|
Post by paul on Apr 2, 2011 6:01:08 GMT 9.5
I suppose in harsh conditions inhabitants might live underground and conduct only selected activities upon the surface - as for example in Coober Pedy "Coober Pedy is probably best known for its unique style of underground living. ........There are authentic underground homes to explore as well as underground museums, opal shops, art galleries, underground churches and, of course, opal mines." www.cooberpedy.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=191Or perhaps only come out at night as do many desert animals
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Apr 2, 2011 6:18:47 GMT 9.5
The surface temperatures range from about 90 to 700 K (−183 °C to 427 °C). Seems a bit extreme to have developed life.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Apr 2, 2011 6:54:55 GMT 9.5
Various possibilities come to mind:
- the entities did not develop there - the entities come to the surface only at dawn and dusk - the entities use robotic servants for surface work - the entities are not carbon-water life forms - the arranged square structures are only the exhaust arrangements for underground cities - the arranged square structures remain from when the orbit of Mercury was further from the Sun - the arranged square structures are non-functional decoys - etc
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Apr 2, 2011 8:36:10 GMT 9.5
Or, they could be natural surface anomalies. Right angles are known in nature, and do not, of themselves, indicate artificiality.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Apr 2, 2011 8:50:39 GMT 9.5
Have you noticed that the squares are lined up with each other?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Apr 4, 2011 10:09:20 GMT 9.5
Google images of the moons surface to get plenty of odd things to look at. The thing I noticed was the flatness of the surface inside the craters. Something I would not expect to see if an asteroid hit the surface of the earth. www.star-astronomy.com/2008/09/moon-craters/moon-craters
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Apr 4, 2011 10:10:46 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by paul on Apr 4, 2011 10:11:53 GMT 9.5
>I noticed was the flatness of the surface inside the craters
The maria (flat craters) show far fewer meteorite impacts suggesting that they are much newer than the surrounding area
And some of the long track marks on the Moon go over hills
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Apr 4, 2011 10:14:08 GMT 9.5
Taken by men on the moon or Stanley Kubrick's work? Very neat change of colour and scenery half way through the photo. And why do rocks only appear in one half of the photo?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Apr 7, 2011 11:34:38 GMT 9.5
The thing I noticed was the flatness of the surface inside the craters. Something I would not expect to see if an asteroid hit the surface of the earth. There is an account of astronauts attempting to drill into the surface inside of the maria craters and failing to penetrate more than a few inches. This suggest that the "crust" of the moon is extremely hard. Further, the largest maria are around 1000 miles wide. Meteorites capable of making that wide a crater would create huge devastation or even break the Moon apart into asteroids. Hence one might deduce that the huge maria are not made by meteorites
|
|
|
Post by paul on Apr 25, 2011 11:38:14 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by paul on Apr 25, 2011 11:48:42 GMT 9.5
And here is more of Enceladus Note on the middle of the right side - long runs of identical craters Looks like beam weapons practice
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Apr 26, 2011 23:45:25 GMT 9.5
looks more like a case of not enough pixels and to much contrast to me..
gravity can cause tides in "solid" objects, potentially causing fractures
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 8, 2011 17:32:57 GMT 9.5
Here is a non-NASA photo of the Moon - so it is in colour server4.sky-map.org/imageView?image_id=904168Notice how the maria (seas) have few craters. This indicates the maria are quite young The long line from the top right of the Moon towards the bottom left seems peculiar and there are other suspiciously long lines. In the topmost mare at 3 o'clock is what looks like a long straight canyon cutting through several hills
|
|
|
Post by mgc on May 9, 2011 9:08:24 GMT 9.5
unless u get a photo with a resolution at which u can actually see something, im going to disregard "suspicious lines" the source IS nasa btw: apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060907.html
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 9, 2011 9:15:41 GMT 9.5
It is good to see that NASA has discovered colour for the Moon.
As for seeing something, you must rely on non-photoshopped images. These are difficult to find
|
|
|
Post by mgc on May 9, 2011 9:38:38 GMT 9.5
i would settle for a shopped image with proper resolution.. at least then u can wonder why it was shopped..
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 19, 2011 7:54:55 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Jun 24, 2011 0:29:50 GMT 9.5
his logic is flawed.. the moon being (possibly) essential to create life on earth is no argument for its creation by that same life.. if it hadnt been there in the first place, life that supposedly built it couldnt have formed (if the moon is essential to creating life)..
this leaves god(s), aliens and the third catagory he conveniently left out: natural evolution of the solar system.. things crashing into other things is quite common both on earth and in space.. 1 of these collisions is imo the most likely candidate..
1 more thing.. about the size of the moon and distance to the sun creating "perfect" eclipses: it only does that a percentage of the time.. as u know, earths orbit (and so the moons) around the sun is not circular but elliptical.. this means the earth, moon, sun relation changes enough to cause less (or more!) than total eclipses most of the time.. a "perfect"eclipse is the xeption, not the rule..
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 24, 2011 8:15:23 GMT 9.5
1 of these collisions is imo the most likely candidate.. . Unfortunately its seems that calculations of energy and momentum from possible collisions are not consistent with the current Earth-Moon relationship. Other explanations are needed.
|
|