John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

I found what looks like a bizarre structure on the ** ahem ** pictire. It's due west of the boneyard, and just a little south. Just in time for Halloween. It looks like a skull with a perfectly formed roof on top. If no one has found it yet, I'd like to call it "The Lookout." Here's a link:

northstar-autoparts.com...

Zorgon, can you find this on C-5?

Copernicus 3, 5th scan-strip down (from the top) on the right. Wishbone area (possible tailings?). Several structures including a large wheel shaped piece of machinary on the left. Maybe someone else can identify what the other curious areas are...

WISH BONE ALLEY






Disclaimer.
What I see, may not be what you see, but I'd love to have someone tell me
how a 'wheel' shaped object got on the moon?

Originally posted by papajake

Zorgon, can you find this on C-5?

LOL More work I had better hurry and finish the grid.

"Lookout" it is no one has it yet Looks like a roof above/behind the "skull"

C#5 is hard to find matches as it is so bright in areas especially on the crater floor but I will try.


One point I would like to toss in about the possibilty of the mine...

Many have said that "IF its a mine what could they be mining? It would have to be something valuable to make it worth it. to turn a profit..."

Well the moon dust showed 18% or so Titanium in its makeup [maybe thats why it reflects sunlight so brightly?] and we know there is a LOT of HE3 up there, several million metric tons I believe...[100 tons can power the Earth for a year so I hear]
Perhaps someone has time to track sources for these details?


BUT...IF you were doing a big base. or a space fleet. or any other major project on the moon. would you not need materials? Even granting anti gravity technology, it would make more sense to mine material locally then haul it all from Earth.

So profit may not neccessarily be a concern... even with moon rock running at 5 million per once LOL [would be hard to explain where they got it]

Check out the Davy crater chain (arrow) on the Moon. It extends for about 50 km across the floor of the large, very old crater Davy and onto its eastern rim.
(The long object at centre right is part of the Apollo.)

I daresay it looks pretty unnatural. But your guess is as good as mine!



Photo AS16-1973 (M)

[edit on 22-10-2006 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by mikesingh

I daresay it looks pretty unnatural. But your guess is as good as mine!

Yes it is unusual... would mean a whole bunch of meteors all in a neat single file would have struck seconds apart.. I like that But the universe is full of weird coincidences...

Originally posted by mikesingh...I daresay it looks pretty unnatural. But your guess is as good as mine!

Oh no, I don't think so. It is due from arcing by lightning. Formations like that are pretty common throughout the solar system.

I include a link here to back my claim.

Edit for link, thought I already posted, but that was to a group.

Under electrical scars we have this excerpt from the same site:

The prominent Tycho crater on the southern hemsiphere of our moon demonstrates some of the features described above, and it is interesting to note that the probable cause was recognised as early as 1903. In his book, The Moon, W. H. Pickering suggested that electrical effects could account for the narrow paths of Tycho’s 'rays', and he drew a direct comparison to the streamers seen in auroral displays.

That's right, Tycho. And there are a few lightning strikes on Venus, oh, I'd say just over 1000 km across. Can you imagine?

BZZIT, WHAMMO! A lightning strike from the Sun arcs along the solar disk machining craters where it touches. Now THAT is an electrical storm! No doubt from charges built up while passing through a dense interstellar cloud. Or during major solar system uphevils, birthing, or who knows what else.

Even Mars' mighty Olympus Mons, the greatest mountain in the entire solar system, has a structure consistent with lightning discharge. Can you imagine!? I am certainly trying desperately to wrap my mind around it...

[edit on 10/23/2006 by Matyas]

On the string of impacts, here's my theory;

A fairly good sized hunk of rock, cracked and fissured and sized about 300 or 400 cubic meters, passed by Earth and was deflected off of its path by gravitational forces.

Those forces then caused fragmention and became a 'string' of meteorites hitting the lunar surface.

Originally posted by masqua
On the string of impacts, here's my theory;

A fairly good sized hunk of rock, cracked and fissured and sized about 300 or 400 cubic meters, passed by Earth and was deflected off of its path by gravitational forces.

Those forces then caused fragmention and became a 'string' of meteorites hitting the lunar surface.

i think an even better explanation would be a single, large rock entered the moon's airspace, broke up in an atmosphere and hit the ground as we see it. that would be the leading theory if that impact hit earth, no doubt. of course, that would require an atmosphere on the moon. think about it.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by ChocoTaco369]

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
i think an even better explanation would be a single, large rock entered the moon's airspace, broke up in an atmosphere and hit the ground as we see it. that would be the leading theory if that impact hit earth, no doubt. of course, that would require an atmosphere on the moon. think about it.

Giant lightning bolts!!! Meteors breaking up in Atmosphere!!! Mind boggling concepts to be sure... must apply some thought to that...

in the meantime ...

Lunar weather report: Clear today, no chance of rain or lightning storms.....




A few days later....

Lunar weather report: Extreme weather warning... Hurricane Endymion moving in...





Now of course to those that are observant, you might notice the bright plume just to the left of that crater , just left of center... and you might notice the radiating arcs of "dust" beneath that plume....

But that would mean it was an explosion of great magnitude, from a mine? or perhaps a meteorite? Any one know if one hit about that time?

Of course that would make the storm clouds of dust billowing through that atmosphere...

Well there you go... think about why all those craters you can see on the clear day are obscured...

Hmmm seem to recall someone named John hinting at an atmosphere?


[edit on 24-10-2006 by zorgon]

zorgon:

What you're seeing in that second picture there is a newly formed crater in a very fuzzy picture. Looks to me almost like the picture was overexposed, or zoomed in to make it look all fuzzy.

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg
zorgon:

What you're seeing in that second picture there is a newly formed crater in a very fuzzy picture. Looks to me almost like the picture was overexposed, or zoomed in to make it look all fuzzy.

TheBorg

I was wondering about the crater but hard to tell if that one is newly formed or is the other large one in the first picture nw of Endymion... I will have to look up if there are any records about that time...

Zoomed in crop yes, over exposed no... it is the top left (1 oclock position] of Lick 2

The point is that if its a new crater, the dust and debris is spreading like there was some atmosphere up there, not like it would in a vacuum... as the terrain beneath the "cloud" is obscured

Originally posted by TheBorg

zorgon:

What you're seeing in that second picture there is a newly formed crater in a very fuzzy picture. Looks to me almost like the picture was overexposed, or zoomed in to make it look all fuzzy.TheBorg

When you say newly formed, how old would you say this 'newly formed' crater is. And when you say 'newly formed' do you mean it is so newly formed that the blast is still visible? And we are looking at the blast of a newly formed crater? I notice that the stem of the column of smoke or dust bends over and drifts nothwesterly. Does this mean there is wind on the moon? Thanks.

Originally posted by johnlear

I notice that the stem of the column of smoke or dust bends over and drifts nothwesterly. Does this mean there is wind on the moon? Thanks.

Depends on what the miners are eating i suppose

I doubt it is wind such as we think of, due to the difference in air density and gravity, but In all the pictures of the moon that i have seen, I have yet to see any other evidence of a wind (at ground level).
i.e: pics of astronauts kicking dust, rovers kicking dust- so forth... all goes in perfect short arc, then comes down...)

But that doesn't mean that there isn't some sort of "jet stream" at a higher altitude.
and of course, momentum from an impact, would propel dust into orbit, would it not?

Were there ever any reports of landings going off track due to a bit of "unknowns" in the upper orbital decent?

I think it's more of a gravitational pull. Consider, for a minute, the incident occurring just like we've said. A meteorite hits the lunar surface, and a plume of debris flies from the surface in a huge cloud. That cloud, as it accelerates away from the blast site, is slowed by a miniscule amount, due to it's being less dense than the Moon. As it does so, it spreads out, and moves in a general direction, not too uncommon from what happens on Io when geysers erupt. This creates what appears to be a trailing affect, and one that someone from a distance might percieve as having been caused by a small atmosphere.

To me anyway, this is nothing more than a matter of the dust is encircling the body that it was jected from because the Moon has a strong enough gravitational pull that it can pull all of that material back to the surface. It just takes it a while, due in large part to the fact that the Moon has NO atmosphere, which is why it creates the cloud that we see in the zoomed image.

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg

It just takes it a while, due in large part to the fact that the Moon has NO atmosphere, which is why it creates the cloud that we see in the zoomed image.
TheBorg

Oh, I see. So a cloud can exist in a vacuum?

Originally posted by johnlear...Oh, I see. So a cloud can exist in a vacuum?

That is correct John. The part about a cloud not being able to exist in a vacuum. I believe it was Newton who showed all objects fall at an equal rate in a vacuum, so dust would fall as fast as any large rock. You cannot have collodial suspension without a medium. I am not sure about electrostatic charge though. Those electrons would have to go somewhere if ionization occured, but how I havn't a clue. Most likely not.

it's stuff like this that really makes me believe there is an atmosphere on the moon and we've been lied to for 40 years. it's terrifying when you think about it - not that we've been lied to so much as how gullable humanity is to any organization with authority.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by TheBorg

It just takes it a while, due in large part to the fact that the Moon has NO atmosphere, which is why it creates the cloud that we see in the zoomed image.
TheBorg

Oh, I see. So a cloud can exist in a vacuum?

Take a look at the pictures of the moon Io, and pay special attention to the ones with erupting geysers. Those geysers behave in the same way that this picture of the Lunar impact does. The debris has to go somewhere, doesn't it? Where else could it go but up, and back down?

And as for a cloud not being able to exist in space, what about Intersteller nurseries, and nebulas? So far as we can tell, those are just "clouds" as well. Am I wrong in that assumption? Superheated gases can create these same types of "clouds", so why can't dust do it? I see no laws of physics being broken here.

TheBorg

Apologies for interjecting again, but I am certain this can be cleared up.

Originally posted by TheBorg Take a look at the pictures of the moon Io, and pay special attention to the ones with erupting geysers. Those geysers behave in the same way that this picture of the Lunar impact does. The debris has to go somewhere, doesn't it? Where else could it go but up, and back down?

True. This website may be in French but it gives an excellent visual lineup on one page. Note the volcanos on Earth produce a cloud that floats, but the volcanoes on Io do not behave the same way. Their ejecta follows a traditional ballistic trajectory indicitive of medium absence. Their behavior is more akin to fountains than clouds. Floating and falling is not the same. Rain is not the same as cloud. Apples, oranges.

If the Lunar photo in question does not reveal a ballistic trajectory with the ejecta, then there is an atmosphere. No other shape but a perfect inverted parabola will be displayed with ejecta in a vacuum. Any other shape demands an atmosphere. Where does the jury set on this?

And as for a cloud not being able to exist in space, what about Intersteller nurseries, and nebulas? So far as we can tell, those are just "clouds" as well. Am I wrong in that assumption? Superheated gases can create these same types of "clouds", so why can't dust do it? I see no laws of physics being broken here.

No, you are not wrong. But using that example presupposes the absence of a local gravitational field. Thus the two examples are not the same, one is in a gravitational field, the other is free floating, because there is nothing to rain onto. Once again, apples, oranges.

I think I know the sticking point. It may be not just unbelievable that the Moon has an atmosphere, but overwhelming also. No one expects or wants to get blindsided with the knowledge sixteen or more years of learning stuff suddenly turns out useless. You are not alone in your confusion. Just because you don't have any bearings with which to move forward does not mean you have a closed mind. In fact the opposite can be true, once convinced of the validity of a certain argument, it would take an act of God to move you. Perseverance is a virtue too.

And lastly, I hope this was not a test. I don't like being blindsided either. If it was, then our scores should be high.

edit for sp

[edit on 10/25/2006 by Matyas]

Matyas:

I don't mean to pry, but I'm still having trouble with this whole atmosphere thing. This is all based on what I think is a very grainy image, presented to us in all of its splendor by Zorgon. I'll repost it for clarity.



Now, after having looked at that image again, doesn't it seem odd to you that the blurry portion of the picture seems to be almost out of focus blurry, rather than smog-filled blurry? I understand the concept of an atmosphere and all that goes with that, but I'm still at a loss for how this image shines any light on that possibility. To me anyway, it does nothing but damage it. I can reference countless other images, in fact 99.95% of the rest of the images, that show quite a different side to this story.

"If a theory is outweighed by overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then one must assume the obvious; that the theory is faulty." - TheBorg

P.S.

Something just occurred to me. I was looking at that image again, and it almost looks like there was a geomagnetic storm going on at the time that that image was taken. Anyone have a timestamp for it? That would answer this question, and at least eliminate that possibility.