Life on the Moon

[rosie]

Well, well, backtracking now are they, or just spinning our brains a bit.
Can't believe this bit of news, or am I missing something?


Contrary to recent reports about water content in lunar rocks, the Moon may be quite dry, say scientists.

A study by US researchers, published in Science, analysed chlorine isotopes of the much-studied samples, brought to Earth by the Apollo space missions.

They added that there was no or very little hydrogen in the magma ocean during the Moon's formation.

And that would mean the Earth's natural satellite may have always been too dry to host life.

Zachary Sharp from the University of New Mexico led the study.

Moon magma

According to one of the theories of the Moon's formation, a Mars-size object collided with the young Earth billions of years ago. As a result, our planet's satellite was formed.

It crystallised and cooled shortly thereafter, about 4.5 billion years ago.

Before it cooled, there was a so-called magma ocean on the Moon's surface - molten rocks, capable of retaining high quantities of water.

"As the Earth has cooled and crystallised, there were gases from volcanoes coming to the surface and the steam from them has probably formed the majority of the oceans. Our oceans came from water dissolved in rocks," said Dr Sharp.
Link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10880032

[Agape]

Maybe, they were just not digging too deep that's all, the samples they took are scratched from surface or half a mile under, after the recent nuclear explosion.

Moon has very little or almost no atmosphere and therefor it's very vulnerable to cosmic rays , winds, space dust, asteroids, water has to evaporate the quickest if there's nothing to bind it.

If there's frozen water underneath, they'd have to scroll more under the surface.

And, if there was ice in the moon, it could mean that it was once orbiting close enough to the Earth as much smaller body where gas and vapours would solidify to ice crust , wrapped further to dust. I'm not convinced on the 'magma' ocean theory, could be simply dust layers solidified to firm wrap, easily impacted by asteroids and whatever flies-by.

[rosie]

Agape, it is interesting how they have back tracked, but then again, if the moon is artificial, there would be no underground lakes or riverbeds to hold the frozen water.

Any water that has been accumulated on the moon via meteors and such would no doubt eventually dry up. Interesting to say the least!

in love & light :wub:

[Fredkc]

No, Rosie, I don't think it's you that's missing something....

Three questions spring to mind, re this:

1. "... analysed chlorine isotopes of the much-studied brought to Earth by the Apollo space missions."
Ok, so what value should we place on these results, in light of the discoveries of water there, from recent missions?

2. "They added that there was no or very little hydrogen in the magma ocean during the Moon's formation."
So where did all this Hydrogen we are supposed to go mine there come from?

and Finally...

3. "It crystallized and cooled shortly thereafter, about 4.5 billion years ago."
How does this jibe with findings that the moon is actually older than the earth? (See "Penetrated" by Ingo Swann)

[Majorion]

Six successful landings yet there is still the misconception that we know so much about the Moon. This isn't to say the Moon is hollow or any of those theories, as the evidence is more in favor of the traditional view of how it formed, but still, we know very little about the far side - in fact we never once landed there. The poles are another mystery, it hasn't been over a decade that they've known there's water there so the research probably hasn't been done too extensively even with LRO. There are some places our cameras and instruments could never reach, at least with the current level of technology. Unfortunately the answers to our biggest questions lie in those especially hard to reach areas.

[Agape]

Agape, it is interesting how they have back tracked, but then again, if the moon is artificial, there would be no underground lakes or riverbeds to hold the frozen water.

Any water that has been accumulated on the moon via meteors and such would no doubt eventually dry up. Interesting to say the least!

in love & light :wub:

It does not really matter, artificial or not ( joking ), when we say artificial we speak about the interiors of the moon, not what is on surface.

It could be similar way as with an asteroid, crashing to Earths' surface and suppose it was hard enough it would be basically shot back to space , its substantial part perhaps ending in upper layers on earthly atmosphere.

Such a collision would cause major cataclysm on earth as we know, vapourizing some of our oceans and there again,
the temperature in upper atmospheric layers cools down, so if the object was orbiting there for long enough ( again I'm saying, artificial or not ), lets say for millions of years,

there you'd have ball of ice formed around it together with dust and rust and whatever .

And that does not make quite yet the moon as we know it but kind of proto-moon..



Just an idea though..


:angel:

[rosie]

Thanks Agape! This theory sounds very plausible, and as we all know, anything is possible in this universe.
in love & light:love:

[Agape]

Glad you approve :love:

There's for sure, all universe of worlds and possibilities and few rules attached to them , like pearls on string of Moon Princess with Rabbit ,

:sleep:

[MariaDine]

The On Going Moon Soap Opera

http://news.discovery.com/space/moon-water-rocks.html
THE GIST
Moon rocks contain chemical evidence that they are drier than any on Earth.
Any water on the moon is on the surface, in craters.
The discovery could help sort out how the moon formed and where Earth got its water.

Moon rocks collected by Apollo astronauts 40 years ago contain evidence that the moon's interior is bone dry, contrary to some more recent reports, say researchers. The conclusion is based on a new study focusing on chlorine isotopes in moon rocks, which are quite different from those found in terrestrial minerals.

The discovery could be a step towards solving the riddle of where Earth's water came from.

“There are two types of water on the moon,” said Zachary Sharp of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, whose paper on the matter appears in the Aug. 5 issue of "Science Express."

The type most people hear about is the stuff hidden in dark craters near the lunar poles, which probably came from comet collisions. “That is completely different from what we're talking about.”

Sharp and his colleagues are looking inside rocks for clues to how much water was in the moon when it formed. On Earth, figuring the evidence of water is easy, since there are literally oceans of the stuff still around today. On the moon, however, any water that escaped the planet's interior went straight into space.

To discover the moon's original water content, Sharp and his colleagues looked at the variations in two types of chlorine isotopes -- chlorine-36 and the slightly heavier chlorine-37 -- in a wide array of moon rocks. The relative amounts of these two isotopes in Earth rocks varies just one-tenth of a percent, Sharp explained, because there are competing processes that keep them that way.

One of these processes, however, depends on the presence of hydrogen, which means water. When no water is present, the chlorine isotopes can be found in very unusual amounts.

“We find that the moon rocks have 25 times the variability of terrestrial rocks,” said Sharp of the chlorine isotopes. “The only explanation is that the moon is anhydrous (waterless).”

Those rocks that have been reported, in recent years, to indicate the moon contains more water are not incorrect, said Sharp, but simply special cases. They probably do not represent the whole moon very well.

The discovery confirms, in a new way, what scientists found when they first looked at Apollo moon rocks: Every indication that the moon has always been a dry, dry place.

“It offers another way to quantify how much water is in lunar materials,” said Kevin Righter of NASA's Johnson Space Center. “It places an upper limit.”

That, in turn, is useful parameter for folks trying to crack another mystery: How the Earth-moon system came into being, said Righter. Perhaps even more significantly, it also has big implications back on Earth, where it could help sort out where all of Earth's water came from.

“There is an ongoing debate on the origin of water on Earth,” said Righter. Was it from comet impacts about 500 million years after Earth was created? Or was it all vented from molten materials that cooled to form the planet? “Those two issues -- lunar and Earth water -- are related and linked.”
---------------------------------------------------------


Well, the on going Moon Soap Opera... to keep people watching, they (cientific gang) keep changing the script...We went to the Moon and we did not made home movies about it.....We do see strange flash light'son the surfice, but they aren't ufos, ...The Moon gives a strange thumping vibrational sound when it is hit, maybe it could be hollow, but it isn't because planets have a mass core.....Yes, we don't have ithat much nformation about the dark side of the Moon, so there are no strutures there.... It does not have water. It has water....Wait , there are two kinds of water...but not the right kind of water......
...and it goes on...and on...:)

Namaste
MD

[Majorion]

Yeah they say that about everything, all the planets and moons are dead and incapable of supporting life. But this will change in a few years when they finally make that announcement, the discovery (and confirmation) of biological life on Mars.

[John Parslow]

Hello all

Looks like I am the only person on this forum who thinks the moon is a construct and probably brought here millions of years ago but how and to what purpose is another matter. As to the samples, brought to Earth by the Apollo space missions! Does anyone believe the 'scientists' explanations?

Another interesting thread, my love and peace to all. JP :cool:

[MariaDine]

About the flashes of light on the moon........................Nasa doesn't have a clue.........

Tansient lunar phenomenon (TLP), or lunar transient phenomenon (LTP), is a short-lived light, color, or change in appearance on the lunar surface.

Claims of short-lived phenomena go back at least 1,000 years, with some having been observed independently by multiple witnesses or reputable scientists. Nevertheless, the majority of transient lunar phenomenon reports are irreproducible and do not possess adequate control experiments that could be used to distinguish among alternative hypotheses. Few reports concerning these phenomena are ever published in peer reviewed scientific journals, the lunar scientific community rarely discusses these observations.

Most lunar scientists will acknowledge that transient events such as outgassing and impact cratering do occur over geologic time: the controversy lies in the frequency of such events.

Reports of transient lunar phenomena range from foggy patches to permanent changes of the lunar landscape. Cameron classifies these as gaseous, involving mists and other forms of obscuration, reddish colorations, green, blue or violet colorations, brightenings, and darkenings. Two extensive catalogs of transient lunar phenomena exist, with the most recent tallying 2,254 events going back to the 6th century. Of the most reliable of these events, at least one-third come from the vicinity of the Aristarchus plateau.

A few of the more famous historical events of transient phenomena include the following:

On June 18, 1178, five or more monks from Canterbury reported an upheaval on the moon shortly after sunset.

"There was a bright new moon, and as usual in that phase its horns were tilted toward the east; and suddenly the upper horn split in two. From the midpoint of this division a flaming torch sprang up, spewing out, over a considerable distance, fire, hot coals, and sparks.
Meanwhile the body of the moon which was below writhed, as it were, in anxiety, and, to put it in the words of those who reported it to me and saw it with their own eyes, the moon throbbed like a wounded snake. Afterwards it resumed its proper state.

This phenomenon was repeated a dozen times or more, the flame assuming various twisting shapes at random and then returning to normal. Then after these transformations the moon from horn to horn, that is along its whole length, took on a blackish appearance."
In 1976, Jack Hartung proposed that this described the formation of the Giordano Bruno crater.

During the night of April 19, 1787, the famous British astronomer Sir William Herschel noticed three red glowing spots on the dark part of the moon.
He informed King George III and other astronomers of his observations. Herschel attributed the phenomena to erupting volcanoes and perceived the luminosity of the brightest of the three as greater than the brightness of a comet that had been discovered on April 10. His observations were made while an aurora borealis (northern lights) rippled above Padua, Italy.
Aurora activity that far south from the Arctic Circle was very rare. Padua's display and Herschel's observations had happened a few days before the sunspot number had peaked in May 1787.
In 1866, the experienced lunar observer and mapmaker J. F. Julius Schmidt made the claim that Linné crater had changed its appearance.

Based on drawings made earlier by J. H. Schröter, as well as personal observations and drawings made between 1841 and 1843, he stated that the crater "at the time of oblique illumination cannot at all be seen"(his emphasis), whereas at high illumination, it was visible as a bright spot. Based on repeat observations, he further stated that "Linné can never be seen under any illumination as a crater of the normal type" and that "a local change has taken place."
Today, Linné is visible as a normal young impact crater with a diameter of about 1.5 miles (2.4 km).

On November 2, 1958, the Russian astronomer Nikolai A. Kozyrev observed an apparent half-hour "eruption" that took place on the central peak of Alphonsus crater using a 48-inch (122-cm) reflector telescope equipped with a spectrometer. During this time, the obtained spectra showed evidence for bright gaseous emission bands due to the molecules C2 and C3.
While exposing his second spectrogram, he noticed "a marked increase in the brightness of the central region and an unusual white color." Then, "all of a sudden the brightness started to decrease" and the resulting spectrum was normal.
On October 29, 1963, two Aeronautical Chart and Information Center cartographers, James A. Greenacre and Edward Barr,at the Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona, manually recorded very bright red, orange, and pink color phenomena on the southwest side of Cobra Head; a hill southeast of the lunar valley Vallis Schröteri; and the southwest interior rim of the Aristarchus crater. This event sparked a major change in attitude towards TLP reports.

According to Willy Ley: "The first reaction in professional circles was, naturally, surprise, and hard on the heels of the surprise there followed an apologetic attitude, the apologies being directed at a long-dead great astronomer, Sir William Herschel."
A notation by Winifred Sawtell Cameron states (1978, Event Serial No. 778): "This and their November observations started the modern interest and observing the Moon."
The credibility of their findings stemmed from Greenacre's exemplary reputation as an impeccable cartographer. It is interesting to note that this monumental change in attitude had been caused by the reputations of map makers and not by the acquisition of photographic evidence.
On the night of November 1–2, 1963, a few days after Greenacre's event, at the Observatoire du Pic-du-Midi in the French Pyrenees, Zdenek Kopal and Thomas Rackham
made the first photographs of a "wide area lunar luminescence."
His article in Scientific American transformed it into one of the most widely publicized TLP events.
Kopal, like others, had argued that Solar Energetic Particles could be the cause of such a phenomenon.

During the Apollo 11 mission Houston radioed to Apollo 11: "We've got an observation you can make if you have some time up there. There's been some lunar transient events reported in the vicinity of Aristarchus." Astronomers in Bochum, West Germany, had observed a bright glow on the lunar surface—the same sort of eerie luminescence that has intrigued moon watchers for centuries. The report was passed on to Houston and thence to the astronauts. Almost immediately, Armstrong reported back, "Hey, Houston, I'm looking north up toward Aristarchus now, and there's an area that is considerably more illuminated than the surrounding area. It seems to have a slight amount of fluorescence."

In 1992, Audouin Dollfus of the Observatoire de Paris reported anomalous features on the floor of Langrenus crater using a one-meter (3.2-foot) telescope. While observations on the night of December 29, 1992, were normal, unusually high albedo and polarization features were recorded the following night that did not change in appearance over the six minutes of data collection. Observations three days later showed a similar, but smaller, anomaly in the same vicinity.
While the viewing conditions for this region were close to specular, it was argued that the amplitude of the observations were not consistent with a specular reflection of sunlight. The favored hypothesis was that this was the consequence of light scattering from clouds of airborne particles resulting from a release of gas. The fractured floor of this crater was cited as a possible source of the gas.

[Arpheus]

John i too believe the moon is a construct,david icke also thinks so although i didnt read the book the speaks about,i just have a gut feeling the moon is man made,but its real purpose well who knows?Maybe one day we will figure that one out,when the truth isnt hidden from public knowledge but not until then tho.

[John Parslow]

[QUOTE John i too believe the moon is a construct,david icke also thinks so although i didnt read the book the speaks about ...[/QUOTE]

Hello Arpheus thank you very much for your response it's comforting to realize that I am not the only one with this feeling about the Moon. I also have not Read David Icke's book about the subject. If one thinks about the ratios involved the Moon's diameter versus the Earth's diameter the distances: Moon to Earth, Earth to Sun and the fact that it behaves like an artificial satellite - fixed in orbit but not turning i.e. one side always facing us ...

Something just does not add-up to me ...

Once again thank you for your reply. As ever sent with my love and peace. JP :cool:

[Majorion]

If one thinks about the ratios involved the Moon's diameter versus the Earth's diameter the distances: Moon to Earth, Earth to Sun and the fact that it behaves like an artificial satellite - fixed in orbit but not turning i.e. one side always facing us ...

Hey John, well most of the moons in our solar system are tidal locked (one side facing the planet), which is very common. Another misconception is that the far side - often referred to as the dark side - is perpetually cloaked in darkness. The dark side is only dark in the sense we never get to see it, when in fact it gets just as much light as the side we can see.

To be fair my personal belief is that there are artificial constructs on our moon though the body itself as a whole is natural. I also believe that all the scientific information regarding the moon is accurate albeit; incomplete.

[Fredkc]

and the fact that it behaves like an artificial satellite - fixed in orbit but not turning i.e. one side always facing us ...
1. see Majorion about this not being uncommon.
2. In our current case, it appears to be because the "near side" is loaded with heavier elements. So acting like a magnet it keeps the same side toward us.

Re. the long duration of reverberations when the moon is struck:
This has also long been known. The scientific thinking, clear back to the mid-50's, speculated about the moon having large "negative mass-cons" (hollow spots). Carl Sagan is on record in the early 60's saying he expected to find the moon largely hollow.


To be fair my personal belief is that there are artificial constructs on our moon though the body itself as a whole is natural.
Yup.

[Kulapops]

Isn't life and the universe amazing enough as it is, without us having to make up 'amazing' stuff about it too?
Respect to those who believe the moon is artificial, Mr Icke included. I bought his book, and am keen to read it... but flicking through I saw the bit about the 'moon matrix' and I thought...'Oh, Gawd... here we go...'

I'm prepared to believe that I'm wrong about these things... but it just all fits the Kula's Bedtime Story TM (kulapops all reights reserved ;0) ) equation all too well.

We just love a good story, don't we ? I mean, why have a natural moon, made of rock n stuff, when you can have a death-star like spaceship beaming us with a Mega-Ray...??? That's just, I mean, so much more fun, isn't it ?

While meanwhile, a lot of other fun stuff goes by our noses unnoticed, because we're just so gosh-darned interested in all these stories....

Go on.. try this one for a moment.. humour me. Switch your monitor off for 60 secs and just sit there and listen to yourself and the universe.







Hear all that white noise? Random thoughts... my.. that's a busy mind you got there....

;0)

love yas...

K

[K626]

Hello all

Looks like I am the only person on this forum who thinks the moon is a construct and probably brought here millions of years ago but how and to what purpose is another matter. As to the samples, brought to Earth by the Apollo space missions! Does anyone believe the 'scientists' explanations?

Another interesting thread, my love and peace to all. JP :cool:

Nope. I too believe the moon was dragged here and is semi-artificial.

[truthseekerdan]

(Nov. 1) -- We're all familiar with the phrase "the man in the moon," the idea that the full moon looks like a human face. But what about this far-out notion: Could there be aliens on the moon watching humankind from a relatively close distance?

That's a meaty question that brings out emotional responses from anyone you ask.

For decades, researchers have claimed that strange objects have been seen on or above the moon -- things that shouldn't be there. From mysterious pyramid shapes to unusual moving lights to tall towerlike objects to geometrically oriented buildings and huge glasslike dome structures, stories and pictures abound claiming that Earth's next-door neighbor is loaded with extraterrestrial artifacts.

http://o.aolcdn.com/photo-hub/news_gallery/6/9/691213/1287667583416.JPEG

Read more: http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/some-say-moon-photos-show-signs-of-alien-life/19683381

[bennycog]

have seen and heard so much info on this over the years.. it just becomes an idea that sticks in the back of the mind waiting for disclosure to make it real..
i get out there at nights when i can and point my telescope at the moon waiting to see something, (maybe it is the moon filter that came with it lol :) but the only thing i see is a little bright spot on the moon here and there, never moving. and that can easily be explained away as the reflection form the sun.