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 Base Located by NASA? Or Just a Volcano

page: 3
75
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by gaurdian2012
good find the nasa bunch will of course supress the truth of the moon (death star) how are they getting away with the repeated lies disinfo blurry pics when will people speak out and demand the truth.I am so sick and tired of nasa and there bs. I wish I was a hacker connected to anonymous I would so hack there servers get the truth out



And here lies my issue with anon, and lulsec... i dont want fun and games, i dont want to see them take a stand point over corrupt tabloid media, i dont want emails from the us army or relativley lame crap i dont want to see nato files...

This makes me think there is more to what they are doing than fighting the cause... it just seems like another way of feeding the sheeple... sadly it is patrons of this site and similar that have became the sheeple who need feeding (just what i have noticed recentley)

Why not steal and release somthing amazing... moon bases, aliens, secret blackops? that would get the troops behind there movement, and put the government on there back foot, i would rather no i was going to jail for changing the world than for mindless hacking without a cause...

unless theres nothing to see here.. move along

Dont wanna derail the topic, was just because your post touched home for me!!





Just my thoughts.




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by KandinskyThe landing traces are there. The 'moon storm' apparently exists. Its severity must be fairly mild...streamers rather whipped-up dust clouds.

According to NASA scientists, the storms may be severe enough to be observed from Earth as transient lunar phenomena. If they are visible from Earth, footprints or tyre tracks in dust would surely be obliterated in years, let alone decades.

It's even possible that these storms have been spotted from Earth: For centuries, there have been reports of strange glowing lights on the moon, known as "lunar transient phenomena" or LTPs. Some LTPs have been observed as momentary flashes--now generally accepted to be visible evidence of meteoroids impacting the lunar surface. But others have appeared as amorphous reddish or whitish glows or even as dusky hazy regions that change shape or disappear over seconds or minutes. Early explanations, never satisfactory, ranged from volcanic gases to observers' overactive [sic] imaginations (including visiting extraterrestrials).

Now a new scientific explanation is gaining traction. "It may be that LTPs are caused by sunlight reflecting off rising plumes of electrostatically lofted lunar dust," Olhoeft suggests.

SOURCE: science.nasa.gov...

Perhaps this video shows the effect?

Apparently the border between night and day is precisely where the storm would be.

The next time you see the moon, trace your finger along the terminator, the dividing line between lunar night and day. That's where the storm is. It's a long and skinny dust storm, stretching all the way from the north pole to the south pole, swirling across the surface, following the terminator as sunrise ceaselessly sweeps around the moon.

SOURCE: science.nasa.gov...

NOTE: Sorry for straying off topic, Zorgon.
edit on 29/7/11 by Pimander because: typo



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Come come now ArMaP... the choice was moon base or volcanoes. He told us about both

That's the best way of being right, saying two mutually exclusive possibilities; if he doesn't get one right he will probably get the other.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I personally believe NASA has a bit of ground to cover in a short amount of time in relation to releasing information. We have quite a few projects coming to fruition which will put non NASA hardware in a position to measure and / or see various things, especially on the moon. We wouldn't want any awkward questions coming up when the Google moon robot x prize or any of the planned missions to the moon by China, India, etc take place now, would we?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by dethduck
 


Apparently, it's an artist's rendition as shown on page 26 of this NASA Technical Memorandum 4325...


Figure 14. Artist's Concept of a Lunar Base Powered by an SP-100 Class Nuclear Reactor with Stirling Cycle Conversion


PDF from NASA here : ntrs.nasa.gov...

Now to get back on topic, I think that calling Moon Base on these latest discoveries is pushing it a bit...

More exploration and research - as technology gets better and permits it - leads to unsuspected new data. As mentioned in this Space.com article, we learn as we go...


According to Glotch, the discovery of nonbasaltic volcanoes on the far side of the moon "shows that the moon is more compositionally diverse than we realized before this new age of lunar exploration."

"As scientists, we're still digesting all this relatively new data and working to understand what it means in terms of lunar history."


www.space.com...

Moon Base, no. But very very interesting just the same !


Edit to add : I find it funny that we claim that NASA is dis informant yet we always use it when it suits our need.


edit on 29-7-2011 by SonoftheSun because: just thinking...



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Great post Zorgon. As usual, you have piqued our curiousity and sense of wonder and stoked the fires of out imagination. S&F!

I believe the we (society) are in the "dark ages" of knowing compared to what the military industrial complex actually knows and demonstrates in reality. It is an irresponsible position for the PTB to be in, and in order for them to keep the status quo of expodential technological growth of our civilization, it only makes sense that they must slowing bring up the educational bar, even if it's only a tiny percentage of what real is.

Therfore, we see conflicting but compelling evidence. We must use our powers of disernment and intuitive, deductive and abstract reasoning to make sense of what is possible.

Keep your minds open people.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet, Shakespeare

edit on 29-7-2011 by windword because: finished the post

edit on 29-7-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2011 by windword because: sp



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

NASA said...
the moon is geologically dead... Now they talk about volcanoes? After all these years of people, astronomers and astronauts seeing flashes of light, odd glows and clouds on the moon (TLP's), NASA is now telling us we have rare silica volcanoes with radioactive thorium


Yes, the Moon is pretty much dead geologically. That doesn't mean it always was and neither NASA or any other lunar scientists ever claimed that it was. Contrary to what the Time article claims, it is thought that volcanic activity could have persisted until as recently as 1 billion years ago. The correlation of the LP data with LROC imagery would indicate that is true.
www.sciencedirect.com...
www.space.com...


BTW, did you know that thorium is found in Earth's crust at an average concentration of 12ppm?




edit on 7/29/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Picollo30
i wonder why the USA and Russia stopped with the moon missions

If there's water on the moon poles in the form of ice there has to be oxygen therefore breathable atmosphere. they have to return there and create an outpost dammit.


According to Neil Armstrong (whom later recanted, giving no reason why, according to Gordon Cooper, a fellow astronaught), when they were circling the moon looking for a landing area, some beings in a craft emerged from a giant crater and took some warning shots at them, and basically "told" them to get the hell out and never come back, and they never did. According to Cooper, Armstrong called this in to Houston Control and they were told to abort and return home to be debriefed.

My guess is (i dont believe in aliens but IF i did) the reason they probably wouldnt have returned was they were threatened they would be destroyed if they ever came back. Which would scare the hell out of anyone even an astronaught, if all of a sudden some beings with advanced ships and weaponry told you to never come back on pain of death. Space is nowhere anyone wants to die, its a horrible death if your ship gets blown to pieces, even if you managed to make it to your eva suit you would have a couple hours to contemplate your own death and NO ONE wants to ever face that, even though we all do in the end.

According to Zecharia Sitchin, an established anthropolgist, thousands of years ago beings called the Anunnaki claiming to be "gods" although they most certainly were not because a god wouldnt need a space craft, but these beings were purported to have a base on the moon and one on mars according to Sitchins translations. Unfortunately ancient Sumerian/Babylonian is beyond my ability to translate so i have no idea what the hell those cylinder seals really say. Maybe his interpretation is right, maybe its not. But one thing i cant help but think about is this. How the hell did the Sumerians know about the extrasolar planetoids NASA just recently discovered like the planetoid called Eris with the eliptical 3900 year orbit around the sun. The last time that thing had been close enough to the earth to have been seen would have been in the Hebrew warrior Joshua's time, probably about the time of the battle of Jericho



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Yes, the Moon is pretty much dead geologically. That doesn't mean it always was and neither NASA or any other lunar scientists ever claimed that it was. Contrary to what the Time article claims, it is thought that volcanic activity could have persisted until as recently as 1 billion years ago.

BTW, did you know that thorium is found in Earth's crust at an average concentration of 12ppm?


Yes I know thorium is common enough BUT the POINT is this


Jolliff and his colleagues can't say with certainty how the volcano formed, but they are reasonably certain it can't be due to heat generated by radioactive deposits in the moon's core, since they would have long ago decayed. Instead, the outer core of the moon might not be cold and solidified, as geologists assumed, but rather may still be molten. "A pulse of heat from deep in the mantle might melt a pocket of ... rock at the base of the crust," Jolliff says. "As this lava began to crystallize, it would have differentiated to produce a more silicic melt that was enriched in thorium."

www.time.com...

Now if we look back at Chernobyl, when they had that meltdown... the silica sand around the reactor mixed with the melting fuel and gave us corium, which in the case of Chernobyl will remain hot for a VERY long time

So according to Jolliff et al, they can't say with certainty how the volcano formed


So as usual, them NASA scientists are basically CLUELESS



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by zorgon
 
You spin a fine conspiracy with the use of simple suggestion!


Yes I DO
but seriously, it's NASA's own fault. They are the Spin Masters...I mean they keep giving me the fuel, like this one for example;

"The Flyby Shooting of Venus"


June 5, 2007: Picture this: A spaceship swoops in from the void, plunging toward a cloudy planet about the size of Earth. A laser beam lances out from the ship; it probes the planet's clouds, striving to reach the hidden surface below. Meanwhile, back on the craft's home world, scientists perch on the edge of their seats waiting to see what happens.

Sounds like science fiction? This is real, and it's happening today.


science.nasa.gov...

And don't forget it was NASA that named the hematite spheres "Blue Berries" on Mars

edit on 29-7-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavalFC
Really? So Thorium is there, yet your asserting we shouldn't detect radiation? Really?


This hot spot wasn't there before. As you just said there are small blue spots in the area in question on that image I posted... but now we have THIS..bright red hot spot..



DO try to focus


This line is cool



which resulted in dome-like formations above the surface.


www.ibtimes.com... tm

Domes on the farside... with thorium corium hot spots...

Good old NASA, never a dull moment

edit on 29-7-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I thought the moon has no molten core? How is it a volcanoe? Doesn't the moon have a solid core? I don't really know much about this.
edit on 29-7-2011 by HazyChestNutz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by HazyChestNutz
 


Pretty sure the moon is hollow


TY Zorgon, What wonderful reads you bring!



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Wouldn't a molten outer core be incompatible with the readings of the seismometers when they crashed the Apollo 12 Lunar Module and the Apollo 13's spent third stage on the Moon?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyanhide
reply to post by HazyChestNutz
 


Pretty sure the moon is hollow


TY Zorgon, What wonderful reads you bring!
From what I've heard its a artificial satellite moon.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Recently I had the pleasure to hear of fact's, and opinions from someone who works for a rather well known aerospace company and interesting enough this same person when asked about John Lear mentioned that he had dinner with John and his family. This same person also said Apollo was incapable of going to the Moon and was told very promptly to STFU and to not talk about that matter when they saw the hardware up close.

I've only had a *few Good leaks* which boil to down the industry I work in, and also having the right questions to ask from taking posts like John's and Zorgon's seriously and then doing my own research. And I must admit that its actually quite amazing after my latest leak to even fathom how many *Industry based folk* John Lear Talks to/Has contact with







posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You are basing your facts on Nasa even going to the moon to begin with which according my source is quite farcical. Hope you enjoy economy class



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 





This hot spot wasn't there before. As you just said there are small blue spots in the area in question on that image I posted... but now we have THIS..bright red hot spot..


This hot spot wasn't there before what? What are you talking about? It was found in 1998. Do you have some reason to believe it wasn't there before that? Like, for example, a billion or so years before?

What's more, while all lunar volcanoes were assumed to have last stirred 3 billion to 4 billion years ago, this one appears much fresher — just a billion or so years old.

www.time.com...

Of course, Time did get the dating of the end of lunar volcanism wrong, as pointed out previously.

edit on 7/29/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Wouldn't a molten outer core be incompatible with the readings of the seismometers when they crashed the Apollo 12 Lunar Module and the Apollo 13's spent third stage on the Moon?


You mean the "Ringing of the bell" effect? Well some people use that information to prove the Moon is indeed hollow. But then we only have NASA's word for it that it did reverberate like a bell... I have never seen the sound data recording of that event yet (they might be available, just never found them before)

But crashing things... THAT is what NASA does best... COSMIC LITTERBUGS
I mean look at the LaCross mission ... even Scientific American used the term "NASA Bombs the Moon"
www.scientificamerican.com...

So we have an assumed pristine source of water ice found by Clementine in 1994 and confirmed by Lunar Prospector 1996 and what does NASA do? scatter rocket parts all over it and contaminate that water

You remember that mission right? Do you also remember the 'hot flashes' that showed up during that recording? Exhuberant1 posted these images back then..


post by exhuberant1

Zorgon's crew posted pictures of the lunar volcanoes the night of the impact.

Of course, we didn't know what they were back then.

Here they are - the first pictures of active lunar volcanoes ever published:



edit on 29-7-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I've always understood that there has always been a small amount of outgassing on the Moon as it rotates. Meteors and asteroids often have frozen gasses or even water on them, and over the billions of years the Moon has been around, quite a few have impacted. So when the Moon rolls around and the Sun heats up the ground, a bit more of this frozen material is released. Sometimes it's big, and can be seen as a TLP. But most of the time it's just small puffs and squirts that could be enough to create a visible halo, but certainly not enough to qualify as a life-sustaining atmosphere.

As far as the thorium volcano goes. I imagine that any stray, water and thorium heavy asteroid crashing into the Moon would be affected by the same process. Minimal but periodic outgassing.



new topics




 
75
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join