What's going on in Copernicus crater?

I see a group of aliens that are camouflaging themselves as dirt. Wow! I really think you're on to something. In your color 3D photo you can really see the big alien that resembles dirt running from a group of smaller aliens that also resembles dirt. Holly s--t I think you discovered a new race of aliens!! I think you should name them since it is your discovery, but may I suggest Dirt!

reply to post by eriktheawful


Maybe the atmospheric conditions on the moon are not as we are being led to believe.

You have to admit that no one has ever been there except a small number of astronauts and that is even the subject of debate. The only way we would know for sure is to go there and experience the conditions first-hand.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


As we know the moon's gravity is one-sixth of the earth's gravity which would be quite adequate to hold a thin atmosphere. It is possible the inhabitants do not require the same level of oxygen to breathe that we earthlings do.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I have provided one possible explanation for the intense light-scatter which according to your post does not fit the bill.

What explanation for the light-scatter areas can you provide?

Okay first, they are not "light" scatter areas. Those areas are not producing light of any kind. They are different types of rocks and lunar soil that reflect light differently because of the colors they are:

Moon Surface Geology

In many of these areas, meteor impacts open up and literally splash the lighter colored material that is below the surface all over the place, known as ejecta.

You can even do this yourself:
Get a box that is cut low, a bag of bleached flour and some dark looking sand that you can get from a crafts store.
Fill the box with the flower first, the carefully add a thin layer of the dark sand over the white flour. Take a small pebble or marble and start dropping them in the box and watch what happens.

I've photographed the moon both with just cameras on a tripod and through my telescopes....there are no lights illuminating from the surface of the moon. Anyone can confirm this with only their own eyes, and no special equipment needed.

edit on 13-8-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

I cannot agree with you that what we are seeing is ejecta or geology. The area of intense light-scatter shown in the image above is on the far side of the moon, a part of the moon where a telescope is useless.

On the near side, there are areas showing the same phenomenon which have been captured by the camera onboard the LRO but I suspect would be swamped out when viewed directly from earth. I will post some LRO examples later.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by wmd_2008

This thread is a real joke now

now?¿

did you miss the part about the tiny martians?

Have a look at the first images from Curiosity and take special note the millimeter-sized geometrical shapes.

Originally posted by arianna
Have a look at the first images from Curiosity and take special note the millimeter-sized geometrical shapes.

Yes, they are still called rocks....

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by wmd_2008

This thread is a real joke now

now?¿

did you miss the part about the tiny martians?

Have a look at the first images from Curiosity and take special note the millimeter-sized geometrical shapes.

hopefully they equipped that thing with a LOT of raid...

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by arianna
Have a look at the first images from Curiosity and take special note the millimeter-sized geometrical shapes.

Yes, they are still called rocks....

It's obvious you haven't done any research on the subject so how would you know what is a rock and what is not?

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by arianna
Have a look at the first images from Curiosity and take special note the millimeter-sized geometrical shapes.

Yes, they are still called rocks....

It's obvious you haven't done any research on the subject so how would you know what is a rock and what is not?

this is old research...

caveman1: "this rock"
caveman2: "what this"
caveman1: "not rock"

please do some research on mental imagery, how the brain processes data, hallucinations, mental illness, brain chemistry, '___', dreams, sleep deprivation....

reply to post by ZetaRediculian



No need for all that. Full disclosure is on its way then everyone will know the truth.

Originally posted by arianna


I cannot agree with you that what we are seeing is ejecta or geology. The area of intense light-scatter shown in the image above is on the far side of the moon, a part of the moon where a telescope is useless.

On the near side, there are areas showing the same phenomenon which have been captured by the camera onboard the LRO but I suspect would be swamped out when viewed directly from earth. I will post some LRO examples later.

That side gets us much sunlight as the side that faces the earth so guess what the LRO and others can take pictures

Also the LRO has now photographed in hi-res most of the Moon you are yet again clutching at straws!!!

Originally posted by arianna
Maybe the atmospheric conditions on the moon are not as we are being led to believe.

If the Moon has an atmosphere dense enough to be called an atmosphere, then it would change the light of the Sun during an eclipse and the light of the stars behind the atmosphere, so it would be noticeable from Earth.

Nobody (as far as I know) has ever seen it.

Originally posted by arianna
No need for all that. Full disclosure is on its way then everyone will know the truth.

Or maybe there's nothing to disclose and we already know that part of the truth.

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Maybe the atmospheric conditions on the moon are not as we are being led to believe.

You have to admit that no one has ever been there except a small number of astronauts and that is even the subject of debate. The only way we would know for sure is to go there and experience the conditions first-hand.

Again, I'm afraid you are living in denial here. No one has to be "led to believe" as anyone who takes the time to learn about other planets and moons in our solar system, and then takes the time with equipment available to them (either optical equipment they buy themselves or even use of professional equipment), are able to observe weather affects of atmospheres around other celestral bodies.

Mars has an atmosphere who's pressure is only 0.636 kPa (as compared to the Earth's 101.325 kPa), yet with even such a thin atmosphere, one can observe it in action quite well with the dust storms that happen there.

The moon does have a atmosphere but it measures at 10^-7 kPa (that's 0.0000001 kPa) during the day and 10^-10 kPa (that's 0.0000000001 kPa) during the night, that is so thin that no weathering at all can occur, and is close enough to be considered a vacuum.

If it had a more significant atmosphere it would be heated up quite a bit during the moon's "Day" and would cool down quite a bit during the Moon's "Night". That alone would create very large wind storms and would be quite visible with even the naked eye here on Earth.

So again, one does not have to actually be there. There is also the use of Spectroscopy that would show us compositions of the atmosphere around another body.

Originally posted by arianna

I cannot agree with you that what we are seeing is ejecta or geology. The area of intense light-scatter shown in the image above is on the far side of the moon, a part of the moon where a telescope is useless.

Ah my friend, I'm afraid you have messed up here. The part of the moon that is quite visible to the Earth has great examples of lighter colored material from ejecta splashing:

Lat. 23.69 Long. -47.49



Unless you are suggesting that there are cities that are illuminated located only on the far side of the moon, and that every country in the world that has sent probes to the moon to photograph it are keeping that secret, which makes no sense as the old Soviet Union would have taken great delight in exposing to the American people that their government was lying to them. Japan, India and China also would have used it quite well and shown the rest of the world too.

Is this one of those gag threads that people keep bumping just to keep it going?

773 posts later it's clear that the OP sees what she wants to see, believes what she wants to believe, and feeds off the attention.


Damn... I just bumped it to 774.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Ah my friend, I'm afraid you have messed up here. The part of the moon that is quite visible to the Earth has great examples of lighter colored material from ejecta splashing.

I am not on about lighter coloured ejecta splashing. What I am concerned about are the much smaller areas where the center of the illumination is so intense the light then scatters out over the immediate terrain.

Unless you are suggesting that there are cities that are illuminated located only on the far side of the moon, and that every country in the world that has sent probes to the moon to photograph it are keeping that secret, which makes no sense as the old Soviet Union would have taken great delight in exposing to the American people that their government was lying to them. Japan, India and China also would have used it quite well and shown the rest of the world too.

That is exactly what I am suggesting. We have not seen a catologue of images from the Japanese or Chinese missions to the moon. Is there something they do not want the general public to see and that is why they have witheld thousands of images?

Originally posted by draknoir2
Is this one of those gag threads that people keep bumping just to keep it going?

773 posts later it's clear that the OP sees what she wants to see, believes what she wants to believe, and feeds off the attention.


Damn... I just bumped it to 774.

Attention yes. What I am confused by is all the well thought out posts about what Is really being seen...only to have those posts rejected over and over by someone who clearly sees lighted towns on the moon comprised of alien facial structures. A fascinating read. Why are people spending soo much time trying to convince someone that their are no face houses on the moon?

I have to go. There is possible train derailment I have to stare at.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by draknoir2
Is this one of those gag threads that people keep bumping just to keep it going?

773 posts later it's clear that the OP sees what she wants to see, believes what she wants to believe, and feeds off the attention.


Damn... I just bumped it to 774.

Attention yes. What I am confused by is all the well thought out posts about what Is really being seen...only to have those posts rejected over and over by someone who clearly sees lighted towns on the moon comprised of alien facial structures. A fascinating read. Why are people spending soo much time trying to convince someone that their are no face houses on the moon?

I have to go. There is possible train derailment I have to stare at.

I can't speak for others on here, but for me personally, I writing my posts not to convince the OP, as the OP has shown that she is unwilling to consider the possibility of being wrong, and seeing only what she wants to see (and apparently unlike some other threads I've seen by others, has almost no support at all for what she sees, even by those that absolutely believe that there are secret human/alien bases on the moon).

I post for those who are reading the thread. They may or may not know anything about the moon or space at all. I want to make sure that those readers see that the OP may be wrong, has facts wrong, or may be seeing things that are not there.

Claiming that she is seeing something in a photograph is one thing. Claiming that the moon has a thick atmosphere that can sustain life, when anyone with two eyes and understanding of weather can clearly see that is very incorrect. That the evidence for lack of a thick atmosphere is not dependent upon NASA or anyone else. That any reader of this thread here can disprove that simply by learning about weather, how gases act when heated and cooled, and by using their very own eyes at night when the moon is visible.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
That any reader of this thread here can disprove that simply by learning about weather, how gases act when heated and cooled, and by using their very own eyes at night when the moon is visible.

But that would mean leaving their computer and walking outside....

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by draknoir2
Is this one of those gag threads that people keep bumping just to keep it going?

773 posts later it's clear that the OP sees what she wants to see, believes what she wants to believe, and feeds off the attention.


Damn... I just bumped it to 774.

Attention yes. What I am confused by is all the well thought out posts about what Is really being seen...only to have those posts rejected over and over by someone who clearly sees lighted towns on the moon comprised of alien facial structures. A fascinating read. Why are people spending soo much time trying to convince someone that their are no face houses on the moon?

I have to go. There is possible train derailment I have to stare at.

I can't speak for others on here, but for me personally, I writing my posts not to convince the OP, as the OP has shown that she is unwilling to consider the possibility of being wrong, and seeing only what she wants to see (and apparently unlike some other threads I've seen by others, has almost no support at all for what she sees, even by those that absolutely believe that there are secret human/alien bases on the moon).

I post for those who are reading the thread. They may or may not know anything about the moon or space at all. I want to make sure that those readers see that the OP may be wrong, has facts wrong, or may be seeing things that are not there.

Claiming that she is seeing something in a photograph is one thing. Claiming that the moon has a thick atmosphere that can sustain life, when anyone with two eyes and understanding of weather can clearly see that is very incorrect. That the evidence for lack of a thick atmosphere is not dependent upon NASA or anyone else. That any reader of this thread here can disprove that simply by learning about weather, how gases act when heated and cooled, and by using their very own eyes at night when the moon is visible.

.
....and I do take a lot in from these posts...so thanks for the time.