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: 5
75
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack
 


Naturally occurring thorium (232) has a half life of 14.05 million years. Not very "hot", especially in the concentrations it's found in the (apparently) volcanic complex.
edit on 7/29/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Source-Link - Space.com - Moon Side Rare Volcanoes Discovered.


Jolliff and his team estimated the age of the moon's rare far side silicate volcanoes to be about 800 million years old. Such an age would extend the volcanic activity of the moon by 200 million years, they said.


So should we bee seeing almost very little thorium left than with a half life of 14.05 million years and the purported 'Volcanoes were said to be active up until 800 million Years ago.

Can you expound....

On This presumption

*** EDIT ***

Post Below says half Life is 14.05 Billion Years My Mistake.


><
Someone made the correction
edit on 29-7-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Moon base or Dormant Silicate Volcano?

(Nuclear Thorium powered Moon Base)






Also What about this anomaly on Vesta.. (Slightly Off Topic..)
Big Mound in the Middle of the Picture...

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



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


NASA history pages..


The Moon and Mercury, now geologically dead, display ancient battered crusts developed under the torrential bombardment of debris remaining from the accretion of the solar system. Both display evidence of fleeting episodes of early volcanism as they cooled down. Mars, to a large degree, exhibits the same basic pattern.


If you simply look back at older books and publications, it was made quite clear by scientists that they were all sure that the Moon was geologically dead.

Then when something new happens, those people supporting the dead moon theory suddenly say"Who ever said it was dead?"

Well NASA did... for many years... astronomers did... they taught it in schools that the moon was grey and dull and dead... just need to look in the history files

My signature covers this sudden switch of beliefs

"All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third it is accepted as being self-evident". - Arthur Schopenhauer

Then NASA says...

"Nov. 9, 2006: Conventional wisdom says the Moon is dead. Conventional wisdom may be wrong."

"Is The Moon Still Alive? "

Another 'hot spot'




Today in the journal Nature, a team of scientists led by Prof. Peter Schultz of Brown University announced evidence for fresh geologic activity on the Moon. Although lunar volcanism was supposed to have ceased billions of years ago, there's at least one place on the Moon where "outgassing" may have happened within the past 10 million years--and may still be happening today (Schultz, Staid and Pieters, Nature, 444, 184).


science.nasa.gov...

So now we have venting gas as well...

Schultz further tells us that;


"Over the years," he adds, "amateur astronomers have reported puffs or flashes of light coming from the Moon's surface." While many professional astronomers insisted the moon was inactive, the amateur sightings kept open a window of doubt. Schultz thinks it's time to start looking in earnest: "A coordinated observation campaign, including both professional and amateur astronomers, would be one way to build additional evidence for activity. A gas release itself would not be visible for more than a second or so, but the dust it kicked up might stay suspended for 30 seconds. With modern alert networks, that's long enough to move a professional telescope into position to see what's happening."


So it seems the experts all said the Moon was dead...



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Activity on the Moon...

Transient lunar phenomenon (TLP)


A transient lunar phenomenon (TLP), or lunar transient phenomenon (LTP), is a short-lived light, colour, or change in appearance on the lunar surface. Claims of short-lived phenomena go back at least 1,000 years, with some having been observed independently by multiple witnesses or reputable scientists. Nevertheless, the majority of transient lunar phenomenon reports are irreproducible and do not possess adequate control experiments that could be used to distinguish among alternative hypotheses. Few reports concerning these phenomena are ever published in peer reviewed scientific journals, the lunar scientific community rarely discusses these observations.

Most lunar scientists will acknowledge that transient events such as outgassing and impact cratering do occur over geologic time: the controversy lies in the frequency of such events. The term was created by Patrick Moore during his co-authoring of NASA Technical Report R-277 Chronological Catalog of Reported Lunar Events, published in 1968.

en.wikipedia.org...

NASA Technical Report R-277 Chronological Catalog of Reported Lunar Events

A copy dated 1540 to 1966 is available here
www.scribd.com...

A map of TLC's



Atmospheric viewing interference




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
So its either a volcano (extinct) or moon base.

Look i'm not sure how long the moon has been in orbit of the earth but logic tells me that to be there some activity would take place that could caues volcanic eruption.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


It could be one of three thrings. One, a naturally occuring radioactivity from a Thorium that reached criticality. Two, a base which is alien or ancient human base from a long ago civilization that has been cooking off/meltdown for centuries. Or three it's a recent moon base (from the late 70's) that is still being used. It's not one because Thorium doesn't have any fissile Isotopes in it to achieve criticality, so withouth that you can't have a naturally occuring reactor cooking

"Unlike uranium, natural thorium contains no fissile isotopes; fissile material, generally 233
U, 235
U, or plutonium, must be added to achieve criticality. This, along with the high sintering temperature necessary to make thorium-dioxide fuel, complicates fuel fabrication. Oak Ridge National Laboratory experimented with thorium tetrafluoride as fuel in a molten salt reactor from 1964–1969, which was far easier to both process and separate from contaminants that slow or stop the chain reaction."

en.wikipedia.org...

Two, I don't think it's alien because I think that they would have a better source of energy than a thorium reactor, especially after crossing lightyears. Could be ancient human, don't know to be honest with you.

But I think it's probably a recent human power source for a base that was done back in the late 70's and early 80's. It's in a nice place, away from prying eyes of telescopes from earth. And using a Thorium power source reactor is possible and portable all in one piece "SSTAR (small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor)". It doesn't have to be big and read the article. Remember, much of the stuff that finally reaches the public is already old in the black budget and clandestine services.

www.llnl.gov...

www.thorium.tv...



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Lunar geology isn't my strongest point but I'll give it a go.

Scientific theory is never written in stone, the basic concept of the whole process of scientific observation is built upon questioning the known to discover the unknown.

Until recently the scientific world believed a molten core was necessary to drive any sort of active geology.

With Voyagers discovery of Jupiter's moon Io's volcanism and Europa's shifting ice sheets the idea that an active molten core was the only mechanism possible has been tossed on its ear with the understanding that friction from gravitational tides can provide the energy required to drive geologic change.

It was once believed that the moon had been geologically dead for over 4 billion years due to the theories and observations of the time.

Now that new information is available it would seem that "dead" is still correct, however the time of death may have been somewhat more recent than was once believed.


Originally posted by zorgon
Well NASA is trying to tell us that they are VOLCANOES, on a place that they told us was geologically dead for millions of years.


To quote the Times article again...


And the freshness of the field — comparatively free of meteor craters — put its formation at just a billion years ago .


So the place NASA told us was geologically dead for millions of years (per your quote) is now thought to have last shown activity a billion years ago.

Assuming we all know there are 1,000 millions in a billion, how does this contradict NASA's stance that the moon is now geologically dead?

Connecting the dots from billion year old lunar volcanism to vindication of John Lears hidden secret alien moon base reads to me like a much better example of asking the reader to make a gullible leap of faith with no supporting evidence than NASA's refinement regarding the matter, but that is only my own opinion.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Yes.

Now geologically dead.

That's what I said.
In a lifetime of some 4.5 billion years, one billion could be considered relatively recent. But even so, with this possibly being the most recent activity, a billion years of no activity would indicate defunctitude.

You can find the original article here. There are some nice images of the "Moon Base", including the domes. Volcanic domes, that is.
www.slideshare.net...


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



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage, do you know the scale of this supposed hot spot?

Why do you think it's there and why wasn't it spotted before?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

See edit above.
It was the correlation of the thorium data and images and other data from the LRO which led to the conclusion that the area shows the result of volcanic activity.

(yes, I mistyped million for billion on the half life of thorium)

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



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So the highest concentration is 10 ppm, not really that high and less than earths average of 12 ppm that you noted..



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:12 PM
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 you think the truth is the moon is a death star?

good luck with the hacking...your either 12 years old or incredibly dense...either way anything you find will disappoint you very much...when you realise the moon is infact.......a natural moon



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

10 ppm is the remotely measured concentration. It's been calculated that the actual concentrations as high as 55 ppm could be found at the center of the formation. Apollo samples show levels up to 61ppm but it's the combination of thorium with other minerals which gives clues to the source of the material.

12 ppm is the average for Earth. Levels can be much higher than that in some minerals and locations.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silicis n Volvo
good luck with the hacking...your either 12 years old or incredibly dense...either way anything you find will disappoint you very much...when you realise the moon is infact.......a natural moon


The artificial moon theory is just as ridiculous as any of the current scientific moon theories. Yes, I'm certain the moon was blasted from the earth and then ended up forming a perfect orbit where it perfectly eclipses the sun, and the rotation is perfect so that we only see one side.

If you're going to ridicule an artificial moon theory, please allow me to ridicule that nonsense I learned in college.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Pretty amazing picture but I dont know what to think of it



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Zorgon I dont get why you get so much praise on ATS...

Half the stuff you come out with is utter nonsense and half baked.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 


Can you Please stop attacking the OP and provide some information please, argue with some facts with OP as Phage, Slayer69 or any other Highly Praised members of ATS do, Mods......



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Zorgon seeking for attention and flags.
I don't see any connection to moon base.
Thorium is pretty common in earth, so moon should also, as he was created from earth matter.
The volcanoes are inactive, they are probably the same that were created 4 bilions years ago, as there's almost no erosion on moon.
edit on 30-7-2011 by piotrburz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Great post op. Could be disclosure, being leaked little by little, but it does seem like NASA is acting like a 3 year old child, changing their story to best suit said situation at that time. Also to the poster who asked why did USA and Russia stop their moon missions, i believe they want the people to think they have stopped them, i mean come on, if you had the means to get to the moon, and discover all there is to discover, would you suddenly stop your missions knowing there is a lot more to uncover? I dont think so. UNLESS what they say about them being told to not go back to the moon by whoever is up there is true, if so, then it totally validates OP's thread. Either way, great post



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Great story , can't wait what it is they found ?



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join