Moon's Surface Inverted...

[jettis]

Does anyone remember those crazy images were you have to stare or look at them a certain way to see the real or hidden image. I think the moon is like one of those pictures.

What we are looking to see is that the moon's craters will invert so that they almost appear to be protruding above the moons surface. If you are able to zoom in on the image a little it may help. Once they invert you will see the moon' landscape looks entirely different... It may take a bit of time and effort to eventually see this, as we have been conditioned to see things the other way around, but when you finally do in fact you see it... it will surprise you.

Some questions:
How is it possible that meteorites travelling hit the moons surface at exacltly ninety degrees and thus create the uniform craters we see?

Why are there no glancing impact marks from meteorites being off the ninety degree impact plane?


Dave Wing

[Danny B]

2 kinds of craters

There is a lot of discussion about those craters.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2...0308crater.htm
The electric universe theory claims that the normal dish shaped craters are from impacts. They claim that the flat-bottom craters with a raised center are from an electric discharge. They posit interplanetary discharges. It is true that all celestial bodies have a charge. The posit that; after our field gets long enough, it can do a charge equalization to another planet.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/lH...DBjuulDoY=s115

If you look at Birkeland currents, they attract at a distance and repel when they are close. They also twist.
http://www.everythingselectric.com/w...currents-4.jpg
All cultures have legends of dragons. They are often pictured as being twined. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9e/46/fe/9...too-studio.jpg
It is an interesting area of study.

[mbrownn]

@ Jettis, the lack of glancing impacts is very troubling for the cosmologists. of course they can show one or two but not many. The electric Universe theory does have an answer because of the way discharges occur onto a sphere.

Another troubling factoid about the moon is take any photograph of a mountain that is distant taken by by Apollo and apply a negative image filter to it. The mountain now looks like a black and white positive image of a mountain here on earth.

[jettis]

Can anyone see what I am talking about? Just curious to know.

Thanks for the reply Danny B, I looked at the links you provided and I don't dispute electric discharges being involved. Can you see what I am talking about with the perspective of all the craters being not dished below the surface but nearly a circular flat plane, that appears to extend either above or equal with the moons surface. The area inbetween the circular plateaus (between the craters) gives the appearance of a low land area of erosion.

I would like for others to see the supposed illusion I speak of... It is know of in astronomy circles. When you see it I would like to know which one looks more natural to you.

It is hard for me to explain what I see but I am certain anyone can see what I speak of if they spend enough time trying to see it. It took me quite a few minutes to see it, at first, but now I can see it easily at will and can easily flip my viewpoint back and forth as desired.

Dave Wing

[mbrownn]

After using the trick of going cross eyed I was able to see the surface looking like it had been splattered with paint rather than pockmarked with craters. Each crater rising above the surface like a dried drip of paint on a flat surface. Is that what you mean?

If this is the case it does make the scale of the moon look much smaller, maybe the size of a football/basketball.

My favourite trick is to apply a negative image to Apollo photos and then look at the detail on the mountains, It is very revealing.

[jettis]

After using the trick of going cross eyed I was able to see the surface looking like it had been splattered with paint rather than pockmarked with craters. Each crater rising above the surface like a dried drip of paint on a flat surface. Is that what you mean?

If this is the case it does make the scale of the moon look much smaller, maybe the size of a football/basketball.

My favourite trick is to apply a negative image to Apollo photos and then look at the detail on the mountains, It is very revealing.

Yes, you have seen what I am talking about...paint splatters is a good comparison. I do not see how the scale of the image would change, it looks the same scale and does not change when you see the paint splatters.

With what you are saying about the negative images, please explain yourself in more detail.

Dave Wing

[mbrownn]

Its an effect on the mind. If you see a crater on the moon it is known to be kilometres across. If you see a paint splatter your mind puts it as a few millimetres across. Your mind then rescales the image of the moon as being maybe a foot or so across.

The image of the moon that I posted, when in negative looks like a black and white image of a mountain here on earth. In this context you can see what could be trees or bushes as viewed from several miles away. The problem lays in the illuminated and shadow areas not matching the foreground. This is part of the Kubrick front screen projection argument. This is because of how your brain interprets an image.

The standard unchanged image of the moon is the moon and we don’t question it as we have no reference to compare it with. When in negative, we see a black and white photo of mountains on earth as it compared directly with similar black and white images of mountains we have all seen. Thus our mind sees mountains on earth.

So which is real? Obviously we get to see the moon regularly illuminated by the sun but that does not look like the photograph as that is a grayscale image and not appearing to glow like the moon. The patterns of the craters is identical to what we can see on the moon so we accept the grayscale image as a true representation of the moon.

When we play the trick on out mind that results in the paint splatters, this makes us question what the image is as it should only be the moon and not paint drips.

The same rules apply to the Apollo image but now we see more inconsistencies. First of all it is supposed to be a full colour image so a negative image should not look like a black and white photograph. This is proven when you look at the rover colours. this leads to the question is this a backdrop or screen projection? The inconsistencies in the shadows also leads you to the same conclusion.

In this second image the problem in one area is avoided as the mountain is not in sharp focus thus we cannot see anything that could be interpreted. The problem of the shadows is increased as the mountain on the left is totally in shadow when it should be illuminated. The mountain on the right appears to be Black and white in shadow which causes our brains to be convinced that the background IS a black and white image. The greatest problem is that the Astronauts suit is white and should reflect every colour, as should much of the rover. What we see is grayscale, no red yellow green or blue as we see on other parts of the rover.

I could speculate on why this has happened but much better you do the research and find out for yourself

[aljhoa]

Its an effect on the mind.

.
"Elliptical Flat Mesas" are irrefutable proof of a "Flat Moon".

Al

[mbrownn]

Is that something like the flat earth Hahahaha

I do apologise for laughing but the flat earth is so easy to disprove. There are many issues with the moon that are not easy to disprove.

[aljhoa]

Is that something like the flat earth Hahahaha

I do apologise for laughing but the flat earth is so easy to disprove. There are many issues with the moon that are not easy to disprove.

Laughing matter, psychopaths use physiological differences to create two fronts, e.g. Christians vs. Mohammedans.

Al

[BroMikey]

The picture is constantly shifting from concave to a convex
crater that depicts an image that is a Photoshop gif.

It is a trick image. Of course other images will need to be reviewed
separately because not every image has been tampered with.

[jettis]

The picture is constantly shifting from concave to a convex
crater that depicts an image that is a Photoshop gif.

It is a trick image. Of course other images will need to be reviewed
separately because not every image has been tampered with.

The same results can be found on other images on the net, look at the P900 camera images and or any ground based telescope and you will find they all can become the opposite of craters.

I also question... Meteors are random events are they not? So how could that many of the large strikes show a type of preference, or concentration, as to where they hit the moons surface and leave large areas of the moons surface untouched?

Dave Wing

[mbrownn]

I also question... Meteors are random events are they not? So how could that many of the large strikes show a type of preference, or concentration, as to where they hit the moons surface and leave large areas of the moons surface untouched?

Dave Wing

It makes sense that the side of the moon with the least craters will be that facing the earth as it is shielded somewhat by the earth, but you are right about the lack of uniformity.

Now ask why the earth does not show the same amount of crater damage in its strata? We accept that the atmosphere can erode surface evidence to some degree but craters on earth are rare. In the strata below the soil the evidence should be there but it isn’t anywhere near the same level as the moon.