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: 26
71
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Why does the craft stop and hold the same altitude for 10 seconds at 4:50 - 5:00 in the video, in the 'last seconds before impact'? This doesn't appear to be a frozen picture because there also appears to be considerable camera wobble during this 10 seconds.



How can a craft moving at incredible speed towards the moon stop dead for 10 seconds just prior to impact?

Looks rather like someone zooming in on a model or photo of the moon and stopping just above the surface.

None of the Nasa apologists seem very interested in discussing the actual images we have. Instead they just keep endlessly repeating like a mantra: 'There was an impact, it wasn't faked, it was not a failure, they have lots of data' which is a statement which has no basis except their faith in NASA.


[edit on 10-10-2009 by Malcram]




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
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.



A smaller-than-expect plume does not necessairy mean there is no water-ice -- it only means that the water-ice may not be mixed up in loose soil, but rather on a substrate of hard rock. They expected a plume not because of water-ice, but because of loose soil. If the impactor hit rock and ice, the plume would be small.

Basically I'm saying that the lack of a plume is NOT an indication of the lack of water.

Water may still be found in the spectroscopic data that they DID receive. They may not have seen a large plume, but they got some spectral data from the impact flash (and so did Kitt Peak Observatory).

Another possibility is that the water is not everywhere in that crater, but rather in only some places; perhaps the impact point was dry.



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



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

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.


OK let's see if you are going to understand it that way with the sections of a research paper:

Experiment:
hit the moon to see if there is water

Procedure-Method:
launch two rockets to the moon and wait for the impact.

Conclusion-Results:
analysis of the results of the impact.Graphs etc

Now we still have NO PROOF that the impact really occurred but we have results.Is the research paper going to be accepted??



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by kapodistrias
...Now we still have NO PROOF that the impact really occurred but we have results.Is the research paper going to be accepted??


Well, there's Kitt Peak Observatory who saw the imapact flash and got spectral data from the flash that corresponded to the spectral data from LCROSS...

...But I suppose you would only be satisfied if you used your own observatory and used your own spectrometer. However, even if you would be satisfied with that evidence from your own observatory, there is no reason to think that others would trust what you say. Everyone needs their own observatory and spectrometer.

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



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is PeopleThey may not have seen a large plume, but they got some spectral data from the impact flash (and so did Kitt Peak Observatory).


Do you note the huge leap of faith between you make between "sodium flash" and your repeated claim that this is proof of impact? To you they are one and the same - because you are making a leap of faith.

The article you linked to says:

"According to New Scientist, one observatory, Kitt Peak in Arizona, did detect the presence of a sodium flash. This, according to Colaprete, means that something in the debris from the impact or in the atmosphere “excited” sodium molecules; what exactly that was remains to be seen.

You are touting this as categorical proof of impact. I don't think that's entirely honest.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Soylent,

Do you honestly think that they didn't take into account the possibility that they would hit a hard surface / rock? I can't believe that, seeing how convinced they were of the outcome.
I mean come one.... They already said upfront that the target area would not have seen sunlight in millions, possibly billions of years, claiming it would be one of the coldest spots in our system. Besides that, they aimed for a crater. Since there is no wind on the Moon, there would be very little chance of the crater filling up with dust and any existing dust would most likely have been blown out or severely compacted by the impact that created the crater.

I do agree with you that experiments don't always turn out the way you expect them to but how far off can you get....



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is PeopleThey may not have seen a large plume, but they got some spectral data from the impact flash (and so did Kitt Peak Observatory).


Do you note the huge leap of faith between you make between "sodium flash" and your repeated claim that this is proof of impact? To you they are one and the same - because you are making a leap of faith.

The article you linked to says:

"According to New Scientist, one observatory, Kitt Peak in Arizona, did detect the presence of a sodium flash. This, according to Colaprete, means that something in the debris from the impact or in the atmosphere “excited” sodium molecules; what exactly that was remains to be seen.

You are touting this as categorical proof of impact. I don't think that's entirely honest.


Exactly...

something in the debris from the impact or in the atmosphere “excited” sodium molecules; what exactly that was remains to be seen.

The impact caused the spectral fingerprint of sodium to be seen -- sodium that was either in the kicked-up debris or part of the Moon's tenuous atmosphere.

I suppose it's too early to tell if the sodium was part of the ejecta, or already in the atmosphere.

Either way, the article states that the impact caused the flash that contained a sodium signature.

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



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by kapodistrias
...Now we still have NO PROOF that the impact really occurred but we have results.Is the research paper going to be accepted??


Well, there's Kitt Peak Observatory who saw the imapact flash and got spectral data from the flash that corresponded to the spectral data from LCROSS...

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


Yes but the paper is still NOT accepted.So we DON'T accept and believe Nasa's results or words.

Maybe in the future as you say will be accepted.But I doubt that.

Do you hope that they will show us the impact or are you sure that there was an impact and everything is good?

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I believe people do react to your believes for one reason. Not because you believe the mission was a success and that we have what we came for etc, but because that you refuse to see that the behavior of certain elements in this event just doesn't make sense.

Those weird elements are presented but you have not the slightest will to even consider that there actually might be something "fishy". And I guess that provokes people to give out names as closed-minded.

When I debate, my goal is NOT to convince skeptics....but to atleast make them take the small step to CONSIDER an alternative explanation that migh need an "out of the box" way of thinking.
If I manage to do that, then I feel I have accomplished something.

So... Can you consider the fact that there are some odd things going on in this event, as for instance the "angry nintendo nerd" at the end?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



You have more blind faith than anyone ever. Maybe it was a sodium laser that heated up the atmosphear. I'm not saing that happened but sodium in and of itself doesn't really mean anything. It's obvoius that the article is using this detail to convince people like yourself that the mission was a spot on jolly good splended success, but it is also carefully worded in order to leave itself some wiggle room. In other words it doesn't really say it's from the impact at all.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokoman
...Since there is no wind on the Moon, there would be very little chance of the crater filling up with dust and any existing dust would most likely have been blown out or severely compacted by the impact that created the crater.


There is a lot of dust on the moon, as seen during the Apollo program (if you don't believe that Apollo happened, then you can use the Russian Moon Rovers as evidence -- the Russians also saw dust.)

The dust is there because of billions of years of meteor impacts blew pulverized fine ejecta up from the surface which fell back to the Moon.

As to the question of did NASA have a contingency plan for the presence of rock at the impact site?...I can't answer that. I don't know of the contingency plans for this mission.


I do agree with you that experiments don't always turn out the way you expect them to but how far off can you get....


I don't know -- how far off was it (besides the lack of a plume high enough to reach the sunlight)?

A large plume would have been better, but the lack of a visible plume is far from being a "show-stopper". They still got spectroscopic and infrared data from the impact. That data was what they were looking for. A large plume -- while useful -- was not vital.


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



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

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



You have more blind faith than anyone ever. Maybe it was a sodium laser that heated up the atmosphear. I'm not saing that happened but sodium in and of itself doesn't really mean anything. It's obvoius that the article is using this detail to convince people like yourself that the mission was a spot on jolly good splended success, but it is also carefully worded in order to leave itself some wiggle room. In other words it doesn't really say it's from the impact at all.


Well, if you are going to start throwing out possible explanations about sodium lasers heating up the atmosphere, then I suppose there is NO WAY ANYTHING EVER will suffice as evidence. Any evidence you get, you could dismiss away with a "...what if....".

Therefore, I may as well stop debating you if you will dismiss away all evidence.

...and no -- the sodium itself means nothing. the Sodium that Kitt Peak saw in the impact flash isn't the evidence of impact -- the impact flash is evidence of impact.

The only reason I mentioned the sodium is because that is exactly what LCROSS saw in it's flash -- lending credence to that assertion that the flash Kitt Peak saw was the impact.

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



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
40 YEARS AFTER, can you believe?

40 years after, it looks like we didn't learn nothing.
Maybe we even forgot something.
We must learn with those genius that made that footage with that old hardware.
Maybe they should have used that camera for LCROSS.

Look for yourself:

First Moon Landing, One Shot, 1969, Apollo 11
www.youtube.com...

LCROSS Lunar Impact
www.youtube.com...

Is this progress?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
If they don't find water, does that mean there is no water or does that mean they just didn't find it? (try better next time)

and if they do find water, can we hurry up and go there. maybe even build a city.

Earth is gettin boring.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Screw NASA, let Soylent Green Is People replace them all he's doing a mighty fine job messing with you all..,
probably a good ol Free Mason, to fix up the the false reality we belive NASA in aranging.

Ah well, another #-strike 1-0 for NASA.

I don't need explaning, what you see is what you get.
Another ride in the park ala Free (get my idiot cusin a 200K a year job) Masons game play on us all.



[edit on 10-10-2009 by TheScope]

[edit on 10-10-2009 by TheScope]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by president
If they don't find water, does that mean there is no water or does that mean they just didn't find it? (try better next time)

and if they do find water, can we hurry up and go there. maybe even build a city.

Earth is gettin boring.


They have not completed the analysis of the spectroscopic data. They may still find water. If they don't find water in that data -- and if the impactor worked properly -- than it's possible that water still exists in that crater, but not where the impact occurred. That could mean there is less water they originally hypothesized.


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



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Exactly...

something in the debris from the impact or in the atmosphere “excited” sodium molecules; what exactly that was remains to be seen.


The impact caused the spectral fingerprint of sodium to be seen -- sodium that was either in the kicked-up debris or part of the Moon's tenuous atmosphere.


No, you've just made the same leap again. There was apparently (yet to be verified) a "sodium flash". What caused it has not been determined, as the article makes clear. You presume it was an impact, as do they.



Either way, the article states that the impact caused the flash that contained a sodium signature.


No, it implies it because it's making the same leap as you are. Again, you are basing your leaps of faith on the leaps of faith of others whom you trust as 'authorities'. This is religious behaviour and ultimately NASA is the deity being worshipped.



[edit on 10-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
When they will show us AN impact is highly possible that it will not be true but some good effects.

Their chance has just been screwed when they lost the signal at the live video.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by pterra
 


All I know is if I was an American I would be so FKing MAD,
It is the People's money and they are to decide what it will be used for.
To watch this crap take place on live TV, is just so SAD...

It's amazing how Americans just let this crap go on, within 5-15 years every big nation will have videos and pictures of the moon, only then will we get the truth.

I still belive the USA is a just and good country but the leadership and hidden Elitist Free Masons, and co. are taking America down 1 bit at a time.
At least in my country we burn down the Free Mason Halls,
you won't see that in the Media...



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...and no -- the sodium itself means nothing.


Good, I agree.




the Sodium that Kitt Peak saw in the impact flash isn't the evidence of impact


Excellent, so I presume you will now stop presenting it as if it is evidence of impact then, which you have done repeatedly?



-- the impact flash is evidence of impact.


What "impact flash"?




"The only reason I mentioned the sodium is because that is exactly what LCROSS saw in it's flash"


So if sodium means nothing and a sodium flash observed by Kitt Peak isn't proof of impact, as in a stark turn around you now admit, then NASA's "sodium flash" means nothing too - so what "flash" are you claiming as proof of impact?



lending credence to that assertion that the flash Kitt Peak saw was the impact.


Two things which prove nothing can't be used to verify each other and prove an impact. Or are you referring to another "flash"?

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Malcram]




top topics



 
71
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join