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.

 

Rare Hole In the Moon Photographed

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


Simple....you left a passing shot, the "airbrushing" claim, with NO substantiation and NO proof, and left it hanging out there, pregnant with potential where NO validity exists.

I call that dreck.

If you look at your title, and the nature of the forum this thread is in, then it is not the proper contribution to your own OP! You are going off, with junk like that...because, it is implication by innuendo.

Further, you also added in some more "hollow moon" stuff...again, it is in the same category, sorry.

It is patently ridiculous, and only a very, very small minority of fringe non-scientific thinkers would even waste time contemplating a "hollow" because it's nonsensical. It is the same with the NASA "airbrushing" meme...it is just another fringe "belief" that won't go away, despite years of evidence to contrary -- and nothing from the fringe to 'prove' anything at all. Except more dubious claims, and half-baked concocted alleged 'proofs'...that fail at closer examination.

"hollow moon", "NASA airbrushing" and "moon landing hoax" (because they're all related, like it or not) belong in the same garbage bin. The bright light of science and reason shines on them, and illuminates them for the frauds they are.

The "hollow" and "hoax" claims have no validity, and have been disproven by scientific methods repeatedly...to continue to 'question' them is well...if not ignorant, it shows a willingness to cling to superstition, rather than accept facts.

As to 'airbrushing'...that myth likely came about because of certain verifiable, and (later) publically admitted enhancements to some PR photos issued by NASA relations...just to 'pretty up' the pictures.

Not much different than what's done to magazines, and photos of celebrities, etc. To suggest ulterior motives is just wrong.




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thank you for your OPINION I did not make any "claims" but was merely speculating about different possibilities.


However, since you are now making claims, Please shine "your bright light of science" and provide PROOF and EVIDENCE that the moon is not hollow, and also provide PROOF that NASA does NOT airbrush their photos to hide classified material from the public. I would love to see your irrefutable evidence for this.


Nevertheless Thanks!!

--GeminiSky

[edit on 26-6-2010 by GeminiSky]

[edit on 26-6-2010 by GeminiSky]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Every one of us knows the truth, the kind of truth that is instinctual and inside us all. This is not a matter of wanting to believe, but its also not a matter of applying Occams razor to every single piece of evidence, and making laughable attempts at debunking them.


Why some people continue to push their absurd theory's is beyond me. One thing ive come to understand is even if you end up feeding the trolls, theres still a big chance of food poisoning.

I am still waiting for my proof and scientific evidence. Please advise.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


hanger doors for all of our space craft.
gotta hide em some where why not the moon



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
It looks pretty strange, also notice the bumps or small mountains around the hole, what would cause those small mountains, also, it looks like when you look in the hole the hole has a layer on top most part, then when you look deeper it looks like regular dirt or something. I don't know what do you guys think?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
ahem....that's not a hole, c;mon, men.....the edges my brothers...



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


No Doubt!

Some folks will always believe what they read in their text books.
They, for the most part, seem to be intelligent..
but then most of what they share is negative , ignorant , close-minded "dreck".


Cool pic broseph! lol

I've got it enlarged pretty decent 266% in Ubuntu and it looks like you could drive right into it. lol


thanks! *&f

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Ahmose]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahmose
 


Yes try driving into it and let me know how that goes! LOL




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 



I think it's only a few hundred miles from my current lunar base.
Maybe ill take a ride on out there one day. lol



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
You can see orbs in the bottom of the pit. How interesting.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


Cool pic...It does look sorta faked, like there's nothing inside, even light..

One thing has always puzzled me and I'm sure someone here will give me the answer..

Its obvious the Moon has been hit many many times by objects but why are nearly all the craters perfectly round??

Wouldn't it get hit from all angles and create illongated hit sites???



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


Cool pic...It does look sorta faked, like there's nothing inside, even light..

One thing has always puzzled me and I'm sure someone here will give me the answer..

Its obvious the Moon has been hit many many times by objects but why are nearly all the craters perfectly round??

Wouldn't it get hit from all angles and create illongated hit sites???



That is a GREAT question, you would think that if an object such as a meteor or asteroid came at an angle that it would slide across the surface and bury itself after creating a ling groove?

I would like to have that answered, because im stumped.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeminiSky


That is a GREAT question, you would think that if an object such as a meteor or asteroid came at an angle that it would slide across the surface and bury itself after creating a ling groove?

I would like to have that answered, because im stumped.


Most impact craters on the Moon are round, but there are exceptions, like the beautiful Messier A and B craters:


Most lunar craters (and those on other planets and moons) are round, as they are formed by explosions which throw material in all directions, rather than being "dug" out. However, if the object which creates a crater hits the surface at a very low angle, it may skip across the surface, producing elongated craters, such as shown in this Apollo 11 image. Moving from left to right, their impactor gouged out the 5 by 10 mile wide Messier, on the left, then the 7 by 10 mile wide Messier A, on the right, spraying material over a large area, and causing the pair of craters and their ejecta field to look very much like a comet. This is why they are named after one of the most famous comet-hunters of all time, Charles Messier.


cseligman.com...

And if you are interested, you can learn more about impact craters here:
www.psi.edu...



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 



I think whats more important is to see the underlying pattern. After the negative post, someone (like me) replys and asks for proof of the absurd claims that are made. As soon as this happens, the person (like the one in question) simply stops replying and leaves the discussion.




Not sure what reality/time zone YOU live in, but there are people who contribute on this site from all over the planet....SO, if someone doesn't instantly respond back at your convenience, well.....


NOW..."hollow Moon"...why is it a load of horse droppings?

Is it really the case that someone has to walk another through the logic?

Oh, well...here goes:

Firstly: Is there any doubt, or argument, as to the force that the Moon exerts gravitationally on the Earth? I mean, it's there, and has been measured for centuries...observed, calculated, measured...

In addition, the EXACT distance from the Earth is well-known, and very accuratel determined (thnaks to Apollo) since the late 1960s.

NOW -- knowing all this data, to include its PERIOD of orbit, the math can be done to estimate, to a fairly high accuracy, its total MASS. Based on that, its surface gravity was determined well before the first space probe, let alone manned missions, landed there.

Still with me? It is the MATH, and that is irrefutable. OK...knowing its MASS, now we factor in its SIZE...also very accurately measured and documented. With all of this data, its average density can calculated.

(I hope you don't wish to see all that, in terms of math equations, and such...my keyboard isn't equipped. I suppose I could copy/paste, but why when anyone can just see it for themselves, online)?


All of that information in hand -- especially the density value -- means that one can then estimate, based on KNOWN DENSITY VALUES of similar materials, here on Earth, to use for comparison, what the Moon may (or may not) be composed of.

The Apollo mission samples returned ADDED to the knowledge base, as well. The seismographic instruments left behind were used to get the first (very preliminary) impressions of what the interior structure of the Moon might be...specifically, whether it might have an active inner core, like Earth's. Lacking a magnetic field, the question was actually quite moot, since, since without a fluid, molten core swirling around inside a magnetic field like Earth's won't be developed.

Anyway...this is so basic, I'm surprised people even question, or entertain for even a few seconds, the "hollow Moon" fallacy. It just is impossible, based on science, math and physics.

Carl Sagan said it most precisely -- (in my signature).

While the precise make-up of the Moon's interior is still to be determined, it is beyond a doubt solid...it is the exact nature that will take additional tests and study to know. Just as we can only surmise a lot of the details of our OWN planet's interior structure.

In case this has left anyone with eyes glazed over....to summarize: Density, and the established FACT of the Moon's mass and density, means that IF you want ot argue for its being "hollow" you have to explain what materials could possibly be so dense as to make up for all the "missing" matter that would normally be inside the sphere.

Take a look, again, at your old math geometry books, about the VOLUME of solid objects (in this case spheres) and how to calculate it.

In order for there to be a substantial void inside the REST of the material would have to be extraordinarily more dense than natural rock or stone or granite or...name it. Material that resides on the surface, and for at least a few kilometers' depth...since many samples returned by Apollo were collected of material from BENEATH the surface, excavated by ancient meteor strikes.

Further, there is no natural mechanism that would NOT allow the mass (all of the Lunar material) to completely compact into a solid sphere, during its formation...it was MOLTEN at first, and cooled gradually, just like the Earth...all this about 4 1/2 billion years ago. To suggest that material (rock) would somehow, when molten, form a "shell", rather than a solid ball is...well, outside the realm of reality, frankly. AND, this "shell" just doesn't consist of the material needed to represent the total measured MASS of the Moon.

Unless someone presents evidence the Moon is made of neutronium???
~~~~~

But, the "hole" that was photographed? There are likely to be many, many other examples of such things, since (like Earth) the crust won't be completely solid -- will have voids, caves, etc...from very ancient volcanic activity, mostly...other mechanisms too, but you'd have to ask a geologist (as an analogy) or a "selenologist" for more details.

Check for books on the subject.....there's a wealth of information handy at your local library, I'd imagine....







[edit on 27 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Dear whacker,

It seems the info you provide may not conclusively prove that the moon is solid. Also, I am still waiting for you PROOF and EVIDENCE that NASA does NOT airbrush their photos to conceal classified material from the general public.



Another piece of evidence pointing towards the theory that all heavenly bodies are hollow is that, as you would expect with a hollow sphere, both the Earth and our moon are known to "ring like a bell" when hit with a shock wave.

In "Moongate: Suppressed findings of The US Space Program" (1982), Nuclear Engineer and researcher/writer William L. Brian II presents evidence proving that the moon, as any hollow sphere would, "rings" when hit by asteroids or heavy space junk. And that's not all. According to Dr. Brian, "the evidence provided by Apollo seismic experiments also points to the conclusion that the moon is hollow and relatively rigid."

(1) He also reports: "It is not commonly known that the Earth displays the same bell-like ringing or reverberations as the moon. Since the Earth is 81.56 times more massive than the moon, it takes a much larger explosion or shock wave to generate this effect. "Joseph Goodavage referenced such occurrences in his book, "Astrology: The Space Age Science". He mentioned that the ringing effect was recorded during the May 22, 1960 Chilean earthquake.

This was supposedly the most violent earthquake that had been recorded since the establishment of official world records in 1881. Goodavage provided a description of the effect which was given at the 1961 World Earthquake Conference, held at Helsinki, Finland. The description stated that the shock was so severe that the "entire planet rang like a bell". The ringing continued for a considerable length of time in a regular series of slow impulses which were recorded at various independent seismic stations. Goodavage also noted that the planet rang again as a result of the Anchorage, Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964.

It seems hard to believe that scientists were so appalled in finding that the moon rang like a bell. After all, the Earth displays the same characteristic".

(2) Proof that the "ringing" of the moon is common knowledge in the scientific and NASA communities is presented in communications between Mission Control and the men aboard the Apollo 17 moon mission on December 29, 1972.

"LUNAR MODULE PILOT (LMP): Was there any indication on the seismometers on the impact about the time I saw a light flash on the surface?

CAPCOM: Stand by. We'll check on that.

LMP: A UFO perhaps, don't worry about it. It could have been one of the other flashes of light

CAPCOM: Jack, just some words from the back room for you. There may have been an impact at the time you called, but . So it would mask any other impact."

(3) Research/Writer Don Wilson presents other well-documented evidence supporting the Hollow Moon Theory. "The moon has only 60% of the density of Earth. The improbable fact that an equal amount of earth material seemed to weigh almost twice as much as moon matter mystified everyone. Why the difference? The actual answer, some scientists felt, pointed to the possibility that part or all of the moon's interior was hollow!"

(4) Then there's a report in the July 1962 issue of Astronautics by Dr. Gordon McDonald, a leading scientist at the Nation Aeronautics and Space Administration in which he states that "according to an analysis of the moon's motion, it appears that the moon is hollow: if the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is less dense than the outer parts. Indeed, it would seem that the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere.’"

(5) In 1959 eminent scientist Professor Iosif Shklovsky put forth his findings in relation to the "moons" circling Mars. "After carefully weighing up the evidence he concludes that they are both hollow"

(6) While some "orthodox" scientists will quietly admit that some earthly bodies are probably hollow, they steadfastly refuse to accept the fact that ALL planets and moons are NATURALLY hollow and hurry to add they must be "artificial" satellites. For instance: "The moon seems to be a comparatively light world in contrast with the planet Earth. The fact that the moon is only about 60% as dense as our planet has led scientists to two theories: that the moon is without an iron core, and/or, that it is partially hollow. "Data and computations – among them, Dr. McDonald's motion studies, – point to the conclusion that our moon is internally hollow to a great extent. Since most scientists claim there is no natural explanation for such peculiar phenomenon (because satellite worlds are not naturally hollow), the inevitable conclusion indicates that the moon is artificially hollow."

(7) Once again, the "establishment" scientists are trying to "fit" the facts to their "sacred cow" theory. In no way will they "buck" the system and admit the obvious. The facts, once again, support the theory laid out by Gardner and Reed all heavenly bodies are hollow.

www.onelight.com...


Kind Regards,

GeminiSky

[edit on 27-6-2010 by GeminiSky]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


If you take a look at the image in any editing program there some values just above black around the hole. Most monitors (especially consumer level monitors) have their blacks adjusted quite poorly or have wear and tear.

The value shows a bit more depth. You can bring it up via a tonal mod (curves or whatever) to take a look. There's at the very least some more of an image there which will give you a better look.

Tone wise there is a fair spread of values which may normally indicate tampering, but in this case there is just a lot of spread out black here and there. The fact there is very little pure black in the image indicates a fairly well exposed photo.

The light is coming from left to right resulting in the lack of detail on the left edge of the pit. The only thing that is a little odd is a large splash of whiter values to the right of the pit indicating a light source which is much more powerful than the other parts of the image.

This is either being hit directly by the sun or perhaps it is part of the mission. I don't really know the particulars of this so I can't say without more information.

Note: now I've had a little more time to look at the photo and digest it ... It is very likely that this is the sun causing the highlights on the right of the pit which is likely higher in altitude. I imagine this part of the moon to be much like Australia or Africa where even during the day on film we can end up with fairly hard edged shadows and blacks. I don't know what camera was used, but it is possible if it was a very high end digital or film camera the original photo may contain more detail but not all would be visible on an ordinary monitor.

The layout of the area looks like a large object hit a slope or sharp hill face causing a non-standard impact.

I'd be interested to see some HDR photos of the moon, or just the different exposures of the same area, but I guess the photos are exposed for safety, or the extra data is not released to the public.



[edit on 27-6-2010 by Pinke]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


Sorry...IF you're basing your entire "hollow" claims (both Moon AND Earth, if you go by the link to Dennis Crenshaw) on that mess from Dennis Crenshaw, then I see the problem.

This all started from the "ring like a bell" description that was uttered, once, by a scientist -- that has been taken so far out of context as to be expanding the boundaries of ridiculous.

Because it conjurs up a mental image, in people's minds, of a prosaic 'bell'...they jump to that conclusion.

But, something that "rings" doesn't have to be HOLLOW!!! A standing-wave vibration, for instance, within material of a solid object...try a tuning fork, as a better analogy than a "bell"!

People like this Dennis Crenshaw are so bereft of science knowledge (and he simply trolls around until he finds equally clueless buffoons to spout the "pseudoscience", to make his junk seem believable) that they seem more of a laughing stock to everyone else. So much so that I doubt anyone pays enough attention to them to even attempt to explain...it's as if he's arguing for the existence of Santa Claus...people look, roll their eyes, chuckle and move on... (I noted the date from that mess was 1995).

They include, in a feeble attempt to appear "scientific", comments about the relative densities of Earth versus Moon...it does NOT surprise planetary scientists, because its well-established, by now, that the Moon lacks the heavier elements, such as the huge quantity of iron, that Earth has.

The event that formed the Moon resulted in the shedding of a great deal of the LIGHTER portions of the proto-Earth.

I could write another thousand words, but a video is better:



Notice when she said, "Things always get pulled toward the CENTER (by gravity)..."

~~~~~~

About "airbrushing"...I have seen all of the videos, the ONE guy (the guy in the glasses, with this 'technician' status as an Airman in the USAF..and the woman (forget her name).

Problem is, the Moon is being looked at and examined and photographed by MANY sources, not just NASA!!!!

Quite frankly....seems to me that IF something like evidence of past (or present) ET technology ON the Moon was found, NASA would make it PUBLIC!!! They would salivate at the increase in funding they would get!!

Also, back to the imaging...think about it, from a telescope (near side) mounted on Earth. Nothing here can resolve things as small as the Apollo LM descent stages (yet) BUT, IF something was 'built' there by our ET 'friends', then it would be substantially larger than a few meters wide, and should be quite visible...to eyes, from Earth.

Of course, the Farside is out of earth direct view...still, it HAS been imaged extensively, by other facilities than NASA....

I'd look at these claims with a jaundiced eye, until more "proof" comes to light......



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeminiSky
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Dear whacker,

It seems the info you provide may not conclusively prove that the moon is solid. Also, I am still waiting for you PROOF and EVIDENCE that NASA does NOT airbrush their photos to conceal classified material from the general public....


Oh dear, you made the claim. The burden of proof lies on your shoulders alone.

[edit on 27/6/2010 by PsykoOps]



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join