Dark side of the moon: 55-year-old mystery solved

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Margana

Dumb question -

Why is the side that faces Earth being hit more than the back side of the moon? Would that not mean the items impacting were coming from the direction of the sun?

like I said.. dumb question so be nice people

This isn't a dumb question, I think the better question is why is the moon beat to hell like this and earth isn't? I would expect looking at the moon that we would have as many pockmarks as well. Secondly why doesn't it spin like the earth. Kinda messes with the big bang idea doesn't it? We need an somone with an astronomy education to sort this out.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Margana

Dumb question -

Why is the side that faces Earth being hit more than the back side of the moon? Would that not mean the items impacting were coming from the direction of the sun?

like I said.. dumb question so be nice people

This isn't a dumb question, I think the better question is why is the moon beat to hell like this and earth isn't? I would expect looking at the moon that we would have as many pockmarks as well. Secondly why doesn't it spin like the earth. Kinda messes with the big bang idea doesn't it? We need an someone with an astronomy education to sort this out.

It is, if you strip off all the trees & and water from the planet we look like Mercury. Weather is the only difference and slowly erodes impact sites but never completely gets rid of them. There are pictures of the Earth with all that stuff stripped away so you can see the abuse the Earth has taken over the course of it's life.

((I asked my boyfriend who has more knowledge about the subject))

originally posted by: stormcell

But it does seem a bit strange, since both sides should have been equally hit as hard. Perhaps the Earth acted as a slingshot that made those impacts harder.

The article has stated why & I have also restated the same thing. Please read what was said above to find your answer. If you fully read everything you would see the answer has been said at least 4 or 5 times.

The article states, "Because Earth and the moon were tidally locked from the beginning..."

No they weren't. The Moon did rotate with respect to Earth, and getting tidally locked took some time. I also doubt that the heat from molten Earth would reach that far and still be so strong so as to keep the near side hot. I think the tidal forces between Earth and Moon (the same as what caused the tidal locking) are are more likely explanation for the near side lava basins.

Anyway, nice to see a really clear photo of the 'darkside' ,so where is the 3 mile high 'shard'??

originally posted by: Margana
a reply to: scubagravy

I think it is a composite image. Which is an image composed of multiple images. We don't have a dedicated satellite behind the moon that is dedicated to taking a single low resolution image like this. It's been compiled likely through multiple passes around the moon, pasted together, for all we know there could be like 64+ some odd shots to added all together to get this shot. I'm not sure though because I downloaded it from sciencedaily & they said the image was from NASA.

Indeed it is, hence the obvious joins. To answer queries from other posters, the photo is for illustration, not a demonstration of proof.

If people have an issue with it being from NASA, they can look at the images taken by the USSR that are publicly available, JAXA/Selene from Japan, or China's Chang'e-2. They all show the same features.

If you want less digital imagery, you can look for the Lunar Orbiter probe's views of the far side, or those taken by Apollo.

a reply to: peter vlar

Just read the damn article and say what you have to say then move on.

originally posted by: Margana

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Margana

Dumb question -

Why is the side that faces Earth being hit more than the back side of the moon? Would that not mean the items impacting were coming from the direction of the sun?

like I said.. dumb question so be nice people

This isn't a dumb question, I think the better question is why is the moon beat to hell like this and earth isn't? I would expect looking at the moon that we would have as many pockmarks as well. Secondly why doesn't it spin like the earth. Kinda messes with the big bang idea doesn't it? We need an someone with an astronomy education to sort this out.

It is, if you strip off all the trees & and water from the planet we look like Mercury. Weather is the only difference and slowly erodes impact sites but never completely gets rid of them. There are pictures of the Earth with all that stuff stripped away so you can see the abuse the Earth has taken over the course of it's life.

((I asked my boyfriend who has more knowledge about the subject))

Maybe you could ask the BF a few more questions, how was that pic generated, and if that is the way it happened why are meteorites so hard to find we should be tripping over them specially with the erosion. With craters sizes of up to 181 miles across on the moon we should be able to have cities inside craters and not see them. I don't think and maybe I am wrong but that seems impossible, that would be some serious erosion. Just an old guy with more questions.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Two things that make craters here on the Earth go away:

Erosion and Plate Tectonics.

The Earth's crust have plates that subduct (are pushed down into the mantel) and areas of upwelling that create new crust.

Erosion basically tears the craters down.

You have new ones, like the 50,000 year old Meteor Crater in Arizona:



Ones that are half eroded and hidden by oceans like the 65 million year old Chicxulub Crater:



Then you have the Vredefort crater in South Africa, 300 km wide, and estimated to be about 2 billion years old:



There are many craters here on Earth that are "unconfirmed" as impact craters. There is one in Australia that is suppose to be up to 1,200 miles wide.

There are many places on the Earth where you have features that look like they may have been impact craters. The eastern shore of the Hudson Bay up in Canada always looked like a huge impact crater to me.....and while that's not confirmed. I have two red arrows pointing at confirmed impact craters.



From left to right you have:

Clearwater Lakes, a double impact craters.

and

Manicouagan Crater to the far right, made 214 million years ago.

But erosion, plate movement and of course plant growth tend to help hide most of Earth's craters.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

In addition to eriktheawful's response above there is another big difference: atmosphere. The moon doesn't have one so any size object heading to the ground can make a hole.

Most small meteors hitting us get burned up, assuming they don't bounce off our atmosphere first, or get fragmented into much smaller chunks as they hit the atmosphere.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Margana

Dumb question -

Why is the side that faces Earth being hit more than the back side of the moon? Would that not mean the items impacting were coming from the direction of the sun?

like I said.. dumb question so be nice people

The far side of the moon faces the sun for just as much time as the near side does. When it's a new moon as seen from Earth, the sun is fully illuminating the far side.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: MarlinGrace

In addition to eriktheawful's response above there is another big difference: atmosphere. The moon doesn't have one so any size object heading to the ground can make a hole.

Most small meteors hitting us get burned up, assuming they don't bounce off our atmosphere first, or get fragmented into much smaller chunks as they hit the atmosphere.

Hey you guys rock, this is what I love about ATS just ask and viola' the smart guys come out. Thanks to onebigmonkey and eriktheawful for the long informative post. Seriously Thanks. Even an old guy can learn new things.

a reply to: Margana

Atleast now we know there is no secret alien base there.

a reply to: Margana

There's an absence of "dark areas" because it's all smudged or photoshopped out.

Can't have alien bases in the photos.

originally posted by: TheLegend
a reply to: Margana

There's an absence of "dark areas" because it's all smudged or photoshopped out.

Can't have alien bases in the photos.

You do realise that several countries have photographed the far side of the moon, starting 55 years ago in 1959? There's nothing secret there.

a reply to: Rob48

meh, if the user wants to believe there are alien bases on the moon let them. If people perceive them at nuts, that's their issue.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: MarlinGrace

In addition to eriktheawful's response above there is another big difference: atmosphere.

And in addition to your post, Earth has oceans, around 70% of it is covered in water. Water doesn't create craters, obviously ^_^

People who say the near side gets more impacts should look closer - the far side is completely peppered with craters big and small, there's hardly a smooth or even place there.

a reply to: Margana
Brb, starting a topic and then resorting to passive aggressive jabs when someone provides a theory. That ironic signature.

a reply to: Rob48
There's more classified photos taken of the far side of the moon than there are ones released to public. Employees of NASA have even stated it was their job to edit lunar photos (some admittedly to conceal an ET presence). In one instance, with the U.S. Navy's Clementine satellite of 94, 1,800,000 photos were taken during the greatest attempt to map the lunar surface since, and only 170,000 were made available to public (with much evidence of tampering). Earlier photos, since the 70s up till the 90s when resolution and definition became good enough to generate details on large structures, have sections blatantly smudged or removed www.elocal.co.nz... paranoidnews.org... and those same places are now photoshopped.

So what did they start seeing on the far side of the moon that suddenly became classified? What on it demands image manipulation? Until a sufficient answer is provided to these questions, I'm going with artificial constructs as the most logical explanation. Several astronauts, like Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Dr. Charles Camarda (who I met personally), Buzz Aldrin, and more have came out about an ET presence on and around the Earth and moon anyway - from firsthand experiences nonetheless. It makes sense for aliens to need nearby installations then and the far side of the moon is a logical explanation for this too. Use critical thinking.

Always found how striking in some ways the far side of the moon and Mercury look when comparing them:

Moon Far Side:



Mercury (mosaic by Nasa's Messenger):



Of course it's always amazing at how different all the moons are in our solar system due to their make up and where they are:

Once again a poor, grainy, BLACK AND WHITE picture of the moon. We are in the 21st century earthlings!!!!! and this is the best we get of the CLOSEST ORBITING BODY TO OUR PLANET, with all the billions spent at NASA and other space agencies. Give me a break. What critical thinking person could agree to this being the best that we have available with our present visual technology. Mushrooms fed sh#t and kept in the dark until harvest time.