A huge object is filmed impacting and bouncing off the Moon - no one bats an eyelid

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
How come it's always people with cranky YouTube channels, cruddy video compression and something to sell who spot these amazing "anomalies", and not professionals with big scopes, or even amateurs with decent equipment and knowledge of what they're looking at?

Funny, isn't it...




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People

JiggyPotamus
If it is not a meteor, then what is it? If it is an alleged "alien craft," then I could say it would have broken apart on impact as well. So obviously anything that is strong enough will skip in this way, otherwise what we're seeing is not real. So if it is real, then something skipped across the surface, which means something is strong enough to do it, and I think a piece of space debris is the most likely explanation...A large hunk of a strong metal at a shallow angle. Obviously if it was not a shallow angle, it would have embedded itself into the lunar surface.


You seem to be assuming that something really did skip across the surface.

The fact that this video is such low resolution and has such a high compression leads me to believe that the "spots" could have just been video compression artifacts. I can;t prove that they were, but it is certainly a very plausible explanation -- especially considering the Moon is there for everyone to see, and nobody has yet noticed a line of new craters on the moon (if there really were new craters there to be noticed).


I see no particular reason for a single very large object, (the given here) to skip across the Moon, never mind making craters as it goes along be it an asteroid or a craft, period. That's the crux here.
edit on 12-4-2014 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   

smurfy
I see no particular reason for a single very large object, (the given here) to skip across the Moon


What if it were really really happy?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Rob48

smurfy
I see no particular reason for a single very large object, (the given here) to skip across the Moon


What if it were really really happy?

It would probably have run out of Moon..shine at the first/last crater, unless of course it was a space ship,(another given) and Joseph Levitch was at the wheel.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Rob48
How come it's always people with cranky YouTube channels, cruddy video compression and something to sell who spot these amazing "anomalies", and not professionals with big scopes, or even amateurs with decent equipment and knowledge of what they're looking at?

Funny, isn't it...

Because, apparently, the professionals and serious amateurs are in on it, and keeping us all in the dark about what's really going on up there.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   

wildespace

Rob48
How come it's always people with cranky YouTube channels, cruddy video compression and something to sell who spot these amazing "anomalies", and not professionals with big scopes, or even amateurs with decent equipment and knowledge of what they're looking at?

Funny, isn't it...

Because, apparently, the professionals and serious amateurs are in on it, and keeping us all in the dark about what's really going on up there.


No - we're all in on it. Only YOU have been kept out of the loop. That's how paranoia works...



edit on 12-4-2014 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


String of meteorites (small ones) striking the moon. It's not a single meteorite bouncing.
My two cents.
Regards



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
There is just no way something could strike the moon at those speeds without having catastrophic consequences to said object unless it was made of rubber. One only needs to have experienced a car crash or went head first into a tree with an ATV at even just nominal speeds to know that's not happening....

4 seconds to traverse the moon while bouncing multiple times? Uh huh...hahaha.


Side note: This is why I like ATS so much because so many members are thorough at debunking garbage.
Great job guys!

It be interesting to see an example of the technique used to make the "craters" show up like that.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
What puzzles me is why this guy thinks that an object would bounce and strike the surface multiple times, and yet still be able to move across the entire lunar disk. The Moon is not a flat sheet. It is a 3D sphere that curves 180 degrees from one side to the other. Common sense should have told him that this isn't possible.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   
" Common sense should have told him that this isn't possible. "


yes totally impossible,,




damn.
a reply to: Mogget



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome

Yes, because skimming a stone across a pond is exactly analogous to a gigantic object slamming into the moon at 3,000,000 kilometres per hour.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: BobAthome

Yes, because skimming a stone across a pond is exactly analogous to a gigantic object slamming into the moon at 3,000,000 kilometres per hour.

Not to mention the moon is spherical, not flat, and lacks the gravity to cause an object traveling above galactic escape velocity to re-impact the surface even if it were physically possible to skip off. Quite simply, it didn't happen. That is an observable, demonstrable fact:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Plus, a visible object moving at that incredible speed (the speed it would need to have been moving IF it really was near/at the surface of the moon) would have left lasting signs of an impact behind for anyone with a relatively powerful telescope to see.

ngchunter -- you're an amateur astronomer. Have you seen any new craters or other marks that could possibly be associated with this alleged impact?


EDIT TO ADD:
oops -- my bad.

I should have followed your link before writing this reply, considering that it answered my question. Thanks!

edit on 5/27/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Omg this nonsense WON'T DIE, neither here nor on Youtube.

It's a BIRD. Repeat after me: A BIRD flew through the field of view of his telescope. There was better quality footage on the web somewhere where you could see much better that it is nothing but a bird coming into view, you can even halfway spot the flapping if you look close enough.

This guy is a fraud and scammer, he puts this up on YT on several sites solely to get hits and ad-revenue. Nothing "impacted" the moon, the "impact crater" is a temporary video compression artifact caused be the bird. He ended the footage at the right convenient moment where the artifact still shows and claims it's an impact crater.
edit on 5/27/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: 2timesOO
reply to post by wildespace
 


String of meteorites (small ones) striking the moon. It's not a single meteorite bouncing.
My two cents.
Regards


nothing struck the moon in that footage.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: 2timesOO
reply to post by wildespace
 


String of meteorites (small ones) striking the moon. It's not a single meteorite bouncing.
My two cents.
Regards


nothing struck the moon in that footage.


Yes, I did some rough calculations in another thread about this video. Basically, if that object was near the moon, and massive enough to be seen through a telescope, it would have had enough kinetic energy to seriously perturb the moon's orbit. It wouldn't have left a few little black dots that quickly faded to nothing.

Why do so many "UFO" videos boil down to the simple inability to distinguish between "small, slow and close up" and "big, fast and far away"? I call it the Dougal Effect, for reasons that I hope will be clear.
edit on 27-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: 2timesOO
reply to post by wildespace
 


String of meteorites (small ones) striking the moon. It's not a single meteorite bouncing.
My two cents.
Regards


nothing struck the moon in that footage.


Yes, I did some rough calculations in another thread about this video. Basically, if that object was near the moon, and massive enough to be seen through a telescope, it would have had enough kinetic energy to seriously perturb the moon's orbit. It wouldn't have left a few little black dots that quickly faded to nothing.

Why do so many "UFO" videos boil down to the simple inability to distinguish between "small, slow and close up" and "big, fast and far away"? I call it the Dougal Effect, for reasons that I hope will be clear.



" enough kinetic energy to seriously perturb the moon's orbit" and what Mass did u give this enourmass object??

ballon?
soccerball?
beach ball?
ball bearing?
just curious cause E does equall M moving.

" enough kinetic energy to seriously perturb the moon's orbit"


"kinetic energy to seriously perturb the moon's orbit" i think u mean potential not kinetic Energy if u r gonna use Mass as a deciding factor on , moving the moons orbit,,
see "Does Mass produce atractive Force on smaler Objects" when in potential only perpective.

me.
edit on 5/28/2014 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BobAthome

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: 2timesOO
reply to post by wildespace
 


String of meteorites (small ones) striking the moon. It's not a single meteorite bouncing.
My two cents.
Regards


nothing struck the moon in that footage.


Yes, I did some rough calculations in another thread about this video. Basically, if that object was near the moon, and massive enough to be seen through a telescope, it would have had enough kinetic energy to seriously perturb the moon's orbit. It wouldn't have left a few little black dots that quickly faded to nothing.

Why do so many "UFO" videos boil down to the simple inability to distinguish between "small, slow and close up" and "big, fast and far away"? I call it the Dougal Effect, for reasons that I hope will be clear.



" enough kinetic energy to seriously perturb the moon's orbit" and what Mass did u give this enourmass object??

ballon?
soccerball?
beach ball?
ball bearing?

How would an object large enough to be resolved at the distance of the moon by a small amateur telescope (not just detected as a point-like light source, but actually resolved as a small black dot against the moon) have the mass of any of those examples? How is that reasonable at all? Just wondering.
edit on 28-5-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome

I mean, if the object is visible through a telescope view from Earth, it would have to be pretty big if it was near the moon.

I assumed a 10km cubic rock, and it turns out that the kinetic energy of an object that size travelling at the apparent speed in the video (3 million kph) is about 10^27 joules. The kinetic energy of the moon in its orbit is only about one order of magnitude higher than that (3.8 x 10^28 joules).

That is of course a very basic assumption and I didn't bother trying to measure the size of the "object".

A six-inch telescope on Earth can theoretically resolve down to about 1.5km on the moon.

Let's be generous and say it was only 1km cubed.

You still end up with a kinetic energy of 10^24 joules, which is about double the energy released by the Chicxulub impact that is believed to have caused a mass extinction on Earth.

If it was a bird, however, its kinetic energy was much lower



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
And now apply the correct Gravitational Force,

Earth vs Moon

for your impact force.


a reply to: Rob48





top topics
 
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join