Alien Domes On The Moon? Let’s Set The Controversy to Rest!

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow

Originally posted by zorgon

Couple more for you....

Wooah nelly! That's just incredible evidence (again). I'm blown away dude. This stuff is so clear to me now...I am stunned that up until a year ago I knew NOTHING of this kind of info. Please hurry up with that book of yours!

wZn

just don't consider this remark too much, i even didn't know what bolded phrase means, just i hope that not just writing books is the reason of "arguments" here.



Now regarding those 2 different photos taken from Apollo astronauts, with "structures" or "domes"..

I said before they are lens flares, and uniformities variations in the blacks (whites) in the film (so called signal/noise factor), greated amplified by the photoshoping brightening-gamma-contrasting steps.

Regarding lens flares. Somebody can se that the light of the sun came from right, NOT perpendicular to the camera direction, but at some angle. From the picture of the Hasselblad camera, you see is clear how easy the sunlight can hit the front piece of glass (that picture is exacly in the sun perspective position from Apollo pictures good for me )



Now, in Apollo "pictures, there are 2 different photos taken from different positions on the moon, but aimed in the same direction (north is said).
What i do, is to overlap the two pictures, using as reference landmark the very distant valley on the horizon, the yellow adnotated line here:




And here is the result of overlaying:


It can be seen that it is some difference of the shooting position (the foreground is changed a lot), but the aimed direction of the camera (and so the angle relative to the sun) is almost the same.

Now, those 2 upper patches of light, are the "evidence" of a hell of the "glass dome"... a big distant one, maybe sustained with antigravity or quantum physics (anything is possible ) for not crashing in it's own weight...

Or are just LENS FLARES, appearing the same, because the angle position of the camera is the same relative to sun.
I think the "lens flare" explication MUST be eliminated by folks only because is too ... trivial ?






[edit on 2/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 2/1/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
I think you have exposed some of the background of the soundstage this shot was taken on. I think it is far more simple than people would like it to be. Haoxing the moon landing is a 'crazy' idea, and yet alien domes on the moon and floating random shapes makes plenty of sense to me.

Come on man, let it go. A sound stage?? Are you serious? You mean there are people out there who still don't believe we ever landed on the moon? Come on guys...so I guess the Apollo launches were hoaxes too...they were all unmanned space flights, right?

If you are really having a problem with it, think about this - Hollywood has never, EVER been able to recreate the look and feel of a Zero G environment. Even with all the special effects, even today, it's an extremely difficult task. To state it clearly, Hollywood COULDN'T have created this event in a sound stage. They could've fooled people with the look but there's no way they could recreate the change in gravity and how that would affect the movement of the astronauts, the dust, footprints, etc.

We landed on the moon. But why haven't we been back?

After about 30 minutes of staring at lunar images, I managed to track down this specific crater.

The Living Moon site of course doesnt say where the crater is, but its located within Mare Orientale (the big dark impact zone bordering the near and far side).

Here is another picture of it I snagged:



(full version at www.lpi.usra.edu... in the h2 image on the right side)

See the glass biosphere? I dont

[edit on 2-1-2009 by merka]

Yes, it's Kopff crater (17.4° S, 89.6° W):





/9rbkjq
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Originally posted by merka
After about 30 minutes of staring at lunar images, I managed to track down this specific crater.

The Living Moon site of course doesnt say where the crater is, but its located within Mare Orientale (the big dark impact zone bordering the near and far side).

Here is another picture of it I snagged:


See the glass biosphere? I dont

[edit on 2-1-2009 by merka]

Now look how the "dome" succumb! Good finding.

About that "dome glass reflection" whick make us pareidolizing and construct SF stories...

I may propose myself that it may be a lens flare inside the Clementine Lens. I mean, look at it's shape, it's a heptagon. Maybe the iris system of the LENS used in Clementine probe, was one with 7 blades? (many of photo cameras, including mine, has iris with 6 blades, so hexagon). That will also explain the halo surrounding the reflexion.


Anyway, look how rectangles are not quite rectangles, "domes" are craters, glass structures are artefacts and the "evidence" is only a pareidolia speculated story (a cool one)
Now flood us with another "clear as day" "evidences".




[edit on 2/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 2/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 2/1/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by merka
See the glass biosphere? I dont

C'mon man! Didn't you know it's been air-brushed by NASA (Our favorite whipping boy)??

I mean, well...what do we know?

But try debunking this one...



Cheers!

(Link in my signature)

[edit on 2-1-2009 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by merka
See the glass biosphere? I dont

C'mon man! Didn't you know it's been air-brushed by NASA (Our favorite whipping boy)??

I mean, well...what do we know?

But try debunking this one...

Cheers!

(Link in my signature)

[edit on 2-1-2009 by mikesingh]

Do I even need to debunk it? Its the crater Aristarchos, with Herodotus seen below and the Vallis Shröteri formation as worm like formation next to it.

Easy find thanks to Internos picture with the named craters

Aristarchos crater on wikipedia



[edit on 2-1-2009 by merka]

reply to post by merka


Now, i believe I have an explanation....but i am curious to see if you do....

Why does Aristarchus glow? It glows bright blue, and its intensity varies. Sometimes it is bright blue, sometimes it just looks like a regular crater without any glow at all.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Now, i believe I have an explanation....but i am curious to see if you do....

Why does Aristarchus glow? It glows bright blue, and its intensity varies. Sometimes it is bright blue, sometimes it just looks like a regular crater without any glow at all.

I really dont know the scientific explanation as to why the moon glows, only the simple answer that the lunar soil is reflective (and the reason this one in particular glows blueish might be due to its composition)... You only need to look up into the sky, especially during a full moon. It can be strikingly bright!

Someone else can no doubt fill half a page with the explanation why, or if you know it yourself

[edit on 2-1-2009 by merka]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by merka

 

Now, i believe I have an explanation....but i am curious to see if you do....

Why does Aristarchus glow? It glows bright blue, and its intensity varies. Sometimes it is bright blue, sometimes it just looks like a regular crater without any glow at all.

Aristarchus "is considered the brightest of the large formations on the lunar surface, with an albedo nearly double that of most lunar features. The feature is bright enough to be visible to the naked eye, and is dazzling in a large telescope."


The main reason for the crater's brightness is that it is a young formation, approximately 450 million years old, and the solar wind has not yet had time to darken the excavated material by the process of space weathering. The impact occurred following the creation of the ray crater Copernicus, but before the appearance of Tycho.

The brightest feature of this crater is the steep central peak. Sections of the interior floor appear relatively level, but Lunar Orbiter photographs reveal the surface is covered in many small hills, streaky gouges, and some minor fractures. The crater has a terraced outer wall, roughly or polygonal in shape, and covered in a bright blanket of ejecta. These spreads out into bright rays to the south and south-east, suggesting that Aristarchus was most likely formed by an oblique impact from the northeast, and their composition includes material from both the Aristarchus plateau and the lunar mare.[2]


Source: en.wikipedia.org...(crater)


About the blue colour... I thing is blue only because the colours are enhaced especcialy to see differences in colour, so to detect different material. I think that photo is not natural, but instead is the enhanced (therefore false) scientific version.

The amateur version of enhancing colors is this:
www.atalaia.org...

So, not a dome or nuclear plant or whatever. Just misleading in my opinion from the folks of thelivingmoon.

[edit on 2/1/09 by depthoffield]

No way man, that is a nuclear reactor according to John Lear. They need a reactor to process the materials that they mine at the mines on the moon. But the moon is also a spaceship according to him. So I guess they're mining a spaceship?

reply to post by zorgon


So you're telling me that this is a glass biosphere protecting absolutely nothing, and that even though the glass is not broken, whatever was inside there isn't there anymore. (Buildings/structures/etc.)

Yeah right.

Not to thinking at how any big structure could resist to micro or meteor bombanding... (you see how cratered is the surface), and even how when earth travesing meteor showers, there are big oportunities for astonomers to actually SEE explosions made by meteors hitting the moon! ( science.nasa.gov... )

Originally posted by depthoffield
About the blue colour... I thing is blue only because the colours are enhaced especcialy to see differences in colour, so to detect different material. I think that photo is not natural, but instead is the enhanced (therefore false) scientific version.

The amateur version of enhancing colors is this:
www.atalaia.org...

So, not a dome or nuclear plant or whatever. Just misleading in my opinion from the folks of thelivingmoon.

Yeah, the crater is nice and bright, and there may be some blue reflectivity due to a higher nitrogen content in the Moon dirt it landed it. This photo also shows some interesting stratigraphy, due either to meteor impact ejecta or lava coverage. It also shows that some of the crater wall has vertical features, maybe as a result of an encounter with different density material.

I don't see any domes, though. Oh, and a NASA cover-up? Nope. This one was taken from a telescope here on earth:



P.S. -- That being said, with all your focus on the crater Aristarchus, all you anomalist types are missing the bigger picture. Namely, this one from a Russian source (with the colors very oversaturated):



Please don't make us debunkers do all the heavy lifting for you.


[edit on 2-1-2009 by Nohup]

reply to post by Nohup


I pointed out the square part around Aristarchus a couple of pages back, but thanks for refocusing on it.

So...what, in nature, would cause a square shaped area to form like that?

Why is Aristarchus unlike any other crater up there?

If Aristarchus was formed BEFORE Copernicus, then why does Copernicus not glow? For that matter, why does the "glow" of Aristarchus change at what seems to be random intervals?

BTW, that image from thelivingmoon.com is taken from a ground based telescope. I believe it is a 10", but i would have to check to be certain. There is no tinkering with it that i know of, and it is presented exactly as it was taken. Zorgon could provide further details on it, as he was in contact with the amateur astronomer who took the image.

I would like to point out that those "livingmoon" folks would include myself. In the interest of honest discourse, not only should you know this, but perhaps a little less vitriol could be used when referring to "us"?

reply to post by depthoffield


How do we know that was a meteor? did we observe the rocky body approach the moon?

Could it not be just some random explosion?

I know it seems silly...but the assumption that it is a meteor may be taking to much liberty (Occams Razor notwithstanding).

Without further information, it would seem that this could be filed under the TLP heading.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by Nohup

P.S. -- That being said, with all your focus on the crater Aristarchus, all you anomalist types are missing the bigger picture. Namely, this one from a Russian source (with the colors very oversaturated):

I think some pareidolia is mixed too...
From this image:

it doesn't appear to me very square.
This image is taken of course from that "do it yourself" page: www.atalaia.org...

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
So...what, in nature, would cause a square shaped area to form like that?
Why is Aristarchus unlike any other crater up there?

Maybe .. nature hazard?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
If Aristarchus was formed BEFORE Copernicus, then why does Copernicus not glow?

Maybe the meteors producing them did not hit geological layers with the same composition?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
For that matter, why does the "glow" of Aristarchus change at what seems to be random intervals?

Maybe because of "Transient lunar phenomenon":
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

How do we know that was a meteor? did we observe the rocky body approach the moon?

Could it not be just some random explosion?

I know it seems silly...but the assumption that it is a meteor may be taking to much liberty (Occams Razor notwithstanding).

Without further information, it would seem that this could be filed under the TLP heading.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]

I read a time ago about this meteor explosions, and i've found one study when for a longer time (days or months i don't remember) the moon was observed for those explosions. And during meteors showers, it was observed a good increase in those explosions. I don't remember that link.

Seeing "roccky body" aproachimg to the moon? Now this is a little hillarious. To see rocks about maybe meters or small in size, traveling with those X0000 km/h or so.. i remember that the space survey for potentialy hazardous asteriods is able to pinpoint now only a fraction of those dangerous rocks, but bigger than a few tens of meters or so.
See here www.spaceweather.com... in the bottom of the page, how a 35 m rock is about 19 magnitude. How to observe those CENTIMETER high velocity rocks?

Taking into account the duration of the flash and its brightness (7th magnitude), Cooke was able to estimate the energy of impact, the dimensions of the crater, and the size and speed of the meteoroid. "It was a space rock about 10 inches (25 cm) wide traveling 85,000 mph (38 km/s)," he says.

Of course, exlosions of meteors hitting the moon surface is one of an Achile heel about the Moon with atmosphere story.

reply to post by depthoffield


So then...what of the craters immediately surrounding Aristarchus? Why do they not "glow"?

As well, it looks pretty darned square to me. Perfect? No...but remarkable nonetheless.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by merka
The Living Moon site of course doesnt say where the crater is, but its located within Mare Orientale (the big dark impact zone bordering the near and far side).

what do you mean of course All our images are clearly labeled as to source with an original link...

I just didn't post the page link along with the image this time... as we have covered this so many times before

Here is the original thread when Pegasus released the info on the color Clementine images after the USGS map-a-planet version was released in Oct 2006 at the LPI Roundtable conference

Revealed for the First Time Color Images of the Moon from Clementine Satellite
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The files below where stored at Northwestern U until Mark Robinson of the LROC team moved to Arizona state and transfered all his data.. you can download the large color tiffs here as wll as the 1-2 gigabyte .cub files that so far no one has been able to open... though ArMaP is close

ser.sese.asu.edu...

And here is the page covering the "Glass Biosphere"http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/41Group_Lunar_FYEO/02files/FYEO_Lunar_08.html


So I ask you again what are you implying with your snide of course?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
So then...what of the craters immediately surrounding Aristarchus? Why do they not "glow"?

Maybe the meteoroid who made Aristarchus was at different size, or composition, density, and hit through deeper layers of the moon? Maybe tha age differ? Maybe he just hit a diferent compositional pack (purse) in the moon shell? Maybe all sort of geological natural processes have a complex word to say? Are we geologists?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
As well, it looks pretty darned square to me. Perfect? No...but remarkable nonetheless.
[edit on 2-1-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Now this is pareidolia. Seeing thinks.
It can be seen that the bottom left corner of the "square" is where Aristarchus is, and the angle of hitting the surface (see again wikipedia) determined how the ejecta is sprayed preferential. Anyway, let's follow the assumption, and put there the bottom-left corner of the "square".


But...where is that square?


I don't think the "square" is somethink so very unusual to post about it here anymore. Again, maybe is a goog think to became geologists ourselves with experience too.

[edit on 3/1/09 by depthoffield]