ET structure on Moon

reply to post by Kashai


I won't quit my day job, thanks for the advice.

I'm sorry Kashai I have no reference to know what a nuclear explosion on the lunar surface would look like.
I guess you do.

Even if a nuclear explosion in vacuum did look like that, it's still not what is being shown to be happening in the image. I believe its a static discharge within the camera

Originally posted by Nomad451
reply to post by Kashai

 

I won't quit my day job, thanks for the advice.

I'm sorry Kashai I have no reference to know what a nuclear explosion on the lunar surface would look like.
I guess you do.

Even if a nuclear explosion in vacuum did look like that, it's still not what is being shown to be happening in the image. I believe its a static discharge within the camera

edit on 13-7-2013 by Nomad451 because: (no reason given)

Have you ever heard of an Electro-magnetic pulse?

Actually I also would never quite my day job at present

It is really cool

I mean honestly another potential argument is that it is a wormhole.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Heres a link to a vid of nukes being detonated in space for you guys looking for reference -

www.youtube.com...

I think the guys talking bout camera artifacts have it right though!

chuckles

For the record a lack of atmosphere would result in less displacement due to the effect of the atmosphere having to be displaced, due to a nuclear explosion. The effect upon lunar dust would be lessened given there was no molecules from an atmosphere impacting upon the lunar surface.

The effect of detonating a nuclear bomb on the surface of the moon would displace perhaps anywhere between 20 to 45 percent the amount of dust as a result of the same effect upon earth.

Also due to the lack of atmosphere the effect of dust would also be much slower due to what is expressed above. Again this is because of the lack of the lack of atmosphere.

Just think of an explosion underwater
compared to that in the upper atmosphere of Earth .

And then compare with respect to the conditions on the surface of the moon.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by AbdulAlhazred
reply to post by Kashai

 

Heres a link to a vid of nukes being detonated in space for you guys looking for reference -

www.youtube.com...

I think the guys talking bout camera artifacts have it right though!

chuckles

I have no problem with the idea this is a camera artifact though no real examples are offered that can compare to this image.

So far nothing has been offered.

Now in relation to the imagery you have offered this is interesting. Except that this event seemed to occur on the lunar surface.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai



I have no problem with the idea this is a camera artifact though no real examples are offered that can compare to this image.

So far nothing has been offered.

edit on 13-7-2013 by Kashai because: Modifed content

Electrically charged lunar dust near shadowed craters can get lofted above the surface and jump over the shadowed region, bouncing back and forth between sunlit areas on opposite sides

In the Op's image, the event is happening right by the line of shadow.

To our eyes, the moon has no apparent activity and seems dead. However, because it has almost no atmosphere, the moon is exposed to the solar wind, a thin stream of electrically conducting gas called plasma blown off the surface of the sun at around a million miles per hour.

Leaping Lunar Dust
(nasa site)

reply to post by mcx1942

"Calculating how these complications will affect the path of a dust particle on the moon and around asteroids are good areas for future research," says Collier. "Additionally, we're not sure how many particles get charged and move like this – is it something like one in a thousand, one in a million, or one in a billion? We'd like to do more studies to see how likely it is that a particle will behave this way. Since most of the lunar surface is covered in dust, even one in a billion would still be significant." The team is also planning on examining Apollo-era images to evaluate possible evidence for dust canopies over shadowed craters.

This does not satisfy the level of energy observed. If anything the potential of such an event being natural is easily dismissed and due to the obvious point, this event appears much more concentrated.

Originally posted by Kashai
What is laughable is your inability to support your data, it is obviously a nuclear explosion.

Where is the maths you claim to have, why not post it here.... unless you are just trolling!

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Kashai
What is laughable is your inability to support your data, it is obviously a nuclear explosion.

Where is the maths you claim to have, why not post it here.... unless you are just trolling!

I have clearly expressed myself sorry if its over your head.

Originally posted by Kashai
This does not satisfy the level of energy observed. If anything the potential of such an event being natural is easily dismissed and due to the obvious point, this event appears much more concentrated.

Yet, for some reason, a thermonuclear weapon being detonated seems like the correct answer?

Originally posted by Kashai
I will it say it again, there is no reason to believe this is not a thermo-nuclear weapon detonated on the moon by the United States. This in cooperation with every other country in the world that was really interested in seeing the effect of such an event. In so far as why the effect would be slower on the moon vs. earth that is irrelevant. The photograph could have very well be taken at the time of impact in which case yes this could be a nuclear bomb.

It's ok, we are all entitled to our opinions.

Cheers.

reply to post by mcx1942


No it seems like a plausible answer and given the technology of the time certainly not impossible.

If that flash was on or even near the surface it must emit invisible light, unlike lightning that would have lit up the surface.
It is obvious that this flash is nowhere near the moon, otherwise you would clearly see light reflecting and that crater would have been lit up like Christmas.

reply to post by flyingfish


Actually the phenomenon does appear to be illuminating aspects of the surface in relation to the curved area's apparent and looking like natural rock formations.

reply to post by Kashai


not a rocket scientist,but can EMP be filmed?Maybe with a radio telescope or something,but on film? I doubt it

Not even close, it is black as pitch behind the light and any illumination there is, perfectly coincides with sunlight.
But who knows, there could be a cloaked ship behind it somehow absorbing all the light like a black hole and yet somehow magically allowing light to make it to the camera lens. Anythings possible I suppose.

Originally posted by blkcwbyhat
reply to post by Kashai

 

not a rocket scientist,but can EMP be filmed?Maybe with a radio telescope or something,but on film? I doubt it

The energy generated by a nuclear explosion would be expressed in visible light. This image could have been taken a tenth of a second after impact.

In such a case this could very well be a nuclear explosion.

The apparent electro-magnetic appearance could be the result of an what an EMP can present in visible light. As well as the energy discharge of such an event in a lunar environment is simply consistent with what a nuclear bomb looks like.

reply to post by flyingfish


Actually looking at the image in 3d the curved areas behind the central ark could be reflections of the image at large, reflected on the surface. I actually would have actually have had much more fun had I insisted it was a wormhole. But supporting such a position would violate current laws of physics due to the amounts of energy in questions. With respect to energy it also makes no sense that this is the result of an event in nature that can be applied to lunar geology.

It's wonderful to look at these images and let your imagination take over as to what it could be !

Thanks for sharing OP

Originally posted by Kashai
I have clearly expressed myself

You claimed "The math actually works out"

So again, please show us the maths that you worked out. Unless.....

reply to post by hellobruce


Sure after you prove the lunar surface could actually generate such and event unless....

Again it is obvious your point is mute all one need consider is the gravity of the moon, the lack of atmosphere and given the time of the photograph was not coincidental. This bomb detonated upon impact and the photograph was taken seemingly about a moment afterwards.

The aftermath of such an event could very well be consistent with a hydrogen bomb.

Perhaps you have data related to the current status of the region?

Any thoughts?