John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

Originally posted by TrappedSoul

But where are the trees and plants that generates the oxygen?

In the temperate zones of the moon, on the far side.

And a clear blue sky would also mean that there is much H2O there?

Don't know for sure. In fact, the sky on the moon may be pale yellow.

But if the Moon has a breathable atmosphere, albeit thinner than ours, how come the surface is so massively cratered?

Originally posted by timeless test

But if the Moon has a breathable atmosphere, albeit thinner than ours, how come the surface is so massively cratered?

I think that is a good question. I don't know the answer to that right off.

Another question, if the moon has an atmosphere.

It's a question of occultation.

Basically, an occultation occurs when one stellar object blocks our view of another. According to accepted knowledge, the moon has no atmosphere. Thus, when it passes in front of a star, the star simply disappears.

However, when an object with an atmopshere, such as Pluto, occults a star, we can see this as the atmosphere distorts the image of the star, until it totally disappears from view as the objects travels completely in front of it.

So, if the moon has a breathable atmopshere, we sholud be able to detect it during occultations. Amateur astronomers with a telescope could easily do this, yet they detect no atmopshere.

Edited for spelling

[edit on 10-26-2006 by Esoterica]

Originally posted by timeless test

But if the Moon has a breathable atmosphere, albeit thinner than ours, how come the surface is so massively cratered?

For one, most of this planet is ocean which does hide alot.

For two, the lunar surface has been hit for billions of years - without the benefit of natural geologic activity or organic matter to cover and smooth the surface.

Originally posted by Esoterica

Another question, if the moon has an atmosphere.

It's a question of occultation.

Basically, an occultation occurs when one stellar object blocks our view of another. According to accepted knowledge, the moon has no atmosphere. Thus, when it passes in front of a star, the star simply disappears.

However, when an object with an atmopshere, such as Pluto, occults a star, we can see this as the atmosphere distorts the image of the star, until it totally disappears from view as the objects travels completely in front of it.

So, if the moon has a breathable atmopshere, we sholud be able to detect it during occultations. Amateur astronomers with a telescope could easily do this, yet they detect no atmopshere.

Thats too bad. They're missing out on an exciting discovery.

Originally posted by johnlear
Thats too bad. They're missing out on an exciting discovery.

Did you honestly just say that?

Pluto has an atmosphere with pressure 1/700,00th that of the Earth, and we can detect it. If the Moon had a breathable atmosphere, many people would have noticed by now.

I am actually interested in how you are rationalizing this with your own beliefs about the moon.

Originally posted by Esoterica

Pluto has an atmosphere with pressure 1/700,00th that of the Earth, and we can detect it. If the Moon had a breathable atmosphere, many people would have noticed by now.

Actually, Pluto has an atmosphere and temperature very similar to earths. Its possible that you are getting your data from NASA in which case you are being misled.

You might check with an independent source for verification. I would recommend mine but its proprietary.

Here is a source for the Mars Express, launched by the ESA. It witnessed occultation by Mars.

Link 1

Thus a non-NASA source for the validity of occultation.

Here is a source for l'Observatoire de Paris, witnessing an occultation by Pluto in 2002.

Link 2

Originally posted by SteveR
For one, most of this planet is ocean which does hide alot.

For two, the lunar surface has been hit for billions of years - without the benefit of natural geologic activity or organic matter to cover and smooth the surface.

I think you would struggle to find on third of the moon's surface which is virtually free from cratering. You are implying that (paragraph 2 explanation aside) the Earth's land surface mercifully escapes meteor impacts but the oceans get positively peppered with the damned things all the time - a touch too convenient for my taste.

Geologic activity? Well, this can actually cause craters (non impact), and if the Moon has an atmosphere it should also have wind and, therefore, erosion - sadly there is not a scrap of evidence of this visible on the surface.

Organic matter. Ahhh, you've noticed that the Moon has no organic matter then, (except, of course, in the temperate zones on the far side), which you might expect if there is an atmosphere.

Originally posted by Esoterica
It's a question of occultation.
Basically, an occultation occurs when one stellar object blocks our view of another. According to accepted knowledge, the moon has no atmosphere. Thus, when it passes in front of a star, the star simply disappears.

I must say, Mr. Lear, that is a solid question that was put forward by Esoterica in a very simple and legitimate way.

I think you have every right in the world to be short and even sarcastic with folks who come at you without any regard for your accomplishments or history...but the point made here is the best debunking of the "Moon Atmosphere" claim that I've heard yet.

In my opinion, you should give credit where credit is due and respect the legitimacy of Esoterica's question. Especialy more than this:

Originally posted by johnlear
Thats too bad. They're missing out on an exciting discovery.

[edit on 26-10-2006 by Essedarius]

Originally posted by Esoterica

Here is a source for the Mars Express, launched by the ESA. It witnessed occultation by Mars.
Link 1
Thus a non-NASA source for the validity of occultation.
Here is a source for l'Observatoire de Paris, witnessing an occultation by Pluto in 2002.
Link 2

Thanks Esoterica for the trouble you went to to find a second source for this information.

Alas, I am going to stick with my sources which say:

No. 1 Breathable atmosphere on the moon
No. 2 Breathable atmosphere on Pluto

Thanks again for all the trouble you went to.

Originally posted by johnlear
No. 1 Breathable atmosphere on the moon

If the moon had a breathable oxygen atmosphere wouldn't it have eroded much of the detail on all the pristine craters that cover the surface?

Europa has an oxygen rich atmosphere. Enceladus has one too, even though it is 500km across.

Our Moon's atmosphere is extensive, so pressure may be higher than we previously thought. But I am not at the point of taking off my helmet. I'll let John go first

if there is a breathable atmosphere :

why do occultations / bailey`s beads show no evidence of it

NB: please note lears evasion of the question .

a question of my own :

why do no lunar features show any signs of atmospheric weathering ?

i await the customary evasion

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by EsotericaBasically, an occultation occurs when one stellar object blocks our view of another. According to accepted knowledge, the moon has no atmosphere. Thus, when it passes in front of a star, the star simply disappears.

I must say, Mr. Lear, that is a solid question that was put forward by Esoterica in a very simple and legitimate way.

I think you have every right in the world to be short and even sarcastic with folks who come at you without any regard for your accomplishments or history...but the point made here is the best debunking of the "Moon Atmosphere" claim that I've heard yet.

In my opinion, you should give credit where credit is due and respect the legitimacy of Esoterica's question. Especialy more than this:

Originally posted by johnlear
Thats too bad. They're missing out on an exciting discovery.

No Essedarius, it was a statement. The statement started out, "Its a question" but it ended up as a statement. It was the same statement that has been posted on this thread many times. I try to be polite to people who don't want to bother reading the entire thread, but I tend to lose my sense of humor when they don't even scan it and then end up making the same statement.

I would have preferred Esoterica mention something about the Lick Observatory photos so I might think Esoterica had the slightest clue about what we are talking about instead of cutting and pasting old textbook science in this thread.

For instance Esoterica might have said something like this: John, I have looked at the smoke/dust rising from the explosion on the moon and realize that dust/smoke cannot form or drift in a column like in the Lick Photo if the moon had no atmosphere. Therefore I believe you have very good evidence that there is at least some sort of atmosphere on the moon. Why then, do you think blah, blah, blah.

See what I'm getting at?

Pounding me with words is useless when I have a picture of a column of smoke rising and drifting on the supposedly 'airless' moon.

Thanks for your post.

Pluto is not a planet anymore, it has been "demoted". I believe part of the reason was there was no evidence of hot Plutonian babes for the explorers when they got out there, which left the drag of having to send all that expensive enviromental support for the ones from Earth.

Yeah.

did nobody else look into these guys?

Check this out!

www.hyperstealth.com...

these guys own mining rights AND a camouflage operation..... more shivers.........

Originally posted by johnlear
Alas, I am going to stick with my sources which say:

No. 1 Breathable atmosphere on the moon
No. 2 Breathable atmosphere on Pluto

Have your sources actually breathed on these planets or what?

Originally posted by johnlear
I try to be polite to people who don't want to bother reading the entire thread, but I tend to lose my sense of humor when they don't even scan it and then end up making the same statement.

I see that. I really do. You're the resident celebrity and, therefore, have to carry the weight of some of the largest threads on this site. I don't begrudge you your frustration.

That said...with the knowledge that I don't know you from Adam and you don't know me, here is a completely unsolicited piece of advice...

Take a break from ATS.

You've grown increasingly snide and cynical over the past few weeks. Questions that you used to address are dismissed with venom, and attacks that you used to laugh off are returned.

Again...as God is my witness... I don't begrudge you ANY of that. If I had a jillion posts directed at me...bombarding me with questions, attacking me personally...no WAY I would rein in my bile the way you have yours.

I'm just saying...you don't really seem to be having fun anymore. That's all.
Get away from your adoring hordes...let a few threads get started about how you got killed/abducted/arrested...then come back with renewed vigor and blow things up.

That's just one observation from a complete stranger who disagrees with almost everything you say...so take it with a grain of salt...