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: 6
75
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I have just been reading about this on the Daily Mail Website.

www.... dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2018889/Lunar-hot-spot-Volcanoes-far-moon-offer-tantalising-clues-thermal-history.html

This article was published on the 26/7/2011.




The hot spot is a concentration of a radioactive element thorium sitting between the very large and ancient impact craters Compton and Belkovich that was first detected by Lunar Prospector’s gamma-ray spectrometer in 1998.


This was first detected in 1998? That was 13 years ago. Why has it taken so long for this to come out?
Oh right yeah, silly me. The extensive time was needed to prepare the cover ups, and come up with BS that would almost be impossible to Debunk.




posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Due to too much work I haven't had the time to read the whole thread, so I don't know if this was already explained or not.

My question is a simple one: why call it a "hot spot"?



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
well I believe project horizon was a viable option to inhabit the moon
it was well thought out and the technology seemed on the rite track,
I think there has been a base on the moon from as way back from the 60's
and it continues to this day, why else wont any space agency release any
High res images of the anomaly's that are so interesting.
also the picture of the reactor that was proposed is up there and
has been online for a long time. Great post as always Zorgon, keep digging
and presenting your fascination insight's to this topic.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by stealthyaroura
 

High resolution images are available in the original paper.
www.slideshare.net...



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Maybe so but what if they have been altered, yes far fetched but
it is possible IMO, as a true ATS asset phage I always read your posts
and your reputation for facts backed up with great research is not in question
But I just feel there is a whole lot more to the moon than what we are being
Led to believe. but that's just me. respect to you sir.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by stealthyaroura
 

Great. You ask for high resolution images then discount them.
Can't win for losin'.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


No. Im on my phone so I just don't have the acsess that I need,
Don't take what I said out of context. I know this seems like a cop out
But once I'm back on my laptop I shall have a rethink then maybe a better
Post for this sight, ok, kind regards. To be continued.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
My question is a simple one: why call it a "hot spot"?



Originally posted by 140BPM
This was first detected in 1998? That was 13 years ago. Why has it taken so long for this to come out?


Both very good questions



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Well seeing the Lunar surface is ever changing it makes a whole lot of sense to send a Moon Buggy back up there on a re-con mission much like what occurs on Mars as seen in these pictures:






Sending a Rover to the Moon could, and should inspire millions of people





posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
reply to post by stealthyaroura
reply to post by 140BPM
reply to post by ArMaP
reply to post by zorgon




Originally posted by 140BPM
This was first detected in 1998? That was 13 years ago. Why has it taken so long for this to come out?


NASA was doing some air brushing touch-ups to the Hi-Res Photos before the release

To Conceal the Moon Base Complex Powered by Thorium





edit on 30-7-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


TR-3b Anyone? Aurora?

This is purportedly the Transport Vehicle they use to get


"People"
"Supply"
"Logistics"

To the Moon Base.

reply to post by Phage
 


Whats your Take on this "Craft"
edit on 30-7-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheUniverse
 

My take is that it is an artist's conception.
areo.info...



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
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?


Because many scientists and astronomers have been observing TLP's TODAY... indicating activity TODAY, not 1 billion years ago, not 1 million years ago, but on going NOW

And NASA has been recording these events and have a record of such sightings dated to 1554...



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Geologic activity (selenologic?) tends to repeat itself in certain locations. TLPs not so much.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The base doesn't have to be on the dark side if the Moon is hollow. Why else would it ring like a gong when hit by asteroids?

History Channel just aired an episode of Ancient Aliens a couple days ago where it said that NASA stated that the Moon was probably hollow for this reason, as well as that there are craters that seemingly have no bottom.
edit on 7/30/2011 by Asheliate because: additonal information



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


My doubt is well expressed by the wiki entry on Transient lunar phenomenon linked in your earlier post...


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.



Explanations for the transient lunar phenomena fall in four classes: outgassing, impact events, electrostatic phenomena, and unfavorable observation conditions.


Two of the hypothetical explanations require active geology but only in a very loose sense of the word.


Debated status of TLPs

The most significant problem that faces reports of transient lunar phenomena is that the vast majority of these were made either by a single observer or at a single location on Earth (or both). The multitude of reports for transient phenomena occurring at the same place on the moon could be used as evidence supporting their existence. However, in the absence of eyewitness reports from multiple observers at multiple locations on Earth for the same event, these must be regarded with caution. As discussed above, an equally plausible hypothesis for the majority of these events is that they are caused by the terrestrial atmosphere. If an event were to be observed at two different places on Earth at the same time, this could be used as evidence against an atmospheric origin.


Transient lunar phenomenon

I don't see anything close to proof that NASA's claim "the moon is geologically dead" has been refuted.

Outgassing and the mechanisms to drive electrostatic phenomena are both easily explained as residual events.

Its a fun idea but far from proof of anything close to proving lunar geologic "life" in modern times, in my own amateur speculative opinion.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Its a fun idea but far from proof of anything close to proving lunar geologic "life" in modern times, in my own amateur speculative opinion.



Well since Obama told NASA they can't go back to the moon, I guess we won't know, at least not in my lifetime. And 25 years to go to Mars? I guess I will have to see what they find on those asteroids



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
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?

That depends, to me (and to the people in most European countries), there are 1,000,000 millions in a billion, so a million is 1,000,000 and a billion is 1,000,000,000,000.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Yeah but NASA is in the US where there's only 1000 million in a billion..

Gotta keep up appearances with more billionaires..



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I honestly did not know that.

Thank you for the education.



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join