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.

 

Moon find may point to habitable tunnels

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
US President Barack Obama may have to reconsider his decision to abandon plans to return to the Moon - it seems our closest galactic neighbour is still throwing up surprises.

Last year, NASA'a Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) dipped into a low orbit around the Moon and almost immediately returned results.

Early in May, it found lost Soviet rover Lunokhod 1, which wandered off course 40 years and stopped sending signals back to Earth.

June 17, 2010

Later that month, it sent back an amazing image of a three-storey high boulder which had rolled across the Moon's surface before toppling into a crater.

Now it may have confirmed a theory that scientists had held about the Moon since the 1960s - its surface may hide a vast network of tunnels.

If they exist, such tunnels could offer the kind of shelter that would allow humans to live on the Moon.

"They could be entrances to a geologic wonderland," lead researcher Mark Robinson of Arizona State University said.


www.news.com.au...



Moon Pits

Related:

news.com.au...


I don't think Obama will be changing his mind any time soon, it is strange we haven't gone back to the Moon, I would like to know the real reason why, not that I am buying into the Moon already being inhabited but if that is the case it could be the reason.




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


"Later that month, it sent back an amazing image of a three-storey high boulder which had rolled across the Moon's surface before toppling into a crater."

How is this even possible in a place where gravity nor atmosphere is said to exist?

That just doesn't make sense to me.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by KillenfizzenHumboflorator
 


Erm, there IS gravity on the moon. Else, the astronauts wouldn't have been able to walk on it. (that is, if you believe they actually did :@@
. There's also a very tenuous atmosphere.
But I see your point. What caused that boulder to move?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by KillenfizzenHumboflorator
 


Thanks for posting, do you happen to have a link to the story about the rock rolling into a crater, would like to see it.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by KillenfizzenHumboflorator
How is this even possible in a place where gravity nor atmosphere is said to exist?

Gravity exists on the moon, there's just less of it. Haven't read up on the boulder story, but perhaps it was from the ejecta of an impact and started rolling when it hit the ground?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I saw the photo of the boulder in the crater and it does look a bit strange but the grooves that are made along the ground has gaps every now and then which made me think maybe it was a meteor and it had bounced four or five times and landed in the crater.
Just a thought.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 


MABE TIGER WOODS PUT IT IN THE CRATOR...CAUSE THAT MUST HAVE BEEN SOME HOLE IN1



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
The moon has been proven hollow many times...with vast caeerns at the least. The moon rings like a bell when struck by fallings debris sent to record the results, , and it is most likley that the moon is a construct with an armored shell about 20 miles thicks and a surface of a standard depth covered by mining materials.

Think hard about this little factoid: No matter how big the size of the crater on the moon, they are all of the same depth, basically. Even gigantic craters are no deeper than small ones. Why? how could this be? only by having a shell that is virtually impenetrable, protecting the inner chambers and equipment.

The moon has so many ' inexplicable anomalies' associated with it that most scientists will avoid the subject totally if they can....they are stuck trying to convince people of old lies but face increased photographic proof as well as instrument evidence from their own probes.

All you have to do is visit any good moon anomaly site, like marsanomalyresearch.com or others and see total proof, evidence from the NASA files that shows proof of constructs on the moon and other planets....the proof is there, all it takes is to study.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
The moon has been proven hollow many times...

With a moment of inertia of 0.393 it is nothing of the sort. A hollow moon would have a moment of inertia of 0.67. A perfectly homogenous sphere has a moment of inertia of 0.4, so that means the moon has a small core.

Think hard about this little factoid: No matter how big the size of the crater on the moon, they are all of the same depth, basically. Even gigantic craters are no deeper than small ones.

Newton crater depth: 29,000 feet
Copernicus crater depth: 12,303 feet
Tycho crater depth: 15,748 feet
Kepler crater depth: 8,858 feet
Gassendi crater depth: 6,234 feet
Just a few examples. In short, no, they are not all the same depth, even the big ones. All the ones I've listed here are big, and some are huge.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
They have beeen living on the moon since before the 60`s. I wouldnt doubt if they live on mars or even venus.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
My question is if there is an atmosphere and gravity on the moon why would anyone want to live in a tunnel, reminds me of the Hollow Earth Theory. Think I will stay here, from what I can see everything is the same color and no beautiful blue oceans. Oh wait I may reconsider if they have a Starbucks.


[edit on 21-7-2010 by Aquarius1]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


There's 3 simples reasons why you would live underground.
1. Ask yourself why we live inside structures, or caves long ago ?
2. The minimal atmoshpere provides little protection from the suns radiation while earths atmosphere protects us & our tech.
3. There are extreme temperature changes/ranges on the moon.

Oh & 4. To hide from curious people like us, thats the most probable reason.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SNAFU38
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


Oh & 4. To hide from curious people like us, thats the most probable reason.


I like number 4, isn't that what they are doing now, since there is the far side of the Moon which we cannot see it isn't hard now is it.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Might be a stupid question, and to be honest it's not really a question, more mining something from the memory banks and forming something question related from it...

Putting any suggestions about current inhabitation of the moon aside, and recent suggestions that the regolith might be more water rich then we'd first assumed... would living even a short distance underground on the lunar service, provide decent radiation protection. I've read about water insulated walls around temporary 'radiation shelters' on the moon, so would this do it?

Very good article link btw, really interesting. Not long purchased a telescope myself (looked at one of those auctions) and pointed Selene-ward not long ago - suddenly the flat saucer took on new life and it was... great.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
So the theories of the past where moon is compared to "Swiss Cheese with bunch of holes" might actually have some play with these recent findings.

Who would have thunk?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Will it spread on crackers and taste delicious!

Ey up Gromit!



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Subterranean Living May Await Moon and Mars Colonists

June 18, 2010

Let's fast-forward to an imaginary time much later in this century. A similarly spidery craft descends to the Sea of Tranquility, but to the viewer’s amazement it flies down into a gaping hole on the moon’s surface, like a bee going into a hive.

This is a conceivable scenario for far-future moon colonists.

Over the past year, NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) has photographed unusual "pit craters" that poke into the moon's crust for hundreds of feet. These are thought to be the collapsed ceilings of underground lava tubes that crisscross the moon as lunar rilles

news.discovery.com...



Forty-one years ago this Tuesday our moon was first visited by a small shiny craft that descended like a falling star onto the frozen lava plains of the Sea of Tranquility. Apollo astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin then climbed out and walked the surface of a world untouched for over 4 billion years.

Slide Show of Lunar Landing 40 years Later.

Subterranean living, if there are tunnels existing they would not have to bore them out, how convenient.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by richierich
The moon has been proven hollow many times...

With a moment of inertia of 0.393 it is nothing of the sort. A hollow moon would have a moment of inertia of 0.67. A perfectly homogenous sphere has a moment of inertia of 0.4, so that means the moon has a small core.

Think hard about this little factoid: No matter how big the size of the crater on the moon, they are all of the same depth, basically. Even gigantic craters are no deeper than small ones.

Newton crater depth: 29,000 feet
Copernicus crater depth: 12,303 feet
Tycho crater depth: 15,748 feet
Kepler crater depth: 8,858 feet
Gassendi crater depth: 6,234 feet
Just a few examples. In short, no, they are not all the same depth, even the big ones. All the ones I've listed here are big, and some are huge.


You miss the point: the depest crater is NOT the largest crater...read this list:scienceray.com...

The deepest crater is Moretus, which is by far NOt the largest. One would think that if there was no shell beneath the crust that the largest craters would slao be the deepest, makes sense...but it is not the fact. The fact is that the craters never go deeper than 5 kilometers, no matter how big across they are.

There is a shell under the crust that begins at about the 5 kilo depth, and no asteroid or comet could penetrate this shell no matter how big. The ' people ' that designed the moon and equipped it did not leave anything to chance.

So, since the deepest crater is not the largest, explain HOW.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
You miss the point: the depest crater is NOT the largest crater...

That was not the claim. You said they were all about the same depth. They're not.

The deepest crater is Moretus, which is by far NOt the largest. One would think that if there was no shell beneath the crust that the largest craters would slao be the deepest, makes sense...

That's quite a simplistic assumption. You're not accounting for the effect of impact angle or age or location of impact. Some of the largest impacts sustained by the moon are also quite old and are filled with basaltic material from lava flows from when the moon was still geologically active. Moretus crater is in the southern highlands where there aren't many lava flows. Even so, even Morteus is deep and old enough that it has undergone resurfacing from lava.


The fact is that the craters never go deeper than 5 kilometers, no matter how big across they are.

Now you've changed goalposts. Before it was that they were all the same depth, which would be odd, now you just took the deepest crater and complain that there aren't any deeper than that.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join