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: 25
71
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Nixi,

The issue here is that NASA themselves raised expectations that the event would be visible from Earth (by amateurs)

The question for me is not whether or not they will obtain the data they wanted, but how reliable the information we are provided with actually is... and thus NASA's ability to set up a decent experiment according to their own parameters. Any experiment like this relies on obtaining data from certain predetermined metrics. This mission relied heavily on the amount of ejecta disturbed by the impact.
After witnissing that their main source of data was well under 10% of what they set out for, who says that the instruments were even equipped to detect what they were built for with such a decreased amount of material to analyse?

I advise not blindly trusting statements without having any evidence presented. That evidence may still come, but it'd better be good or they will have lost a lot of credibility




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
They should of let Hollywood do the all the camera work, and put Bruce Willis in it, and called it Armageddon 2



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by rabourby
 


Kitt Peak Observatory saw the impact flash. Link


Originally posted by Copernicus
...There is no evidence of them crashing anything into the moon.


Like I said above, Kitt Peak Observatory saw the flash of impact.

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


Is there any proof for that?

When I click on the Kitt Peak Observatory I am directed to a page which it includes this statement:

"I think we're all a little bit disappointed that we didn't see anything," David Morrison, director of NASA's Lunar Science Institute, told New Scientist.

www.newscientist.com...



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kapodistrias

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...Like I said above, Kitt Peak Observatory saw the flash of impact.


Is there any proof for that?

When I click on the Kitt Peak Observatory I am directed to a page which it includes this statement:

"I think we're all a little bit disappointed that we didn't see anything," David Morrison, director of NASA's Lunar Science Institute, told New Scientist.

www.newscientist.com...


Did you read the article you posted?

Here is an excerpt from what you posted:


One positive report came from Kitt Peak Observatory in Arizona, where a flash of visible light revealing the presence of sodium was recorded during the impact.


The quote about "being disappointed" was not from Kitt Peak.

Kitt Peak's spectroscopic analysis of the flash indicated the presence of sodium, which is exactly consistent with what NASA said they saw in their spectroanalysis of the impact.

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



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Yes where is their report??

And I can say the results are miraculous.Doesn't prove anything.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by kapodistrias
Yes where is their report??

And I can say the results are miraculous.Doesn't prove anything.


I would think, as most good scientist do, the scientists at Kitt Peak will analyze the data, reach conclusions, and then review those conclusions before publishing.

Heck, Kitt Peak only saw the flash yesterday...give them a chance to figure it out.


If you are not going to believe them, then I suppose NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE would convince you that the impact actually did occur. So what's the point of even asking for proof? You'll probably just discount all proof anyway.

People don't seem to want to open their minds to the possibility that the impact point was dry and rock-hard rather than dusty and icy, therefore the plume was far smaller than expected.

Is that really hard to believe?


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



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Gotta turn my attention to a time critical project -- I'l be back, don't nobody miss me too much.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Wake up! The moon is classified!

You wont even be able to see 1 picture before the impact either! And if you do, its going to be blurred 640x480 pixel images.

F@ck N@s@!



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by kapodistrias
Yes where is their report??

And I can say the results are miraculous.Doesn't prove anything.


I would think, as most good scientist do, the scientists at Kitt Peak will analyze the data, reach conclusions, and then review those conclusions before publishing.

Heck, Kitt Peak only saw the flash yesterday...give them a chance to figure it out.


If you are not going to believe them, then I suppose NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE would convince you that the impact actually did occur. So what's the point of even asking for proof? You'll probably just discount all proof anyway.

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


Ok I will wait to see their conclusions and NASA's conclusion.Let's see if they contradict each other.

That is going to be interesting.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Plume or not....
Data or not...
Success or not...
They saw, they didn't blah blah...

That discussion will never end untill ( perhaps ) Nasa announce the results.

What bugs me is:

- Why is the video of the moons surface they had "live", acting so weird.

- Why does the descending ( zooming ) paus for a few seconds just to start going again right before the first Infrared overlay comes up?

- Why does the "zooming" being jerky? If you drag the seeker on the youtube player fast forward and backwards you'll see that the descending is far from straight. You see the same effect from very poorly done rotoscoping.

- Why doesn't the infrared overlay align with the surface shoot?

- What is the thermal "flashing" you see on the top left during the descent on the infrared overlay which you can't see any signs of from the normal camera?

- Why does it appear that the man who packs his things after the impact, ignores the "high five", and rushes out to be so upset?


These questions are atm more interesting to me rather to debate wheather there was a plume ore not.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Akezzon]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Spacecowgrl, are you even serious? Please tell us you were kidding. If you were serious, what do you think was going on? You think that 2 years ago George W. was bored and came out and asked NASA to "blow up the dam Moon! Let's use our infinite American arsenal and launch sum bombs at the Moon! That'll scare the Taleeban into submission."

NASA did not launch a bomb at the Moon. While I think the whole mission was somewhat ridiculous,no one shot a bomb toward the Moon.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



I think you are hearing what you want to hear and not what people are actually saying. Most of us agree that something happened, I'm not sure anyone is saying nothing happened at all.

What most of us are saying though is that at the very least the expiriment was botched and the handaling of the event only lends credibility to the idea that NASA isn't being perfectly honest with us.

Time and time again it has been pointed out that scientists are dissapointed in the lack of debris. So far only one observatory claims they actually saw ANYTHING AT ALL. But you keep saying that it's great science and that we just don't find real science interesting. Baloney! You seem to be one of the only ones (PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS INCLUDED) who thinks this went off without a hitch. Come on, read between the lines. Belive your eyes and ears once in a while and not just what's being told at a press comforance a few minutes after the flub.

Did you think Columbia was a great success? Was it not a failure becaude we actually learned things from it? I remember for hours after the disaster NASA still would not admitting that the Columbia crew were dead, even though you could watch the orbiter desintigrate in balls of fire over and over on the 24 hour news networks. Same thing here. I didn't need an official NASA report to know Columbia was lost and I don't need one now to know that at the very least they screwed up.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akezzon
Plume or not....
Data or not...
Success or not...
They saw, they didn't blah blah...

That discussion will never end untill ( perhaps ) Nasa announce the results.

What bugs me is:

- Why is the video of the moons surface they had "live" being så weird.

- Why does the descending ( zooming ) paus for a few seconds just to start going again right before the first Infrared overlay comes up?

- Why does the "zooming" being jerky? If you drag the seeker on the youtube player fast forward and backwards you'll see that the descending is far from straight. You see the same effect from very poorly done rotoscoping.

- Why doesn't the infrared overlay align with the surface shoot?

- What is the thermal "flashing" you see on the top left during the descent on the infrared overlay which you can't see any signs of from the normal camera?

- Why does it appear that the man who packs his things after the impact, ignores the "high five", and rushes out to be so upset?


These questions are atm more interesting to me rather to debate wheather there was a plume ore not.


- The video you saw was from the shepherding spacecraft (the second craft to impact). This spacecraft was watching the impact from the first spacecraft (the Centaur rocket motor). The first impactor (the Centaur rocket motor) had no camera. Only the second impact craft had a camera.

- I'm not sure which "flashing" you are talking about, but if you saw it during the infrared, then perhaps it was the heat signature from the impact of the Centaur rocket.

- And I don't know what "zooming" you are talking about. The camera didn't "zoom". What we saw was the "shepherding spacecraft getting closer and closer before its own impact (while watching the impact of the Centaur).

- The "jerkiness" of the video is because it wasn't a video per se, but rather a series of still images taken a couple of seconds apart (which made it lok like video).

- The man who did not high five was probably disappointed that the ejecta plume was too low to reach the sunlight (and thus become visible). I was disappointed, too.

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



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
- The man who did not high five was probably disappointed that the ejecta plume was too low to reach the sunlight (and thus become visible). I was disappointed, too.

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


Could you explain to me how is it possible the plume to reach the sunlight?

What amount of water did you or Nasa expect to find?

Is the water compressed somehow at the moon and with penetration is going to come out?

PS:I do not attack you,I am looking for a logical explanation to all these.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Uhm video is a series of still pictures. The video was crap! It wasn't just still pictures made to look like video, it was crap video. But whatever now we are getting into word games.

Question though:

Is it possible that NASA intentionally used this still photo/crap video thechnique in order to obstruct the speed of the craft? I was thinking that if we had good smooth video we could probably figure out exactly how fast the craft was moving, but with the crap video it would be impossible to figure out.

Just a thought.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The video you saw was from the shepherding spacecraft (the second craft to impact). This spacecraft was watching the impact from the first spacecraft (the Centaur rocket motor). The first impactor (the Centaur rocket motor) had no camera. Only the second impact craft had a camera.

Yeah, I understand this...
But why does it show movement towards the moon, and then just come to a dead stop, just to start moving again right before they have the first infrared overlay?


Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I'm not sure which "flashing" you are talking about, but if you saw it during the infrared, then perhaps it was the heat signature from the impact of the Centaur rocket.


Uhmm...no, I don't think so. It wasn't even near the "target" of impact.
And if it was because of the impact you would most likely see similar flashes else where....which we don't.


Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
And I don't know what "zooming" you are talking about. The camera didn't "zoom". What we saw was the "shepherding spacecraft getting closer and closer before its own impact (while watching the impact of the Centaur).


I say zoom cause it looks like a camera zoom....
I'm not convinced that the image we saw is the REAL live feed.
And I base that alot upon the Infrared not being aligned with the color image.


Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The "jerkiness" of the video is because it wasn't a video per se, but rather a series of still images taken a couple of seconds apart (which made it lok like video)


The jerkiness I talk about is sideways...not in depth. Are there bumpy roads in space?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
...What most of us are saying though is that at the very least the expiriment was botched and the handaling of the event only lends credibility to the idea that NASA isn't being perfectly honest with us...


But what I'm saying is that how in the world can you tell this early that the experiment was botched?

Just because an experiment does not have the expected result does not necessarily mean that there was something wrong with the experiment. It could mean that they need to adjust their scientific understanding of what was being tested.

In this specific case, they figured that if the soil at the point of impact was dusty and icy, they expected the result to be a large plume. However, the result was unexpected -- a smaller plume (or at least a plume that was not as high).

This doesn't necessarily mean that the experiment was botched. I could mean that the point of impact was harder and drier than they thought.

The point of this experiment wasn't to kick up water -- the point of the experiment was to see how much water ice exists at the bottom of that crater.

Perhaps the experiment worked perfectly, and the conclusion way be that there is NOT any water at the impact point -- or at least not any water mixed with dust.

This is science. If you don't like the conclusion you get, don't automatically blame the experiment -- perhaps you need to adjust your understanding. NASA may need to adjust what they think they know about water in that crater.


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



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Do you see why we disagree with you??

How are we sure that the impact occurred and we have results?

If the procedure of the experiment isn't successful then the experiment isn't successful as well and the results are not right.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



Well as Jim Oberg said what would really be hard to understand is if there wasn't any water there at all.

I know I'm paraphrasing here but when even Jim O says something like this then it's hard to argue with.

In other words if you are right and there is no water there then that is even weirder than Moon aliens zapping a nuke out of the sky.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by kapodistrias
Do you see why we disagree with you??

How are we sure that the impact occurred and we have results?

If the procedure of the experiment isn't successful then the experiment isn't successful as well and the results are not right.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]


The procedure of the experiment was to impact the crater.

If the soil was dusty and icy, then a visible plume would have been created (although the plume being visible from Earth is NOT a vital part of the experiment).

Based on the fact that there was not a very high plume, one could hypothesize that the impact point in that crater is not loose dust but rather made of rock.

Not every experiment gives you the results you expect -- but a good scientist would not ignore those unexpected results, but rather try to figure out WHY they got those results.

Some of the greatest breakthroughs in science came from getting unexpected results from an experiment.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join