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.

 

The Secrets of Schröteri Crater

page: 18
98
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverlok
 


Now, can you please repeat that in a way someone that learned English by himself could understand?

Thanks in advance.




posted on May, 23 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


yes , and I am apologizing for taking a while.

the track indicates an 'inertial' energy that gives us clues to the initiator of the path and the narrow field of it's composition.

the two things left at the end of the day are either much denser than the local environment mass , or high velocity and high tensile strength. differential interactions: OR ...

we either have really super odd high density rocks at the top of 'hills' , perched to fall over precipices in a "non" weathering environment or we have an anomaly, if we only view the topical , given , facts .

only two logical conclusions are present given the data: either our model of the moon's formation and composition is wrong, or we need to add more 'as of yet' unknown variables.0. ( does that translate )



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
yes , and I am apologizing for taking a while.
No problem, and thanks for answering.

But I still have some trouble understanding what you mean.


the two things left at the end of the day are either much denser than the local environment mass , or high velocity and high tensile strength. differential interactions: OR ...
Why do you say that? Why do you think only much denser matter would make such a track?
Or am I misunderstanding the your words?



we either have really super odd high density rocks at the top of 'hills' , perched to fall over precipices in a "non" weathering environment or we have an anomaly, if we only view the topical , given , facts .
Although the environment doesn't suffer from wind or water (or any other liquid) erosion, it is subjected to large changes in temperature.


only two logical conclusions are present given the data: either our model of the moon's formation and composition is wrong, or we need to add more 'as of yet' unknown variables.0. ( does that translate )
Could you explain this a little more, I don't see why you say that.

Once more, thanks in advance.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


thermal retention is a secondary indicator of energetic reactions based on how the sun throws off energy. a LARGE temperature differential faces an interaction of a two fold nature ...

surface area increase on the order of the square , whereas volume increases on the order of the cube .

thermally speaking that means thermal absorption is ENTIRELY based on surface area, but differential transmission ( transfer to internal subsurface components ) otherwise known as ' absorption ( of heat ) is based on a cubed principle .

the practical (real world) upshot is that the only way heavy metals can be at the highest points ( "mountain cliffs" ) surface of a 'deadish' moon is if it formed by hi temperature spin out ( as opposed to the crap--ass collision theory) . Van Flandern has a good mechanism describing this.

SO... either we abandon the current moon formation theory ( no way super dense rocks could be a the top of powdery mountains in low gravity ) or we have an artificial anomaly creating that track.

the density of the object in question HAS TO BE much greater than the "soil" density due to the oddly uniform impression depth along the entire track



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverlok
 

I should add that 'the moon' has not only noticeable areas of titanium on the surface but also VAST quantities of THORIUM ON IT"S SURFACE.

Thorium is heavy ..why is so much of it on the surface of the moon ?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
My god the Chinese were blocking the Mongolians on the moon too! =D

there's alot of answers on the moon... that's why we aren't there haha.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
the density of the object in question HAS TO BE much greater than the "soil" density due to the oddly uniform impression depth along the entire track

Wouldn't a very fine dust be enough for that?

When we walk on sand, even if we are less dense than the sand, the sand moves beneath our weight, and we make tracks.

I really don't see why it HAS TO BE much denser when a less denser object can do that.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
Thorium is heavy ..why is so much of it on the surface of the moon ?

It got there after the solidifying of the Moon?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Aggie Man
My best guess is that the image shows a boulder


Seriously? This looks like a boulder to you?



The closest thing I can think of at the left would be some kind of sensor that spins based on it's perceived shape, while the thing on the right looks like it has four wheels, reminding me of a rover.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

because of the inertia or relative materials density ...

on earth sand moves because of moisture content and or leverage ( (sand , being thousands of randomly packed tiny marbles)on the moon 'soil' radiation ionization should produce a powdery low density dust of nearly uniform thickness with a small degree of change in thickness due to grade because of the low gravity structure due to solar radiation ionization

but this still does not explain high density rocks capable of producing the trail we see being high enough to have the inertia need to move as observed ...

as , given the theory of the moon's formation , how could said dense media be at such a high altitude?

(so that when it fell in low gravity it left such a track a we see )

if it is natural the moon formed from 'fission' spin out ( not the collision theory as is currently readily accepted by most academic morons ) or it is an artificial object

a little altitude telemetry data of the terrain would immediately allow us to ascertain the nature of the view with a much greater interpretation ...weird that we have that data for mars but not for the moon .



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Silverlok
Thorium is heavy ..why is so much of it on the surface of the moon ?

It got there after the solidifying of the Moon?
how?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
on earth sand moves because of moisture content and or leverage ( (sand , being thousands of randomly packed tiny marbles)on the moon 'soil' radiation ionization should produce a powdery low density dust of nearly uniform thickness with a small degree of change in thickness due to grade because of the low gravity structure due to solar radiation ionization
Try rolling a beach ball over Portland cement powder.
The ball will make a track, but it's much lighter than the cement


a little altitude telemetry data of the terrain would immediately allow us to ascertain the nature of the view with a much greater interpretation ...weird that we have that data for mars but not for the moon .
Maybe we have, I will look for it.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlokhow?

I don't have the slightest idea.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


portland cement is a very interesting substance ( i spent a torture of time as a laborer and then two years on the wall as a mason )

have you ever broken safety glass(like used in shower doors) ?

it has a very interesting packing , and decomposition structure, much like Portland cement that has NOT been sitting around for several million years...also whyile a beach ball will make a track under certain circumstances ...they are Totally dependent on packing structure and 'framework' or containment , also in low gravity the leverage points ( deep depressions that were off center from the main track ) would 'fling' the beach ball off into a new vector.

a (relatively ) linear track , with 'non-uniform appendages' more than suggests a mass that is over powering it's friction component through center of mass inertia, like dog toys here that are non-uniform to created random bouncing ( for your dog's happiness) , and not linear tracks

edit on 10-6-2012 by Silverlok because: dog toys



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Silverlok
the density of the object in question HAS TO BE much greater than the "soil" density due to the oddly uniform impression depth along the entire track

Wouldn't a very fine dust be enough for that?

When we walk on sand, even if we are less dense than the sand, the sand moves beneath our weight, and we make tracks.

I really don't see why it HAS TO BE much denser when a less denser object can do that.


the size / mass of the object...the moon lander ( and it's rocket jet plume ) barely dented the surface and the astronauts footsteps barely dug into the dust, ...a relative environment ....dust in low gravity should be like powdery snow : one sinks into it , but the video evidence from the moon does not indicate that.

without a weathering surface WHY would one area be soooo much different than another ( again back to the formation question )
edit on 10-6-2012 by Silverlok because: the sad death of thin



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
dust in low gravity should be like powdery snow : one sinks into it , but the video evidence from the moon does not indicate that.
I don't understand why dust in low gravity should behave like that, as gravity still exists, although I confess that I don't know a thing about materials and such.


without a weathering surface WHY would one area be soooo much different than another ( again back to the formation question )
Maybe because they are different places. As far as I know, the Apollo missions all landed on flat areas, while the photo from the opening post shows a sloped area.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Silverlok
dust in low gravity should be like powdery snow : one sinks into it , but the video evidence from the moon does not indicate that.
I don't understand why dust in low gravity should behave like that, as gravity still exists, although I confess that I don't know a thing about materials and such.


without a weathering surface WHY would one area be soooo much different than another ( again back to the formation question )
Maybe because they are different places. As far as I know, the Apollo missions all landed on flat areas, while the photo from the opening post shows a sloped area.
as to the first ...have you ever put pepper in a toilet ? ( surface Ionics are functionally similar to "SPACIAL" ionics in high radiation environments)

put some pepper in your toilet ....wait a few minutes and then add a drop of dish soap at the center ...now imagine that condition every 28 days on the entire surface of the moon for the last 60 thousand years or so ...at least

as to the second ...

I have discussed moon formation ad nauseum, and after more than a year I have noticed YOU have had NOTHING ADDITIVE in analytical terms , in fact your Entire discourse has been...unconsructive.
In the extreme.

Yet you are a MOD.

I have decide to spend little time on this thread ..;call it amateur hour, but I will go through my personally saved archives ( of this site ) to try and understand the "discussion" better



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Aggie Man
My best guess is that the image shows a boulder


Seriously? This looks like a boulder to you?



I love to look at artifacts on mars and the moon but that sure looks like a little cowboy hat on a toy doll.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
as to the first ...have you ever put pepper in a toilet ? ( surface Ionics are functionally similar to "SPACIAL" ionics in high radiation environments)

put some pepper in your toilet ....wait a few minutes and then add a drop of dish soap at the center ...now imagine that condition every 28 days on the entire surface of the moon for the last 60 thousand years or so ...at least
I haven't done that experiment, but by the explanation I think I understand what you mean.
It's as if there would be space between the dust particles and, when pressed together, not only the particles would move but those spaces between them would disappear, making for a displacement of the dust bigger than it would be expected from dust where all the particles are in contact with the surrounding particles.
Is that it?


as to the second ...

I have discussed moon formation ad nauseum, and after more than a year I have noticed YOU have had NOTHING ADDITIVE in analytical terms , in fact your Entire discourse has been...unconsructive.
In the extreme.

Yet you are a MOD.

My opinions about any subject and my knowledge about them is not related to being a Mod, except when those subjects are related to the correct functioning of the forum. A moderator is more like a janitor than a specialist in the topics discussed.


As for Moon formation, I confess it's not something I have been studying or even looking into in the last 30+ years.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Apologies for resurrecting a thread once thought dead. This subject has been bugging me for years and I had to throw in my tuppence worth.

A couple of things always stood out with me in this image. Firstly, it looks like it has been dropped into position, much like the army would drop a tank, or digger, into place using a Chinook. The very repetitive tracks start from nowhere, which brings me to my next point; how it moves.

The tracks consist of a line with almond shaped gouges at regular intervals. I was trying to work out how it was moving and I think it may be articulated in the middle and moving almost like a caterpillar would if it was lying on its side. The vehicle extends till almost straight, then the rear slides up bending in the middle. Then extends out again...rinse and repeat.

This is all guesswork, of course, as it is a static photo, but the tracks do suggest this. From the tracks it is also evident not all parts of the vehicle are in contact with the lunar surface. It is also impossible to tell if it has wheels to assist with this, but you can see a new almond gouge being created at the front right of the vehicle. The almond shape being the result of the extension back out again, as part of the articulated movement.

My illustration below is based can what I can perceive from the image. Although I have called one section a "cabin", I doubt that is it's function. No doubt this thing is huge and the "cabin" is the size of an aircraft hangar.
I have no idea who made, or owns this vehicle, or even if it has anything living in it. It could easily be AI controlled. One thing is certain. It is not a lunar rock formation.





top topics



 
98
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join