John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

Originally posted by Rilence
I would have thought this post (like every other post on ATS) was very much open to debate with regards to the information presented within it...

It is Rilence... but is it to much to ask someone like greatlakes with an opposing theory to present his/her evidence to back it? Telling me "why don't you do more research" and "go look it up" doesn't quite cut it.

Of course judging from these last two posts, perhaps there is a hidden agenda? I mean the minute I ask for a simple backing up of a theory, the tone and style of the posts changed drastically.

Darn and just when it was getting interesting...

Originally posted by zorgon
It is Rilence... but is it to much to ask someone like greatlakes with an opposing theory to present his/her evidence to back it? Telling me "why don't you do more research" and "go look it up" doesn't quite cut it.

Of course judging from these last two posts, perhaps there is a hidden agenda? I mean the minute I ask for a simple backing up of a theory, the tone and style of the posts changed drastically.

Darn and just when it was getting interesting...

Zorgon, I agree with you 100%...If an alternative view is presented, surely some evidence and a solid argument should be presented...I am of the opinion greatlakes thought he already did that with what he had posted a few pages back, and there was a great deal posted...

All I'm saying is the two of you were guilty of pointless bickering a page or two back...

And as far as what Mr Lear said to GreatLakes, dont ask....

This thread needs people like greatlakes and others to come in, look, analyse and post..Fresh eyes, blood and ideas are always a good thing when trying to make sense of anything

T

Originally posted by Rilence
All I'm saying is the two of you were guilty of pointless bickering a page or two back...

Ah so its bickering now huh? Dagnabbit I really wanted to find out about those fluorescent gasses...

Oh well... So while I have YOU on the hook, how about YOUR opinion on those examples excluding the Heart?

Originally posted by zorgon

Oh well... So while I have YOU on the hook, how about YOUR opinion on those examples excluding the Heart?

The others...Well, haven only taken a casual look at those, and not having loaded them into GIMP and zooming, contrasting and so on, I would say to my mind they are unlikely to have been formed by purely natural processes...

Now, what exactly caused those particular shapes to form, I have no idea at all, other than what I said in that they dont seem to be "natural"

Anything else you want me to take a look at ?

Tony

P.S - Zorgon, with regard to the heart and any other, please post me a link on any image you want me to take a detailed look at and I'll do so and let you know what I see

thanks

Edited - Cos I'm and idjit and dont read properly sometimes

[edit on 26-5-2007 by Rilence]

[edit on 26-5-2007 by Rilence]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by greatlakes
So its possible that the cause of the extra luminosity of the Aris Crater is a localized effect due to volcanic (ancient) activity in a low gravity, low or no atmosphere (and other non-earthlike) environs.

It is also likely that they are fluorescent rocks, charged by extra strong solar bursts... and explanation readily offered by NASA

What about Phosphorous? Are there any records of there being any phosphorous found on the Lunar surface? If so, then we may now know what's being seen there in Ari.

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg
What about Phosphorous? Are there any records of there being any phosphorous found on the Lunar surface? If so, then we may now know what's being seen there in Ari.

TheBorg

Well there is one small issue with it being Phosporous...

The glow from phosphorous requires oxygen to glow

So if you stipulate that there is an oxygen atmosphere on the moon, I will gladly give you the phosphorous hypothesis... Deal?

Robert Boyle in the 1680s ascribed it to "debilitation" of the air. In fact it is oxygen being consumed. By the 18th century it was known that in pure oxygen phosphorus does not glow at all,[7] there is only a range of partial pressure where it does, too high or too low and the reaction stops. Heat can be applied to drive the reaction at higher pressures.[8]

In 1974 the glow was explained by R. J. van Zee and A. U. Khan.[6] A reaction with oxygen takes place at the surface of the solid (or liquid) phosphorus, forming short-lived molecules HPO and P2O2 and they both emit visible light. The reaction is slow and only very little of the intermediates is required to produce the luminescence, hence the extended time the glow continues in a stoppered jar.

Wikipedia

[edit on 26-5-2007 by zorgon]

Were ya gonna post something there zorgon? Or was that just an affirmation to having gotten my message?

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg
Were ya gonna post something there zorgon? Or was that just an affirmation to having gotten my message?

TheBorg

No it was stiff and sore fingers pushing the wrong button

Now as to the Fluorescence... Sure it is POSSIBLE for it to be fluorescent mineral... but in order for it to glow as brightly as it does it would require a very strong UV source (I have a gorgeous sample case here at home of fluorescent specimens that even exhibit different colors under short or long waves..)

Now the light reflected from Earth would not be enough to cause this area to fluoresce so brightly...

And another point is that whenever I turn off the lights and turn on the UV lamp I get the SAME LEVEL OF FLUORESCENCE every time..

It does not fluctuate...
It does not appear some times and not others..


So IF we were to claim "its fluorescence" we must first identify the VARIALR SOURCE of UV that would act upon it...

Bear in mind the Apollo 11 astronauts viewed it only in Earth light and they did not think "fluorescence" was appropriate

Now back to our original thoughts...

Some sort of power energy field generator...

What if the "structure" we see when the crater is in the "on" state is actually an optical effect created by an interference pattern in the visible spectrum when we observe it? Then naturally you would not see this when its in the "off" state.

This would explain why it builds in intensity... peaks at a high level sometimes for days, then fades back to "normal"

In observing the crater we only see the "pattern" when its in its "blue glowing" state

Oh and BTW phosphorous' luminescence is generally in the green, ivory, white color ranges and generally not very intense

I don't recall exactly where I "learned" this, but it was a VERY long time ago, maybe in high school...

I would have thought phosphorous would exhibit a white to yellowish color if exposed to oxygen ?

hmmmmm.....

[edit on 26-5-2007 by Rilence]

Well, lets suppose for a minute that there was some kind of life, nonhuman life that is, on the surface of the Moon. Could the phosphorous then be being lit up by some kind of reaction of oxygen being released in large quantities by these creatures? It's just a hypothesis, so it's up for debate.

As always, lemme know what you think.

TheBorg

Is there any spot on the moon on which the sunlight does not directly shine, and in or by which, there is a blue glowy of similar structure and appearance as Aristarchus? Bet we can find one, easily. I'm willing to entertain the notion that the blue color is lotsa things, but earthshine ain't one of 'em. let's see if its sun-related shall we? if sunshine is the cause, i'd like to see some evidence of that, because, based on the images, there are blue glowies everywhere, of varying sizes and brightness and some of them don't even appear to be on the surface, but floating above it. my favorite are the craters in which the shadowed side still has light glowing out from underneath it and the light side has objects under it in shadow. some of the anomalies are so obviously floating, once you think about and examine the anomalie for its physics of light and shadow, that it seems preposterous to suggest they are actually on the lunar surface.

i've seen pictures of "craters" where the glowing blue was ragged along one edge, right threw the middle of the crater wall, and rather than meeting the glowing white from the other side, it was actually transparent, like glass, and you could see other features underneath it.

think about this. how many craters, when in shadow on one side, cast light onto the ground along the bottom of the crater's shadowed side, where, physically-speaking, shining white light would not be physically possible due to it being the area most encased in shadow? i've seen countless examples of this in the color images from clementine. they make no sense whatsoever. there's probably 3 possible answers to this:

1. they are floating and not craters at all, so the light is shining from the underside of the "crater" onto the ground.

2. some unknown physical explanation has reared its head but only in the vicinity of some of the blue glowy craters and not others.

3. the stuff is tampered with and no possible explanation is possible.

[edit on 26-5-2007 by undo]

This conversation just reminded me of the old saying, "Once in a blue Moon".

I wonder, what exactly were they talking about in that old saying? Is there something to that old one? Maybe the dust moves around every so often just enough to bring out the blue hues just below the surface, and they shine back with that "blue moon" look.

Got me thinking now.... bad things happen from here on out.

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg
Well, lets suppose for a minute that there was some kind of life, nonhuman life that is, on the surface of the Moon. Could the phosphorous then be being lit up by some kind of reaction of oxygen being released in large quantities by these creatures? It's just a hypothesis, so it's up for debate.

As always, lemme know what you think.

TheBorg

Yep Borg, agreed...If there are some other chemical processes involved, organic or not, that could explain the variation in colour with the oxidization on phosphorous we would normally expect..

Now the question is, what could cause that...

Originally posted by TheBorg
This conversation just reminded me of the old saying, "Once in a blue Moon".

I wonder, what exactly were they talking about in that old saying? Is there something to that old one? Maybe the dust moves around every so often just enough to bring out the blue hues just below the surface, and they shine back with that "blue moon" look.

Got me thinking now.... bad things happen from here on out.

TheBorg

Woot. *insert clapping smilie here*

Also, see my above post, i added more to it.

Originally posted by undo

1. they are floating and not craters at all, so the light is shining from the underside of the "crater" onto the ground.

2. some unknown physical explanation has reared its head but only in the vicinity of some of the blue glowy craters and not others.

3. the stuff is tampered with and no possible explanation is possible.

[edit on 26-5-2007 by undo]

Again, gotta agree, Undo

I too noticed lots of detail under the blue "rim" of that crater which suggested to me the blue rim wasnt the true rim at all...

As far as what you've suggested as explanations of same, I'd say either 1 or 2...But...then again, looking at how many pics were doctored over the years, 3 still remains a real possibility...

One can only guess without further evidence...


T

Hi, I'm new to this site, and as i tried to read all the post in this forum it is all most impossible with the 100 something pages... but i did read most of them. The one thing that keeps bugging me is why everyone has over looked the obvious, even Mr. Lear seems to have over looked it, and by the way.. Thx Mr. Lear for the great pics!

This parking lot idea just doesnt seem to fit, prehistoric-phosile-fuled vehicles on the moon? the stucture resembles more to be some type of proccessing plant or maybe a geo-thermal plant... for what you might ask?

well the obviouse of course wich is WATER or H2O. the one substance not easily obtained in space.

When i was younger i lived behind a water plant and i must say this thing looks exactly like it but about 18 times the size that I can see from the pics. it has the 3 pools for the water filtration. and the so called ramp looks more like a huge water pipe going into the crater then undergound.

I mean were talking about Space, UFO, Proton Cannons, and of course Free Energy "Nitrogen".

So if you were going to build a space station the first thing you would want is...? Water, but water is free and there is more than enough on earth! Well actually no!, there isnt enough water on earth. If you take into consideration the ammount of cars on the road and the fuel we use, you would think there enough gas right? of course. BUT... if we could drive with out it costing money "free fuel" how much faster would we use up all our fossil fuels? Same comes with water... we need it to live, breath and for free energy, If we used the water here on earth the water would go back into the atmospher and recycle itselfe into rain and fall back to earth, But if we take this water from earth... say a football field sized pool about 50 feet deep to run a mothership, and if we use this water for energy in space that we have taken from earth and put it in space... the water is lost in space. so eventually we would see our ocean and lakes start to drop in water levels.

So a space station on the moon make the most common sence. I dont quite remember when this was said but i do remeber seeing somewhere that a space station on the moon would be mans first mission in space, or something to that effect and i think it was late 60's early 70's news footage i guess.

also what i found when looking at the "Parking Lot", "Water Filter Sys", "GEO-Thermal Plant" or whatever it is playing with the brightness and contrass makes the image allot sharper... try it out there seems to be more detetail. also try over laping the same image with translucent images of 75% of the same image over top of a non-translucent image... about 4 translucents at 75% should do (5 pics in all 1 solid + 4 trans @75%). but all these images have to line up exactly over top of its propper pixel wich can be really hard to do... atleast for me anyways.

A Plan to Build a Giant Liquid Telescope on the Moon

www.wired.com...

Here is Mike's photo of Grimaldi:





At the very top of the photo just to the right of center is the western portion of Reiner Gamma. Just to the right of the almond shape is an interesting structured-like object-of-interest.

I would interject that none of the pictures "clearly" show anything, so please don't use that term. The pictures are all very low resolution and nothing is clearly anything. If there were CLEAR evidence, like very high resolution photos showing a base on the moon, I guarantee it would be on the news already, because one of us would make that happen.

A lot of the images, such as the rectangular structure in the crater could be attributed to compression artifacts.

I'm not saying those images are or aren't something, I'm just saying be objective, they aren't CLEARLY anything.