370 Moon Anomalies Photos

Originally posted by JPhish

there's something inside of that crater, and it appears to be taller than the crater is deep.

Very impressive collection. Some of these are very interesting.

[edit on 9/22/2009 by JPhish]

The centers of craters often have mountains that were "uplifted" due to the rebound of the soil immediately after the impact that created the crater. The central uplifted peaks of these craters can be as high, and higher, that the crater walls (see Herschel Crater on Saturn's Moon Mimas).

Here's an article describing central peak uplift of complex craters:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Here is a slow-motion video of a water droplet that illustrates how the center of the crater can "rebound", creating uplifted mountain peaks (such the water rebounding after the drop hits the surface):


The water in the video goes back to "level" because it remains a fluid after the impact. However, in the case of a crater, the energy of the impact causes the soil to originally act as a fluid, but it quickly changes back to acting like a solid, thus the uplifted central mountain remains.


...as for the picture you posted:

The sunlight is coming from the upper right corner of the picture (look at the shadows cast buy the rims of the smaller craters -- the shadows are all in the "2 o'clock" position of the crater (in the "7 o'clock" position relative to the crater wall casting the shadow.

That means that the big shadow you see to the right of the mountain in that large crater is actually being cast by the crater wall to the right of the mountain -- and not the mountain itself. any shadow cast by the structure in the center of the crater would be cast toward the "7 o'clock" position of the structure. The fact that the geological structure in the center casts no shadow makes me think it isn't very high at all.

[edit on 9/22/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

great pictures...there are thousands of moon and mars pictures to sort through...i am glad someone is looking at them..check out www.worldufophotos.org they have a section on the moon and over 300 ufo pics...

reply to post by quackers


If your not so impressed... Please do better.

thanks...... great stuff...... very much appreciated....

S&F

I lot of these photos look like natural formations but some are VERY questionable to me
Makes you wonder who or what has been up there if they arnt natural

Very cool pics!!

Here is a factoid that should bring some interest: The moon has many craters, obviously made in most cases by meteorites and such impacting the surface. BUT, the DEPTH of the craters remains shallow, and the largest craters, which should be far deeper than small ones, are NO deeper! The moon is armored, with a shell that is virtually impenetrable, that lies under the rock layer. If you look at the pictures and reports of depth, you find that there are no very deep ones, and virtually all are the same depth.

How else to explain the fact that even huge craters are no deeper than the small ones? The force of a large impacting rock would tend to create a very deep craterm but no matter how big, on the moon they are never deeper than the small ones.

I believe that the moon is a construct; I cannot say if a natural object was taken and hollowed out and turned into a ship of sorts, or if it was engioneered from scratch. We know that the moon is mostly hollow, and likley placed in its orbit. The odds of acheiving the moons orbit by coincidence are beyond crazy. Too many anomalies are a part of the moon to swallow the NASA lies anymore,

The evidence on the moon is obvious, and the government is as always trying to deceive. The moon is far more than science will admit.

Originally posted by richierichHow else to explain the fact that even huge craters are no deeper than the small ones? The force of a large impacting rock would tend to create a very deep craterm but no matter how big, on the moon they are never deeper than the small ones.

The "official" explanation is that a bigger impact releases so much energy that it melts the meteor and the place where it hit, so that's why bigger craters have a shallow and flat surface.

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow

...Why would one side of the Moon have lots more craters...

Because the moon is tidally locked to the Earth and one side is always facing the Earth and one side is always facing the incoming meteors.

It stands to reason that the DSOTM is going to get hit more often.

reply to post by quackers

hey quacler you're wacky....mainly when we see any line or strait anomaly

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by richierichHow else to explain the fact that even huge craters are no deeper than the small ones? The force of a large impacting rock would tend to create a very deep craterm but no matter how big, on the moon they are never deeper than the small ones.

The "official" explanation is that a bigger impact releases so much energy that it melts the meteor and the place where it hit, so that's why bigger craters have a shallow and flat surface.

I hope you and others will not swallow that nonsense. The release of energy from a large object does NOT abate just because it is bigger!! Amazing what silly foolishness the NASA drones will spew.

Think about it: In every case studied, the impact crater from a large object is MUCH deeper than with a small one. To believe that a large one could do the same damage as a small one is beyond insane.

Meteors do not MELT because they impact an object. They impact and explode...otherwise we would see the results of millions of melted asteroids all over the place, yet we see none.

It is akin to saying that one stick of dynamite placed on the ground would leave a crater the same size as 100 sticks...and that is crazy. try it sometime. The larger the impact and force, the deeper the hole. To think that a large asteroid would MELT upon impact and cause no more damage than a small one is not even worthy of consideration.

Look at Meteor Crater out west in the USA...why is it so deep? According to your answer, it should be no deeper than s amll one that was impacted by a much smaller object, right? Well, it is not!!

The ONLY explanation that makes any sense is this: There is a layer on the moons surface that goes the same depth all the way around the moon. No matter how much of a force blasts the surface, whether it be a gigantic object or a tiny one, the depth remains the same. If this were not true, we would see the largest craters MUCH deeper thqan the smaller ones...yet what we see, and is fact, is that at a certain depth, the moon becomes virtually impenetrable.

The excuse given by the coverup artists cannot be verified with science or the evidence. To imagine that a huge object would cause no more damage than a small one defies logic.

Why should the earth worry about getting hit by a large asteroid? If you are correct, there would be no big deal because the larger object would ' melt' instead of blasting a hole in the earth..right? If bigger objects have the same destructive force as a small one, then we would be silly to worry about being struck, would'nt we?

Please give some source...some science, that shows that s large object impacting at high speed causes no more damage, depth wise, than a small one. It cannot be found, as it goes against all physics.

If the people who believe this nonsense had to exxplain why and show proof, they would slink away muttering...because it is IMPOSSIBLE for a large object traveling at high speed to do no more damage than a small one....UNLESS there is an armored layer that cannot be penetrated.

THAT explains it perfectly: No matter how wide the crater, no matter how big the object hitting it, the depth remains constant. That CANNOT be explained away by saying that the larger object ' melts' upon impact...unreal. WHAT would make it melt? And how could it melt before it had a chance to dig a hole from impact?

If you dropped a bowling ball from an airplane, and right next to it you dropped a ball bearing one inch across, which is going to be found deeper? The bowling ball, of course. It contained enough latent energy to displace more dirt than a ball bearing weighing much less.

The moon is an armored construct. It has a layer several miles deep of outer rock and sand and such...but beneath it is an impenetrable layer made of armor...that could withstand a trip thru the solar system, at least, and withstand bombardment from countless small and large objects hitting it...and was placed into its present orbit intentionally.

There are more factors of evidence to support what I just said than there is all the nonsense we have been told by the liars and coverup artists at NASA.

The next time someone tells you that small objects do as much damage as large ones, tell them that there is no evidence for that theory, and that such has never been observed in all of history...it goes against all that is known about physics.

Originally posted by richierich
I hope you and others will not swallow that nonsense. The release of energy from a large object does NOT abate just because it is bigger!! Amazing what silly foolishness the NASA drones will spew.

I don't understand why you say that, I didn't said that the release of energy is smaller and I don't understand why did you interpreted that way.

Look at Meteor Crater out west in the USA...why is it so deep? According to your answer, it should be no deeper than s amll one that was impacted by a much smaller object, right? Well, it is not!!

No, according to my answer the impact did not release enough energy to melt the meteor and the area that was hit by the meteor.

The ONLY explanation that makes any sense is this: There is a layer on the moons surface that goes the same depth all the way around the moon.

If that's the case then it means that what we see inside the large, flat-surface Moon craters is that "protective layer"?

The next time someone tells you that small objects do as much damage as large ones, tell them that there is no evidence for that theory, and that such has never been observed in all of history...it goes against all that is known about physics.

Nobody told me that, that's just your perception of what I wrote.

And, as far as I know, there's no evidence that the Moon is artificial with several protective layers.

reply to post by richierich


Great post. I thinnk ArMap is slowly coming round to the idea zee Moon is not what 'they' say it is (which is a beautiful thing). At 1st I thought he was just another skeptic - and he is, but a fair one. His science has taught me (and others much!) - and people that have a dominant left brain such as he, will find it very very hard to come round to the ideas, you and I not only feel are true but everyday calcify more and more to realization "wow the Moon really is an artificial satellite"...

And aren't you glad, more and more people ARE waking to this ...well... 'fact'? I know I am!

What's strange about all this stuff is - even I have a hard time digesting and dealing what I unveil at times. I mean this goes against EVERYTHING we have been taught to believe about such things.

It's only recently I am beginning to appreciate people like ArMap for their dedication to explaining these things from an entirely 'logical' point of view, because they CAN help with their reasoning - even to the extent to make the case for the Moon being not what it is by their own facts , they bring to the table.

So again, it's not about anyone proving anything to anyone anymore. It just isn't. It is about each of us coming to terms with our own truths, and not forcing ours upon others. The madder the opponent the more love you send their way. (not that ArMap is mad by any means - which makes him great to listen to!)

*and ArMap i really miss the big 3 and yourself in some of those epic threads from only a few years ago...I know mike posts on Icke every now and then, but no z and i is gone now.... *sigh* ... them were the days!

peace!

You cannot force truth on anyone...and I would never try. All I ask is that people do not dismiss the facts and imagine silly nonsense just to be obstinate, and there are many posters here on ATS that thrive on being able to distract and dissuade others from realizing the truth...we all know their names..they show up and denounce everything that they cannot deny and throw strawman arguments around just to muddy the waters.

Of course not all people are that way...and I am sure the guy you mention is OK...but remember that there are people here that will work hard to distract...so we must be on guard to get the truth out there and not allow these shills to disrupt things.

The moon craters are all the same depth...there is NO evidence that asteroids ' melt' upon impact, especially on a moon where the atmosphere is almost nil..heat makes it melt, and without atmosphere melting is almost impossible. Impact craters SHOULD be varying depths..as they are on the earth and elsewhere...but on the moon they are all NO DEEPER than the next, and that proves an armored shell.

Where is the science behind the silly thought that bigger asteroids melt rather than damage? Where is it? It does not exist. That means that I am likley correct, and should be assumed so until proven otherwise.

Originally posted by richierich
The moon craters are all the same depth...

Really? Where did you get that idea?

Copernicus crater is 3.8 km deep and 107 km wide.
Clavius is 3.5 km deep and 225 km wide.
Euler is 2.2 km deep and 28 km wide.
Aldrin is 0.6 km deep and 3.4 km wide.
Hall is 1.1 km deep and 35 km wide.
Herschel is 3.8 km deep and 41 km wide.

From the above list you can see that some larger craters are not as deep as smaller craters, the deepest from that list are 107 and 41 km wide, for example.

there is NO evidence that asteroids 'melt' upon impact, especially on a moon where the atmosphere is almost nil..heat makes it melt, and without atmosphere melting is almost impossible.

I don't know if there is evidence of melted material from what created the crater in any case, but I know that in an impact, any impact, there's a transference of energy, the energy of the high speed object that impacts the Moon (in this case) has to go somewhere, and considering that there is no air that energy is not reduced during the fall and there is no acoustic energy, so what's left is mostly thermal energy, that, when strong enough, will melt the object and the Moon on the impact area.

And I don't understand why you say that without atmosphere melting is almost impossible, the atmosphere doesn't affect the melting point of the materials (as far as I know).

Where is the science behind the silly thought that bigger asteroids melt rather than damage? Where is it? It does not exist. That means that I am likley correct, and should be assumed so until proven otherwise.

It's not a question of size, it's a question of energy. A smaller meteor can have more energy than a bigger, slower meteor.

The fact that you don't know about the science behind the effects of an impact doesn't mean it does not exist.

Man i feel spoilt looking at these.. VERY NICE!

Wow ..... I just don't see what you people seem to see all the time.

Let me preface this by saying, I for one believe most (if not all) planets/moons are inhabited. That's just my deep belief but what you people keep pointing out (Hoagland too) lacks clarity due to the mere distance of the camera and is subjective at best.

It's like an old ink-blotter test. People see what they will (or what's suggested) but it's not necessarily a 'given'.


I need to see a bonafide structure with either: windows, steps, doors, fences, towers, wires, a vehicle, a bush, a bird-feeder, children playing on the swings or at minimum an undisputed monument. Like the Sphinx or Giza.
And although I believe the "Face on Mars" is not natural it's still not good enough to put up an argument for. I don't want to see anymore matrix-like blimps of abstract blobs that have people claiming 'anomolies'. They're friggin 'things'. That's all they are.

C'mon folks. I know we mostly all agree there's something up there (and on Mars) but let's not get desperate. It only serves to help the debunker camps and we don't need to hear them chimin' in.

[[[[[Next please................]]]]]]

HUllo: I'm researcher-aviation-aerospace history. Several photos were located form two Aero-firms archives. Some were quality enough to observe objects that are not natural features. I also stumbled upon one aviation firm's work observing and recording heat emanating from craters and the lunar surface and made hard copies.

will share the method of preparing one's mind to observe lunar anomalies.
From long-time observation of the lunar phtos in hand I developed a method whereby he/she mentally prepares to slowly scan the whole photograph; it usually yields something very interesting and unusual. I do need to trade either info, scanned photos, and the aero-firm's results of the heat scans done of the lunar surface. Anybody want to trade for some reasonable quality dpi images that will make a good 8x10 is what I need.

It is by this method that I discover items not easily seen because they are indeed, somewhat camoflaged-although it appears our robotic Sats have recorded on film the mining activity and machinery working the surface.
That's it and End.

reply to post by psidavid


I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by all that.

Could you please rephrase that?

reply to post by psidavid


Appreciate what you are offering, but it's about the information, and about free source. This should be the new norm...

So upload some of your images dude!

Thanks!

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


Moon itself is a mysterious obect and today in various lunar exploration we can see there are hundered of photographs showing unusual things or artifacts like giant towers, building shaped object etc.

Here there are few links :

1) Lunar Towers lunar-anomalies.blogspot.com... ,
2) Mare Moscoviense and Komarov Crater lunar-anomalies.blogspot.com...,
3) Belyaev Crater -A " V " Shaped Structure lunar-anomalies.blogspot.com...,