It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA "Moon Bombing" mission -- DISAPPEARS

page: 15
71
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Well I tried, I spoke to a relative who is an administrative assistant at JPL and she knows nothing and doesn't want to dare ask.




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
maybe this guy heard or felt something

www.american-buddha.com...



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Watching it would be like watching a car fly into America from the moon. You can't expect much.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
What was nasa's explenation for this? Weather balloon?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

I'm sorry for all the NASA lovers, but not only was it completely unneccessary to look for water ice in a lunar crater, but to do it while the economy is on one leg and ppl are unemployed is seriously irresponsible! Who's with me?


That part is the biggest slap in the face IMO. TPTB have their priorities all wrong. Even the alleged aliens are said to be 'shocked' at how we don't take care of our people and our planet. 79 million dollars would have fed a lot of hungry people. Sometimes I get the feeling that the people pulling all the strings are old, out-of-touch people who think that the public still has the same innocent mentality of the War of the Worlds era. For Pete's sake! Our diversion was Obama getting a Nobel Peace Prize? That's an indicator of how gullible and easily diverted/satisfied that TPTB evidently thinks Joe and Jane Q. Public are. Poor Mother Teresa spent her entire life in poverty and service to humanity not to mention all the other people who actually 'did' something to earn the prize. I never thought I'd see the day when nothing more than a 'Coke and smile' would win somebody the Nobel Peace Prize.


[edit on 9-10-2009 by gazerstar]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Earth to Moon: "Knock knock!"

Moon: "...rumble grumble...wwhhhoooooo's theeeeerreee!!!!!


Let the games begin.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
This was clearly a disappointment for NASA. They explicitly expressed disappointment even while trying to spin it as a success. They don't know what happened. They predicted a plume several miles high, easily visible from earth with backyard telescopes, which never materialized - among other things. For NASA apologists to complain when this is called a 'failure' is disingenuous. NASA expressed that they were disappointed (before quickly getting back to the spin). Why? Because they FAILED to get the results they expected or predicted.

There are also countless problems with the images we got from NASA, it seems to me. I'll just mention a couple which are bugging me.

First we are told that a flash of one or two pixels might 'prove' the impact. Well, there are continuous flashes on the images well before any impact. So if we are supposed to accept one or two pixel flashes as proof of an impact of something that size traveling at the that speed, then what are the various flashes we see on the lunar surface PRIOR to any impact? Either all these flashes relate to 'explosions' of a reasonably similar size or they show nothing, and are just glitches. You can't claim one pixel flash as the impact of a huge projectile traveling at incredible speed, and others as 'nothing'. Either they are all nothing, or all need to be explained.

Also, as others have noted, why does it appear that the camera is slowly zooming in on a photograph or model of the lunar surface? To illustrate this look at the video below, at 4:40:



This is supposedly the last seconds of the craft approaching the lunar surface. So why does the craft apparently stop and hold at the same altitude for 10 seconds at 4:50 - 5:00? The picture remains unchanged for 10 seconds. The same crater is shown and it does not get any bigger as it should if this is the picture from a craft inexorably approaching the moon? The screen has not frozen because if you look carefully there is considerable camera wobble! What is going on here? It looks exactly like someone zooming in on a or model of the moon and halting just above it's surface!

There are just a couple of the questions I have about NASA's images.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Likely wasn't enough dust in the crater, or the crater floor was harder than anticipated. It's not like there would be tons of fire or anything either, due to the lack of oxygen.

Keep in mind this is a crater. A place where a meteor hit, which likely burned and hardened the floor. It likely isn't all dust down there.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I honestly think that it may have exploded before impact for some reason. I read an article from August, I think, that stated that the missle had been having problems and had lost half of its fuel 'repositioning' itself. I still can't figure out why it was sent up in June and just orbiting the earth all summer only to be deployed today.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Its hard to believe our puny spacecraft was going fast enough to cause a collision that would blow six to eight inches of surface dust into a cloud that was predicted to cause a dust dispersion of 6 miles in elevation.

I guess it sounds plausabile at first considering the lower amout of gravity that exists on the moon but perhaps we have just found out that there is more to the moon than meets the eye(no pun intended).



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eteric Rice
Likely wasn't enough dust in the crater, or the crater floor was harder than anticipated. It's not like there would be tons of fire or anything either, due to the lack of oxygen.

Keep in mind this is a crater. A place where a meteor hit, which likely burned and hardened the floor. It likely isn't all dust down there.


I think that's could be exactly why the plume wasn't as large as expected -- the impactor hit a rock-hard surface rather than a dusty one.

I yet to understand why some other people think that NASA needs to "spin" this one one or the other. The results of this experiment are the results of this experiment. They impacted this crater to see what's in it. True -- they didn't get the expected result (i.e., the crater may not be made of what they thought it was made of), but that doesn't mean the experiment was a failure. It simply means that they knew less about the composition of that crater than they thought they did.

It's like some of you people have never done an experiment before and got surprising results. There's no need to "spin" the result, but rather simply a need to explain the unexpected result.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
No, I have never used up 100 million tax dollars to experiment with.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by gazerstar

I never thought I'd see the day when nothing more than a 'Coke and smile' would win somebody the Nobel Peace Prize.


[edit on 9-10-2009 by gazerstar]



And that coke you mention is not soda either!



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Let's just sum up this thread and let it die.

NASA failed.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Why not? Its great fun, you should try it now and then.

Im not sure I buy into the story NASA gives. They screwed the pooch on this one and are trying to keep from losing funding because of this failure. So they have to put a positive spin on it.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


The on-line news report mentioned a blurring of the images at the time of impact. Why would that (normally) be? Unless....



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People


It's like some of you people have never done an experiment before and got surprising results. There's no need to "spin" the result, but rather simply a need to explain the unexpected result.


It's not that. NASA is supposed to be comprised of highly-trained professionals who represent the best of the best. They present themselves as being highly trained and knowledgeable in their fields. Sometimes they have great success, but some of their output is just plain shoddy. I'm sure that some of that is for secretive or security purposes. I think what puts most people off (or at least me) is how they try to cover up what they don't want the public to know. Some of the excuses are laughable not to mention insulting to our intelligence. Their reputation for airbrushing out images doesn't help. I would have more respect for NASA/JPL if when they made a mistake or had a failure that they would just admit it like anyone else instead of trying to put a spin on it. They're only human, things do happen, and the public does realize this. NASA and TPTB should respect the public, our intelligence, and our ability to handle challenging concepts and ideas. They might be surprised to see that respect returned and a stronger more supportive country for it.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Annav
 

Thanks for the laugh xD

So true...



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by giorgio
Have any of you wondered yet why Nasa chose that particular area to bomb, which is right at the edge of the dark side, where they actually said it was going to be very difficult to observe from Earth because of the crater walls ?

If they really wanted a clear view why didn't they drop the load on the lighter side of the moon which is very visible from Earth ? ....


Actually, they picked that spot because it is always dark...

First of all, there is no "dark side" of the Moon. There is a "far side" (the side always facing away from Earth), but that far side gets just as much light per Moon revolution as the "near side" does. For example, when we see 1/2 of the near side lit up, 1/2 of the far side is also lit up. When we have a "new moon" and none of the side facing the Earth is lit up by the Sun, then the whole far side is lit up. When the near side is "full", the far side is dark.

However, there are in fact parts of the Moon that are in perpetual darkness -- and those areas are some deep craters at the two poles. Sunlight at the North and South pole is very oblique. So, if you were at the Poles of the Moon, you would always see the Sun low on the horizon and would never see it high in the sky. Because of the very low Sun and oblique Sun rays, there are deep craters that never see sunlight -- and haven't seen sunlight for millions or even billions of years -- because the crater walls cast a perpetual shadow.

This goes back to why NASA picked this spot (which is called Cabeus Crater). They picked this crater because back in 1994, a space probe found evidence that water-ice exists there. That was a big surprise because any water that might have made it to the moon (for example, via an icy comet impact) would have evaporated away in the sunlight that bathes most of the Moon. However, this water-ice was found in one of those "always and forever dark" craters at the South Pole. Perhaps an icy comet once impacted there millions of years ago, but since the sunlight cannot reach inside that crater, the water never evaporated away.

THAT'S why they picked that spot to impact...they wanted to throw some of that water into a plume so they could analyze it. If they picked a spot that was more visible, there may not be large amounts of water to analyze.


...by the way, not to confuse you more, but oddly enough the North and South Pole surface of the Moon (not at the bottom of craters) are the only places on the Moon that are always sunlit. It may seem a contradiction, but the same "oblique Sun rays" that contribute to the always-dark craters are also the reason that the Poles never have a "night" -- just like the North and South Pole on Earth have a several months of continuous daylight in the summer.

However, because the Earth tilts 23 degrees, the poles also have several months of continuous darkness during the winter. The Moon does not tilt, therefore it has no seasons, and thus no changes in the lengths of days.

[edit on 10/9/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

I yet to understand why some other people think that NASA needs to "spin" this one one or the other. The results of this experiment are the results of this experiment.


Forgetting coverups and conspiracies for a moment - when any agency is competing for or trying to justify continued funding and there are millions being invested in it's actions, 'spin' is always the result, because the stakes are so high, you know that. Why should NASA supposedly be exempt from this?

Of course NASA 'spins' and tries to paint whatever they do in the best light and try to avoid criticism and deny failure. Huge sums of money, 'national security' interests and honest scientific objectivity don't mix well, and it's always the latter that suffers. NASA is a prime example of this.

But that's only the cause of one layer of NASA's dishonesty, IMO. There are other causes and many other layers, the end result being that I don't trust NASA one little bit.


[edit on 9-10-2009 by Malcram]



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join