Moon anomalies: These three are compelling

[Gareth]

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.


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.





and, the shard:

[Dantheufoman777]

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

[Dantheufoman777]

also that comment before wasnt a comment on mining on the moon im just sick of people talkin bout never landing on the moon lol..interesting photos tho

[Gareth]

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.

[pixelsmith]

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?

[David Biedny]

Gareth,

I have to admit, those photos are indeed fascinating. WTF?

Huh...

dB

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by David Biedny

Gareth,

I have to admit, those photos are indeed fascinating. WTF?

Huh...

dB

David I cant tell if youre being serious or not...



That one I find the most intriguing.

But yea, were you taking the piss?

[pixelsmith]

so why is it we cant see grains of sand on the moon with a telescope? hello? tap tap tap...is this thing on?

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by pixelsmith

so why is it we cant see grains of sand on the moon with a telescope? hello? tap tap tap...is this thing on?

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!

[David Biedny]

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