NASA "Moon Bombing" mission -- DISAPPEARS

Originally posted by Malcram
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]

When i was watching this also i thought it was a model of the moon being zoomed in on. It might not have been but it realllly does look like a model compared to the moon in the sky thats so bright why would it look so dark and so gray looking? Dont make any sense.

Originally posted by gerg357
When i was watching this also i thought it was a model of the moon being zoomed in on. It might not have been but it realllly does look like a model compared to the moon in the sky thats so bright why would it look so dark and so gray looking? Dont make any sense.

Thanks. Finally someone responding to this anomaly!

There are actually countless things amiss with the images from NASA, but this was one of the most glaring to me. If the image was frozen for 10 seconds, then fair enough. But it's not. There appears to be camera wobble as the craft apparently hovers motionless for 10 seconds just above the lunar surface before impact - which obviously would be impossible. LOL. So yes, this does make it seem like a halted camera zoom onto a model.

If there is an explanation then no one seems seems prepared to offer one as I have pointed this out quite a few times and you are the first person to respond. But I'd like an explanation because after this issue, there are a whole host of other problems with the NASA images that need explanation too, but we have to take one at a time

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Malcram]

Wow, this is going to be fun. I wonder if they'll lie straight out or just mix the truth a bit. Maybe aliens upducted it

reply to post by Malcram


[sigh]

You seem to be confused about the presence of sodium in the spectral analysis.

The only reason Kitt Peak Observatory detected sodium is because they were analyzing the spectrum of the flash from the impact.

Sodium by itself is not evidence of the impact. However, the impact produced a flash, and the spectral analysis of that flash indicated the presence of sodium -- sodium either from the ejecta, or sodium that was already in the very thin atmosphere.

The sodium is basically meaningless, but the impact flash was required to detect it.

Do you have any proof that this flash was NOT the flash from impact? That would seem a strange coincidence if there was a different flash.

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

reply to post by Malcram


Maybe it was the delay of the data transmission.

I am curious because I do not know how these data-images-video are transmitted.

Through satellite wireless connection?The spacecraft transit to the satellite and the satellite is the router?

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

Originally posted by Exemplar

Originally posted by atlasastro
Mark my words people, you may all laugh now.

But when it rains cheese tomorrow, you'll all know the truth.

Bring the rain, cheese rain.

I hope its Mozzarella cheese. I love that stuff.

gouda is good-uh but cheddar is beddar ic

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
[sigh]

You seem to be confused about the presence of sodium in the spectral analysis.

The only reason they detected sodium is because they were analyzing the spectrum of the flash from the impact.

LOL. There you go again. Unconsciously making the leap. There was a miniscule flash. You presume the flash was the LCROSS IMPACT.

Yet, the article does not say that (even if it did, it would be meaningless as their claims are no more valid than yours if they are based on a leap of faith).

Do you have any proof that this flash was NOT the flash from impact? That would seem a strange coincidence if there was a different flash.

Yes, there was no plume whatsoever observed, which NASA had confidently predicted there would be and no video images from LCROSS of any impact. So if almost all of of the predicted evidence of an impact is missing, it is reasonable to allow for the possibility that the impact itself was 'missing' and did not occur. This event should not have to come down to the biased interpretation of a couple of pixels, when it's signature was supposed to be a very obvious plume miles high. There were many flashes which have yet to be explained, including prior to any "impact".

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by kapodistrias
reply to post by Malcram

 

Maybe it was the delay of the data transmission.

I am curious because I do not know how these data-images-video are transmitted.

Through satellite wireless connection?The spacecraft transit to the satellite and the satellite is the router?

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

It wasn't a video per se...it was a series of still images taken a few moments apart. That's why the picture was jerky -- because we only got one still picture every second or so.

Still pictures can be much more hi-res than videos can.

As for the picture "stopping" -- perhaps it got stuck on that one picture and did not update the frame for a while.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Still pictures can be much more hi-res than videos can.

As for the picture "stopping" -- perhaps it got stuck on that one picture and did not update the frame for a while.

That is what I thought at first too. But why is there apparently camera wobble during this stop? If something is frozen, it's frozen, it doesn't wobble.

reply to post by Malcram


It's not a "leap of faith" -- it's basic common sense. What the hell other flash would they be talking about in an article that was discussing (among other things) observatories around the world looking for the flash of impact?

It would be really stupid of them to suddenly start talking about some other flash seen by Kitt Peak Observatory in an article that was discussing LCROSS's impact. That would make the article very confusing.

It's simple common sense to infer that they were talking about LCROSS. They even discussed the possibility that the sodium was possibly in the ejecta or in the atmosphere. If they weren't talking about the impact, then what ejecta were they talking about.

I mean c'mon. It is obvious to infer that if they discussed ejecta, then they were discussing the impact.

www.newscientist.com...

A few selected quotes from the online article of:

New Scientist

"NASA puzzles over 'invisible' moon impact"

"But scientists remain puzzled about why the event did not seem to generate a visible plume of debris as expected."

"Yet, immediately after the scheduled impact time, there was no obvious sign of the spectacular explosion that many were expecting. [Why were they 'expecting' it? Because NASA told them to]

"Colaprete did not offer definitive word as to why the visual camera apparently did not detect the event but added there were interesting changes in spectroscopic data taken by the spacecraft that might have been produced by a debris cloud. "I'm not convinced that the ejecta is not in the data yet," he said. [Wow, confident stance there! LOL]


"The impact was monitored by the Hubble Space Telescope, which has not yet delivered its data. Several major observatories were also watching for signs of impact, including the Keck and Canada-France-Hawaii telescopes on Mauna Kea, neither of which saw a plume.

"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. [So it occurred at about the right time so this tiny flash must be the "impact", right? Maybe. Maybe not.]

"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.

"Neither here nor there

Regardless of its ultimate scientific return, today's outcome will likely go down as one of the more bemusing episodes in NASA's long history of lunar missions. While the spacecraft appeared to be working as expected and in contact with mission controllers, it clearly did not deliver the views that scientists and spectators were hoping for".

"Unlike a catastrophic failure, such as Mars Polar Lander in 1999, or a euphoric success, such as the spectacular 2005 collision of the Deep Impact mission with Comet Tempel 1, the non-detection seemed to leave officials unsure of how to react."


"Without a plume to study, scientists will have less of a handle on the question but Colaprete says the spectroscopic data may be enough to spy the constituents of water."

Hmmmmmm.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

It's not a "leap of faith" -- it's basic common sense. What the hell other flash would they be talking about in an article that was discussing (among other things) observatories around the world looking for the flash of impact?.......

It doesn't matter what 'they' assume the flash to be, the point is it's an assumption.

The upshot of this is, with all obvious signs of impact missing and observatories all around the world saying "Nope we saw nothing", one says, "Well, erm, we saw a miniscule flash at about that time in about that area, so maybe that was it?" and suddenly it's touted by the likes of you as categorical "proof of impact".

Seems rather like expecting a bus sized rock to fall out of the sky and plunge into the sea, observing nothing, and them someone reports seeing a couple of tiny ripples in the area and everyone says "Oh well that must have been it then."


[edit on 10-10-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram
..."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.
[So it occurred at about the right time so this tiny flash must be the "impact", right? Maybe. Maybe not.]...

Well, I propose that if Kitt Peak Observatory saw a flash at the same time and place they were supposed to see the impact occur, it was probably the impact.

And, another piece of evidence is that the spectral analysis of the flash Kitt Peak saw is similar to the flash that the LCROSS shepherding spacecraft saw of the impact of the Centaur rocket.

I suppose you personally could choose to not believe this Kitt Peak saw was the flash of impact. However, then you would choose to believe that the coincidental time, place, and spectral analysis of the flash seen by Kitt Peak and by LCROSS is meaningless. I suppose that's your prerogative.

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

EDITED INTO OBLIVION:

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Well, I propose that if Kitt Peak Observatory saw a flash at the same time and place they were supposed to see the impact occur, it was probably the impact.

Well we are making progess! You have moved from 'it was' and 'it is proof' to 'it was probably'.

I suppose you personally could choose to not believe this Kitt Peak saw was the flash of impact.

Kitt Peak saw a flash. That's the fact. 'Flash of impact" is the leap of faith. That's fair enough, but lets call it what it is.

However, then you would choose to believe that the coincidental time, place, and spectral analysis of the flash seen by Kitt Peak and by LCROSS is meaningless. I suppose that's your prerogative.

Well, seeing a flash is "proof" that a flash was observed. That's it's meaning. That it was the flash of impact is an assumption, and just as you feel there are good reasons to assume that this tiny flash was the impact, there are others who feel that there are good reasons to think it's not, such as there being multiple 'flashes" in and around the area even prior to impact, and the flash being far too small to account for an impact of this size, as well as the fact that other evidence for the LCROSS impact is missing, and so on.


[edit on 10-10-2009 by Malcram]

Just throwing something out into this conversation.

So we sent countless orbital probes and landed probes on mars and yet we chose to intentionally crash an object so we from earth would obtain readings.

Has anyone calculated the cost of this little project in comparison to landing a lunar probe or probes and they sure as hell would be far more efficient than crashing an object. ?????

Has anyone notice the chatter across the net referring to the non visual spectrum and electromagnetic anomalies prior, during and after our useless attempt to scan, monitor and trace.

Lets see how fast before the earths natural weather changes similar to the consecutive earthquakes we all have been witnessing. We have rang the doorbell in the past and they chose not too answer, this time we decided to throw a brick through the window.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by tristar]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


If 2 FRIENDS(NASA and the Kitt Peak Observatory) come to you and say the aliens are true because we have some green blood would you believe them?

Yes it is a good example to show you not to believe anyone and anything.

Don't you think the fact that the other 2 Observatories didn't see anything?

reply to post by Malcram

Impact of this size? It was a small impact. Please provide any statement by anyone (any scientist that is) that a brilliant flash was expected.

Do you reject the image of the hot spot left in the crater after the impact?


www.diviner.ucla.edu...

Earthbound observatories have reported capturing both impacts. But before crashing into the lunar surface itself, the LCROSS spacecraft's instrumentation successfully recorded close-up the details of the rocket stage impact, the resulting crater, and debris cloud. In the coming weeks, data from the challenging mission will be used to search for signs of water in the lunar material blasted from the surface.

apod.nasa.gov...
planetary.org...

Will you reject all the data as it undergoes analysis and becomes available?

[edit on 10/10/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by tristar
Just throwing something out into this conversation.

So we sent countless orbital probes and landed probes on mars and yet we chose to intentionally crash an object so we from earth would obtain readings...

No. NASA intentionally crashed one part of a spacecraft while the other part -- in orbit -- could analyze it.

The potential analysis from Earth was not a vital part of the mission -- but was simply "icing on the cake". The fact that very little data was gathered from Earth-based observatories is unfortunate, but not an experiment-killer.

Like I said, their were two parts of LCROSS. The LCROSS "shepherding spacecraft" was the one with the camera and instruments. The booster rocket that got the shepherding spacecraft to the Moon -- a Centaur rocket motor -- was the main impact vehicle.

The LCROSS shepherding craft separated from the Centaur rocket, then the centaur rocket was sent crashing to the Moon in the hope of kicking up a plume of ejecta. As the Centaur rocket slammed into the moon, the shepherding craft took pictures and collected data.

Then, two minutes later, the shepherding craft itself was sent crashing to the Moon -- and on the way down it was sent through the potential plume of ejecta from the first impact, collecting more data about the ejecta right before it crashed.

Like I said, the Earth-based observations would have been nice, but not a crucial part of the experiment.

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

reply to post by tristar


a) The moon has exterme gravity variations. Anything orbiting it will sooner or later crash into it. Landing would be the only other option, but landing has of course a higher delta v than crashing or orbiting (you need to decelerate) higher delta V = more propellant required = less payload or bigger craft = costs more money.

b) They crashed a Centaur rocket into it. The rocket that put LCROSS there in the first place. It was already there. It would have crashed anyway. NASA chose to crash it somewhere interesting, and watch while doing that, trying to squeeze a little extra bit of science out of it (Like any other space agency so far did that had something in moon orbit)

So: from a money perspective it was the smart thing to do.