Lcross last minute before impact

Originally posted by kerazeesicko

Your blind beliefs in a conspiracy or aliens in seeing things that are not there.

I don't believe in Aliens.

Everyone here knows that.

i have an alternate theory. what if they were testing their own defense systems? afterall, they've been saying since the 60's they wanted to build a base up there, and even had comprehensive plans drawn out way back then. and when bush was in office, he gave them the green light, publically, to start work on it. so perhaps, just perhaps, it wasn't the aliens shooting at us, but a test run for base defenses?

Originally posted by undo
I have an alternate theory. what if they were testing their own defense systems?

That is a possibility.

And what we saw flashing could have been a component of a defense system. (With the public being given a separate version of events to tide them over.)

But then we could have also been probing the capabilities of someone else's defense (or camouflage) system....


[edit on 10-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

WHat about the whole "curtain" "November" switching of the feed?

THer was definitely stress in that lady's voice when "on her command" "NOVEMBER" they switched the feed. SOmething about 1 megahertz and 'the pictures coming in are to big" wth was that?

Also, did anyone notice how as we got closer and closer to that mooncrater shot - the image blurred, as if it were a higher resolution image that was being zoomed?

(My keyboard is crapping out, excuse my typos please.)

reply to post by Exuberant1


i had always thought the apollo astronauts had already gotten core samples on their moon landing missions. am i wrong? and didn't they already know there was permafrost on the south pole of the moon? seems like that would suggest water automatically. the entire thing was weiiiiiird but interesting. i have this hate/love thing going with nasa. i love that they go out there and explore and share something of the experience with us. i hate that they don't share the unedited data although i can understand why they think it might destabilize something. just seems by now, that not telling us is working to be even more destabilizing.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by undo]

Im sorry and this may be off topic but maybe not. I'm on my cell phone posting from northeastern PA and we just witnessed something breathtaking.

We were looking out over the lake at 12:32 am when the entire sky lit up blue almost like lightning. It grew for about two seconds before ours eyes found the source, a large ball of blue fire in the sky. A moment later there was a blinding blue flash and the sound of burning and crackling as the burning ball disappeared behind the horizon.

Ive never seen anything like this in my life and I just find it strange that it happens the night of the whole moon thing. Meteorite it could have heen but the dark silloette in the blue fire was much larger than I imagined, and there was no impact even though it clearly would have reached the ground.

Any thoughts on this phenomonon?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

God ...I cannot believe that people are seeing things that just aren't there... These are as told to yoou people many time a product of the feed...nothing more. Some kind of glitch...because it is happening many times over different places, unless the ET's or spaceprograms are firing multiple weapons at one little target. If so...then we have nothing to worry about...because it got there......meaning thier aim sucked.

The flashes could also be indications of recent and ongoing geological activity.

The Apollo astronauts spotted all manner of recent volcanisms.

Apollo 10 LM - Unexpected Black boulders.

These black boulders are indicative of more recent volcanic activity. The moon is still geologically active. There are recent volcanisms spotted throughout the Apollo transcripts.

"Volcanic as the dickens"

"Yes. There are a lot of - a lot of things got to be volcanic, babe"

*If what we are seeing in these flashes is evidence of geological activity - then NASA will have to revise their lunar model... but it doesn't mean they will - in fact, the probably won't (the Dead Moon Dictum takes priority, dontcha know.)

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

Hi mate thought that you would of linked your video here already

here it is showing your keen eye



[edit on 10/10/2009 by ocker]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

"....The moon is still geologically active."

I'm not a Scientist, and I've not studied the moon in depth or anything. BUT, I do remember Highschool Science Class, (it was one of the few subjects I excelled in). And if memory serves, everything I was ever taught or read about the moon, or heard NASA say about the moon was that it was 'Lifeless', 'Dead', 'Extinct', 'Dormant' and had been so for 'Millions of Years'.

So according to the 'Nice All Seeing Analysts', (ie NASA), there shouldn't be any volcanic activity, no air, "water" has JUST been discovered

, basically it's a huge dusty rock just hangin out in space.

You wouldn't be suggesting I've been lied to would you???

[edit on 10-10-2009 by RecentlyAwaken]

[edit on 10-10-2009 by RecentlyAwaken]

Originally posted by redoubt
I've been following this subject all day. After reading reports from nearly every media outlet on the web that publishes in English (that's all I can read), I have nearly arrived at the final conclusion that nothing happened this morning. No impact, no bang, no plume and from NASA, no truth.

So I was lying then? And they were lying about the thermal and nir signatures? That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
There are recent volcanisms spotted throughout the Apollo transcripts.

Geologically "recent" is nowhere near the same as "current."

Originally posted by hadriana
THer was definitely stress in that lady's voice when "on her command" "NOVEMBER" they switched the feed. SOmething about 1 megahertz and 'the pictures coming in are to big" wth was that?

They were overloading their bandwidth limit on the communications link between the control room and the spacecraft. They did not properly anticipate the level of compression needed to get the images down.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter
They were overloading their bandwidth limit on the communications link between the control room and the spacecraft. They did not properly anticipate the level of compression needed to get the images down.
[edit on 10-10-2009 by ngchunter]

If they can't do that then they could never get a craft off the ground. Are you kidding me? I can guarantee you that the real feed was at least in 1080p HD.

I have a few questions for the NASA pros on this forum. Was that mission control we were supposed to see on the video? Didn't look right at all to me. And where were the two guys (male and female) we've heard on the com channel? The female sounded really stressed and lost her calm a couple of times.

Thanks for clearing this up for me.

Originally posted by Nichiren
If they can't do that then they could never get a craft off the ground. Are you kidding me? I can guarantee you that the real feed was at least in 1080p HD.

Apples and oranges, when the craft is on the ground there's virtually no delay in the transmission of data to and from the craft. The team that was in charge of crashing the probe was not even the same team that launched the vehicle anyway. When your probe is at the distance of the moon there's a very noticeable lag and a limited amount of bandwidth to work with. They had a whole suite of instruments collecting data in the final critical minutes and that data had to get down to the ground in realtime. I can promise you that they were not able to get a 1080p HD feed down from the craft at the same time all in realtime, that's absolutely nuts. This mission was done almost entirely with commercial off-the-shelf equipment (COTS). It's one thing to strap a COTS HD camera that's been hardened for launch on your probe, it's quite another to be able to download that video at full resolution in realtime while you're pulling down information from 8 other science instruments, not to mention telemetry.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by Nichiren
I have a few questions for the NASA pros on this forum. Was that mission control we were supposed to see on the video? Didn't look right at all to me.

That was Ames; mission control for unmanned missions varies depending on who is in charge of that particular probe and that particular mission. The control room for LCROSS would not be the same as the control room for the MER rovers, for insance.

Originally posted by ngchunter
When your probe is at the distance of the moon there's a very noticeable lag and a limited amount of bandwidth to work with.
[edit on 10-10-2009 by ngchunter]

Thank you for your posts. Not trying to knock you, but are there any links to back it up? Isn't the data travelling at almost the speed of light once it leaves the transmission platform?

The probe was never meant to land and transmit, so that argument I don't understand. Also, I simply don't buy that in 2009 we have worse visual capabilities (and bandwidth) than in 1969 ...

Originally posted by Nichiren
Thank you for your posts. Not trying to knock you, but are there any links to back it up? Isn't the data travelling at almost the speed of light once it leaves the transmission platform?

The speed of light is only so fast. Once you're at lunar distances you've got a 1.3 second one way delay on the moon-earth distance alone. If you've ever played a multiplayer game with a ping of 1300 (and this would be more like 2600 really, 'instakick' from most servers), you know that not only is everything lagging behind where it actually is, but the whole experience turns into a slide show and is basically unwatchable. LCROSS had a limiting bandwidth of 1 megabit per second
www.space.com...
My internet connection is faster than that, but I can't come close to streaming 1080p live, let alone with 8 other streams running simultaneously.

The probe was never meant to land and transmit, so that argument I don't understand. Also, I simply don't buy that in 2009 we have worse visual capabilities (and bandwidth) than in 1969 ...

The quality of these images was far above that transmitted live in 1969. Don't forget that the DAC camera images weren't seen until after they came back and had the film developed. Back in the 70s, Voyager's "very high bitrate" images (seriously, that's what they called it back then) were a whopping 115 kilobits per second lol.
www.springerlink.com...
We've come a long way since then, even on a cheap mission such as this.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter


Thank you for your reply.