"Glass made on the Moon is twice as strong as steel". NOT TRUE

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
This claim about lunar glass has been made over and over again by Richard Hoagland & Mike Bara. See, for example, Dark Mission (p. 244, 2nd edn) and Ancient Aliens on the Moon (pp.51-2).

It's an absolutely vital component of their belief in artificial structures, because the photographic imperfections they claim are huge glass towers and domes would, if they really were structures, be miles high.

This technical paper is one of their sources, and it does not support the claim. The Young's modulus of lunar glass, 100 Giga-pascals, is more than terrestrial glass (68 GPa) but LESS THAN typical steel (224 Gpa) -- see Table 1 of the paper by Blacic. Young's modulus is a measure of the resistance of a material to tensile force.

What Hoagland & Bara produce as evidence of glass towers and domes is one of two things. 1) Apollo-era photography from lunar orbit, with resolutions on the order of 100m/px or more (they conveniently ignore modern LROC imagery with 100x better resolution, which does not confirm their fantasies) 2) The result of scanning 40-year-old photo prints on a consumer grade scanner whose glass has not been cleaned since the last office party. Since the lunar sky is so profoundly black, slamming the brightness and contrast up (the Hoagland/Bara technique) has the effect of showing any scanner glass crud in the blacks. You can see this over and over again in their examples.




posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Well you never know for sure there is said to be a planet size diamond out there somewhere maybe the glass actually is diamond and therefore it would be stronger than steel.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Preaching to the converted to most of us here mate , Hoagland has no credibility and has been safely filed away with the other snake oil salesmen of this subject .
Some may still believe him but they tend to be the types that will believe anything they're told and don't bother checking for themselves .

Richard Hoagland - I'm calling you out!
Hoagland Plagiarist?



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MX44K
Well you never know for sure there is said to be a planet size diamond out there somewhere maybe the glass actually is diamond and therefore it would be stronger than steel.


Diamond is not stronger than steel. You're confusing hardness with tensile strength.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Asertus
 





modern LROC imagery with 100x better resolution


Most NASA conspiracy buffs claim NASA is editing pics before going public with them, so it's really no surprise that LROC imagery is being ignored.

I think you missed that important part. It is also the basis for most Moon claims...that NASA is hiding the real pics.


As for this claim about moon glass being stronger than steel...well it's obviously stronger than ordinary glass, which makes it plausible for some other compound to mix it with which would make it even more stronger.

I would have no problem believing that some compound can produce stronger than steel firmness and see-through attributes.

Anyway...I don't see that claim debunked.


Domes...if real (I'm not claiming they are), could be made of some compound unknown to us yet. Moon glass with something else added perhaps, to give it more resistance? Could happen in my book.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   


I think you missed that important part. It is also the basis for most Moon claims...that NASA is hiding the real pics.


....and the evidence for that claim? Where does that come from? Why, THE NASA PHOTO LIBRARY!!!



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I would also point out that LROC data processing is not even done at NASA. It's entirely sub-contracted to Arizona State Uni. Here's the proof. And if you think that grad students at ASU would obey "orders from on high" to conceal or withhold data, you don't know much about grad students.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Yeah..... This is the same Hoagie that claimed to KNOW U.S. personnel had been out to the Comet Elenin, landed on it while it was inbound to our Sun and confirmed it was artificial in nature and carrying great messages for all mankind or some such nonsense. Errr...... I guess it's an even larger tragedy that the Sun zapped Elenin like an Egg in a microwave.


So when was Hoagie up on Luna in his bunny suit, testing the glass that is still myth and legend for even existing? Oh, right, the paper.... It even looks half way decent, if the source wasn't so badly shot for credibility that he makes Sorcha Faal sound educated and well informed on subject matter.

Perhaps if we ever get men on the moon again for more than a day or two in a quick look around and leave, the theory can be more than theory on assumption.
it's a promising thing.......again, if only Hoagie had nothing to do with the story.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Asertus
 


There is no way of proving if NASA hides anything, apart from them going publicly and admitting it. And that's not going to happen.

Every whistleblower is ridiculed. Every evidence marginalized and explained away with, sometimes, ridiculous explanations.

Sometimes people make up stories, I agree. But if we wanna be really scientific, we have no way of verifying anything what NASA gives us. We have to take their word on it, because they are the highest authority on the matter. Even if self proclaimed one. They are the source of the photos.

We would need an independent set to verify. To be really scientifically sure. There are many claims (some of them pretty wild) and "other" (private) source photos that contradict what NASA is saying. I'm not saying they are true, but can they all be hoaxes?? Everyone of them?? Why would I so blindly trust NASA ? Is the world fair? Do not politicians, government officials lie? Should I just listen to what they say to me without question?

You tell me.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by MX44K
Well you never know for sure there is said to be a planet size diamond out there somewhere maybe the glass actually is diamond and therefore it would be stronger than steel.


Diamond is not stronger than steel. You're confusing hardness with tensile strength.


Absolutely right.

"Hardness" is not the ultimate measure of a material's strength. For example, I can smash a diamond by hitting it with a rock or a hammer quite easily -- more easily than smashing a piece of steel.

"Toughness" and "Hardness" are two different characteristics of a material. A material's toughness is defined as that material's ability of a material to absorb energy without fracturing or breaking. Diamonds are the hardest known natural material, but they are not particularly "tough" -- i.e., they can be broken into pieces easily with the blow of a hammer. Steel is very tough, and can better absorb the energy of a hammer impact without breaking.

edit on 2/11/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by Asertus
 


There is no way of proving if NASA hides anything, apart from them going publicly and admitting it. And that's not going to happen.

Every whistleblower is ridiculed. Every evidence marginalized and explained away with, sometimes, ridiculous explanations.


Well, when you check, every self-styled 'NASA UFO whistleblower' has either been an internet fable, or a sweet sincere tall-tale teller whose corpus of claims can be double-checked against stuff like the laws of physics, to reveal inescapable inconsistencies with reality. Clark McClelland, Otto Binder, Maurice Chatelain, Ken Johnston, Donna Hare, Karl Wolf, Carol Rosin, etc etc .... nice company for an evening discussion group, but so far, they all really DO look like non-credible claimants.

IF you actually check. Which in the wide world of UFOria, rarely if ever happens.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   


You tell me.

Here's what I think you should do, by way of analyzing the problem. Look at the track record of people making the allegation that NASA is lying/concealing. How often have they been right about propositions that can be checked? In the case of Hoagland & Bara, almost never. It's documented. Look at their education. Are they sufficiently informed to be credible on the topics of astronomy and materials science? In the case of Hoagland & Bara, the answer is no. Hoagland never had any education in those disciplines at all -- Bara never completed his degree course at Seattle Pacific.

Finally, ask yourself if there is a credible motive for NASA to lie/conceal. And if you dare to reply "Brookings Report" I'll throw your computer at you. Brookings NEVER MADE ANY RECOMMENDATION TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
As for knowledge of digital image editing, Mike Bara's recent youchoob demo tells you all you need to know. Utterly, utterly incompetent. He vandalizes that poor innocent photo, then calls the result authentic.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
They have discovered how to line up the polarity of glass and make it ten times as strong and shatterproof though.....Here on earth, not on the moon.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Asertus
 


The exact education level of a person making a statement never concerns me too much -- as long as they have a general and broad knowledge base. People can be knowledgeable about a subject without having an advanced degree in that subject. It just takes a lot of reading on a specif subject AND a broad general knowledge base to be able to fully understand and verify the details you are learning about that specific subject. Put it this way -- If you are a jack of all trades (have a broad knowledge base), then you do have the potential ability to master at least one if you put your mind to it. And that mastery does not necessarily only come from formal education.

Having said that, Hoagland and Bara's claims that they purport to be facts just don't check out. Period. I don't think their level of education has anything to do with it. They could be highly educated and be just as wrong.

Put it this way -- I don't blindly believe something I am told, just because the person telling me has a high education. I want that person to give a brief explanation as to WHY I should believe a the specific item they are purporting to be true, and hopefully I would have a broad enoughgeneral knowledge base to understand that brief explanation.

edit on 2/11/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Asertus
 


Transparent, Bullet proof metal???

I introduce, Aluminium oxynitride. This Aluminum ceramic is transparent, is bulletproof in the appropriate thicknesses. a .50 cal round can puncture an inch of steel or more in some cases. This transparent glass like aluminum can stop the same round using a piece of material half the thickness and a fraction of the weight.

We invent plenty of materials stronger than steel all the time, some of them like this aluminum "glass". We also have materials like carbon nano tubes, What we define as typical glass is in no way stronger than steel, but there are plenty of glass like products that can exceed the strength of steel.

dornob.com...

Alluminum oxynitride however has a price tag of $10USD a square inch. So before you go looking for some to mess around with, be prepared to pay both arms or both legs.

here is the wiki on carbon nano tubes. Much lighter, and if configured the right way, much stronger than steel. How ever, the process involved to make something useable out of it is extremely time consuming and expensive. This is the currently proposed material for the idea of a space elevator.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by Asertus
 


There is no way of proving if NASA hides anything, apart from them going publicly and admitting it. And that's not going to happen.

Every whistleblower is ridiculed. Every evidence marginalized and explained away with, sometimes, ridiculous explanations.


Well, when you check, every self-styled 'NASA UFO whistleblower' has either been an internet fable, or a sweet sincere tall-tale teller whose corpus of claims can be double-checked against stuff like the laws of physics, to reveal inescapable inconsistencies with reality. Clark McClelland, Otto Binder, Maurice Chatelain, Ken Johnston, Donna Hare, Karl Wolf, Carol Rosin, etc etc .... nice company for an evening discussion group, but so far, they all really DO look like non-credible claimants.

IF you actually check. Which in the wide world of UFOria, rarely if ever happens.


As I said...I'm sure there are crackpots...but the same was done to Mitchell, Cooper...and for that matter...you did it yourself. Your evidence for debunking Cooper's claims was "over excitement" if I'm not mistaken. But don't quote me on that one...

Mitchel was ridiculed with "he's an elderly gentleman...etc."

There is a pattern to NASA's behavior...no matter who's on the other end. If you go against the grain...



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asertus


You tell me.

Here's what I think you should do, by way of analyzing the problem. Look at the track record of people making the allegation that NASA is lying/concealing. How often have they been right about propositions that can be checked?


Finally, ask yourself if there is a credible motive for NASA to lie/conceal. And if you dare to reply "Brookings Report" I'll throw your computer at you. Brookings NEVER MADE ANY RECOMMENDATION TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE.



You can not check out most of the stuff, since they are the prime source of information you are trying to check. They can always spin it the way they want it.

Credible motive for NASA to lie/conceal ??

If you can't think of any...than you're in the wrong forum my friend.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


carbon nano tubes are STRONGER than steel,diamond being a STRONGER VERSION of carbon?NO?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
As I said...I'm sure there are crackpots...but the same was done to Mitchell, Cooper...and for that matter...you did it yourself. Your evidence for debunking Cooper's claims was "over excitement" if I'm not mistaken. But don't quote me on that one...
Mitchel was ridiculed with "he's an elderly gentleman...etc."
There is a pattern to NASA's behavior...no matter who's on the other end. If you go against the grain...


I think you're imagining things, and your own words are the best evidence.

You are grossly mistaken in attributing such false assessments to me re Cooper's comments, It is clear that you never read my reports, yet feel justified in presenting imaginary caricatures of them on this thread.

I have never ridiculed Ed Mitchell or his opinions, and you can't find a quote of me doing that -- I'll betcha.

What pattern of 'NASA behavior' do you allege, based purely -- by your own words -- on your own unbounded fantasy-driven imagination?

Why is it that you think anybody should take such opinions seriously?





 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join