• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Moon anomalies: These three are compelling

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Gareth

Gareth

Nothin' to see here
Ive never been too convinced by all the speculation of structures and mining operations on the moon. There could very well be, but the images that are usually pointed to dont show anything at all. Creative interpretation of blurry rocks is always a must if you want to 'see what they see'.

However these three pics have always caught my eye:

Aristarchus Crater - Blue Gem or Fusion Reactor

This blue light on the moon is an actual phenomenon that amateur astronomers have been photographing for years. NASA denies it. This particular crater seems to light up a bright blue/violet from time to time. Easily of the most interesting of the lunar anomalies caught in a photo.
Aristarchus-171205pwc.jpg


Movement on the Moon LO-V-168-H2

The next one is the 'rolling boulder'. NASA claims it was a rolling boulder but many people think that factors such as the size of the track and terrain make it impossible for a boulder to have naturally rolled the way they claim.

Im in two minds. On one hand I agree that a boulder probably wouldnt leave a track like that. But I also know that the surface of the moon is made of a very fine powder like material that might potentially be soft enough to for an object to leave such an exxaggerated track.

lo5_h168_2_boulder.gif

Track_01a.png



and, the shard:

LO_3_84_orig.png
 
ok lets clear this up ok THEY LANDED ON THE MOON if nasa was hiding something they wouldnt of let so many people test out there stupid moon theories also im studying astronomy ok dnt believe all conspiracy theories ..we have to have respect for the people who have landed on the moon it is a significant step in human history and i will be damned that i will let morons like u people destroy it:mad:
 
When you say 'u people', who are you talking to? This thread has got NOTHING to do with the moon hoax. Its about interesting moon pictures.
 
if someone would take a big ass telescope somewhere in between a 10 incher and the hubble and look at the frikken moon with it then maybe we could clear a few things up. WHY cant we see grains of sand on the moon from here when we can see so far with the hubble?
 
so why is it we cant see grains of sand on the moon with a telescope? hello? tap tap tap...is this thing on?
 
pixelsmith said:
so why is it we cant see grains of sand on the moon with a telescope? hello? tap tap tap...is this thing on?
Click to expand...

Just a guess... is there a difference between picking up light from extremely far away, and actually focusing on a relatively close object such as the moon? If so, maybe Hubble doesnt have the focusing power...

Just a (possibly incorrect) thought.

Also, can we get some discussion going on that weird blue light that occasionally shows up in certain moon craters? The pic I just posted...

I just find that so fricken WEIRD!
 
Gareth,

Yes, I'm being serious, those are very interesting images, even more interesting is the contents of that Apollo 11 transcript. Fascinating.

And yes, Pixelsmith, I heard you, I suspect that the Hubble is designed for specific wavelengths of light and optical distances, it might be difficult - if not impossible - to use it to image the moon's surface. I'm not an expert on the Hubble hardware, so I reserve the right to be wrong.

dB
 
The "tower" image reminds me of something Jesse Marcel Jr. showed at a conference I attended back in 96. The object in his pic was more wigglier though.
 
David Biedny said:
Gareth,

Yes, I'm being serious, those are very interesting images, even more interesting is the contents of that Apollo 11 transcript. Fascinating.

And yes, Pixelsmith, I heard you, I suspect that the Hubble is designed for specific wavelengths of light and optical distances, it might be difficult - if not impossible - to use it to image the moon's surface. I'm not an expert on the Hubble hardware, so I reserve the right to be wrong.

dB
Click to expand...

True....

Page43.png
 
Gareth said:
David I cant tell if youre being serious or not...

Aristarcus_MA_03.png


That one I find the most intriguing.

But yea, were you taking the piss?
Click to expand...

This photo to me is probably the most compelling reason for mankind to go back to the moon. Just to find out what the hell THIS is.

The Shard photo I hadn't seen before, but I am thinking that it might be an issue with dirt on the lense. It doesn't seem to be lit right compared to the rest of the photo, but then again, the moon has all kinds of reflectivity, so it might be right.

Regardless, these are cause for a lot of interest, and I'm surprised the tards over at NASA haven't said anything about them.
 
it appears to be like a volcano. there are a few river type things flowing out of it and it has a hot spot right in the middle.

dB i cannot believe there isnt a telescope capable of looking at the moon very very close. could it be that anomalies such as these are the reason we do not look closer?
 
pixelsmith said:
it appears to be like a volcano. there are a few river type things flowing out of it and it has a hot spot right in the middle.

dB i cannot believe there isnt a telescope capable of looking at the moon very very close. could it be that anomalies such as these are the reason we do not look closer?
Click to expand...

That's the real kicker, as the Moon has NO seismic activity, and the core is dead. There should be no hot spots, as the moon is completely dead.
 
pixelsmith said:
it appears to be like a volcano. there are a few river type things flowing out of it and it has a hot spot right in the middle.

dB i cannot believe there isnt a telescope capable of looking at the moon very very close. could it be that anomalies such as these are the reason we do not look closer?
Click to expand...

I think what youre identifying as rivers are actually just 'stresses' associated with a big crater.
 
Well, the shard is eight miles high, so it's not a guy in a spacesuit.

Oh, and Richard Hoagland is still nuts, right? Okay, just checking. 'Cause an awful lot of you are now agreeing with him, perhaps without knowing about it, because you may not have read his New York Times Bestseller list book Dark Mission with Mike Bara, which is about this stuff, and the secrets that NASA has been keeping.

Re: your question about the Hubble: NASA says we can't point the Hubble at the Moon because the Sun would damage the too-sensitive light-sensing instruments and essentially blind it.

COUGHbuLLshitCOUGH.

So, why not Kitt Peak? Or The Keck?

I agree--something strange IS going on here.
 
Just out of curiosity, is that little crater with the blue light on the light side, or dark side of the moon?

If it's on the light side, one would think that we could see it with a decent telescope, and not be blinded.
 
Back
Top