Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Russians have found Life on the Moon since 1970!

page: 3
48
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Some deductive reasoning would almost prove that, if this is indeed fossilized bacterial / protozoic life, than it did not originate on the moon. The moon never had an atmosphere, as it is too small to hold one. There would be no food source for any bacteria or single/ simple unicellular life for that matter, no atmospheric oxygen, no liquid water, nothing that could sustain any form of life as we know it.

And, yes, "as we know it" certainly is the operative part of this, but if you look at the more likely possibilities, instead of trying to invent a scenario where the moon could ever harbor any life, we really need to look no further than our own Earth as the source of this material. We know the Earth was absolutely peppered by the same massive asteroids that produced the landscape on the moon. Since we have an atmosphere, and the processes of weather erosion, we certainly do not look like that, but we certainly would if we did not have these factors that erase craters. In fact, we would probably look a lot worse!

The evidence that material from the inner planets have mixed around is certainly not new. The Martian rocks that we hold in possession today, came from this process, and from a considerable distance away. Certainly, there are Earth rocks on Mars, and elsewhere..... but especially the Moon. It is only 250k miles distant, in our own solar orbit (obviously),,, There has to be millions of tons of Earth material on the moon.

Here is a great candidate, one that we can still see on planet Earth:

The Vredefort Crater (Africa)


The asteroid that hit Vredefort is estimated to have been one of the largest ever to strike Earth (at least since the Hadean eon some four billion years ago). The asteroid is thought to have been approximately 5–10 km (3.1–6.2 mi) in diameter. The bolide that created the Sudbury Basin could have been even larger. [3] The crater has a diameter of roughly 250–300 km (160–190 mi),[2] larger than the 200 km (120 mi) Sudbury Basin and the 170 km (110 mi) Chicxulub Crater. This makes Vredefort the largest known impact structure on Earth. The Vredefort Crater's age is estimated to be 2.023 billion years (± 4 million years),[1] which places it in the Paleoproterozoic era.


Source: Wikpedia

And a side note on another suspect:


If the Wilkes Land Crater in Antarctica is an impact crater, then it is the largest known at 500 km (310 mi) in diameter.


The Vredefort hit was to early proterozoic life , what Chix was to the Dinosaurs, a super snuff job that also threw rocks all over the inner solar system. One thing about Vredefort, it was much more massive.

These are just the largest hits we know about, imagine what really happened!

edit on 8-11-2012 by charlyv because: spelling where caught
edit on 8-11-2012 by charlyv because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2012 by charlyv because: spelling where caught




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 


So, basically you are saying, "It can't be real because the theories it would disprove say it isn't real"?

seems legit.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Another poster with great prominence on this site (wont say names) used to say that the Moon has an atmoshere and he was laughed at. LOLLLLLL.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myomistress
reply to post by pacifier2012
 


What was your exact point upon replying in this thread if you honestly had nothing to add to the topic and obviously did not enjoy reading it? Just move on with your life, we don't need your unimpressed dialogue here.


Anyway, I kind of like the theory above. That these were just lifeforms on Earth at the time of the strike that after being shipped out into the vacuum of space became... Freeze dried for a better term and this is what's left. It would be quite interesting to actually explore the moon further for more things like this. If this were true, it could give us a whole lot more information about the history of our planet.



The prevailing theory of moon formation is an earth strike when our planet was still a molten hell sphere. No life could have formed at that time because the temperature and conditions were hostile even to organic molecules.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv
. There would be no food source for any bacteria or single/ simple unicellular life for that matter, no atmospheric oxygen, no liquid water, nothing that could sustain any form of life as we know it.



edit on 8-11-2012 by charlyv because: spelling where caught
edit on 8-11-2012 by charlyv because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2012 by charlyv because: spelling where caught


There are bacteria that live kilometres below the ground and feed off of elemental sulphur with no atmospheric oxygen available and probably never was at that depth. geysers that boil have rare bacteria that can survive harsh extremes. I have no trouble contemplating bacteria on the moon. Btw water is present in a frozen state on the moon and also antarctica has its own bacterial species.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Bilky because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 


Problem is an impact large enough to launch an object on a lunar trajectory would have sufficent energy
to melt the rocks and sterilize them destoying all living organisms, if not completely carbonizing them......



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by kdog1982
Can anyone download this pdf on session notes from this conference?
I can not.


Wednesday Morning, 8:30 a.m. Room A Refractory Inclusions sess39.pdf
Room B Gardening on the Moon: Regolith Processes and Characterization sess40.pdf
Room C Mars: Troughs, Tectonics, and Teslas sess41.pdf
Room D Stardust: Collected, Remote, and Captured sess42.pdf


www.lpi.usra.edu...

ETA: Great thread btw and thank you for the link.


www.panspermia.org...
edit on 8-11-2012 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)


Thanks to you kdog.
stars.


Same problem with the downloads.
No more available.....



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
or the moon may have caught debris (that contained biological material) kicked up from earth by one of its many impacts/large volcanic occurrences.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
To say the moon has no atmosphere is incorrect according to Atmosphere of the moon

So although I have no idea if the objects found were glass, bacteria. Transported from the earth by the Russian missions, or other means surely micro organisms would only require a micro atmosphere.
edit on 9-11-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I'd recognize that dirt anywhere. Those pictures were taken in Hawaii.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Just because folks think that US Mission was fake, I'll speculate the same about this one
Its Fake


Just kidding...Interesting images.
edit on 9-11-2012 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by charlyv
 


Problem is an impact large enough to launch an object on a lunar trajectory would have sufficent energy
to melt the rocks and sterilize them destoying all living organisms, if not completely carbonizing them......



That used to be the argument against 'Mars meteorites', since they didn't look very 'shocked' at all.

Finally it was shown that glancing impacts on an atmosphered planet would create a 'spurt' of fluids ejected at more t6han escape velocity -- and small rock fragments could eaisly be entrained in the spurt and accelerated along with the fluids more 'gently' [hundreds of G's instead of millions of G's] than originally thought.

The problem isn't in departure, it's in arrival. Hitting an airless planet requires all the kinetic energy to be dispelled during 'litho-braking' -- hitting the ground. That creates deceleration forces more t6han ample to vaprozie small objects and shatter big ones.

No, it's now thought that an atmosphere at destination is also required for 'gentle' enough braking. And don't sweat the fireball -- it's only in the outer few millimeters of the object, the rest of it doesn't have time to heat up before slowing below incandescent spped.

Now, case in point, the Moon. It's thought possible that very early on, the moon did occasionally have a tenuous and temporary atmosphere from impacts of comets. A piece of earth-born blown-off debris arriving during such an interval, by chance, could quite easily have survived to the ground intact.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Interesting. But, although finding microbial life on the moon is exciting, it very well may have come from earth during a large impact that blasted tons of debris beyond our atmosphere. And microbial life that existed eons ago may not necessarily still exist on the earth today, or maybe it does and we have yet to discover it.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Did you know the Moon is habitable? I mean there are building, for crying out loud. You can't build a building in a airless condition.

Not only that, people say, since the moon is smaller, gravity has less of a influence on the person, right? WRONG!

No matter where you go, gravity will be the same. You can thank NASA's blunder of bringing out the moon buggy.

If what they say is true, then they won't need the car.
edit on 9-11-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


You are aware that Mars has only 40 % the gravity of earth....?

Launching an object from earth requires several times the energy than that from Mars



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilky

Originally posted by charlyv
. There would be no food source for any bacteria or single/ simple unicellular life for that matter, no atmospheric oxygen, no liquid water, nothing that could sustain any form of life as we know it.



edit on 8-11-2012 by charlyv because: spelling where caught
edit on 8-11-2012 by charlyv because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2012 by charlyv because: spelling where caught


There are bacteria that live kilometres below the ground and feed off of elemental sulphur with no atmospheric oxygen available and probably never was at that depth. geysers that boil have rare bacteria that can survive harsh extremes. I have no trouble contemplating bacteria on the moon. Btw water is present in a frozen state on the moon and also antarctica has its own bacterial species.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Bilky because: (no reason given)


Heat is one thing, but the kind of cold on the moon is much more extreme than anything or anywhere on this earth.
I am well aware of the extremophiles of Earth, but there is nothing here that can take 100c in daylight and then swing to -180c in darkness.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by charlyv
 


Problem is an impact large enough to launch an object on a lunar trajectory would have sufficent energy
to melt the rocks and sterilize them destoying all living organisms, if not completely carbonizing them......



The interiors of transported materials , to Earth anyway, are only carbonized in the outer layers of the mass. Almost all meteorites fall cold, at terminal velocity after the bolides explode in the upper atmosphere. We know this from Mars and Moon rocks especially, since they have pristine interiors.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


Since life of Earth seems to be from after the formation of the moon, can you indicate an event after that, that would permit panspermia (or at least eject fossilized life to the moon?) in such a quantity that a random sample would chance to find it. Note that fossils require sedimentation and chemical environmental degradation of the material, I doubt that any fossils, as we know them, can be created on the moon.
edit on 10-11-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Life on the Moon?
So what's the big deal? The Indians are already there doing a roaring business. Like this guy...






posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by charlyv
 


Problem is an impact large enough to launch an object on a lunar trajectory would have sufficent energy
to melt the rocks and sterilize them destoying all living organisms, if not completely carbonizing them......



That used to be the argument against 'Mars meteorites', since they didn't look very 'shocked' at all.

Finally it was shown that glancing impacts on an atmosphered planet would create a 'spurt' of fluids ejected at more t6han escape velocity -- and small rock fragments could eaisly be entrained in the spurt and accelerated along with the fluids more 'gently' [hundreds of G's instead of millions of G's] than originally thought.

The problem isn't in departure, it's in arrival. Hitting an airless planet requires all the kinetic energy to be dispelled during 'litho-braking' -- hitting the ground. That creates deceleration forces more t6han ample to vaprozie small objects and shatter big ones.

No, it's now thought that an atmosphere at destination is also required for 'gentle' enough braking. And don't sweat the fireball -- it's only in the outer few millimeters of the object, the rest of it doesn't have time to heat up before slowing below incandescent spped.

Now, case in point, the Moon. It's thought possible that very early on, the moon did occasionally have a tenuous and temporary atmosphere from impacts of comets. A piece of earth-born blown-off debris arriving during such an interval, by chance, could quite easily have survived to the ground intact.


Thanks for the clarification Jim, I was wondering about atmospheric breaking being a necessary part of the equation.

I would also add that a shotgun blast is a good analogy to how solid matter could be entrained in the liquefied ejecta from a big enough collision, the expanding gasses from the gun powder ignition are travelling at a much higher velocity than the pellets which are still accelerated to a significant velocity.



edit on 10-11-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
48
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join