It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Eleven things discovered about the moon that you may or may not know about

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by liejunkie01

I bet the Russians have the Iron in an environmentally controlled environment, Not laying around outside to get rained on

You seem to be assuming there were "pure iron particles".

There was no Zond 20. There were no "pure iron particles".

edit on 8/2/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Well I didn't dig that deep into the "evidence". After researching the very first thing I looked at, the results told me not to waste anymore time on this subject.

Thank you for clarifying that. Star for you.
edit on 2-8-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Phage
A variation of a list which has been brought up numerous times and is quite idiotic.
1) The giant impact theory fits evidence quite well
2) There was no 5.3 billion year old rock found. The reason old rocks are more easily found on the Moon than on Earth is because the Earth is geologically active and its surface is "recycled" whereas the Moon's is not. The oldest rocks on Earth match the age of the oldest rocks from the Moon.
3) Lunar soil is the result of asteroidal impacts. Asteroids are old therefore the soil is old however lunar soil is not significantly older than lunar rocks.
4) The Moon does not ring like a hollow sphere but it does reverberate. Try hitting a solid piece of iron. It "rings" and it isn't hollow. The Earth reverberates as well.
5) Asteroidal impacts create tremendous heat which causes rocks to melt. Those elements are found in Earth's surface too.
6) No rustproof iron.
7) Not highly radioactive. The suggestion that high heat flow has anything to do with radioactivity is stupid. It means that heat from the Sun is carried through the lunar regolith easily.
8) No 100 square mile cloud of water vapor.
9) No glassy surface. There are particles of glass, as to be expected as the result of asteroidal impacts.
10) No strongly magnetized rocks.
11) Yes, there are mascons. However they are not all under maria and they do not cause spacecraft to "dip and accelerate". Their effect depends upon the orbit of the spacecraft.

edit on 8/2/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Well written reply. However. some of the bullet points you have made I am not sure I agree with.
Number 1) I agree with.
Number 2) I agree with on known fact that as of late the dating methods that geologists use is flawed and found to be useless in determining the true age of matter.
Number 3) Goes hand in hand with 2.
Number 4) Is a little harder to know in my opinion. Is this common sense reasoning relating to how the earth reacts to such things? Cite a reputable source who has evidence of this.
Number 5) Yes agreed. No mystery there.
Number6) Definitely would like a source citing here. One can't just assume (and I am not saying that is what you are doing) that it cannot be possible because we have no such thing here on earth.
Number 7) I agree with your point that heat has nothing to do with radioactivity. It does not mean that radioactive isotopes could not still be naturally occurring in the lunar soil however. Id like a reputable citation about this.
Number 8) Not sure I agree with this. March 7, 1971 lunar instruments recorded a cloud of water vapor on the moon.
Number 9) I agree with. High impact asteroid strikes create intense heat, heating the soil and creating a glassy surface.
Number 10) I don't agree with this. Need a reputable citation to the contrary of this statement
Number 11) Not sure what to think about this. Would like a contrary citation of this as well.

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:35 AM
in the immanuel velikovsky archive 2 chapters are of interest the earth without the moon & a brighter moon maybe tptb run out of firewood when his book was burned in the 50s .

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:04 AM
reply to post by Human_Alien

They left out that in all likelihood it's not natural

It's called "subtlety." Childress is trying to get you to think that the Moon is a giant spaceship without coming right out and saying. Problem is, all of his "evidence" is just plain wrong. To amplify on points made by Phage:

Lunar rocks are not "highly magnetic." They show evidence of having been formed in a magnetic field, however:

The first clues that the moon had a dynamo came from a number of lunar samples that appear to record the presence of a magnetic field at the time of their formation. Specifically, the magnetic field is locked in metallic particles in similar orientations. But some of that magnetism could be explained by short-lived magnetic fields rather than by a dynamo. A meteor impact, for instance, can shock a magnetic signature into nearby rocks.

The "hundred mile cloud" was no such thing. The Apollo 14 ALSEP detected some charged particles that might have been ionized water, but it was extremely small and localized:

On March 7, 1971, the first sunrise following the Apollo 14 mission, the Suprathermal Ion Detector Experiment (SIDE) deployed at the Apollo 14 site reported an intense flux of ions whose mass per charge was consistent with water vapor. We examine the amount of water and discuss the various acceleration processes responsible for accelerating ions into the SIDE. We conclude that during most of the event the observed water vapor ions were accelerated by the negative lunar surface electric potential and secondly that this event was probably the result of mission associated water vapor, either from the LM ascent and descent stage rockets or from residual water in the descent stage tanks.

I could go on, but you get the idea; Childress is playing fast and loose with the facts.

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:54 AM
reply to post by DJW001

Very good. That's two items off of the bullet list I disputed. I am still very curious about the non-rusting iron sample that has been claimed to have been found.

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by Rubicant13

The Soviets announced that pure iron particles brought back by remote controlled lunar probe Zond 20 have not oxidized even after several years on earth.

There was no "Zond 20" mission, nor were there any rustproof iron particles. Iron is iron, when exposed to oxygen it oxidizes.

edit on 8/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:04 PM
IN india & germany there are pillars that do not rust .one theory is where they are situated in respect to earth energyy & lay lines .mascons have been discovered in antartica recently but might be a deposit of iron like the moon

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by geobro

Who needs a silly theory like that when it is known why they are resistant to corrosion?

edit on 8/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:20 PM
reply to post by Phage

the one in germany any info on that its 30 years since i heard anything on that

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:03 AM

"The corrosion resistance results from an even layer of crystalline iron hydrogen phosphate forming on the high phosphorus content iron, which serves to protect it, and also the effects of the local Delhi climate, which alternates from wet to dry."

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:31 AM
reply to post by Phage

Very good citation. I cannot find any information about a Zond 20, so this definitely illustrates your point. Other bullet notes in your post I am still a bit unsure of though.

As far as the moon being hollow and reverberating unlike the earth, NASA (who I am not a big proponent of) states that Buzz Aldrin set up a seismograph machine that registered four different kinds of quakes. The shallow quakes at points measured at 5 and above on the richter scale, and the shock waves lasted longer than those similar quakes of earth, saying "that the moon was ringing like a bell."
edit on 4-8-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-8-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:39 AM
But... I did find something that I will link below. It seems that it may have been a typo In the mission stated. It isn't a Zond mission that was referenced, but the Luna 20 mission.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in