There is no oxygen on the moon. Therefore, there is no fire, no smoke and no smokestacks. The video you posted shows a nondescript geographical feature on moon filmed from so far away, it looks like a black dot. Then at some point, debris passes in front of the lens making it look like "smoke" came out of the black dot. Any sane person watching the video already knows this.

#39 | Posted by Sully at 2008-12-07 04:22 PM | Reply

Sully sees nothing. His explanation of debris passing in front of the lens makes no sense to me, since the debris would have to come from the edge of the frame, where you should have been able to see it come on to the lens, then stop at that precise point, change shapes to match a smoke plume, then disappear off the lens without being seen traveling to the edges. His explanation doesn't make sense to me. How about you?

The smokestack on the moon is shadow from gas being emitted from the surface.

#35 | Posted by MURPHY at 2008-12-06 10:27 PM | Reply

This is entirely possible. However, humanity will have to change its science of the moon if true. Science tells us the moon has no geothermic activity--no volcanoes--no moving water--no steam. If Murphy is correct, we have to rewrite some science books. Do you agree with Murphy?

He still won't admit that the so-called smokestack is seen FROM A STILL PHOTO that a camera is merely zooming in on. THERE IS NO VIDEO OF ANY SMOKESTACK.

#40 | Posted by Snark_Needleton at 2008-12-07 08:34 PM | Reply |

Snark Needleton doesn't seem to understand that this is film, and not a still picture. Though film is made up of a series of still pictures, NASA didn't send Apollo 8 to the Moon just to snap some stills. It was a recon mission, and the fact that this is film is not in dispute.

But if it were a still picture, simply zooming in wouldn't produce that smoke plume. A still picture would not have movement in it--the movement being--no smoke--then a cloud of smoke--then a fading cloud of smoke--then no smoke again. Still pictures don't do that. Or do they? Is Snark correct?

What is neat, is at the 1 o'clock position from the alleged smokestack, as it releases that plume of whatever, the mountain suddenly has a huge hole in it. Then it disappears.

What is neat, is at the 1 o'clock position from the alleged smokestack, as it releases that plume of whatever, the mountain suddenly has a huge hole in it. Then it disappears.

#4 | Posted by gitmboy at 2008-12-13 10:27 AM | Reply

I never noticed that before, But as you look at the video and they pause the picture, the contrast changes. It becomes more pronounced. If you back the video up and look at the same place, there is a dark area there. The same goes on in other areas of the video--places seem much darker than before. But in every instance, the dark area was there before the video was paused, its just that the contrast wasn't as pronounced.

Looking for smokestacks? Naaa. We should be looking for mobile homes.

'cause it looks like a tornado.

"The smokestack on the moon is shadow from gas being emitted from the surface.
#35 | Posted by MURPHY at 2008-12-06 10:27 PM | Reply

This is entirely possible. However, humanity will have to change its science of the moon if true. Science tells us the moon has no geothermic activity--no volcanoes--no moving water--no steam. If Murphy is correct, we have to rewrite some science books. Do you agree with Murphy?
#2 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-12-13 08:58 AM"

I was unaware that geothermal (selenothermal?) activity had been proven to not exist on the moon. Beyond the obvious that it is difficult (impossible?) to prove a negative, there are quite a few instances of TLP (Transient Lunar Phenomena) that have been claimed/observed which are rather easily explained as being caused by lunar "geothermal" activity. It's not too difficult to "google up" info on this subject. The following link is just one example (from 1968!):

Come on BBob... Everyone knows that footage was actually taken over the Nevada desert and accidentally caught a terrestrial smokestack in the picture. We know this because everyone knows we never actually went to the moon. Hence the van actually be no pictures of smokestacks or spaceships on the moon.... Right?

Sheesh... Make up your mind what you believe and stick with it before making wild claims.

HINT: It video was shot by Nova... From a still picture shot by NASA. Nobody claims that NASA only shot still pictures... That was just a straw man by you to try and counter the above poster. However the did shoot stills in addition to video.

This was done from one such still... Therefore any anomaly in the video can only be an artifact (read: glitch) of the production room at Nova.

Seriously, BBob must have been getting desperate for attention to bring up this old chestnut again. Ok, BBob... You got one past from me. That is all you will get on this thread.

Bah ... Hate posting from my BlackBerry. Tried to correct some of the word errors and it accepted them, but payed the original anyway. Using the BlackBerry Pearl and it doesn't gave the full sized keyboard, so it has an autocomplete feature that tries to figure out which letters you meant from one key press. Unfortunately it is sometimes wrong. Add that to small keys and day thumbs and you wind up with the errors above.

Fortunately the errors in my post are not as bad as the errors in BBob's cranium that spawns threads such as this.

See what mean?

day thumbs = fat thumbs

The other errors you can figure out on your own.

There BBob... You got three posts out of me. Only one on topic though.

Bob, you're right. Very few people seem to understand the picture to represent what you believe it does.

Okay.

Ergo: Their understanding is just plain wrong.

Got it.

Damn! I agree with Tiny about something. Hell must be freezing over, Hand.

This story is debunked here:

BuffaloBob

I finally got my copy of "The 12th Planet" from alibris delivered in the mail yesterday. But I'll need time to get started on it. Maybe in a week or so I'll have enough read so we can start discussing it.

Everyone laughs at the Smokestack on the Moon --

- BuffaloBob

I could have sworn I saw the smokestack puffing away when I looked up at last night's full Moon.

Of course I see the Man in the Moon too.

This story is debunked here:

~Corky.

Good call on the "Bad Astronomy" linkage.

Zooming in on a still shot from the film made by the crew of the Apollo 13 mission does create an illusion of movement that could be confusing to those watching who were unaware of the process. That plus the fact that in the near vacuum of the moon a stack would not spew smoke in an earth-like manner is significant. Thus the conclusion that the "smokestack on the moon" is really the result of "true believers" (ala the Coast to Coast crowd) resizing and tweaking the Nova footage in order to make their case that this bit of nothing is really sommat significant seems the most likely explanation here.

Still, BBob managed to get a post from Spud and others so he must be doing sommat right, eh?

Be Well.

Still, BBob managed to get a post from Spud and others so he must be doing sommat right, eh?
~Spud

Yup we're all feeding the troll.

This isn't the first time 'Bad Astronomy' has been brought into play regarding the smoke stacks on the DR.

Has anyone figured out what is being manufactured at the site? That would go a long way to resolving my doubt.

Moder8-
Conspiracy theories. Somebody's gotta manufacture them.

Well that proves it then. There is a factory with smokestacks on the moon producing conspiracy theories. My question is whether this is just another example of exporting jobs. Are moonies willing to work at a cheaper wage than earthlings?

I'm guessing it's a hobby fad. Sorta like earth children and ant farms or sea monkeys.

Has anyone figured out what is being manufactured at the site? That would go a long way to resolving my doubt.

~Moder8

Conspiracy theories. Somebody's gotta manufacture them.

~BetelG.

Best theory Spud has heard yet.

Aha! So them Moonies is actually just manufacturing smoke in order to to blow it up the asses of conspiracy theorists here on Earth.

Them bastards.

Selling flowers at the airports in an annoying fashion is just the tip of their plans fer dominating the entire solar system.

/Well, that and running the WaPo, of course.

Be Well.

Yup we're all feeding the troll.

More like BuffaloBob is feeding us.

Who always gets the last laugh (and around 200 hits) on his "SmokeStack on the Moon" and other conspiracy threads no matter how many times he puts them up.

"Dance for me, little puppets, dance"

-- BuffaloBob
Puppetmaster Extraordinaire

Spud-Moonies work on the Moon? I did not know that. I DID wonder where they got their nickname from though....

#23 | Posted by CalifChris

Such praise and admiration for a man who called the astronauts liars. Every allegation disproved, but they are not his allegations, nor does he offer answers.

He denigrates courageous men because he is a coward.

I really think women have a defect when it comes to judging a man's integrity, though it may be that they simply crave the amusement that a trifler provides the voyeur__>

Frank-
That's it! It was a mass-marriage ceremonial bonfire on the moon.

Spud-Moonies work on the Moon?

~Frank

Well, if you wanna call manufacturing smoke "work" then yes.

Yes they do.

At one sixth the gravity of earth wot they do is really *ahem* light work.

Be Well.

Everyone laughs at the Smokestack on the Moon, but no one has a satisfactory explanation.

Wrongo, bOoB. Let me correct that for you. You have been offered many satifactory explanations, but you reject them. Just because you refuse to consider a plausible explanation does not make it unsatisfactory. Your statement should read:

Everyone laughs at the Smokestack on the Moon, but no one has an explanation that is satisfactory to me

I suggest you go elsewhere if you want an explanation that satisfies you. Politics aside, there are too many sane people on this blog to proffer the answer you want, boOb.

The fact that you keep posting that link over and over is proof plenty that you won't get the answer you want here. (don't you get that? any idiot would) Go to lunarconspiracy.com. I'm sure they'll satisfy you in ways that drudge.com cannot.

Trueblue

Thank you for your response.

I was unaware that geothermal (selenothermal?) activity had been proven to not exist on the moon.

As far as we know, all volcanic activity stopped on the moon 2.5 billion years ago as the closest estimate that I can find. With no volcanic activity, there is no geothermal activity.

OzarkAggie --

#23 | Posted by CalifChris

Such praise and admiration for a man who called the astronauts liars. Every allegation disproved, but they are not his allegations, nor does he offer answers.

He denigrates courageous men because he is a coward.

I really think women have a defect when it comes to judging a man's integrity, though it may be that they simply crave the amusement that a trifler provides the voyeur__>

Seriously, you have a very valid point when you talk about how trying to turn the astronauts' positive accomplishment of landing on the Moon into some sort of conspiratorial negative denigrates these men. On that point I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I guess I never looked at it in exactly that light because I never for a minute believed any of the allegations made that the astronaunts had not landed on the Moon in 1969. Don't take my kidding around and joking with BBob as being "praise" for, and/or agreement with, any accusation the Moon landing was faked. Or that I'm urging him on in that belief.

This one, though, is the "SmokeStack on the Moon" thread and another ballgame altogether.

If nothing else, I have learned more about space travel, the Moon, its surface, atmosphere, etc. than I ever knew in my entire life until jumping in on these craze space threads. So in that regard, for me at least, it's been a positive.

You and I both know we will never change his mind, and even we did he'd never admit it, so just go along and have some fun. Otherwise you'll end up driving yourself nuts if you let little things like science, facts, and proof positive get in the way. lol

As BuffaloBob himself says -- "That that is, is."

And we're not going to change him.

Corky

Thank you for your response. I saw this long ago before I got my copy of Too the Moon, to see what the actual footage looked like. This is the best response so far, but there were problems with it.

This story is debunked here:

More to Corky

Your link then goes to what it says is the original photo.

In fact, with a little searching (and one false start) we were able to find the exact photograph used by the NOVA people. It is labeled "AS08-14-2393"

Then they compared the two side by side. But in the comparison a couple of things show up. When the blew up the original to the size of the NOVA, it was very distorted, and you couldn't see any tower, spire, smokestack or anything. The NOVA pic still showed the Smokestack, but you have to look very close. In the video on YOUTUBE, and on the dvd of To the Moon, That smokestack stands out in stark contrast to the background. the pic 2393 is of that area, but there is not enough detail to really see the anomaly at all. I'm suggesting a different camera was used at the same time with a closer zoom than the picture referenced.

Your link has another sentence I will talk about soon, but it then says.

There is more: if there is no air on the Moon, how can something eject a puff of smoke that moves and dissipates like it's blowing in the wind?

If it were ejected, it would act precisely like the video shows. It could be ejected with compressed gases, and with the near vacuum of the moon, the ejected gas would be almost explosively dispersed. It would be like suddenly popping a balloon into vacuum chamber.

Your link then gives its definitive answer on the smudge.

So what is that puff then? Instead of a giant object a mile high blowing out smoke, it is almost certainly a smudge of some kind on the NOVA footage. Perhaps it was on the camera used to make the zoomed sequence, or something else that happened during production.

"A smudge of some kind". A smudge that wasn't there, then appears at the exact top of a smokestack looking object, looks like smoke, changes shape, and disappears. Yes, that is some kind of smudge.

If it were on the camera lens, it would have been there from beginning to end.

The last part is that your link focused on this--it said it twice.

you cannot get real motion from a single photograph.

Since the original image is clearly a still photograph, there cannot be movement in it.

And its final conclusion.

Since the L.E.M.U.R./ESC case for a puff of smoke is based on movement, their conclusion must be incorrect.

They are correct--you can't get real motion from a single photo--but I see motion. That must mean it is either what it looks like---or it is the appearing. changing, disappearing smoke smudge that just happened to appear at the top of a smokestack looking object.

Tell me exactly what you think, Corky. I saw what your link thinks. What is your conclusion?

Calfchris

When I am proven wrong, I admit it. I recently put up a thread that was all bullshit, but as soon as it was pointed out, I agreed and apologized for my posting it. However, the point of debate is point/counterpoint, like a ping pong match.

I make a point about the smokestack on the moon--Corky makes a counterpoint---then I make a counterpoint to his points. But it seems that the way it works is I make a point--then soemone like Corky makes a counterpoint, then I make a counterpoint to them, and my counterpoint is ignored, and I get the charge of not agreeing. No. Just because you make one counterpoint, doesn't mean you have won the debate. The debate is won when the points and counterpoints are all gone over, and see who you think has the best logic. See my last long posts to corky. His link to counterpoint me was long. Now--will Corky respond to my counterpoints or simply claim I don't agree with reality and claim victory. That is usually the case. Not with Corky specifically, but with most people.

As to the astronauts--if they went to the moon, no question should be unanswered. But I haven't seen any pictures from the moon that didn't have a hot spot in it from the lighting. None of the pictures should have lighting hot spots. I haven't seen any pictures of the helmets reflecting the sunlight off their faceplates that wasn't a big blob. Reflections of the sun from astronauts in orbit have a sharp point of light on their helmets as a reflection of the sun. The relection of the sun should be the same on the helmets on the moon. If we went to the moon all my questions should be easily answered.

Bob is a self-aggrandizing ass!

When I am proven wrong, I admit it.

Califchris

When I am proven wrong, I admit it. I recently put up a thread that was all bullshit, but as soon as it was pointed out, I agreed and apologized for my posting it....

Yes, I remember when you did exactly that.

The debate is won when the points and counterpoints are all gone over, and see who you think has the best logic.

Debating in that fashion makes the most sense to me too. Trouble is each person in the debate will think they are the one who has "the best" logic. lol

...See my last long posts to corky. His link to counterpoint me was long. Now--will Corky respond to my counterpoints or simply claim I don't agree with reality and claim victory. That is usually the case. Not with Corky specifically, but with most people.

I think Corky will respond to your counterpoint as soon as he has time. He seem pretty good about debating -- matching point to counterpoint -- with each of your allegations made rather than just dismissing your claims out of hand. TRUEBLUE also seems to want to debate in a thorough fashion -- getting into precise detail -- although I really don't know him (or her?) that well as a poster.

All I know is I learn a little something new every time I read these space/moon threads and I don't doubt that others do too -- especially when having to do any research. To me, learning can never be considered a waste of time.

--if they went to the moon, no question should be unanswered

Such assertions make me question whether your tin foil cap is on too tight.

That, and to question anything else you say.

As far as smokestacks on the moon go, I posted a link to a rational debunking of an already irrational claim.

Not being a film expert, I rally don't have anything else to contribute on that, except that the debunking makes more sense.

"Rally, I don't"

What is tin foil? Ever seen any?

Foil made from a thin leaf of tin was commercially available before its aluminum counterpart. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, tin foil was in common use, and some people continue to refer to the new product by the name of the old one.

This one, though, is the "SmokeStack on the Moon" thread and another ballgame altogether.

If nothing else, I have learned more about space travel, the Moon, its surface, atmosphere, etc. than I ever knew in my entire life until jumping in on these craze space threads. So in that regard, for me at least, it's been a positive.

I'd agree that I did learn something, but had the debate been conducted respectfully and with purpose I'd say Yes to the positive, but the da b00b undermined that with his disingenuous demurrers.

What's to say that a meteorite strike didn't kick up some lunar dust. There is solar wind even in a relative vacuum and the rock, sand and dust scatter looks like smoke.

That's the simplest answer. Something that is not unusual. The moon does draw meteorites. Serendipity. Apollo was in the right place at the right time to capture such an event.

In science you endeavor to assign probability. We have one source of data, and that second hand. But da b00b wouldn't go looking for a real answer because he's a despicable liar.

From #29 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-12-13 05:22 PM:
"As far as we know, all volcanic activity stopped on the moon 2.5 billion years ago as the closest estimate that I can find. With no volcanic activity, there is no geothermal activity."

I'm not sure who "we" is, but if you're using your links as evidence, "they" are mistaken. Even your own links refer to shorter time periods (less than 1B years) since the last volcanic activity. In any case, there are a couple key points being overlooked:

1. The evidence I've come across (e.g., even your own links) refer to the "latest volcanic activity". I don't see evidence (or willingness?) from "them" that states/proves that volcanic activity has ended.

2. It is simply incorrect to say that "With no volcanic activity, there is no geothermal activity." I have personally observed numerous places (and live near areas) with geothermal activity which do not have volcanic activity. Of course, one could argue that the geothermal activity "proves" there is volcanism, but that argument is both vicious and circular.

Bottom line (and for the sake of discussion, I'm treating your original video/pic as evidence of an actual phenomenom and not some hoax and/or optical illusion or camera glitch): this could easily be explained as venting/outgassing. No "geothermal" activity is necessary and certainly no volcanism is required (re-read your own first link!).

"Unfortunately, your link does not say there is geothermal activity on the moon. It gives no instance of any such activity occuring in any place."

Not exactly. What it does say is there is photo-mineralogic analysis/interpretation of areas on the moon which is consistent with similar areas (on Earth) which have geothermal activity. If you want to argue that is not "proof", fine. But then again, it is (at least!) as compelling as the video/pic you're basing your assertion on!

To iterate, it is hard to prove a negative. I've seen little to counter the reasonable (IMHO) interpretation that the "smoke" is evidence of (likely very rare!) outgassing from the moon which possibly/probably can be linked to "geothermal" activity.

As for referring to them as "smokestacks", I'd prefer to call them a "vent" (not unlike the "smokers" observed in the deep ocean?) because there is no compelling evidence to not call them vents, as far as we know ;-)!

I don't get it. Did I just see the moon fart?

A Moon song. I like this one.

another song about the Moon -- great for slow dancing

Want to dance, Bani?

Play the song I just linked -- "There's a Moon out Tonight"

Just make sure you don't step on my toes. lol

sure, let's dance:>)

I think Corky will respond to your counterpoint as soon as he has time. He seem pretty good about debating -- matching point to counterpoint -- with each of your allegations made rather than just dismissing your claims out of hand.

#35 | Posted by CalifChris at 2008-12-13 09:35 PM | Reply |

You have been proven mistaken. This is his response:

As far as smokestacks on the moon go, I posted a link to a rational debunking of an already irrational claim.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2008-12-13 09:37 PM | Reply

He simply goes back to his old link that I just spent debunking every point. He responded to nothing---yet acts like he has made a point. The idea that his points have been refuted never crosses his mind. His debating skills are nil. I expect you to acknowledge your mistake in judgement about Corky.

You're such a smooth dancer, Bani. :)

Hey, I checked out your link and at first said "counter clockwise" but then looked again and, yes, like it said you can see the figure appear to be turning clockwise too. Wonder how they do it. Some sort of visual slight of hand.

Trueblue

Thank you for your response.

However, nowhere does any of the links provided by either of us suggest that geothermal activity on the moon is current. Yes, it says there are features that indicate geothermal activity---but those features are millions of years old. Do you have a link to anyplace that says there is definitely geothermal activity on the moon now? If not, and you think this is geothermal activity, I think science would be greatly interested. In all the links, I see tham saying all activity stopped millions of years ago---even if only one million years--that's a long time ago. Again---anything that says there is current activity?

The still picture scenario has been refuted.

BBob

Since we have this video the area the smokestack appears has been identified. Any high resolution closeup shots?

BuffaloBob --

You have been proven mistaken. This is his [Corky's] response:

they went to the moon, no question should be unanswered

Such assertions make me question whether your tin foil cap is on too tight.

That, and to question anything else you say.

As far as smokestacks on the moon go, I posted a link to a rational debunking of an already irrational claim.

-- Corky

damn italics!
You can tell, though, which part of the post is my answer to you even if it was in italics.

Califchris

Thank you. Yes, I am happy now.(wink)

Still photo from NASA of the alleged "smokestack" on the lunar surface.

Califchris

What did you google to find that pic?

I really wanted to give your smokestack on the moon the serious consideration it deserves Buffoon_Boob therefore I consulted with the greatest proponent of nontraditional scientific hypotheses of modern times Immanuel Velikovsky via a seance and he informed me that well researched historical records of numerous ancient civilizations confirm sightings of smokestacks on Venus as it was catastrophically flung off from Jupiter pass the earth during the Joshua Biblical era prove that celestial smokestacks are a given but that the sequence of photos spliced together for the video are the work of top-secret special effect technicians working out of Bunker 10 Subsection 74A of Area 51 in the Nevada desert near Caliente in 1968 and part of an elaborate hoax to make you look like a fool 40 years later. That is all transmission is fading.

I think there is a sweatshop on the moon being operated by China. That is the only explanation.

BuffaloBob

I googled "Smoke stack on the moon" and found it in about the 2nd or 3rd page of google images. I have now linked it back to the website. When you click on the link the photo will be the third photo down. BETTER YET -- you can click at the very top of the page and it will give you the google image I linked above. (Both are the same.)

Here it is -

Cali they look like smudges. Bob is a loon. please don't feed his lunacy.

Hey, I checked out your link and at first said "counter clockwise" but then looked again and, yes, like it said you can see the figure appear to be turning clockwise too. Wonder how they do it. Some sort of visual slight of hand.

#49 | Posted by CalifChris

:>)

A tech buddy of mine & I were taking notes on how to get it to move back & forth & we both found that if we look with peripheral vision ~ the figure goes back & forth for us this way all the time.

Cool, huh!

da bOoB has no interest whatsoever in determing the truth. Every single thread he puts up, without exception, his replies are always "no, no, no, can't be" etc. Never once has he said, "You know, that makes sense, it could be a bug on the lens" or whatever. If he had even one single time acknowldedged some common sense answers, he might be more believable. But after watching his constant string of "NOs" for over a year and not one single "YES", I can't help but to think he is either trolling or is one of the most gullible people I have ever met in my life. Amd people that gullible will never be convinced that it is raining, even when they are standing in the middle of a typhoon.

Bani I can only get her to spin clockwise no matter how hard I focus.

If he had even one single time acknowldedged some common sense answers, he might be more believable.

#63 | Posted by goatman at 2008-12-14 02:54 AM | Reply

The smokestack on the moon is shadow from gas being emitted from the surface.

#35 | Posted by MURPHY at 2008-12-06 10:27 PM | Reply

This is entirely possible. However, humanity will have to change its science of the moon if true. Science tells us the moon has no geothermic activity--no volcanoes--no moving water--no steam. If Murphy is correct, we have to rewrite some science books. Do you agree with Murphy?

#2 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-12-13 08:58 AM | Reply |

Don't you ever get tired of being the fool? Wise up dUmmy.

;-)

Bani
Very interesting. At first it went counter clockwise and I couldn't get it to change. Then I tries your peripheral vision suggestion, and it changes every time I look at it like that. Thanks for the link.

Bani I can only get her to spin clockwise no matter how hard I focus.

#64 | Posted by rastaninja at 2008-12-14 03:00 AM

Maybe tomorrow after you've sobered up you'll "focus" better. lol

That spinning program is different depending on what Internet Browser you use.

Then I tries your peripheral vision suggestion, and it changes every time I look at it like that.

Jesus H. Christ. Just listen to yourself....oops ....wait.....using peripheral vision I can see my dead cat! Nope...not there....wait...there again...

BetelG

You look away with your peripheral vision until it seems to spin the other way. When you look back the dancer is spinning the other way.

Thank you for expressing your blind hatred for me, even though others have reported the same phenomena. Your hatred is as clear as Goatmans. You are dismissed with the same contempt for the same reasons.

Cali they look like smudges. Bob is a loon. please don't feed his lunacy.

#61 | Posted by rastaninja at 2008-12-14 02:43 AM | Reply

They don't look like smudges to everyone--but how do your smudges suddenly appear and then move--then disappear? If you can answer that simple question, you may have a point. Until then, your explanation is refuted.

Bob-
I don't hate you, I just think that you will fall for anything. You think that aliens are manufacturing widgets on the moon for crissake!

if there is no air on the Moon, how can something eject a puff of smoke that moves and dissipates like it's blowing in the wind?

makes sense to me..

I don't get it. Did I just see the moon fart?

LOL

Boaz-
It's aliens with superior technology. Get with it, dude.

Don't you ever get tired of being the fool?

Do you ever get tired of being a liar?

This is entirely possible. However, /b>humanity will have to change its science of the moon if true

Java open source software tools for ufology

Welcome to SonotaCo Home. SonotaCo is a person who makes software for nature observation as his hobby

Check the 747? here:>)

if there is no air on the Moon, how can something eject a puff of smoke that moves and dissipates like it's blowing in the wind?

makes sense to me..

#73 | Posted by boaz at 2008-12-14 03:23 AM | Reply

This is why I cut and paste. But not this time. This point was addressed in post #32. Catch up--respond to my rebuttal.

You think that aliens are manufacturing widgets on the moon for crissake!

#72 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-12-14 03:22 AM | Reply | Flag

If you see something wrong with my logic---point it out and show your superior answer. Throwing bullshit does not prove your point. You only prove you have no point but bullshit. You lie about the widgets on the moon. You have no logic--no point--only an elitest attitude with no substance.

Bob-
re: If it were ejected, it would act precisely like the video shows. It could be ejected with compressed gases, and with the near vacuum of the moon, the ejected gas would be almost explosively dispersed. It would be like suddenly popping a balloon into vacuum chamber.

Right. aliens.

exactly, boaz. The smoke, having mass would go up (would not billow as it does in the video, of course. An atmosphere that causes resistance to smoke is necessary to cause billowing) then settle back down around the base of the smokestack.

Bob-
re: Throwing bullshit does not prove your point.

LOL.....laughing now....oh...coughing and laughing...damn...laaughing so hard I caaaaan't breathe....

Better now.

If you see something wrong with my logic...

Where do I begin?!? LOL

I'm OK now, but I must admit the convulsive laughter, while a bit frightening for a moment, was cathartic.

Thanks bob.

Also, a smokestack would not be necessary on the moon. Smokestacks are used to carry waste gasses high where winds can carry them off. If a venting mechanism was used in a vacuum, it needn't have any height at all. A one foot smokestack would do the same as a 100 foot smokestack.

If aliens built them, they are pretty fucking stupid!

Bob-
re: If you see something wrong with my logic---point it out and show your superior answer.

Sure. You want aliens, and so you see them.

That's you in a NUTshell.

Y'all have fun arguing about the particulars of Bob's hobby.

"Then I tries your peripheral vision suggestion, and it changes every time I look at it like that."

Jesus H. Christ. Just listen to yourself....oops ....wait.....using peripheral vision I can see my dead cat! Nope...not there....wait...there again...

Actually astronomers use a technique known as averted vision to see objects more easily in the telescope. Things viewed directly on fall on the optic nerve at the back of the eye, not on the light sensing rods and cones. In very dim light it is easier to see an object looking to the side of it instead of straight at it

Hey answer Me this. If there is NO Atmosphere upon the moon then pray tell how could there be burning done on the surface of the moon?? Just does not compute.

Larry

Goatman-
But that's not what we are discussing, is it?

Your hatred is as clear as Goatmans.

Yes, bOoB, we all know. If someone doesn't agree with you they hate you or hate America. You've made your position quite clear on that.

But that's not what we are discussing, is it?

???

I didn't make up that quote above my response.

If there is NO Atmosphere upon the moon then pray tell how could there be burning done on the surface of the moon??

SInce I don't believe in the whole lunar smokestack thing, I can't say. But presumably they would have bottled O2. Or perhaps the alleged smoke is not the product of combustion

"Trueblue

Thank you for your response.

However, nowhere does any of the links provided by either of us suggest that geothermal activity on the moon is current. Yes, it says there are features that indicate geothermal activity---but those features are millions of years old. Do you have a link to anyplace that says there is definitely geothermal activity on the moon now? If not, and you think this is geothermal activity, I think science would be greatly interested. In all the links, I see tham saying all activity stopped millions of years ago---even if only one million years--that's a long time ago. Again---anything that says there is current activity?
#50 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-12-14 01:43 AM"

Hi again Buffalo_Bob

It's true that none of the evidence trotted out (so far) proves that there is currently "geothermal" activity on the moon. However, this is neither a failing nor a requirement. The links/statements, that were posted, support my points which were counter to your points:

1. lunar "geothermal" activity has occurred (geologically) recently.

2. there's no evidence that proves lunar "geothermal" activity has ended.

3. "geothermal" activity (lunar or otherwise) can occur without volcanism.

NOTE: lunar "geothermal" activity was only ONE possible scenario that I presented. Another (and probably a more likely one) was venting/outgassing. Some recently discovered examples: the nitrogen geysers on Neptune's moon Triton and the water geysers on Saturn's moon Enceledus. These examples illustrate mechanisms which are vastly different from (and do not require) "geothermal" activity and occur due to the peculiar conditions on those moons which are very alien (no pun) from the conditions here on Earth. It is POSSSIBLE (likely?) that similar mechanisms occur on the moon. Denying that possiblity in favor of a more exotic explanation is just "begging for trouble". Believe what you will, but I'd suggest that it's time for Occam to sharpen his razor ;-)!

I go to all the trouble of conducting a seance with Immanuel Velikovsky one of the greatest minds of modern times (I mean that sincerely the guy's methodology may have been flawed but he was a genius) and Buffoon_Boob doesn't even acknowledge it. What the hell do I have to do to get Boob's attention flog myself with a car antenna?

Trueblue

Thnak you for your response.

You seem to contradict yourself between here:

It's true that none of the evidence trotted out (so far) proves that there is currently "geothermal" activity on the moon.

and here:

1. lunar "geothermal" activity has occurred (geologically) recently.

Could you point out in any of the links where it even hints at current geothermal activity. The closest I''ve seen was an estimate of 1-10 million years ago, but most are talking billions of years ago for such activity.

Yes, you made statements that countered my points--but you have no basis for the statements.

Also, when talking about this particular instance, the smokestack has to be taken into consideration. This "outgassing", whatever caused it--came from the top of a very tall spire or smokestack. Much different from typical geothermal activity.

Sure. You want aliens, and so you see them.

That's you in a NUTshell.

#89 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-12-14 04:27 AM | Reply

Your premise is mistaken. Aliens are the last thing I want, and the worst possible scenario for humanity. But I'm not afraid to face facts. That that is, is. You, on the other hand, ignore anything you don't want to hear about. You refuse to consider anything outside your own personal experiences. That's called being close-minded, in case you wanted a name for it.

Actually, what you people are looking at is another hoax video that Buffalo Sucker swallowed hook, line and sinker.

The hoaxer took a still picture of the moon's surface and zoomed in to give the appearance of movement. Then he or she added the "smoke". What proves that the video shows a still picture being zoomed is that the Earth in the background grows at the same rate as the moon's surface as the hoaxer zooms in.

Even if this were not the case, "Explain to me exactly what this is or its a smokestack" is not a logical position to take.

Sully

Your scenario doesn't hold water with reality.
Virtually all the video of the moon used in the To the Moon DVD was in scrolling video. The portion of the DVD we are talking about lasts about 4 seconds on screen. It could be a still, but it could also be scrolling video like the rest of the video on the DVD. Why they would go to the trouble messing with a still picture when they had video readily available escapes me, expecially when the sequence is largely ignored by the DVD and only lasts 4 seconds. The portion with the smoke lasts less than a second. I would esimate about 4 frames or about 1 sixth second.

There is no evidence that NOVA modified the program in anyway from the footage they received from NASA. They would have no motivation, especially since no mention of this was made on the program. I have replayed it many times, and even knowing it is there, I have missed the puff of smoke it happens so quick. If you blink, you miss it.

You seem to think that someone at NOVA would go to a lot of trouble for absolutely no reason. I know that no one does anything without a reason for their action.

However, you could possibly be right. This could be a still picture, that someone zoomed in on--but then they would have to stop the zoom, and put in one frame of smoke coming out--then another frame of the smoke expanding--then another frame of the smoke fading, and then finally they would have to erase all evidence of the smoke so that it disappears, than complete the zoom. All for about 1 sixth second screen time on a program few watched and only one person noticed.

If that makes sense to you Sully, fine, but I think it is too much effort by someone with too little return. I think the most like scenario is that Apollo 8 flew over something that emitted some gas out of a very long smokestack. Whether natural or not, it should be investigated.

"I think the most like scenario is that Apollo 8 flew over something that emitted some gas out of a very long smokestack. Whether natural or not, it should be investigated."

There is no atmosphere on the moon. Smoke rises because it is lighter than the atmosphere. Smoke would not rise on the moon.

There is no atmosphere on the moon. Smoke rises because it is lighter than the atmosphere. Smoke would not rise on the moon.

#103 | Posted by Sully at 2008-12-14 11:54 AM | Reply |

Your statement was responded to in post #32. In addition. the vacuum of the moon would dissipate any gasses very rapidly

I go to all the trouble of conducting a seance with Immanuel Velikovsky one of the greatest minds of modern times (I mean that sincerely the guy's methodology may have been flawed but he was a genius) and Buffoon_Boob doesn't even acknowledge it. What the hell do I have to do to get Boob's attention flog myself with a car antenna?

#98 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

I read his trilogy of books 20 years ago. Great reads. Of the three, "Earth in Upheaval" and "Worlds in Collision" were my favorite two. The way he tied Greek Mythology and ancient drawings of the heavens with celestial events was interesting.

"Trueblue
Thnak you for your response.
You seem to contradict yourself between here:

It's true that none of the evidence trotted out (so far) proves that there is currently "geothermal" activity on the moon.

and here:

1. lunar "geothermal" activity has occurred (geologically) recently."

Hi again, Buffalo_Bob
There's no contradiction. There MIGHT be some confusion how the words "currently" and "(geologically) recently" are being interpreted. To clarify my use:

-"currently" refers to the present (e.g., not only "today", but I would consider also including the era of direct examination of the moon [i.e., since the start of the 'Apollo Lunar Landing Years' or roughly the last 40 years]);

-"(geologically) recently" is a much more vague/general term but (I think) many geologists (and I) would be comfortable with a "less than 10 million years" interpretation. Given that use of these terms, there's no contradiction in my statements.

"Could you point out in any of the links where it even hints at current geothermal activity. The closest I''ve seen was an estimate of 1-10 million years ago, but most are talking billions of years ago for such activity."

Most of the links that "are talking billions of years ago for such activity.", are either old/incomplete analyses or recent analyses that are working from outdated information. The more recent work supports the "(geologically) recently" evaluation. NOTE: AGAIN I'd like to point out that quibbling about the details regarding the "geothermal" explanation is a distraction, since I believe the venting/outgassing explanation is much more likely.

"Yes, you made statements that countered my points--but you have no basis for the statements."

How can you say this??? I've described my personal experiences, referenced the recent discoveries regarding Triton and Enceledus, and mentioned the "smokers" discovered in the deep ocean. What IS missing here is YOUR counter-points to my points!

"Also, when talking about this particular instance, the smokestack has to be taken into consideration. This "outgassing", whatever caused it--came from the top of a very tall spire or smokestack. Much different from typical geothermal activity.
#99 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-12-14 11:22 AM"

OK, I get that you want to refer to this item as a "smokestack". Whatever you call it does not change its origin/reality (A rose by any other name...). Regardless of what it is called, a review of other examples of "geyser-ing" (for lack of a better word) indicates that a built-up vent is what TYPICALLY occurs (ESPECIALLY in a low-gravity environment).

BTW, the height of this "smokestack" has only (at best) been "guesstimated". If possible, it might be useful to make a better determination (since you seem to think it is an important characteristic). Also, I'd suggest determining WHERE this "item" IS on the moon and how knowing that location might help in evaluating its cause. Just some suggestions.

Trueblue

Thank you for your response.

Yes, the smokestack/spire is important. It was seen from approximately 75 miles away, and estimated to be several hundred feet high. On the DVD it is very distinguishable from the surrounding area. Something had to make it. It has to be accounted for. The outgassing activity you describe doesn't come from such a formation.

Also, the puff of whatever it is, seems to be very dark. If it had been doing that for very long, the area around the spire should be darker. It is not.

Could you point out in any of the links where it even hints at current geothermal activity.

Could you point out any links tha even hint that an alien race wants to come all the way to Sol to set up factories?

Occam's razor

"I think the most like scenario is that Apollo 8 flew over something that emitted some gas out of a very long smokestack.

bOoB, I explained this to you many months ago when you were only on your 40th interation of this thread and even again today when you are on your 400th.

A tall smokestack has zero advantage over a one foot smokestack on the moon. A tall smokestack on the earth is used to carry waste gas to a high enough point that the winds can carry them away. Since there are no winds on the moon, a one foot smokestack does the same thing as a one mile smokestack.

This is what I mean upthread that you ignore common sense because you want to believe sooooo badly that there are aliens on the moon.

But if there are, they are pretty fucking stupid to travel to another star system to set up their factories and build needlessly high smokestacks.

Occams' razor.

In addition. the vacuum of the moon would dissipate any gasses very rapidly

Exctly, bOoB! Your video shows a plume of smoke. In a vacuum, the plume would not exist. The smoke would not 'wait' until it was some distance from the smokestack before dissipating. It woul start to do so immediately. IOW, if it could be seen, a dispersal of a gas from a smokestak in a vacuum would look rough hemispherical to conicial (depending on 'muzzle velocity' of the gas) with the base of the hemisphere or cone centered on the smokestack. The 'smoke' in your video looks like it was released into an atmosphere, not a vacuum. Also, for the billowing effect, an atomosphere is necessary

Sorry to let common HS physics rain on your conspiracy, but that's the way it is.

In a vacuum, the plume would not exist

I didn't see a vacuum in the video. A Rainbow Vacuum would be the only brand I'd use in attempting to keep the surface clean. Dirt Devil's wouldn't cut it.

The gas would start to dissipate very quickly. Much like the exhaust on the Lunar Lander. The edges of the gas puff seem straight and fan shaped--not billowy. It looks like it was forcefully ejected, which would be the case whether natural or not. The dissipation wouldn't be instantaneous, and it must be remembered that it is being seen from 75 miles away, so the exhaust was very large in volume, and exhausted very quickly. The whole sequence was about 1 sixth second from exhaust to disappearing.

"Trueblue

Thank you for your response.

Yes, the smokestack/spire is important. It was seen from approximately 75 miles away, and estimated to be several hundred feet high. On the DVD it is very distinguishable from the surrounding area. Something had to make it. It has to be accounted for. The outgassing activity you describe doesn't come from such a formation.

Also, the puff of whatever it is, seems to be very dark. If it had been doing that for very long, the area around the spire should be darker. It is not.
#107 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-12-14 02:30 PM"

Hi back, Buffalo_Bob

First: I'll take it as a given that the DVD (which I don't have, nor have seen) has everything you say it has. Similarly, I won't/can't question the distance and estimated height, since I've nothing to evaluate them. However, I'd (AGAIN) suggest additional investigation into the distance/height determination, since that is so critical to your assertions. Personally, I'd be hesitant to make an extraordinary claim based on a single observation.

Second: How did you determine that the "outgassing" does NOT come from the formation?

Third: I understand what you are saying about the "darkness". However, alternate/plausible explanations could easily account for what is observed:

1. The material being "outgassed" may change over time as the source of the material comes from different regions beneath the lunar surface.

2. The material may change its appearance after it is deposited on the lunar surface due to heating/cooling cycles, exposure to solar radiation, meteoric bombardment, (etc.).

3. The "apparent reflectivity" might mislead one as to the ACTUAL reflectivity. To put it another way, the full moon "appears" very bright at night but it is actually quite dark (with a reflectance factor which closely mimics the surface of a blackboard rather than a "silvery/shiny" surface) and only "appears" to be shiny due to contrast.

Without additonal/corroborating evidence, this is all quite speculative.

Meanwhile, where IS this item located on the moon? It would seem that could be MUCH more precisely determined than the height and would provide much insight into possible explanations of its cause.

Trueblue

Thank you for your response.

"Similarly, I won't/can't question the distance and estimated height, since I've nothing to evaluate them. However, I'd (AGAIN) suggest additional investigation into the distance/height determination, since that is so critical to your assertions. Personally, I'd be hesitant to make an extraordinary claim based on a single observation."

The link of the thread says the distance was about 75 miles. This link says they orbited at a height of 70 miles--add in the forward distance to the object, and 75 miles seems valid. Whether it was 70 or 75 wouldn't make that much difference in the overall effect.

"Each then took turns to read out the first 10 verses of the book of Genesis as they skimmed, at a height of 70 miles, over the lunar surface."

Hi back, Buffalo_Bob

It seems like we've come to some sort of agreement/impasse. Probably just as well since I've much to do with the rest of today.

Meanwhile, I "googled up" the following link:

I didn't see a vacuum in the video. A Rainbow Vacuum would be the only brand I'd use in attempting to keep the surface clean. Dirt Devil's wouldn't cut it.

#111 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

I used my old Rainbow yesterday ~ what a coincidence!:>)

BANI

We really like our Rainbow. It's 6 years old now and works like the day it was new.

It's also handy turning it on to clear the dust out of the air.

You look at that water and you know it's working. No bags to change make it the ideal vacuum.

I use to sell them 10 years ago...didn't make much doing it but did win a couple machines for personal use ~ great machine, though, the water container can be a problem going up & down stairs for housewives & wimps (like me sometimes:>)

My wife tried selling them for a couple of weeks so she could get one for free. We ended up buying one. She tried, bless her heart.

WTG on your sales prowess!

the water container can be a problem going up & down stairs

I vacuum the upstairs. I take the Rainbow up the stairs and bring clean water in the container by itself 2nd trip. I don't find it's heavier than any other vacuum. Grab the steps on the way down.

(I'm also the pot scrubber, dishwasher loader, yard man, and share the clothes washing. I'm a modern man. What can I say? LOL)

WTG on your sales prowess!

#119 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Yes & no...

One friend's girlfriend to this day still blames me for ruining their carpet during my ill-fated shampooing feat.

I guess they finally got new carpet last year...so maybe she has forgiven me for that snafu

They should have bought one to take the stain out!! LOL

That'll teach 'em :-)

Well, now we just call to get some Kirby salespeson over when we need a shampooing...they have a better system for that sort of cleaning than Rainbow I feel:>)

I rent a rug shampooer at Kroger when that time rolls around. We have mostly hardwood throughout the house, and only the master bedroom and upstairs have carpeting, so it doesn't have to be done too often.

My first job (besides a paper route) was cleaning Kirby vacuum cleaners for the sales people at the local sales office when I was 12. I could still tear one down and reassemble it blindfolded like a soldier with an M-16. LOL

Funny, the main thing I remember about Kirby is that they had a grinder wheel, shoe polisher, and other tools you could hook up to it.

hardwood floors are best ~ fleas can't hide as well!

LOL

Our dogs got fleas a few years ago. We know not where. I gave them all flea baths at home, but it didn't cure the problem.

Had to do mass dog groomer time (had 3 at the time) and flea bomb the whole house while they were there. I suspect the golden retriever picked them up at the lake somehow when I took him swimming. Knock on wood they haven't gotten them since. New golden goes swimming all the time, but no fleas.

here's a book I read awhile ago that blames fleas for the anthrax deaths in 1362 of the monks in Alexandria, Minnesota

"The Kensington Rune Stone ~ Its Place in History"

I gave them all flea baths at home...

How do you bathe a flea?

How do you bathe a flea?

Posted by goatman at 2008-12-15 12:40 AM | Reply

A Thimble filled with warm soapy water and a QTip.

Larry

Fleas in a needle head?

GOATMAN

The little booggers love this "Flea Shower Brush". 1000th of an inch long. The problem is you can never find it again after you open the package. Made from dog hair: