Who Parked The Moon?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:54 pm

I've only watched a few minutes of this, but they seem to be asking the same questions that McGowan asked in his Wagging the Moondoggie series.

Part 1: Analysis of the Lunar Photography - This compelling video throws into serious doubt the authenticity of the Apollo missions and features information that challenges the declared abilities of NASA to successfully send a man to the Moon and return him safely to Earth. New evidence clearly suggests that NASA hoaxed pictures allegedly taken on the lunar surface. These findings are supported by analysis and the testimony of experts from a wide variety of scientific disciplines.




Part 2: Environmental Dangers and Part 3: The Trouble with Rockets

"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby Elihu » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:20 pm

they fell down okay? the towers turned into dust and they fell down. it's over just let it go. the moon landing stuff was in the towers. the blueprints, telemetry data, everything. ; ) no but seriously, thanks bruce. the moon thing is just.... out there...
But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
Elihu
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby justdrew » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:04 pm

the Dark Mission movies are fairly old by now IIRC, and soundly refuted.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:52 pm

justdrew wrote:the Dark Mission movies are fairly old by now IIRC, and soundly refuted.


Indeed.

Though it doesn't change the fact that Man has not stepped foot on the Moon.

At least not in the manner as represented to the Plebes.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby justdrew » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:21 pm

Belligerent Savant wrote:
justdrew wrote:the Dark Mission movies are fairly old by now IIRC, and soundly refuted.


Indeed.

Though it doesn't change the fact that Man has not stepped foot on the Moon.

At least not in the manner as represented to the Plebes.


well no, the feet were wrapped in spacesuit boots...

I may be willing to entertain 'secret space program' ideas, but I still also think they went in the craft shown as described. Parallel programs, one overt one covert. :mrgreen:
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby Luther Blissett » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:38 pm

This dialogue is an interesting counter to the Timothy Good video on the Eisenhower thread. In the spirit of cross-pollination, what do we make of the late-in-life Confessions of Ben Rich? I would tend to believe him, though I'm a sucker for that stuff.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby Simulist » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:56 pm

Who Parked The Moon?

Well, if I held title to it — given all the dings it's got now — I'd be pretty pissed at whoever did.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby Freitag » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:20 am

Who Parked The Moon?


Image
See more on Know Your Meme
User avatar
Freitag
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby Ben D » Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:17 am

Fwiw,...
Proof at last: Moon was created in giant smashup

by Staff Writers St. Louis MO (SPX) Oct 18, 2012

It's a big claim, but Washington University in St. Louis planetary scientist Frederic Moynier says his group has discovered evidence that the Moon was born in a flaming blaze of glory when a body the size of Mars collided with the early Earth.

The evidence might not seem all that impressive to a nonscientist: a tiny excess of a heavier variant of the element zinc in Moon rocks. But the enrichment probably arose because heavier zinc atoms condensed out of the roiling cloud of vaporized rock created by a catastrophic collision faster than lighter zinc atoms, and the remaining vapor escaped before it could condense.

Scientists have been looking for this kind of sorting by mass, called isotopic fractionation, since the Apollo missions first brought Moon rocks to Earth in the 1970s, and Moynier, PhD, assistant professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences in Arts and Sciences - together with PhD student, Randal Paniello, and colleague James Day of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography - are the first to find it.

The Moon rocks, geochemists discovered, while otherwise chemically similar to Earth rocks, were woefully short on volatiles (easily evaporated elements). A giant impact explained this depletion, whereas alternative theories for the Moon's origin did not.

But a creation event that allowed volatiles to slip away should also have produced isotopic fractionation. Scientists looked for fractionation but were unable to find it, leaving the impact theory of origin in limbo - neither proved nor disproved - for more than 30 years.

"The magnitude of the fractionation we measured in lunar rocks is 10 times larger than what we see in terrestrial and martian rocks," Moynier says, "so it's an important difference."

The data, published in the Oct. 18, 2012 issue of Nature, provide the first physical evidence for wholesale vaporization event since the discovery of volatile depletion in Moon rocks, Moynier says.

According to the Giant Impact Theory, proposed in its modern form at a conference in 1975, Earth's moon was created in a apocalyptic collision between a planetary body called Theia (in Greek mythology the mother of the moon Selene) and the early Earth.

This collision was so powerful it is hard for mere mortals to imagine, but the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs is thought to have been the size of Manhattan, whereas Theia is thought to have been the size of the planet Mars.

The smashup released so much energy it melted and vaporized Theia and much of the proto-Earth's mantle. The Moon then condensed out of the cloud of rock vapor, some of which also re-accreted to the Earth.

This seemingly outlandish idea gained traction because computer simulations showed a giant collision could have created a Earth-Moon system with the right orbital dynamics and because it explained a key characteristic of the Moon rocks.

Once geochemists got Moon rocks into the lab, they quickly realized that the rocks are depleted in what geochemists call "moderately volatile" elements. They are very poor in sodium, potassium, zinc, and lead, says Moynier.

"But if the rocks were depleted in volatiles because they had been vaporized during a giant impact, we should also have seen isotopic fractionation," he says. (Isotopes are variants of an element that have slightly different masses.)

"When a rock is melted and then evaporated, the light isotopes enter the vapor phase faster than the heavy isotopes, so you end up with a vapor enriched in the light isotopes and a solid residue enriched in the heavier isotopes. If you lose the vapor, the residue will be enriched in the heavy isotopes compared to the starting material," explains Moynier.

The trouble was that scientists who looked for isotopic fractionation couldn't find it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary data

Asked how he felt when he saw the first results, Moynier says, "When you find something that is new and that has important ramifications, you want to be sure you haven't gotten anything wrong."

" I half expected results like those previously obtained for moderately volatile elements, so when we got something so different, we reproduced everything from scratch to make sure there were no mistakes because some of the procedures in the lab could conceivably fractionate the isotopes."

He also worried that fractionation could have occurred through localized processes on the moon, such as fire fountaining.

To make sure the effect was global, the team analyzed 20 samples of lunar rocks, including ones from the Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 15, and Apollo 17 missions - all of which went to different locations on the Moon - and one lunar meteorite.

To obtain the samples, which are stored in Houston at the Johnson Space Center, Moynier had to convince committee that controls access to them of the scientific merit of his project.

"'What we wanted were the basalts," Moynier says, "because they're the ones that came from inside the Moon and would be more representative of the Moon's composition."

But lunar basalts have different chemical compositions, Moynier says, including a wide range of titanium concentrations. Isotopes can also be fractionating during during the solidification of minerals from a melt. "The effect should be very, very tiny," he says, "but to make sure this wasn't what we were seeing, we analyzed both titanium-rich and titanium-poor basalts, which are at the two extremes of the range of chemical composition on the Moon."

The low and high titanium basalts had the same zinc isotopic ratios.

For comparison, they also analyzed 10 Martian meteorits. A few had been found in Antarctica but the others were from the collections at the Field Museum, the Smithsonian Institution and the Vatican.

Mars, like the Earth, is very rich in volatile elements, Moynier says. "Because there is a decent amount of zinc inside the rocks, we only needed a tiny bit to test for fractionation, and so these samples were easier to get."

Compared to terrestrial or martian rocks, the lunar rocks Moynier and his team analyzed have much lower concentrations of zinc but are enriched in the heavy isotopes of zinc.

Earth and Mars have isotopic compositions like those of chondritic meteorites, which are thought to represent the original composition of the cloud of gas and dust from which the solar system formed.

The simplest explanation for these differences is that conditions during or after the formation of the Moon led to more extensive volatile loss and isotopic fractionation than was experienced by Earth or Mars.

The isotopic homogeneity of the lunar materials, in turn, suggests that isotopic fractionation resulted from a large-scale process rather than one that operated only locally.

Given these lines of evidence, the most likely large-scale event is wholesale melting during the formation of the Moon. The zinc isotopic data therefore supports the theory that a giant impact gave rise to the Earth-Moon system.

"The work also has implications for the origin of the Earth," Moynier points out, "because the origin of the Moon was a big part of the origin of the Earth."

Without the stabilizing influence of the Moon, the Earth would probably be a very different sort of place. Planetary sciences think the Earth would spin more rapidly, days would be shorter, weather more violent, and climate more chaotic and extreme. In fact it might have been such a harsh world, it would have been unfit for the evolution of our favorite species: us.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby Col. Quisp » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:46 pm

Moon rocks. heh.
User avatar
Col. Quisp
 
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:43 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby Luther Blissett » Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:38 am

What created such enormous craters on the Moon's nearside?

Image

Earth's moon has been blasted by a lot of space rocks in its 4.5-billion-year history. While these impacts have left a near-uniform distribution of craters across our satellite's surface, planetary scientists have shown that one of its sides – the side that faces Earth – bears significantly larger scars than the other. How can this be?

Measuring Impact Craters Is Harder Than You Think

To explain why craters on one side of the Moon are bigger than others, researchers led by Katerina Miljković – a planetary scientist at the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris who specializes in impact basins – first needed to clarify what it means for a crater to be "big" in the first place.

Historically, determining a crater's true size has proven to be more difficult than one might expect. It seems obvious, for example, that a basin's size should be defined by its diameter, or its depth. But craters can fill up with dirt or lava. Their walls can crumble, and their rims can erode. (It's not for nothing that scientists commonly refer to impact craters as "transient" cavities.) Some impact basins even contain multiple "rims" – which one should be measured, then, to determine a hollow's true breadth?

Notably, all of these issues are associated with measurements made on the surface of impact basins. But the best indication of a crater's size may be buried underground.

When an asteroid makes contact with a rocky body like the Moon, it gouges out huge quantities of material from its crust and upper mantle. It stands to reason, therefore, that a good way to determine the true size of a basin would be measure the effect of the impact on the Moon's "crustal thickness" at that particular spot; if the crust beneath Crater 1 is thinner over a broader area than the crust beneath Crater 2, we can assume that Crater 1 is the bigger basin. But to measure crustal thickness you need an instrument that can see underground. And that's where NASA's Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission comes in.

The Biggest Basins

The results from the Agency's recent GRAIL mission provided Miljković and her colleagues with crustal thickness data for the entire Moon. The detail, she tells io9 via e-mail, was unprecedented, allowing her team to not only "investigate morphological subsurface structures of large craters and basins," but "measure their sizes, unambiguously, for the first time."

In doing so, the researchers discovered that while the Moon's nearside hemisphere and farside hemisphere each possess 12 craters with regions of crustal thinning greater than 200km in diameter (below, circled in black), the nearside craters are, consistently, significantly larger. The team describes its findings in the latest issue of Science[emphasis added]:

Image

Whereas there are eight basins on the nearside hemisphere with diameters greater than 320 km, only one of this size is found on the farside, and this basin straddles the western limb of the Moon. Simulations of the Moon's impact bombardment by near-Earth asteroids show that the difference in cratering rate between the nearside and farside hemispheres should be less than 1% for a large range of impact conditions. With a uniform cratering rate, there is less than 2% probability that eight basins with diameters greater than 320 km would form on the nearside and only one such basin on the farside.


Why the disparity? About 4-billion years ago, a disproportionately large number of asteroids swept through the inner solar system, colliding with Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars in an event known as the Late Heavy Bombardment. Earth's Moon took a pretty serious beating, too. So much so, in fact, that the Late Heavy Bombardment is commonly referred to as the "Lunar Cataclysm."

Miljković and her team argue that volcanic activity that also occurred during this cataclysmic period resulted in the crust and upper mantle being hotter on the Moon's nearside than on its farside. This heat, reason the researchers, made the Moon's nearside geology more susceptible to expanding readily outward following an asteroid impact. On the Moon's cooler (and therefore less pliant) farside, crust beneath the crater rim was prone to collapsing inward, "resulting in a diameter of thinned crust that is smaller than the transient crater diameter."

Simulations confirmed this. Above, on the left, the researchers use conditions representative of the cooler, farside hemisphere to model the first two hours following a collision with a 30-kilometer asteroid impacting at 10 km/second about 4-billion years ago; while the simulation on the right shows the first two hours following an impact on the warmer, nearside hemisphere. The models suggest that an impact on the nearside could have formed basins with diameters twice as wide as those generated by similar impacts on the Moon's farside hemisphere. (NB: The simulation on the left is cycling about twice as fast as the one on the right, but the gist is clear: The geologic deformation on the right is much more extensive.)

Studies like this one certainly help scientists paint a clearer picture of the Moon's history, but they can also tell us a lot about the evolution of the solar system as a whole. For instance, Miljković's team argues that, because the temperature profile beneath the Moon's nearside is not representative of the Moon overall, the true magnitude of the Late Heavy Bombardment has likely been overestimated. Likewise, a better understanding of geological processes on the Moon can come in handy when making sense of impact basins on other planets, like Mars, Mercury, Venus, or even Earth.

Whatever the planetary body, Miljković tells io9 that data provided by missions like GRAIL is crucial. "To be able to verify the numerical and theoretical work, we must have planetary mission data to compare and contrast," she says. "The advantage of our work is that with [GRAIL's] gravity data mixed in with the [Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter's] topography data, we were able to tie the surface measurements with the subsurface in great detail. Future work should be expanded to other planetary bodies, too."
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon May 12, 2014 8:00 pm

Did an impact knock the Moon on its side?
Anomalies suggest the far side and pole weren't always where they are today.

by John Timmer - May 9 2014, 6:00am CDT

We tend to think of the Moon as a static, dead world, with no atmosphere and no plate tectonics. But there are various signs the Moon has been active—volcanoes and indications of a magnetic field frozen in rocks. Impact craters that flooded with molten rock are also indications of more active periods in the Moon's history. Now, some researchers are suggesting that the residual magnetic fields contain hints that the Moon was once flipped on its side by a violent event.

All evidence indicates that the Moon was formed when a Mars-sized body collided with the early Earth, leaving both in a molten state. This would have left the Moon with a sufficiently molten core that it should have generated a magnetic field for hundreds of millions of years. Remnants of that field should remain trapped in rocks that solidified while it was still in place and remain trapped there to this day.

A team of Japanese researchers has now analyzed magnetic data from two lunar orbiters, the Lunar Prospector and Kaguya. Both orbited the Moon at low altitudes (under 40km) and tracked the local magnetic fields. After eliminating a variety of areas with complex magnetic anomalies, the team looked at data from 57 different sites on the Moon and used the readings to calculate the orientation of the Moon's magnetic field at various points in its past.
Many of the data points clustered at the current pole. But a second set clustered well away from there, somewhere between 45 and 60 degrees from the existing pole. Although the Earth has experienced some degree of polar wander, the pole has always made a gradual track as the Earth's angular momentum shifted. Here, it appears that the Moon made a sudden jump, as there are no indications of gradual track between these two locations.

As the authors note, "A change in the apparent pole position corresponds to a reorientation of the lunar surface with respect to the rotation axis." And this reorientation appeared to occur relatively suddenly. The authors suggest a number of events could have been the cause, including giant impacts, internal instabilities, and the gravitational disturbances caused by migrations of the Solar System's gas giants.

This isn't the first indication that the Moon may have shifted its orientation. An earlier work examined the distribution of craters on its surface, which should be biased toward a greater number on the far side. Instead, some researchers have suggested the near and far side of the Moon swapped places at some point in the distant past.

Neither of the methods of tracking this shift have been precise enough to indicate when this event took place, which might allow us to associate it with some of the Moon's larger impact basins. But there certainly seems to be enough evidence of this sort of shift to make the idea worth exploring further.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby RocketMan » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:45 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10 ... 1412241700

NASA: There Is A Giant Square Structure Hidden Under The Moon

Usually when someone on the internet writes about 'geometric forms' found on the Moon, it's a crazy UFO hunter who doesn't understand pixelation of composite images taken at high altitudes.

This is different.

Scientists report that rifts across large areas of the Moon's surface actually forms an enormous rectangle.

The area in question is the Ocean of Storms, an enormous and obvious feature of the Moon which was once thought to literally contain an ocean.


Image
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby DrEvil » Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:31 pm

"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4144
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby thrulookingglass » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:00 pm

Grrr! I love you guys! I love this topic!

I didn't see this mentioned, the disc sizes for Earth, Moon, Sun nearly perfectly eclipse each other.

Both the Sun and Moon have the same angular size in the sky, allowing the Moon to precisely cover the solar disk. Although the Sun's diameter is about 375 times larger than the Moon's, the Sun is also about 375 times farther away. Both, therefore, appear to have an angular diameter of about 1/2 degree as seen from Earth.
User avatar
thrulookingglass
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: down the rabbit hole USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 177 guests