The Big NASA-Military Cover-up On Gravity And Atmosphere On The Moon!

Thanks for an Awsome post Mike.

I hope this keeps rolling along and keep up posting the anomalies they are amazing.

I am totaly hooked on yours and J. Skippers Anomaly sities, they are the best proof of air brushing and image butchering I have ever seen and a great insight to what is actualy up there

It would be great if we could get an Ex Nasa photo analist to join ATS and spill the beans but hey theres no harm in dreaming.

Breaking!

According to the chief of India's Chandrayaan Moon probe:

“The Moon’s atmosphere is very volatile and on the very first day, there was a sudden temperature variation of 10 degrees. This could to some extent affect the sophisticated electronics components on the Moon Impact Probe,”

Two points to note:

1. The Moon's atmosphere is very volatile.
2. There was a sudden temperature variation of 10 degrees!!

Now what does this actually translate to? An atmosphere on the Moon, not as tenuous as previously thought? If there's an atmosphere, then there has to be sufficient gravity too!

Cheers!

www.hindu.com...

Excellent Post...

kudos to you for putting all of this together...something is going on with the Moon.

Thanks...

Originally posted by mikesingh


Two points to note:

1. The Moon's atmosphere is very volatile.
2. There was a sudden temperature variation of 10 degrees!!

Now what does this actually translate to?

Good point about the translation. We've been hearing the term atmosphere on various occasions from The Hindu. I think it's been used in the sense of environment.

If you take the term atmosphere literally, you must take the word volatile literally. So that means the atmosphere is explosive? Or that it evaporates easily? The former is scary, the latter tells us it shouldn't be there after millions of years.

Read it this way and it makes sense: The moon's environment is very variable, the temperature varies a lot. The temperature changes are rough on our equipment.

The "atmosphere" of the moon is tenuous in the extreme. The gravity of the moon is about 1/6th that of Earth.


[edit on 24-11-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Don't go bringing logic into this discussion! This thread is all about how amateurs with little knowledge of the moon can use photos and videos to work out the mass of the moon.

This is just another joke thread with no actual supporting evidence (regardless of what the believers claim), where the old maxim "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" is demonstrated to be rather accurate.

reply to post by mikesingh


mike, all respect....

irrespective of this 'quote'....regarding an 'alien' planet....imagine you were reading the same 'quote', after being translated from some other language, into English, and realized it was attempting to describe OUR Planet, Earth.

Let's examine the 'intent' of this comment. What is the POINT of discussing a 10-degree temperature swing?

(I'm assuming we're talking 10-degree Celsius, rather than 10-degree Fahrenheit..)

10 degree swings, whether they be Celsius or Fahrenheit are quite commonplace, on Earth.

In fact, such changes can occur within just a few hours, as Fronts sweep through an area that is recording the atmospheric variables.

Now, I'm having some difficulty understanding how, exactly, an Indian Orbital Platform that measures surface temperatures somehow can lead to the conclusion that there is an 'atmosphere' on the Moon.

Here's one concept I CAN consider....the ability of people used to how energy reacts in an ATMOSPHERE....because the air is conductive of energy, versus how people understand how things behave in a vacuum...where there is no medium to conduct, except through the surface, or objects in direct contact.

I only wish to bring proper scientific understanding to the discussions....please feel free to point out my errors.

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by Shadow_Lord
The Moon has no atmosphere. There is no wind, no weather. It can be easily seen by the lack of erosion on the surface of the Moon.

Lack of erosion? Check out the hills in the back ground. They're smooth and rounded, not sharp and rugged, and this can only happen if the Moon has an atmosphere!

or hanger with backdrop ?

Originally posted by vanosman

Originally posted by mikesingh
Lack of erosion? Check out the hills in the back ground. They're smooth and rounded, not sharp and rugged, and this can only happen if the Moon has an atmosphere!

or hanger with backdrop ?

Though I do believe we did go to the Moon, but weren't told everything!

As regards that pic posted above, did you also notice that in spite of it being a trifle over exposed, there are still NO signs of stars? I have turned up the brightness and contrast to max and this is what turns up - nothing as much as a hint of any star, but there's an intriguing object above the hills that I've marked with an arrow:



If this whatever-it-is could be seen, why not stars? So you may have been correct about the pic being taken in a hanger in this case!

Cheers!

Originally posted by mikesingh
As regards that pic posted above, did you also notice that in spite of it being a trifle over exposed, there are still NO signs of stars? I have turned up the brightness and contrast to max and this is what turns up - nothing as much as a hint of any star, but there's an intriguing object above the hills that I've marked with an arrow:

Why would you expect that turning up the brightness would reveal stars? Increasing the brightness will have no effect on the exposure of the photo. You need a much longer exposure to get stars to show up. Also, if you were using the panorama and not the original images. You should know that the panoramic photo has been edited. Some of the oringal photos had a lens flare in them and it has been removed, so another reason why cranking the brightness will do nothing.

If this whatever-it-is could be seen, why not stars? So you may have been correct about the pic being taken in a hanger in this case!

You're assuming the "whatever-it-is" was actually there and not an image artifact from making the panoramic photo or from removing the lens flare that was once there.

The panoramic photo was from Apollo 17. They traversed 30.5 km of the Lunar surface. If you know of any hangers (or any kind of building) that can fit that much inside, let me know, thanks.

OK lets put this all into context using...

basic science and let's say maths...

don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet but have a look at your OP
look at the distance diagram... 215,100 - 23,900 distances...
now look a few parts down to one of your embedded quotes....

In We Reach the Moon, Wilford indicated that the spacecraft entered the lunar sphere of gravitational influence about 38,900 miles from the Moon.

In Footprints on the Moon written in 1969 by the Writers and Editors of the Associated Press, the neutral point is described as follows: Friday, Day Three of the mission, found Apollo 11 at the apex of that long gravitational hill between earth and the moon. At 1:12 p.m. EDT, the nose-to-nose spaceships passed the milestone where the moon's gravity becomes the more important influence. The astronauts were 214,000
miles from earth, only 38,000 miles from their rendezvous with the moon.

that contradicts your entire argument on the Neutral point there.

but what you have to take in to account is the WORDING..
"38,000 miles from their RENDEZVOUS with the moon.
that also takes into account the "orbital" pass round the moon..
They didn't just fire themselves headfirst into it.

Then take into account that the Probes rockets fired too EARLY...
that tells me that they have Over-Estimated the Gravity, not Under-Estimated.
Early Rockets means they expected to be pulled in harder than they were.
Not softer. You've just disproved another of your "facts"

Ok now the "JUMPING"
again you haven't used your obviously very capable brain on this.
it's not JUST the height of the jump you need to measure.
it's the time spent suspended above the surface in relation to that of on earth, as well as the height gained from the initial movement.

in laymans terms.
would you risk putting all your effort into a jump on a body that has such low gravity..
answer... NO.
He probably just flicked up off his toes.

so use this to calculate the approx gravity variation.
height of jump, time suspended.
now reduce the height and time of the jump by your idea of the gravity variation.
you expect me to believe that on earth a human takes a full 1.5 seconds to complete a jump 6" high??? i don't think so.

As for that so called expert on the video, his whole approach is flawed.
he's making the "evidence" fit his theory. he can't disprove the truth as he isn't testing it in the right conditions. you'd have to be ON the moon to test his theory. as for the WIRE theory... if that was true you'd see the shadows from the equipment, as the didn't have the technology to hide that kind of stuff back then.

Now onto the Atmosphere part of it.

Take another look at your "cloud" photos...
Have you not realised yet that the second picture is OUT OF FOCUS/BLURRED...

Take a look at the Large Craters on the Right... you can easily see that they have been blurred.
and the defining features/contours of the surface are now FLAT.
(sorry but are you really that gullible that you never noticed)
As for the "weather system" around the lower crater.. it's just the blurred lines of the mountain ranges in the photo above.

As for the Smooth surface... (lol... that still makes me laugh)

It's a well known fact that micro meteorites and particles zip through space at silly speeds and in huge numbers. over the billions of years of the moons existence this
has worn down the surface.

I do apologise if all this has been mentioned already, but it's all so obvious i had to say it... i do seriously apologise to all those who thought this stuff was infallible proof, but it isn't it's just misrepresented statistics.)

My Congrats on the consolidation of all the data though, you did a great job bringing all this stuff together, but you might want to check through all your data before you post it up somewhere, i found all this stuff in my first read through. i was quite surprised to see that you'd missed such obvious irregularities.

Gravity Anomaly detected by using 4-way Doppler observation data from the RSTAR (OKINA) (RSAT)-New finding in study on the Origin of Dichotomy for the Moon

AXA announced a new finding of a gravity anomaly for both the near side and far side of the Moon by using 4-way Doppler observation data from the RSTAR (OKINA) with the main orbiter, the KAGUYA.

Until now, the gravity anomaly of the far side of the Moon has not been understood well. The gravity anomaly, which was obscure before, has been clearly revealed through observations by the Kaguya mission. For instance, the gravity anomaly of a basin on the far side is found to be characterized by a negative anomaly in a ring like the Apollo basin. On the other hand, the gravity anomaly of the basin on the near side is uniformly positive over the region such as with the Mare Serenitatis. Thus, the clear difference in gravity anomaly on the near side and the far side has been newly discovered and this fact brings a different story about the structure of the underground and the history of the evolution of the far side and near side of the Moon.

The latest observation data by the Kaguya will play a key role to promote the study of the origin and the evolution of the Moon. In addition, highly accurate lunar gravity distribution data will be useful for future lunar explorers.

It would be incorrect for anyone to profess to know everything about the Moon's gravity as of now. New revelations keep coming up with with notorious regularity, some beyond 'logical' scientific templates. There may be many more surprises waiting to be discovered!

The complete article here...

www.jaxa.jp...

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh


mikesingh, certainly a great find by you, and a coup for bringing this AXA info to ATS!!!

However, lest we jump to premature conclusions....please placate a layman and armchair 'astronomer' as to why, exactly, we should be excited by a few 'gravitational anomalies'. (edit, sp X2)

I'll offer a scenario, for you to consider, and possibly reject as not relevant:

Let's assume the Earth is barren -- just the existing landmasses, and oceans, no life. A visiting ET probe, while examining the planet, notices incredible 'gravitational anomalies'....such as Mt. Everest and Mt. Kilimanjaro, along with the 'lumpy-bumpiness' of the Earth's crust, especially under the oceans (I know, I know, there are NO oceans on the Moon...this is just an example...)

Here are my points: We, you and I, actually reside on the Earth. Fair to say?

Secondly, it would be no doubt correct to note that our understanding of Earth's gravitational field is thouroughly understood, by now;

Thirdly, prior to any 'manned' missions to the Moon, quite a few robotic missions were mounted, to gather information (data) to provide a knowledge base for future 'manned' flights;

Fourthly, once NASA's Apollo was implemented, there was a pretty well-defined consensus, not only at NASA, but also by the Soviets of the era, of how to navigate from the Earth, to the Moon, and back.

The USA has done it -- The USSR did it -- Now, China and Japan are doing it. The last three, admittedly, have only sent robotic probes....well, all FOUR have done robots, to be precise. China is likely to follow the USA with the next manned mission to the Moon, and won't that be interesting???

[edit on 12/3/0808 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 12/3/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


The statement you have made here, is yet to be proven.

"Secondly, it would be no doubt correct to note that our understanding of Earth's gravitational field is thouroughly understood, by now;"


Humankind can't even understand the behaviour of transport so called, from other than the earth!

If humans understood Gravity we would Not be using the design of craft we use today most of which is primitive technology!
(recent technology from the 1960's and 1970's with a few upgrades... LOL.)

If humans understood Gravity they would Not fight against Gravity but rather use it to propel their craft.

Oops No Fire breathing monsters to belch fire or expanding gasses via chemical reactions to hurl a fragile load of Junk into the environment around the earth.

So is Gravity Understood????

Get real humans are at the bottom of the Intelligent department.

How many years do you think, it is going to take for humans to design a transport system, that will allow them to cross hundreds of Galaxies in just a few hours trip, as though an afternoons entertainment.

Come on, humankind is still playing with bones.....

But I am the eternal optimist, and know there are others, that have a direct influence in the education of humankind, but humans are a little slow at this stage, to say the least....

Still, this will change in time maybe in another 1,000 years time or so....LOL..



[edit on 6-12-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]

One name: Wernher von Braun.

He made some interesting comments during the Apollo space program that indicates the gravity of the Moon is stronger than 1/6, and is nearer 2/3 that of Earth. He's not a guy I'd associate with getting the wrong figures or otherwise being confused over a minor detail such as that.

Time Magazine:

"At a point 43,495 miles from the Moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant."
- Wernher von Braun (Time Magazine, July 25, 1969.)

[edit on 6-12-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
One name: Wernher von Braun.

He made some interesting comments during the Apollo space program that indicates the gravity of the Moon is stronger than 1/6, and is nearer 2/3 that of Earth. He's not a guy I'd associate with getting the wrong figures or otherwise being confused over a minor detail such as that.

Time Magazine:

"At a point 43,495 miles from the Moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal
to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant." - Wernher von Braun (Time Magazine, July 25, 1969.)

[edit on 6-12-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Another self-perpetuating falsehood. Dispite being shown false, nothing is done to correct it. Of course, John Lear doesn't seem to be one to let facts get in the way. Von Braun did not say that, Time magazine said it. It's also important to note the full context.

At a point 43,495 miles from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the earth, then some 200,000 miles distant. Beyond that crest, lunar gravity predominated, and Apollo was on the "downhill" leg of its journey.

www.time.com...

As is often the case, a mass consumption news source got the details half right. Apollo 11 was on the downhill leg but not just because of the moon's gravitational influence. It is not a simple two body calculation and it has virtually nothing to do with the "neutral point". There are actually four bodies involved; Earth, the Moon, the spacecraft, and the Sun. Add to the mix the motion of both the spacecraft and the moon and the calculation for the "top of the hill" becomes a very great deal more complex than a simplistic two (static) body calculation.

To clarify another matter, the data from Kaguya is not entirely new. It is far more detailed than previous but the gravitational anomalies Kaguya is studying have been known for a long time. These anomalies, while making lunar orbits "interesting" are slight, the total range (positive to negative) amounting to less than a .5% change from mean lunar gravity. So at the "heaviest" lunar gravity is 16.70% that of Earth and at the "lightest" it is 16.62%.

[edit on 12/6/2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


If there is, a so called "Neutral point", how come our seas are pulled up and down by the Moon in many cases more than a meter????

The Same goes with the Sun!

The Moon is firmly in the grip of the Earth's Gravity and also affected by the gravity of the Sun!

I do understand, you are talking about where the influence on our space junk, at a point of equilibrium but this is on The Craft and occupants only!

But I would love to know, more about the Moons orbit, being influenced by the Sun, after all the sun also causes tidal affects on the Earth's seas.

There is another problem, that is to do with the Output, from the moon buggies electric Motors.

Check out the Specifications in NASSA, remembering it showed the buggy in deep soft moon dust at times.

I doubt very much these motors produced enough power to power the buggy in these conditions.

Also what is the affect on batteries operating in near Zero pressure conditions.

How does sand come to be on the moon?

I was of the understanding "erosion" usually by the seas, was the action behind the formation of sand!

We haven't found impacts from large meteors on the earth, producing huge tonnage of sand why?

Another thing is we are told that the moons gravitational field is too weak to attract an atmosphere or retain one.

Yet it has such an influence as to lift (Pull) all of our seas by more than one meter in height (Tidal Effects) ????

I understand Centripetal f = mv sq. / r

Or mass times velocity squared, divided by radius.

So gravity is directly related to this, if a lump of mater is kept in orbit by gravity????

Or am I missing something here ???




[edit on 6-12-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

You're sort of all over the place. You have some things right but you have missed some as well.

Erosion can be caused by many different things. On Earth, sand is not only caused by the erosion by the sea. It is also caused by wind and rivers. As as interesting note, sand is also created by fish feeding on coral. Of course none of these things happen on the moon. Moondust is nothing like any earthly sand. It is created by micrometeorite impacts. Since there in no atmosphere on the moon, very small meteors are able to strike the surface. When they do, they smash the rocks they hit and create moon dust. The larger grained stuff (sand) is formed by impacts of larger meteors as well as other processes including the effects of the solar wind. The main reason we don't see large amounts of sand (but in fact, we often do) around earthly impact areas is because of the other erosional processes which do occur on Earth (wind and rain).

Your questions about gravity are good ones but you mix things up in a way that complicates it. First, because the Earth and the Moon are, in a sense, orbiting each other, the orbit of both around the sun is affected. There is a good explanation of this to be found here: library.thinkquest.org...

Tides are a very interesting thing. They have to do with the gravitational gradient, not the strength of the gravity. As you know, gravitational attraction varies with the square of the distance, so the further something is from the moon, the less attraction there will be. Try thinking of it this way: The water on the side of the Earth closest to the moon gets pulled with x force. The center of the Earth, being further from the moon gets pulled by less force, call it y. The water on the far side of Earth gets pulled with still less force, call it z. So x pulls the water strongest, creating a bulge in the water on the near side of earth. y pulls the Earth less strong but stronger than z creating a bulge in the water on the far side of the earth. The sun, being much farther away, has a much smaller gravity gradient. It does affect the tides but not nearly as much as the moon does. The actual height of the tide at any location on Earth is determined more by the shape of the shoreline and the bottom of the sea than the actual pull of the Moon. Some places have tide changes of a few feet, while other have changes of ten times that. Also, tides do not just affect the seas. The atmosphere, mountains, and everything else on the surface are affected.

As to why the moon can affect the tides but not hold its own atmosphere. As I explained, tides have less to do with the strength of the gravity as the distance between the masses.

Your questions about the moon rovers are moot. The engineers had a pretty good idea of what to expect and designed the machines so that they would function under lunar conditions.

[edit on 12/6/2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Yes I would tend to agree with what you have said, but check out the electric motor specifications Gearing and so forth in the moon buggy you may be surprised when you do the maths..

In one of our business activities, we design and are shortly manufacturing Electric Quad Bikes and small passenger cars...

So I would like to know your thoughts on the Moon buggy performance, taking into account what you know of the conditions on the moon.

One of the pieces of film on the buggy shows a huge amount of sand or dust being thrown around as it makes a turn.

We require to use 8,000 Watts in our engine output ( 4 x 2,000 Watt brushless Electric Motors), see how many watts is produced by each of the Moon buggies motors (4) and its gearing about 80:1 I think it was. Engine speed is up to 10,000 rpm...

I am Not sure of the weight though including instrumentation and personal.

Thanks for the other information you have a very good point but I still wonder about the possibility of any Atmosphere, I understand there has been Seismic testing done.

I can't remember where I saw this as it was many years ago but I remember some mention of natural vents releasing gasses due to Seismic activity on the moon either in the past or present.

Do you know anything about this???

I look forward to your comments!



[edit on 6-12-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


I'm not an engineer so I don't think I could do much with the specs. I'll have to accept what you say. But do consider that; a) the lower gravity on the moon makes the buggy lighter on the Moon, b) the "tire" design is very different than earthly tires, c) The physical characteristics of lunar soil are (reported to be) quite different from those on Earth, and d) the reduced gravity would cause more dust to rise higher than with the same amount of applied force as a tire on Earth.

While it is said that there is no atmosphere on the moon, what is really meant is that the lunar atmosphere is very thin (0.00000000001% that of Earth www.tsgc.utexas.edu...). There is speculation about "outgassing" on the moon being one source of that "atmosphere". The low gravity as well as the solar wind prevent it from building to the level of a true atmosphere.

[edit on 12/6/2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Thanks for that if I get a few spare moments I will have another look at NASSA's information on the buggy again.

I hope I can provide info on this, some time in the future, but I think the power output was less than 200 Watts total ie 50 watts per wheel. Under 0.08 of one Hp per wheel. or a total of about 1/3 of a Hp???

But to be exact I will need to check this again so please don't quote me as I may be wrong on this...

I will also check the tyres out as normally you would Not use a tyre with a course tread as it would dig its self into a hole if on sand, no matter on what the gravity is.

I saw back on this thread about inflated tyres so I will check this out also and if it is he case I will see if the inflated pressures are mentioned as well.

Just looking for the Truth!

All things considered I don't know what to think about it all but going to the moon using the microprocessors then Motorola 1802 or 1805 (Later) (Military Spec.) I really wonder.

Hell have you ever programmed an 1802 using machine code???

It is slower than A Snail... LOL..

The only place fit for it is in a museum.

In my junk, left over from early days of manufacture, I still have a couple of thousand 1802's thrown in a corner somewhere.. LOL

Things are a little different today even the 68HC 11 is still used but even that is still very slow on A/D and D/A access and resolution is still low.

There are much faster A/D's now but in real time access are still considered very slow.

Not sure how they radio controlled the Mars mobile considering the delay in Transmission and Reception times. I doubt it is realistic way or a practical of doing things.

I really think being realistic they would need AI, to handle the situation and be stationed on Mars perhaps on the Mars mobile.

Any thoughts on this?