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/2006/arch06/060308crater.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/lHEt9V1ej5snT9-EC1sOJlMt4aU-XH3Wi84ambBD-qTKJWua61hgKhfYtE-hjkDBjuulDoY=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/wp-content/uploads/birkeland-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]

[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