reply to post by Asertus
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.
And there was me thinking it was simple citation of a scientific paper that refutes a key claim, with no ad hominem content at all.
Really? Sounds a lot like your intention is to attempt to support bashing them and not simply presenting what some scientists' educated estimates are
of the performance characteristics of 'glass' on the Moon.
I recall Hoagland and Co. mentioning more than once, that they theorise the structures they believe they are seeing evidence of in Lunar imagery,
appears to have been contructed using a highly reflective "Glass-like" material.
This is naturally conjecture...how could it be anything else? As i mentioned, they couldn't possibly know with any degree of anything remotely even
approaching certainty what the building material, if it were there, actually is...let alone it's chemical composition, or equally crucially it's
method of manufacture, which if structures are actually there, and are actually made of an unknown construction material that resembles material we
might reasonably think of as glass or crystal, it goes without saying that Hoagland and we, would know a lot less about the material, than we actually
do know.
Is it made from silicates doped with exotic materials or alloys? Is it made by a completely unknown process, is it pooped out the tail end of
technological nanites, is it made by advanced and rapid crystalographic process, is it composite meta-materials with a reflective 'cooling aid'
coating of crystal...and so on and on...and on.
Hence, why the performance estimates of 'glass' made on the moon are meaningless in relation to Hoaglands theory, as there are just too many unknowns.
It would only become important to us if we thought it might be a good idea to go to the moon and build structures from glass, using our known methods
of glass manufacture and so on...because we obviously know the processes involved with our manufacture of glass, so the estimates you quoted would
only then become pertinent.
They are not saying the structures they believe are there would be glass as we would know it on Earth, the same stuff we use as windows and car
headlights, even allowing for the density changes in the material caused by lower gravity and lack of atmosphere, but rather they use a material we
are all familiar with..'glass', as a descriptor that best fits their theory of what the structures they think exist or once existed on the moon appear
to them to have been constructed from.
If you weren't having a sideways pop at Hoagland and Bara...why did your post center on them and their theories and not on the premise that WE should
not build bases or habitats on the moon using glass as a primary building material, and then go on to quote your materials analysis as a reason why we
should not?
And btw, i don't have a problem with anyone having a bash at Hoagland, he's old enough to fight his own battles...i do have a problem though with
someone obviously having a bash and then trying to tell me the opposite is so. Anyone of us here can have a quick glance at your profile and see
exactly what your feelings are towards Hoagland and Friends, your thread history and postings on this thread alone prove your 'angle'...so come on
pal.
Good luck with your thread.
edit on 13-2-2013 by MysterX because: added comment
