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.


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

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by maryhinge
reply to post by draknoir2

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


And a diamond is not a carbon nanotube.

And neither are glass.

And neither are manufactured on the moon.
edit on 12-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:27 AM

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
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.

Here are a few things you can check:

- Hoagland's pseudo-statistical analysis of comet Elenin, "proving" that the chance of it being a natural object is billions to one against. RUBBISH. You could perform the same "analysis" for ANY comet.

- Mike Bara's comment on "Ancient Aliens" that Pad 33 is the only launch pad at White Sands, and that is evidence that NASA uses 33 in a ritual way. POPPYCOCK. There are other pads. Pad 33 was so designated by the US Army 17 years before NASA existed.

- Hoagland & Bara's contention that NASA has a "relentless, obsessive" drive to synchronize mission events to astrological conjunctions. BALDERDASH. The "table of coincidence" they published shows ZERO coincidences through the Ranger, Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, Mercury and Gemini programs. There are FOUR in the Apollo program, out of hundreds of possible events.

- Hoagland's contention that STS-133 was "the last Newtonian mission." He said 134 and 135 would be launched by hyperdimensional "torsion" physics. LAUGHABLE.

I could go on.....

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:39 PM

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
As I said...I'm sure there are crackpots...but the same was done to Mitchell, Cooper...and for that 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 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?

I've red your Q&A...number 77 deals with over excitement.

I haven't seen you ridicule Mitchel. But the comment on ridicule was concerning Cooper...(your 77 Q&A).

Mitchel was ridiculed by some NASA heads...not you in particularly that I've red.

And you don't have to take my opinions seriously...but here you are....

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:50 PM
reply to post by Asertus

Please stop using Hoegland, since I'm not advocating anything he says, except that in this point, a moonglass stronger than steel isn't all that far out....

I'm simply an interested human being...
edit on 12-2-2013 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:12 PM
I think it has to be remembered that neither Hoagland or Bara have ever actually visited the Moon, so the reasonable reader must surely realise, whether you overwhelmingly agree with what they present or vehermently dissagree, that their entire theory is exactly that, a theory.

Individual portions of that theory, including the so-called ancient building material being primarily 'Lunar glass', are all guesswork too (of course) as neither have been to confirm or disprove that portion.

It's a little unfair to pick on the tensile strength of glass as a basis to prove a negative, when none of us would know the exact chemical composition, industrial process and building application of that material, including Hoagland and Bara.

It's entirely feasible, whatever our opinion on the validity or otherwise of their general theoretical claims about ancient building on the Moon, that the material they are likening to 'glass' could be anything but.

If such structures were indeed present, the building material could be anything, made up of many elements, composed of exotic alloys of some description, some of which may well resemble what we consider to be glass, or crystal.

So has to be remembered OP, you're attempting to use a completely unknown quantity (for want of a better phrase..'a theoretical glass-like building material') to disprove another unknown quantity (the resulting theoretical structures).

Whatever side of the ancient Lunar structure fence you prefer to perch on, in my view, this thread is bordering on basic old fashioned character assassination, rather than scientific principle.

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:50 PM

Originally posted by MysterX
this thread is bordering on basic old fashioned character assassination....

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.

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:00 PM
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 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' come on pal.

Good luck with your thread.

edit on 13-2-2013 by MysterX because: added comment

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in