People,
You might remember a long time ago I mentioned a book called Epic
Moon, which traces the history of lunar observation. When Lunar
observation began, a lot of strange things were reported- for
example, craters that slowly got covered up and activities on the
Moon, cities, et cetera.
Epic Moon is an establishment book which brushes off all the old
reports as so much poppycock. Just read:
"In the summer of 1725, with the aid of a long Campini telescope
erected on Palatine Hill at Rome, Biancini observed a reddish ray of
sunlight stretching like a comet across the darkened floor of the
crater Plato. He wondered if it might be a shaft of light admitted
thorough a breach, or perhaps a ray refracted, and hence reddened,
by " some denser medium existing in the form of an atmosphere 'round
the Moon's globe." In retrospect, the ruddy hue was no doubt spurious-
an artifact of the chromatic aberration of the simple lens of his
telescope."
How does the writer ofEpic Moon know doodley squat about the
chromatic aberration of Biancini's telescope? How did the beam, if it
were an aberration, stay within the confines of the crater? Why
didn't the aberration extend all across the telescope's field of
view? If the beam stayed within the width and depth of the crater,
then guess what? The beam was within the crater.
Do you see how these people do?
Now let's hear some of Mr. Cater's reasoning in favor of a lunar
atmosphere from chapter One of Joseph H. Cater's book
The Ultimate Reality:
There was an interesting slip-up by NASA in the photo department. All
the photos taken by the Moon orbiter, except one, showed an ansence
of any atmospheric fringe on The Moon's horizon. The exception looked
like a picture taken from an Earth satellite. A blue atmospheric
fringe was very apparent along the far edge of the Moon!
Perhaps the most obvious indication of a dense Moon atmosphere is the
soil and deep layers of loose dust on the Moon's surface. Such
conditions cannot exist in a vacuum or near vacuum. Air molecules
tend to adhere to surfaces. This layer of air tends to counter act
cohesive forces, and prevents solid surfaces from adhering together
or becoming "sticky". This, of course, prevents dust particles from
coalescing and forming a solid, rock-like mass. This principle has
been demonstrated on numerous occasions by placing soil or dust in a
chamber and evacuating it to produce a near vacuum inside.
The evidence of a lunar atmosphere has by no means been exhausted.
Much of it obtruded on the scientific world long before the space
program. Considerable light refraction by stars being occulted by the
Moon has been observed on many occasions. Meteors have been seen
disintegrating in the Moon's upper atmosphere. In fact, evidence
shows that the Moon's surface has better protection from meteorites
than the Earth.
At this stage, it is interesting to refer to an article entitled:
"How Dead is the Moon " that appeared in Natural History Magazine for
February, 1950 .... It is extremely significant from several
standpoints. There was a reference made concerning a scientist, Dr.
Lincoln La Paz who, in the 1930's, calculated that meteors weighing tens
pounds or more falling on the dark side of the Moon should
disintegrate in a flash bright enough to be seen with the naked eye.
This is, of course, assuming the Moon has no atmosphere. Over 100
should occur every year, yet, only two or three such flashes have
been seen in all human history. The conclusion was that the Moon
seems to be better protected from meteors than the Earth.
In 1941 the astronomer Walter Haas and associates searched the,
dark side of the Moon for 170 hours with a telescope in an attempt to
detect meteors burning up in a Moon atmosphere. During that time
twelve bright moving specks which began and ended at points on the
Moon were visible under their telescope. During these observations,
four or five of our own meteors crossed the telescope field. One or
two of the lunar flashes may have been extremely faint earthbound
meteors coming along directly toward the observer, but the laws of
probability show most of them occurred on the Moon. According to the
author of this article, it was assumed the density ofthe atmosphere
at the Moon's surface was 1/10,000 th as dense as the Earth's. On
this basis and the belief that the Moon had one-sixth Earth gravity,
scientists calculated that above 43 to 55 miles above the Moon's
surface, the atmosphere was denser than that of the Earth is at
similar altitudes. This was supposed to account for the great
protection the Moon's atmosphere provides the surface from meteor
impact. It seems scientific reasoning in those days was as infantile
as it is now.
It is obvious, or at least should be, the amount of protection an
atmosphere gives a planetary surface is dependent upon the quantity
of atmosphere existing above a unit area of the surface, not just its
depth. In other words, it is the number of air molecules the meteor
encounters, not the distribution that is the governing factor. On the
basis of one?sixth Earth gravity and a density at the surface of
l/10,000th that experienced at the Earth's surface, the Moon has only
6/10,000th as much atmosphere per unit areas as the Earth.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the volurne of a gas is
directly proportional to the pressure exerted on it. The
gravitational field of a planet compresses the atmosphere and the
amount of compression is almost directly proportional to the surface
gravity. There will be a slight deviation because of the finite size
of a planet. According to the above figures, our Earth would have
about 1,666 times the atmosphere protecting its surface as does the
Moon. This means that a meteor would encounter 1,666 times as many
gas molecules before it reaches the Earth's surface than it would if
it were to strike the Moon, yet, the evidence indicates that the
Moon's surface has better protection than the Earth's.
To make matters worse, a given amount of atmosphere compressed to a
thinner layer under high gravity would actually give better
protection from meteors than would the same atmosphere subjected to a
lower gravity and thus be distributed over a greater depth. In
passing through the deeper atmosphere, the meteor would encounter
fewer gas molecules per unit time and would have more time to
dissipate the heat built up by friction. By passing through the same
number of molecules in a shorter time, it would get hotter. The time
interval, being several times greater m the former cast, would more
than offset the fact that heat is dissipated more rapidly at higher
temperatures.
When the process forming an atmosphere is considered, it follows that
the Moon should have as much atmosphere per unit area as the
Earth. An atmosphere comes from gases discharged from material in the
crust. Matter below a certain depth cannot contribute to an
atmosphere. This is independent of the size of a planet but is
dependent on the kind of material in the crust. The Earth and Moon
have a similar composition.
Large areas of the Moon facing us are considerably lower than the
average elevation of the Moon's surface. The mares on this side of
the Moon make up a high percentage of the area and it is apparent
they were once ocean bottoms. If we were to lose our oceans, most of
the atmosphere would settle in the deeper ocean beds. As a result,
such areas would experience great air pressures. A deeper and more
dense atmosphere in such areas would, indeed, provide better
protection from meteors than other places.
The dense Moon atmosphere is not as evident to viewers from Earth for
several reasons. The long days and nights, coupled with lack of any
very large bodies of water, mitigate the weather to the extent that
strong winds and large cloud formations never occur. However, small
clouds are seen occasionally drifting across the surface. Light
diffusion is caused largely by suspended particles in the atmosphere.
Due to the type of weather that exists on the Moon, there is a
paucity of dust particles in its atmosphere as compared to the
Earth's. Therefore, the Moon's atmosphere, although as dense on the
average as the Earth's, will not diffuse light to the extent
experienced on the Earth. Consequently, the scientific community has
been able to fool people with their claims of a practically
nonexistent Moon atmosphere. This is certainly amazing in view of the
fact that eclipses of the Sun do show a substantial Moon atmosphere
despite its modest ability to diffuse light. An atmospheric fringe is
clearly seen around the Moon's periphery. To squelch any claims that
this fringe is part of the Sun's corona, it should be noted that this
fringe also shows up in some photos of a partial eclipse where the
outline of the Moon is overlapped by the Sun. It is entirely possible
the Moon has even a denser atmosphere on the average than the Earth.
This possibility will be discussed in Part 111 [ of The Ultimate
Reality ].
Other powerful evidence of a dense Moon atmosphere came from
statements made by astronauts during Apollo missions. The following
case is a typical example. Prior to the publicized excursions to the
Moon, early astronauts had stated that the stars were not visible
above the atmosphere. This is to be expected. There is little or no
diffusion of light in outer space and therefore, the only stars that
could be seen would be those whose discs could be resolved. This
could only be done with powerful telescopes. An atmosphere functions
in a manner analogous to a lens. The light from a distant star is
diffused and spread out. Consequently, stars are visible because of a
greatly enlarged and distorted image of the disc caused by the
atmosphere.
On the Apollo 11 mission shortly before reaching the Moon, Armstrong
stated that he could see the crater Tycho clearly and that he could
see the sky all around the Moon, even on the rim of it where there is
no earthshine or sunshine. Collins then stated, "Now we're able to
see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on
the trip .... The sky's full of stars ... it looks like its night
side on Earth." This means that after leaving the Earth the
astronauts could not see any stars until they got close enough to the
Moon to view them through the Moon's atmosphere! ( The pronounced
yellow color of the Moon has never been explained and apparently the
question as to why has never been asked. As will be shown later, this
is additional proof the Moon has more atmosphere per unit area than
does the Earth. It is interesting to note the Earth has a bluish
color when seen from outer space ).
An extensive Moon atmosphere means the Moon has a high gravity. Since
the Moon is supposedly a relatively small planet, a gravity as weak
as that attributed to it would be unable to hold an atmosphere of any
significance. It is not difficult to see why the evidence of a
substantial Moon atmosphere has been cheerfully ignored by scientists
past and present. A strong Moon gravity, of course, is not compatible
with orthodox physics."
Posted by Dean