anunnaki

thanx,
i try not to get all caught up in the arguing and try not to take it personal but its hard sometimes.i feel more strongly about having common sense and an open mind than i do about any particular subject.i know that there are alot of people on this site that really are interseted in others views and can listen without being a goofball, and then there s the others.im checking into some other topics to post cuz i do like talking to the good people..............take care too.....nik
 
I know this is off the subject a bit, but here's a question -
The not so recent photos of the ice caps on the moon...pretty uninteresting, right?.
What I find interesting was what took the photos..
An American Defense spy satellite they sent to map out the moon. No offence, but what the hell is a defense spy satellite doing watching the moon??? NASA clearly stated this was the type of satellite used to supply the piccies - I wonder what else was photographed up there??
And some would trust NASA more than fruitcakes....are you sure you wanna do that??!!!
( Sorry, for the change in subject - but it's gotta be better than Nik and Boris head-butting each other LOL !!) :)
Dave.
 
The military satellite that first detected ice on the Moon was not making pictures. It was performing in-space calibration of a radar instrument -- and the radar echoes returned from the Moon showed a spectrum strongly suggestive of abundant hydrogen. That's how the whole Moon-ice thing got started.

By the way, do you not find it in the very least interesting that a scientific discovery (and a very controversial one, and of great potential benefit to covert military operations), was performed by DOD of all agencies, and nevertheless made public? How does that jibe with your cospiracy theories? (And don't claim that it was an isolated incident, because cross-exchange of scientific developments occurs all the time.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 05, 1999).]
 
Boris,
Update your info, or shall I just send you the pictures I have?
I never said there is a conspiracy on that subject, I just asked to stir comment because doesn't everyone say there are alien bases on the moon?
Getting the picture yet?
Regards,
Dave.
-----------------

You are, therefore, I think, irritable lately! :)

-----------------
 
Dave,

No, I seriously am not aware of any "pictures of the ice caps on the moon". In fact, the last valiant attempt to directly detect ice (by smashing the Lunar Prospector into one of the polar craters) failed. All we have is a vague map of hydrogen abundance. How sparsely the hydrogen is distributed throughot the Lunar crust is a question not yet answered. The question of whether there are any high concentrations of water ice on the Moon, or whether the "ice" is merely 'sprinkled' throughout the higher layers of the regolith -- has not been settled yet, at least not to my knowledge.

Your purported existence of water ice directly on the Moon's surface (in contact with vacuum) is actually impossible. Water ice sublimes over time (kind of like evaporation, but very ponderous) -- which means that even if the Moon had some water ice on its surface, all that ice would have sublimed into outer space by now.

All of which leads me to question existence of your purported "ice caps" on the Moon. You don't have to mail me the pictures, since you obviosly did not take them yourself. Just point me to the web site that showcases them. Thanks...

P.S. Sorry I'm such an irritation...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 06, 1999).]
 
On the contrary, Boris,
"Lunar ice" might sound a little strange to many people, but it didn't sound so strange to three Caltech researchers who, in 1961, suggested a few plausible arguments for its existence. The three (Kenneth Watson, Bruce C. Murray, and Harrison Brown) theorized that, since the Sun never deviates more than 1.6° from the Moon's equatorial plane, some crater floors near the lunar poles might lie in constant shadow. At 40° to 50° Kelvin, these "cold traps" could keep ice so solidly frozen that almost none of it would escape into space.
Well, it took up until 1994 with the Pentagon Star Wars Satellite Clementine to put that theory to test.
The result was a finding of an ice cap on the south pole equal the volume of a small lake ~approx 1 billion cubic meters in size.
Also, it wasn't specifically hydrogen they detected either because although the Clementine spacecraft did not carry instruments designed to look for lunar ice, during the mission, they improvised an experiment that allowed them to address this question. Radio waves are reflected from planetary surfaces differently depending on the compositional make up of those surfaces. Specifically, radio waves are scattered in all directions by reflection from surfaces made up of ground-up rock (as are the terrestrial planets, which include most of the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, and the asteroids), while radio waves are reflected more coherently from ice surfaces (the polar caps of Mercury and Mars and the icy surfaces of Jupiter's satellites Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto). This happens because ice acts as a partly transparent medium for radio waves; think of ice as similar to a headlight reflector on a bicycle fender, which shines brightly when illuminated by light because of the many internal reflections produced by the translucent plastic of the reflector. Echoes of these waves were obtained from the large dish antennas of the Deep Space Network on Earth. The permanently dark regions around the south pole have the radar reflectance properties of ice, rather than the ground-up rock powder characteristic of the rest of the Moon's surface. Additional data taken on orbits where the reflected radio spots were not over these south polar regions and at the north pole do not show this ice signature.

<c>
Southpole.gif
</c>

Kind regards,
Dave.
 
Dave,

Thanks. I've re-educated myself on the issues. (sorry about the confusion with radar; it was Lunar Prospector that searched for hydrogen using the Neutron Spectrometer.) The estimates from Clementine were wildly overblown. Furthermore, subsequent radar imaging from Arecibo in 1997 did not corroborate the Clementine data.

The Lunar Prospector found a total amount of water between 10 and 300 million tons, spread out over large areas in low concentrations, and actually at both poles (with more water ice, surprisingly, at the North pole than at the South pole.) There certainly are no ice caps, and probably no surface ice; what we seem to have instead is a sort of permafrost with tiny ice crystals mixed in amidst moon rock.

See <A HREF="http://lunarprospector.arc.nasa.gov/science/results/lunarice/eureka.html">http://lunarprospector.arc.nasa.gov/science/results/lunarice/eureka.html</A> for more details. Also, there's supposed to be a conference on October 13th about the official findings from the Prospector impact...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
Brandon,

there are a number of problems which would still invalidate the "Nibiru" theory. First of all, all the astronomers who are proposing the new giant planet/brown dwarf, are describing it as a very distant body with an orbital period between 4 and 6 million years (a far cry from the supposed 3600). Also, the newly-proposed bodies do not have highly excentric orbits that bring them into the inner solar system. And even these theoretical predictions are not indicative of fact until (and unless) this object is actually detected directly. (We do not know the precise configuration of the Kuiper belt; it could well be that it simply still has dynamical instabilities, with no need to bring in a possible giant planet/brown dwarf as an explanation...)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
Boris,
Yes, the Prospector impact was the great fizz of '99. I can't believe they actually thought they would see the cloud of ice dust it would kick up on impact from observatories here on earth. Not to mention the impact zone was give or take ~1500 odd km's. Another $63,000,000.00 dollars well spent??? You would think they would have at least come to the party for a few hundred dollars more worth of fuel so they could have had a more accurate "crash" trajectory, wouldn't you? :)
Kind regards,
dave.
 
Boris,

Sure there could be a 12th planet. But it ain' t the one Nik is talking about, and it almost certainly won' t harbor life at any level. I was just wondering how far
he' d run with this new discovery. Obviously he didn' t take the bait. As for this new planet (or planets), when they speak of the size of this planet, do they actually mean "mass"? I can' t see how we wouldn' t see an object 3-6 times as large as Jupiter through telescopes. If they mean mass, then couldn' t the planet actually be smaller in size than Jupiter if its made up of heavy elements such as iron or nickel?
 
If we are all going to pretend that we are up to date with the solar system and current celestial knowledge can we start by addressing planet X as the 10th planet and leave the sun and moon out of it? :)
 
Dave,

I' m just saying #12 MIGHT be out there. It isn' t Nibiru or something like that, just some cold, desolate chunk of rock. The current discovery would be #10, but who' s to say 11 and 12 also aren' t floating around out there as well? You never know. One of the articles I read suggested that there could be many more planets similar to this discovery. As far as life on them, I highly doubt that any new planets discovered in our solar system will harbor life at any level.
 
I think it's God's wrath, and it's a comin' wether we can explain it or not. Hang on people it's gonna be a wild ride. And please remember, if aliens tell you that I disappeared along with a bunch of other "narrow minded Christians" because we were not ready to "evolve" like the rest of you...THEY'RE LYING!!!!!!! I'm really with Jesus waiting for you guys.....which would be the martyrs....(positive thinking).

------------------
God loves you and so do I!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top