of the lunar volcanic glasses cannot be precisely constrained, numerical modelling of diffusive degassing of the very-low-Ti glasses provides a best estimate of 745 p.p.m. water, with a minimum of 260 p.p.m. at the 95 per cent confidence level. Our results indicate that, contrary to prevailing ideas, the bulk Moon might not be entirely depleted in highly volatile elements, including water. Thus, the presence of water must be considered in models constraining the Moon's formation and its thermal and chemical evolution.
Edit to add: Yes, they conjecture that substrata of the Moon may have retained more volatiles than previously thought; ie, there may be more water "locked up" in material beneath the surface. The surface material, however, can still be characterized as "bone dry" in comparison with earthly deserts.
From what I have read, that may not be the case near the poles..
But are we questioning whether the moon "HAS" water or "HAD" water in the past ??
Liquid water simply cannot exist under lunar conditions.
Originally posted by DJW001
Amazing. I was able to debunk Jarrah's video before I even saw it. Do I need to watch the rest? As for whether he is intentionally cherry picking and distorting things or simply doesn't understand the research he is quoting. I will leave to you to decide.
Edit to add: Yes, they conjecture that substrata of the Moon may have retained more volatiles than previously thought; ie, there may be more water "locked up" in material beneath the surface. The surface material, however, can still be characterized as "bone dry" in comparison with earthly deserts.edit on 13-6-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.
Yes you need to watch the rest because you haven't debunked anything yet.
I dont even think you know what your exactly debunking in the first place, do you?
What are you exactly debunking?
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
Yes you need to watch the rest because you haven't debunked anything yet.
I dont even think you know what your exactly debunking in the first place, do you?
What are you exactly debunking?
Did you read my post? Jarrah is interpreting Saal's paper as claiming that they had discovered that the samples in question currently have hydroxyl levels of 750 ppm. That is simply not true. Read the paper. If the rest of Jarrah's video is based on this, er, misunderstanding, there is nothing further to debunk.
You dont even know what you are debunking.
Again, what are you debunking?
Because those require air. It's the air that's wavering. Even assuming that the heat would be at such levels, there is no atmosphere to be heated.
Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by FoosM
This is EXACTLY what I'm thinking .. how the hell did the Russian dog NOT make it because he was cooked inside his soup can LMAO
USA just 'happen' to calculate the EXACT coordinates to 'slip' through w/o frying like a Russian egg..
FoosM my man.. this is your best video post to date IMO..
Moon Fraud.com baby ~! LOL