Mars the anomalies The moon too.

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="orange">a_lost_packet_ - 'That's what irks me about topics like this... it serves as an example why crackpots like RCH+crew are able to spread their garbage while flooding various topics with links to "mainstream supporting evidence" that are neither supporting of their claims nor serve as evidence"</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">ZenOnMars - The Shadow knows this: "UPG 4. Thou shalt not post Global Ad Hominems. A Global Ad Hominem is an Ad Hominem comment which is directed at a group that would include Uplink members engaged in the debate." </font><br /><br />I apologize if you took offense. Unless, of course, if you are RCH or one of his insider compatriots. Then, I must submit challenge, provide evidence and, in turn, require refutation of my statements and conclusions or I would have to respectfully request you withdraw your accusation. I will explain further.<br /><br />I honestly, and sincerely, was not trying to include you in that statement or any other regular member of SDC that engages in discussing these topics. I'm not even including the non-SDC fans and believers of RCH + crew. My statement was directed at those, including RCH and his henchpeoples.. persons.. whatever, that perpetuate these crackpot ideas based on either pure fabrication, outright misdirection or a complete misunderstanding of the subject in order to further themselves and enrich their own egos and pockets. The innocent victims in this are the rank and file followers of RCH+Crew that gobble this stuff up like it was some sort of fantastic candy. RCH is not stupid. He knows what he is doing. He may have been, at one time, intelligent enough to be able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Unless he has somehow lost this ability, he is doing nothing more than acting as a sensationalist of the unprovable.. the PT Barnum of the wuwu community.<br /><br />So, in closing, I was not directing my comments at anyone in this thread unles <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="orange">JonClarke (Batman)</font><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <font color="orange"> - "Why should we trust you? You have not answered questions, you have dodged issues, you have shown very limited understanding of basic science and technology." </font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">ZenOnMars - Although his (her?) research may be incomplete, or interpretted as a lay person might interpret it, pierround has indeed shown links to the quoted work of accredited scientists. I am proud of him for even providing his data-links.<br /><br />Jon, please relax. You are taking the fun out of FUNomena.<br /><br />Again, Jon, this is not an astrophysics debate, SDC is not a peer-reviewed science journal, it is not a "club" for folks with Phd s after their name, and it IS a free service to ALL who are facinated with Space Sciences and the intriguing nuances of this amazing Universe in which we live.<br /><br />Please lighten up, for my fear is that you will make newcomers (visiting SDC for the first time) afraid to share their thoughts and views. We don't want this, do we Jon?<br /><br />Disagree? Fine. Say so. But you are an "insider" and an educator. To tell someone they have "limited understanding of basic science" might make other readers here think you are trying to actuate an agenda to suppress certain notions, ideas, and dreams.<br /><br />Shame on you. Everyone here knows you worked for NASA on some of the Mars missions. Nobody here wants to believe that you are conducting a one-man crusade to quell "creative" thought and discourse.<br /><br />John Kennedy had "limited understanding of basic science and technology". But without him, we would not be chatting here today, would we? </font><br /><br />This is a physics discussion. Physics is the study of the natural world. This thread is about a subject that is intimately related to "physics." It is pertinent to the subject at hand. Ignorance is not a proof of knowledge so I'm not sur <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">hmm....... <br /><br />You could try asking the guys at the end of the article:</font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I guess I could but I doubt they'd bother answering me. Besides for me, the jury is pretty well out on this issue, so I can't say I have much motivation to do so. <br /><br /><br />Your question of just how large an impact it would take to "ring Earth's bell" appeals to my inner geek. I must confess I have no idea and that I probably lack the knowledge to go about even approximating a good answer via modelling of the Moon and Earth. That said I do know the below ground nuclear explosions can, and have, been detected using seismology. Depending on where the instruments are located relative to the test site (as well as the site's geology) it's claimed that yeilds of 4-12 kilotons have been detected (India, 1974). How much lower is detectable ... I dunno. An explosion claimed to be 0.8 KT went undetected. So my first guess to approximate an answer would be to ask what meterorite mass would be required to equal a nuke of ~ 5 kilotons. Second would be to ask how well this impact couples to the ground, compared to an underground test. Lastly would the P- and S- waves thus produced be considered "ringing" or do they have to echo around a bit to earn that moniker ? <br /><br /><br />Aren't you glad you asked ? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br /><br />FYI : http://www.llnl.gov/str/Walter.html <- detecting nukes via seimology<br /><br />ps - So when was the last time the Earth was actually <b>hit</b> by a meteorite large enough to have such a "yeild" ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Underground nuclear tests were regularly detected by seismic equipment all over the place when such things were commonplace. As a matter of fact, such equipment was recently used to gauge the success of the North Korean nuclear test. Their "big boom" entrance into the Nuclear family wasn't as big as they thought it was supposed to be, according to those who examined the data which included seismic readings.<br /><br />It's kind of hard to hide an explosion that big. IIRC, several rather large tests have "rung the Earth like a bell" in the past. I'd have to dig up the refs though and I forget which were specifically cited. So, it's heresay until I have a few extra minutes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>The eminent scientist Jules Verne participated in a journey to the center of the Earth. He documented the entire adventure. The Earth is hollow with an entire separate world inside, complete with plants, animals and people. What, do you think he just made up all that?</i><br /><br />It would be interesting to find out whether verne was actually influenced by the 19th century hollow earthers. But, as I recall, Verne's heroes explored a series of giant caves, rather than an actual hollow Earth.<br /><br />A better candidate would be Burroughs, who wrote several novels about the hollow Earth, including one by Tarzan. He flew there in an airship via an entry in the Arctic. Great fun!<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Umm..... I am not following your logic. <br /><br />Obviously, an earthquake is a major energy-releasing event. And "objects" stiking the Earth, usually do so at about 50,000 mph (or whatever the rediculous velocity meteors impact at). If the NASA landing vehicle could elicit this seismic reaction, simply falling back to the lunar surface, Jon, are you suggesting something as simple could do this to the Earth?</i><br /><br />Now you are testing my poor brain! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Yes, an impact on Earth would do this. But it would have to be large enough. As I recall, a very large earthquake is neccessary, M 7 or 8 at least. I am not sure what size impactor would be needed to release this amount of energy, but I strongly suspect I would want to be several 100 km away! I am also not sure, despite what another poster wrote, whether even a nuclear explosition could do this (although nuclear explosions have provided a lot of useful information on the interior of the Earth).<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Some info on seismic detection: http://www.ctbto.org/ (Search term "seismic") for general purposes.<br />https://www.nemre.nnsa.doe.gov/srr/2004/PAPERS/07-09.PDF (DOE information on trends for seismic detection)<br /><br />As far as a nuclear weapon generating a M 7+ earthquake, well, I suppose it could in a very localized fashion. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> It wouldn't be an "earthquake" but just your standard reaction that anything would produce given the amount of energy released over an extremely short period of time. It wouldn't propagate as one either given that it is subject to absorption and not an actual tectonic movement. But, as far as inducing some sort of motion or activity in the Earth's crust which would trigger an area-wide earthquake, I doubt that is possible with conventional nuclear devices. Perhaps you could hasten an already building quake, but I don't think the energy is available to move the Earth's crust in such a fashion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">I am also not sure, despite what another poster wrote, whether even a nuclear explosition could do this (although nuclear explosions have provided a lot of useful information on the interior of the Earth). </font><br /><br />And so as I eluded to previously, it comes down to what defines "ringing the Earth's bell". Not exactly a scientific term. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Nukes have produced measurable seismic waves. I believe these are 1 time events; that is there's no echos as the wave(s) reflects back off the Earth's mantle. Quakes get you the later. When the Moon was struck did we measure echos or just see some seismic activity. "Ringing the Moon's bell" ain't zactly scientific speakin either. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I found the Gordon MacDonald’s 1961 paper that discusses the hollow Moon. It was in Science Vol 133 Number 3458, page 1046. At that time the best information on the Moon’s moment of inertia (C) was that of Brown in 1896. The C is the result of mass distribution in an object. To allow comparison of objects of different masses and radii, a normalised (g) value is used of C/MR(squared), where M = the mass and r the radius of the body. A homogeneous sphere has a g of 0.4, the value approaches unity as the mass is increasingly distributed to the surface and zero with increasing concentration towards the centre. Thus a thin-walled hollow sphere would have an g of almost 1, a sphere with a very dense core one of 0.2. The Earth has an g of 0.33.<br /><br />MacDonald used Brown’s numbers to calculate a g value of 0.87. He commented that “This implies that the interior of the moon is considerably less dense than the outer parts. Indeed, it would seem that the moon is more like a hollow sphere than like a homogeneous sphere.†However MacDonald then went on to say: “This suggests strongly that there are inconsistencies either in the reduction of observations of the moon’s moment of inertia or in the numerical development of Brown’s theoryâ€. In other words while the data available appeared to indicate a Moon more like a hollow sphere than a solid body, he did not believe this was the case. <br /><br />MacDonald’s suspicious were correct. As a result of a an armada of Russian and US missions we now know the Moon’s g value to be 0.39. <br /><br />Citing MacDonald as a a defender of a hollow Moon is contrary to MacDonald’s own statement. It also means relying on data more than 100 years old and completely ignoring results much higher quality data from actual space missions.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[star_sirius]

I'm amazed, why am I getting a grid onto these things at the new levels, scary but perhaps the U-tube enhances scalability. It doesn't need air-brushes either. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="0" color="#10bdee"><strong>A dazzling bluish luminosity from A distant south pacific.</strong></font><p><br /><img id="cb51e87e-8221-424c-8ff2-78c95122196c" src="http://sitelife.livescience.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/15/cb51e87e-8221-424c-8ff2-78c95122196c.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Jon, are you blind as well as rude? I certainly DID answer your insulting garbage: </i><br /><br />It what way is what I write insulting or garbage? I have noted that you have refused to answer questions. What I write is also, to the best of my ability factually based and logically argued. If it is garbage, it is for you to actually show that it is. Unfortunately, you don’t.<br /><br />You claim that you answered my question<br /><br />(10th post down) <br />Link<br /><br />Let’s look at what you actually wrote in that post and whether you addressed the false claims of Hoagland about towers on the nearside of the moon that, if real, would be visible from Earth in a small telescope.<br /><br />First in response to MA<br /><br /><i> Sometimes they "airbrush" stuff, too! <br />Here are 2 differing versions of the same frame of film, found misfiled in the Goddard and Johnson SC "public" rchives:http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/reflec1.jpg</i><br /><br />Note that the 70 mm film was positive film. What we are seeing are two different prints off the original. During reproduction errors can creep in /> these are almost always very small. They become visible when you have gross enlargements. When you look at the full frame at this link http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS10-32-4822 you will see that the area of interest is extremely small. And has to be heavily magnified to show the areas where the supposed “mile-sized sheet of glass†is. The enlargement of the bright spot is well past the grain of the photo and is thus meaningless. There is no scientific justification for the claim.<br /><br /><i>Jon: "Zen - why be still believes Hoagland after such palpable nonsense about 50 km towe</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Although his (her?) research may be incomplete, or interpretted as a lay person might interpret it, pierround has indeed shown links to the quoted work of accredited scientists. I am proud of him for even providing his data-links.</i><br /><br />Unfortunately the linked research was both out of date and taken out of context, as even a limited amount of research would have shown.<br /><br /><i>Jon, please relax. You are taking the fun out of FUNomena</i><br /><br />Fiction and fanatsy, advertised as such is fun. So is the truth uncovered by hard work. What is not fun is when fanatsy and fiction is peddled as truth and people fail to admit they are wrong when this is shown to be the case.<br /><br /><i>Again, Jon, this is not an astrophysics debate</i><br /><br />Actually, it is.<br /><br /><i> SDC is not a peer-reviewed science journal,</i><br /><br />Correct, but this does not mean that there are no rules of discourse and that people are not expected to provide evidence for what they say.<br /><br /><i>it is not a "club" for folks with Phd s after their name</i><br /><br />Correct, most people here don't have PhDs, nor do they need them to make useful contributions and be valued members.<br /><br /><i>it IS a free service to ALL who are facinated with Space Sciences and the intriguing nuances of this amazing Universe in which we live.</i><br /><br />We can certainly agree about that!<br /><br /><i>Please lighten up, for my fear is that you will make newcomers (visiting SDC for the first time) afraid to share their thoughts and views. We don't want this, do we Jon?</i><br /><br />I won't "lighten up" as you put it, if it means tolerating bad arguments and erroneous assertions claimed as facts. <br /><br />As for frightening off newcomers, I have always welcomed them. The only people who might be frightened off are those who are unwilling to have their statements examined. <br /><br /><i>But you are an "insider" and an educator. To tell someone they have "limited understanding of basic scie</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[pierround]

Bump on that.<br />You go ZenOnMars.<br />We are probably using the Delta to do that even now, how would the average person really know today with stealth technolagy, radar jamming.<br /><br />I find it fascinating that the scientists and the skeptics keep looking for life else where to disprove God in the sense that life arose else where but when some shred of evidence such as possibly, fossils on Mars accidentally shows up on a photo they poopo it away with vague explanations.<br />And rocks on the moon that look like they have been manufactured as simply rocks.<br />The odds of those 5 or so artifacts being in one place at one time have to be astronomical. But I could be wrong simply because chance may permit such a thing, but what are the odds?<br /><br />Like we a re supposed to accept their opinion as they get all the funding they need from us and then think our opinions are not worthy because they have degrees and doctorates.<br /><br />But yet for years they suppressed the information that Mars had water.<br />When the simple layperson can tell that it must have.<br />While common sense in what those photos showed were that Mars did and still does have water.<br /><br />We may not have an education documented by some university but in time I would venture with an open mind and through reading that we are every bit as smart as the average scientist to a degree.<br /><br />But as believers we don't say your opinion is garbage or that you are woo inclined or that you should go back to school.<br />More like, look closer.<br /><br />I still am wondering when we will see better images on that hole on Mars.<br />I’ll have to check.<br /><br />And I got to say this, why in the world would all the people through out the History of the planet write and say these things unless there is some basis to all the claims ever made?<br />Famous cave paintings, frescos, that show these things have been here before and continue to visit us even today.<br />Even documented in the Bible<br /><br />I per

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">pierround - We are probably using the Delta to do that even now, how would the average person really know today with stealth technolagy, radar jamming. </font><br /><br />I'm not sure what average person would have access to equipment that would be foiled by stealth and radar "jamming." By the way, radar jamming is definitely detectable.. that's why it works. Radar "jamming" is an active attempt to interfere with the information being returned by a radar sweep. But, anyway...<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I find it fascinating that the scientists and the skeptics keep looking for life else where to disprove God in the sense that life arose else where but when some shred of evidence such as possibly, fossils on Mars accidentally shows up on a photo they poopo it away with vague explanations. </font><br /><br />I don't see how you involve religion here. I don't know of anyone looking for life on other planets for such a purpose. As far as a fossil showing up on a photo, just because you don't like the "explanations" doesn't mean they aren't true.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Like we a re supposed to accept their opinion as they get all the funding they need from us and then think our opinions are not worthy because they have degrees and doctorates. </font><br /><br />Pretty much. If you're going to fund study on a subject and seek opinions as to the best way to interpret findings, you'd probably go to the people that have the most knowledge regarding the subject at hand. Unless, of course, you didn't care about studying the subject properly. Then you could just save a whole lot of time, effort, manpower and money by asking your local convenience store clerk their opinions about the newest scientific subject matter and take it at face value.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">But yet for years they suppressed the information that Mars had water. When the simple layperson can tell that it must have. </font>/safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Wow pierre, a little more incoherent than usual today! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I'll try and decipher what you are saying and respond.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"We are probably using the Delta to do that even now" </font><br /><br />Can you explain to me, the uninitiated, what "the Delta" is?<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I find it fascinating that the scientists and the skeptics keep looking for life else where to disprove God" .....</font><br /><br />I personally see the search for life as the pursuit of science, not to disprove or prove God. Maybe YOU have an agenda?<br /><br />comtnuing...<br /><font color="yellow">"in the sense that life arose else where but when some shred of evidence such as possibly, fossils on Mars accidentally shows up on a photo they poopo it away with vague explanations. " </font><br /><br />We're not looking for a "shred" of evidence, or overblown unsubstantiated photos. I am looking for real honest to God ( <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ) evidence, not unscientific garbage. Nothing has been "poo poo'd" except stuff that is scientifically worthless. I look forward to eveidence of life elsewhere, as I believe it exists elsewhere in the universe.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"And rocks on the moon that look like they have been manufactured as simply rocks. <br />The odds of those 5 or so artifacts being in one place at one time have to be astronomical. But I could be wrong simply because chance may permit such a thing, but what are the odds? " </font><br /><br />Well, since they are just odd shaped rocks, and there's no evidence whatsoever that they are anything else, I'm not sure what to make of this "claim". The odds of odd shaped rocks existing on the moon? Pretty high, I would suspect. Ever look closely in a quarry, or a park, or a desert, or your back yard? I have, it's fun. But no aliens have been there <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[pierround]

<br /><br />Speaking about sundogs I seen the best one I have ever witnessed the other day, it was so good that it looked like two stars rising together early in the morning.<br />One was smaller, about a third the size of the real sun “the reflection that isâ€, both were parallel to each other with about, if you held your hands up and outstretched, about three hands width of separation.<br />The reflected mirage was almost perfectly round and complete.<br />Most amazing but I knew what it must have been.<br />It took about a half an hour to dissipate.<br />I wish I had the right camera equipment, a filter that is.<br />I thought, so this is what it might look like if we orbited a binary star system, it was that good.<br /><br />And I know when I see something else.<br /><br />By the way don’t fall in, to much information.<br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[zenonmars]

Jon,<br /><br />You wrote, <font color="yellow">"I have noted that you have refused to answer questions."</font><br /><br />I am not going to stoop to name calling. Calling you something untoward is not needed, and is beneath my dignity. Anyone who has read this thread chronologically will see that I redressed your questions. Perhaps not to <i>your</i> satisfaction, but ce la vie.<br /><br />I <i>will</i> assert that you seem to be guilty of 'selective reading' of posts. But that is forgivable. Zond showed a single annomaly. I posted links to a few more AMERICAN sources of like annomalies. <br /><br />REMERBER: the first thing I said upon entering this thread, was that MY jury on "hollow moon" is still out.<br />So let's get this correct: You said, <font color="yellow">"Yes, an impact on Earth would do this. But it would have to be large enough. As I recall, a very large earthquake is neccessary..."</font> <br />Ok, the Earth is what, 3 or 4 times larger than the Moon? And all they did is drop the lunar lander back to the Moon's surface (at that much smaller gravity pull!) to achieve a seismic "ring like a bell" that lasted for over an hour.<br />So. Take an object, say, 10 times heavier than the lander, and drop it to Earth from a crane. Or even drop it from a small low-flying plane. 10 times heavier, dropping at least 3 times faster because of our greater gravity. Does the Earth ring like a bell for an hour?<br /><br />This would prove nothing. BUT, <i>if</i> the Moon <i>was</i> hollow, might we expect a strange annomaly like this to be detectable? Just food for thought.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"If you answered questions, stuck to the point and admitted when you were wrong you would find me much less tiresome."</font><br /><br />I have answered questions, stuck to the point, and will admit I am wrong as soon as NASA et al provides me with (ready for the mantra?) <b>MORE AND BETTER REAL-TIME DATA</b>, delivered in a timely <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

lost: <font color="yellow">"Why would the simple layperson believe Mars had water? Could it be something to do with something they learned? Could it be something to do with something science or observation has taught them? Wouldn't it be prudent before declaring water on Mars to rely on the science that has gotten us this far to yield a solid answer?"</font><br /><br />This brings me to an interesting example of NASA slight-of-hand. We trust the experts so much, that we funded the Mars Pathfinder rover mission to "an ancient flood plain", being told that the world-ending superwaves washed centuries of Martian geology into a convenient gathering place. <br /><br />Sensible.<br /><br />When, a few years later, we were asked to fund the Spirit and Opportunity rovers to search for hematite, (a sure sign of past water), nobody seemed to remember the "ancient flood plain".<br /><br />Why do I bring this up? Sometimes simple observation is enough to see stuff. Even NASA did it. Look at Mars, and you will SEE the footprint of ocean shores, and riverbeds, and deep lakes, etc.<br /><br />Good thing NASA realised this and chose the Pathfinder landing site so wisely. Near those gigantic "twin peaks". Which, on the few HiRes pics taken, look remarkably like ancient ripped-open pyramid archologies.<br /><br />Only to lead to the later Spirit/Opportunity mission. To look for Hematite. To prove Mars had surface water. In a place described (by Malin?) as "the best place on Mars to look for fossils".<br /><br />Which, when they bumped into a crionid-looking fossil-shaped thing, they promptly disintegrated it. <br /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

Oh, and sorry if I lost my temper, folks. Tel chuckled me back to my normal, cheery self.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Zen, you wrote:<br /><br /><i>I will assert that you seem to be guilty of 'selective reading' of posts. But that is forgivable. Zond showed a single annomaly. I posted links to a few more AMERICAN sources of like annomalies.</i><br /><br />All of these features have much more likely explanations than alien artifacts on the Moon. Even if these explanations are not correct, they have to be evaluated and shown to be inadequate before the less likely explanations can be realistically considered.<br /><br />I have started to this do this process. I have given reasons why the various images you linked to cannot be considered good evidence. I may be wrong, but if you were seriously intered in these features you would rebut the specific points. In this process we can evaluate the evidence. <br /><br />But you don't do this. I show problems with the Zond images, and you bring up Apollo 10 and 13. I show why those images are also problematic, and you mgove on. You never actually enagege the point in question. If my reasoning or facts are wrong, show me. If you are wrong admit it. It's a policy that i have always tried to follow.<br /><br /><i>REMERBER: the first thing I said upon entering this thread, was that MY jury on "hollow moon" is still out. <br />So let's get this correct: You said, "Yes, an impact on Earth would do this. But it would have to be large enough. As I recall, a very large earthquake is neccessary..." </i><br /><br />The discussion about the ringing business made me dig up some stuff on the elastic behaviour of the Earth, rather than relying on my memory of undergrad lectures far too long ago.<br /><br />Actually even quite small earthquakes will probably cause the earth to ring. But the problem is the signal is lost in the noise. Earth is a noisy place for sesimometers, detecting the resonant vibrations (ringing) requires a thresh hold signal strength.<br /><br /><i>Ok, the Earth is what, 3 or 4 times larger than the Moon? And all they did is drop the lunar l</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[pierround]

Well lets take a look at these.<br />Frames from the “Apollo 20 flyover†on a presumed alien spaceship, on the backside of the Moon <br />

 

[pierround]

I'm assuming that these were magnifid and inhanced.<br />Here's the other one, does it look like this ship was inserted?<br />There's several more on the link that ZenonMars gave us.<br /><br />

 

[pierround]

There's several more on the link that ZenonMars gave us. Her's one that shows a shadow. from the apollo 20 mission, on the link you'll see the earlier apollo 15 photo.<br />The link,<br />http://www.angelismarriti.it/ANGELISMARRITI-ENG/REPORTS_ARTICLES/Apollo20-InterviewWithWilliamRutledge.htm

 

[pierround]

The large crater in the center of the picture is International Astronomical Union crater (IAU) no. 308, which is located at 179 degrees east longitude and 5.5 degrees south latitude. IAU crater no. 308 has a diameter of about 50 statute miles.<br /><br />Nose: 17.3 deg S, 117.62 deg E ; Cockpit: 17.25 deg S, 117.62 deg E; s<br /><br /><br />These are the panoramic pictures from Apollo 17, the bottom one seems to be with less light, probably caused from the rotation.<br />The first link, Sun elevation 27degrees<br />The second link, Sun elevation 27 degree that can’t be right?<br /><br /><br />http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625<br /><br />http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9630<br /><br />

 

[zenonmars]

Hi Jon, good post.<br /><br />This thread seemed to me to be a fairly casual discussion of the 'ancient artifacts' issue, and I casually slipped in and out without making a concerted attempt to "hijack" this thread.<br /><br />What you seem to be demanding is a full paper defending the very broad field of potential off-earth artifacts. Would that much info be a slight to this thread's author? Tel? Weigh in here.<br /><br />Jon, you said, <font color="yellow">"I show problems with the Zond images, and you bring up Apollo 10 and 13."</font> Because you said I made deductions from <b>ONLY</b> a single Russian "dodgey" image. There is a plethora of neat Lunar annomalies to consider. Many of these are to be found in Hoagland's "Monuments" book, which I am presuming you never read.<br /><br />So I guess you wanna see a <b>WHOLE BUNCH</b> of NASA images, huh? Ever hear of Stan Johnston? Ready to "do this process"? Ready to "engage the point in question"?<br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Classes will begin shortly. Remember, you said <font color="yellow">"This isa defacto admission that you know you are wrong. But it is making the public admission of that false dependent on the behaviour of others, in particular NASA meeting an arbitary standard of data release."</font><br /><br />See, people have been executed for murder without an actual dead body. My "job here" is to provide a "preponderence of evidence" that creates "reasonable doubt" about the "official NASA party line". If I can provide MORE evidence than is needed to convict in a US court, then I have done my job for all of the nice, taxpaying US citizens who own and pay for NASA and all of the data it has collected over these decades. The burden of proof rests on me. The burden of action, however, then rests on every US citizen who will be able to DEMAND from NASA new and better data from our Moon in these upcoming manned moon missions.<br /><br />PS. I wonder if, in October, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>