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: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
on that subject... like the hollow earth thread....what about the arlo guthrie song from 1967.....airliners fly over the poles...so the hole at the pole....ffffftt probably gone....if they really fly over the poles in airliners during the day! all that from a song from the 60's


"comin in from London from over the pole...flyin in a big airliner"...

[edit on 27-6-2010 by GBP/JPY]




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


"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... "

NOT QUITE

I would not put all your FAITH (belief without experience/investigation or thought) in the science of maths – until you understand how this has been developed.

To calculate the mass of the moon – a mathematical formula is used which utilizes one of the “universal Constants”….G - as put forward by Newton in his universal law of gravitation – However, as with all universal constants – was based upon pre-conceived beliefs and ideas, which are at best “theories” - a hypothesis which stands until evidence proves otherwise……(difficult to do unless you have a huge set of weighing scales) as you can see from the link below – nearly all of the “universal constants” are the subject of challenge by other mathematical scientists.

“In spite of the central importance of the universal gravitational constant, it is the least well defined of all the fundamental constants. Attempts to pin it down to many places of decimals have failed; the measurements are just too variable. The editor of the scientific journal Nature has described as 'a blot on the face of physics' the fact that G still remains uncertain to about one part in 5,000. Indeed, in recent years the uncertainty has been so great that the existence of entirely new forces has been postulated to explain gravitational anomalies”

LINK


[edit on 27-6-2010 by suziwong]

[edit on 27-6-2010 by suziwong]

[edit on 27-6-2010 by suziwong]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I don't know? how big is big on metric system? hahahaha



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GBP/JPY
 

Coming into Los Angeleeese
Bringing in a couple of keys.
Don't touch my bags if you please
Mister customs maaan.
Aaandd...



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Could well be moon nazis...seriously , I am always amazed at the pics we DO get.....amazing



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I did not make any claims, only speculating about possibilities, please re-read before posting your next empty, only line reply.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeminiSky
reply to post by Sanity Lost
 


You also have a point. Are the Japanese airbrushing their photos just like NASA?


That's as clear a claim as one could be. Speculating would've been something along the lines 'like nasa has been alleged to do'. Nice try thought



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


GeminiSky won't produce evidence for his claims for the simple fact that he can't! It doesn't exist! All he can do is point to some nutters on the web making said claims. Apparently if enough conspiracy theorists say the same thing, it eventually makes it true!

IRM :shk:



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeminiSky

Now before someone says that this has already been discussed before, it has not. The prior threads on ATS in regards to holes in the moon discuss a hole that was previously discovered by the Kaguya mission in the Marius Hills region of the moon last year.

The new pit in Mare Ingenii, however, lacks the numerous volcanic features that were found in the Marius Hills region.

Just thought I would share this new photo with you guys, Im pretty sure this one has not been discussed before.

So if this lacks the features of the usual lava tube, then what could it be? What caused it?

---GeminiSky

www.space.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 26-6-2010 by GeminiSky]


doesnt look like a pit at all to me..more like an odd black slick of some sort..



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Please show me which claims I have made. So far I have simply speculated to the possibilities.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by GeminiSky
reply to post by Sanity Lost
 


You also have a point. Are the Japanese airbrushing their photos just like NASA?


That's as clear a claim as one could be. Speculating would've been something along the lines 'like nasa has been alleged to do'. Nice try thought


Ah yes that particular one may have been a claim I suppose. Please dont barf too much, it drains the body.


It is my beleif that NASA does indeed alter their photos, as told by witness testimony, as well as NASA moon photos where there is CLEARLY something removed and blurred out from the photo.




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


Did you really just do that???

He just gave you FACTS!!! Do you have anything other than child hood wonder, to prove the "hollow" theory? He came packing a full ammo clip of PROOF.. what do you have to support the "hollow" theory? Any...???

There is no proof... its a child hood goonies dream...thats all .. No proof.
There is not ONE credible scientist that will back up the hollow earth or moon theories.

So he brought the facts on the hollow moon...and you instantly jump to the OTHER item that he didn't address.

I love this site.. There are some great contributors.. Some very smart people patrol this site, I love reading what they write..

But, occasionally you get the member that thinks he is much smarter than he is.. He reads the other posts and tries to immitate them when going after naysayers...

He took the time to present you with facts and you just took the standard reply... You couldnt even acknowledge his work or time.. You just jumped to what he didnt prove.

Your no better than a bible thumper. You ask people to prove your theory is NOT correct... Its not our place to disprove theories.. It is the theorists job to prove his theory is right.

You really should just be yourself and stop trying to be the brains of the operation...You most certainly are not!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I had a look for some more photos of airbrushed photos of the moon etc ... Its been disappointing so far.

The photo I looked at in this thread has quite nice grain, and the pixels are as expected. If anything it looks a bit washed out or 'blurry' since it is well exposed and hasn't had any 'clear' alterations done to it. (This is really hard to do)

The photos I found online were mostly clearly faked photos created by you tubers with the offensive emboss filter and some really terrible smudging.

I'm curious if you have any other examples of tampered photos I suppose - I would like to see them. It may be a little off topic so feel free to private message a link or three to me.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Do you think the Earth and Moon used to be one body and something collided with it knocking them apart? I've read theories about this happening before life began on the Earth.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MelonMusketeer
These pits could have a huge application in manned exploration of the moon, allowing construction of below surface living quarters, shielded from solar rays and heat. We could become cave dwellers again.


We?? Who is this "WE?" The Moon is, or at least used to be, a terraformed, planetoid spacecraft brought here and placed in it's "perfect orbit" to balance out an unstable Earth, control the tides so that mankind could spread out all over the Earth, and watch and record everything we do, think, or say, and beam that on to some unknown source. Is it God who is controlling this? I highly doubt that, I think is an ET race that we do not want to meet.

The Earth Without the Moon

Before the Flood, There Was No Moon

Alien Moon Base

An Ancient Alien Spacecraft On The Backside Of The Moon

CHILD OF THE MOON
(Jagger/Richards)

The wind blows rain into my face
The sun glows at the end of the highway
Child of the moon, rub your rainy eyes
Oh, child of the moon
Give me a wide-awake crescent-shaped smile

She shivers, by the light she is hidden
She flickers like a lamp lady vision
Child of the moon, rub your rainy eyes
Child of the moon
Give me a wide-awake crescent-shaped smile

The first car on the foggy road riding
The last star for my lady is pining
Oh, child of the moon, bid the sun arise
Oh, child of the moon
Give me a misty day, pearly gray, silver, silky faced,
Wide-awake crescent-shaped smile



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by suziwong
 


I tried to read through that LINK...but it's long, and in most parts has nothing to do with what I was talking about, anyway.

It is a scatter-shot approach at a variety of different accepted "constants" but all it does is point out that, when calculated out to many decimal places, there are very, very, very minor variances...it's really, in most cases, all about the minor errors that crop up in measuring...instrument calibration differences, and accumulated errors, I would think.

But, since it talks about such SMALL deviations, it does nothing to dispute the gross overall calculations for large objects, like Earth, Moon and their relative (average) G force, gravitational attraction due to mass.

Certainly, even as the Moon orbits the Earth, and as the Earth orbits the Sun, and the entire system dances in its cycles...there are minor perturbations. Nothing large enough to be seen, usually...but even the distant influence of Jupiter's gravity can have a small, meager effect. IF you try to calculate down to the smallest possible significant digit, but all are well down into the factor of a fraction of a fraction of one percentile.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Mobius1974
 


I never said I was the brains of anything, please refrain from personal attacks.

I acknowledge all contributions, and value them.

You seem to have some anger in you buddy....hard day?

Feel better,

---GeminiSky



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Odd...since the lunar samples from its crust brought back by Apollo show that it is composed mostly of hte SAME material as the Earth...OH, and that it is about the same age as the Earth, too.

SO...these "aliens" of yours??

Did they 'place' the Moon there 4.5 Billion years ago, in hopes that, after all this time, we Humans would finally climb down from the trees and crawl out of the savannahs??

That is surely one long-term project, that is!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
To PsykoOps , weed whacker and Mobius 1974

You are bringing nothing to this forum, apart from ignorant de-railing of what is a very interesting thread.

GeminiSky has kindly put an interesting piece of information on the forum –
To share information like this is what the site is all about –

He has also set a few interesting thoughts down (existing theories) – which you can either choose to accept, reject or just hold in mind…..but arguing with the OP telling him essentially to prove these theories or back off is ludicrous – he cannot prove that the moon is hollow – but , as my previous post sets out, no-one can equally prove with 100% certainty that it is not!!

You all seem to be under the illusion that our scientists know everything about the moon…..including it’s ACCURATE mass – you are all wrong – we have a made an educated guess (with known flaws) – nothing more
To blindly accept the current science/maths of the universe as indisputable fact is misguided nonsense (and anyone who does, has no business to write on this site)

As set out in my post above, the maths used to calculate the mass of planetary bodies was obtained theoretically and is fundamentally flawed- it contains a “universal constant” G, which is increasingly under scrutiny as it is continually being shown to be inaccurate.
The universal gravitational constant *really* is just a conversion factor for how much mass warps spacetime, and it currently *seems* like it is constant, but we can't be absolutely sure 'cause there are some oddities in the universe that we can't explain and it might turn out (and on the quantum level has turned out) that it isn't constant after all.
A “universal constant” that is not in fact universally constant ……..but remains to be a fundamental basis of all physics is ok until we understand more –but never completely reliable –we simply do not know enough (particularly about gravity) to insist that our current understanding of physics is indisputable

As the link set out in my other post has a link to substantiate this – I would further add that Recent experimentation in quantum physics shows that the equation is seriously flawed

LINK

“Several physicists, among them Arthur Eddington and Paul Dirac, have speculated that at least some of the 'fundamental constants' may change with time. In particular, Dirac proposed that the universal gravitational constant, G, may be decreasing with time: the gravitational force weakening as the universe expands. But those who make such speculations are usually quick to avow that they are not challenging the idea of eternal laws; they are merely proposing that eternal laws govern the variation of the constants”

LINK

“Accordingly, the masses must be very large before gravitational effects can be easily measured. Even using modern methods, different laboratories often report significantly different values for G.”

LINK

“Several kinds of measurements of gravitational fields are here qualitatively discussed. It is shown that no one of them yields satisfactory results if the region in which the field is measured has linear dimensions smaller thanL = Gh/c 2”

LINK

“The official CODATA value for G in 1986 was given as G= (6,67259±0.00085)x10-11 m3Kg-1s-2 and was based on the Luther and Towler determination in 1982. However, the value of G has been recently called into question by new measurements from respected research teams in Germany, New Zealand, and Russia in order to try to settle this issue. The new values using the best laboratory equipment to-date disagreed wildly to the point that many are doubting about the constancy of this parameter and some are even postulating entirely new forces to explain these gravitational anomalies”

Therefore as far as I am concerned, what we don’t know for certain, should be up for debate and the more hypothesis’s that are put forward….the better!! If you are at all interested in finding the truth about anything

Weedwhacker – your latest smug statement about the moon once being part of earth is also not a fact – just a hypothesis which is currently the subject of much debate

LINK

The age of the earth / moon is also not a fact – but is the topic of debate

LINK



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Ok great pic/thread. It seems to me that holes like this are rare but hardly automaticaly un natural or wierd. Think about how many holes there are in the rock on earth... many many times that of the ones we have found on the moon right? Well thats because during what we know of the life of earth, it has be geologicaly active, in a big way for as long as it has been in the sky, where as, all previous investigation into the moon says that if it was ever geologicaly active, it hasnt been in any significant way for a very long time, and that if it ever was, it never reached a level serious enough for widespread formation of features like those pictured , any such geological disturbance being limited in number .
However, these pics are impressive. I wonder if it would be worth a close up investigation of these holes. The boffins are always saying that they are interested in observing places which havent been sunkissed on the moon, well thats a prime set of locations right there!



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join