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: 33
71
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by sum-one
Just the fact that the live coverage 'failed' at the vital time, tells us that something suspect was going on. IMO.


As it had been said in the previous posts the live coverage is possible to had been successful.

The images were shown per 2 seconds each one from the second craft.

So these seconds the impact of the first craft might had happened and it was not captured because of that delay.

The white images were from the impact of the second craft.




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

Originally posted by sum-one

Originally posted by Flighty
Okay, how do we know they weren't delivering something to the Moon rather than bombing it? Getting all the bits and bobs ready for Project Bluebeam for instance?



Well the 'delivery' speculation would explain why there was no expected
dramatic plume. And why the live coverage was stopped.

The what-ever-it-was could have been slowed right down as it approached the surface.



The live coverage stopped when the second spacecraft (the "shepherding craft" -- the one with the camera) impacted the Moon. Obviuosly, the video would end when the second craft impacted. The impact of the first spacecraft (the Centaur rocket motor) occurred about 2-1/2 minutes before the second craft impacted.

The infrared cameras on the shepherding spacecraft DID pick up the impact flash from the first impact. Those infrared images were shown by NASA in the press conference that immediately followed the two impacts.

The only anomaly was that the plume was smaller than expected. The reason for this is unknown right now, but one explanation could be that it hit rock instead of loose soil.


[edit on 10/11/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon


Lunar Camp Fire

Found by Sherpa ATS member



www.lpi.usra.edu...


If that is a lunar camp fire, then, i am the pope.
and that is the characteristic: along many good and rare informations
, you post some deceptive statements from time to time...




[edit on 11/10/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Well I started this thread regarding The south Pole of the moon.

LOIRP Releases Restored Lunar Orbiter IV Image of the Lunar South Pole

www.abovetopsecret.com...



I have yet to come across any amateur footage or pic's yet as "The Nasa" said there would be a party worthy of cheese and wine and good friends


I'm keeping my eyes on Gridkeeper as they would have their scope honed in



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Somamech
I'm keeping my eyes on Gridkeeper as they would have their scope honed in



GridKeeper? The guy who tried to fool everybody that the stars were actually motherships in earths orbit?

Heck, I would even take NASA's word over his.


Anyway, here is his videos of this spectacle: Link



[edit on 11-10-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

Originally posted by Somamech
I'm keeping my eyes on Gridkeeper as they would have their scope honed in



GridKeeper? The guy who tried to fool everybody that the stars were actually motherships in earths orbit?

Heck, I would even take NASA's word over his.


Anyway, here is his videos of this spectacle: Link







[edit on 11-10-2009 by Copernicus]


Well we all roll different ways.

Find another scope on earth which shows what they do and let me know.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Somamech]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Somamech
Well we all roll different ways.

Find another scope on earth which shows what they do and let me know.


I dont think his moon picture is real.

But it would be nice if it was.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

Originally posted by Somamech
Well we all roll different ways.

Find another scope on earth which shows what they do and let me know.


I dont think his moon picture is real.

But it would be nice if it was.


Yeah well thats cool and we will leave it that



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Duvant


5) Did NASA only see what we saw in Low Res?


We saw the same stuff that they did.


Wrong, not true, and incorrect!!!

I definately remember one of the people involved with the mission saying that the live feed was of a lower quality than what NASA recieved. When I heard this my ears perked up because it reminded me of Apollo, and how we got seriously degraded versions of that as well. More importantly though is why? If somone can give a good reason as to why NASA brodcasted a lower quality video then what they claim to have recieved from space then I would love to hear it.

I can't remember if this was said during the actual event or at the media event afterwards, but I know for sure that they said this.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
You'd have thought verification of impact would have been picked up by the Seismometers left after the Apollo missions (and we know are currently still operational picking up meteoric strikes across the entire face of the Moon.) This alone would have verified impact and even help in determining what kind of material the impactor hit.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sum-one

Maybe NASA was DELIVERING water to the Moon???

Canisters of hydrogen and oxygen - to be re-assembled into water in a secret underground base?

Which would not only provide water but also the energy that comes from the re-uniting of those gases.

Just a thought...LoOoOoOol



I think this might be why the pictures were broadcast instead of actual video. If it was smooth video in real time we could determine the speed the craft was moving at, but if it is a series of pictures that are updated at irregular intervals then it becomes impossible to tell how fast it is moving. You certainly wouldn't want people to be able to figure out that you craft was slowing down for a soft landing when you told them it would be a high speed impact now would you!!!

Maybe this is even where the sodium "flash" is coming from! do a search for sodium rockets and you get quite a few hits!! Maybe that was the signature of the retro rockets. Or do a search for sodium lasers and you will find that they are used to guide space craft. Like maybe as in guiding a space craft to a safe landing at a specific landing point!

CONSPIRACY ON!!!



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
About the idea of the seismic monitors.... That would be a definitive "yes" or "no" as to whether an impact actually occured. After the Apollo 12 mission the lunar surface was reported to have reverberated for an hour from the crashed lunar module. Here

And the I imagine the LCROSS, being an impactor, would hit MUCH harder than the lunar module did.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Heros_son
 


i havent looked into finding the relevant data..... but i'm sure they were NOT working on that day..... or whatever.... the downlink was lost due to other missions...... or the guy recording it went to take a leak......



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
This video below is enough evidence FOR ME that proves that something stinks about the entire mission

Below is a video of Ranger 8 impacting the moon on 20 February 1965
1965! look at the footage quality

first some quick info about the ranger program:

"Ranger 8 was designed to achieve a lunar impact trajectory and to transmit high-resolution photographs of the lunar surface during the final minutes of flight up to impact. The spacecraft carried six television vidicon cameras, 2 full-scan cameras (channel F, one wide-angle, one narrow-angle) and 4 partial scan cameras (channel P, two wide-angle, two narrow-angle) to accomplish these objectives. The cameras were arranged in two separate chains, or channels, each self-contained with separate power supplies, timers, and transmitters so as to afford the greatest reliability and probability of obtaining high-quality video pictures. No other experiments were carried on the spacecraft."



the ENTIRE ranger program cost around $170 million.... for 9! different spacecraft! and yet this "new" experiment cant even record proper footage... or at least not footage we are likely to see.



/rich



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw
 


You make an excellent point about the sodium 'flash'/signiture.



jra

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
I definately remember one of the people involved with the mission saying that the live feed was of a lower quality than what NASA recieved.


Well lets confirm this shall we?


When I heard this my ears perked up because it reminded me of Apollo, and how we got seriously degraded versions of that as well.


In the case of Apollo 11, yes. The rest of the missions used different cameras and didn't require the same method of conversion as the Apollo 11 broadcast.


If somone can give a good reason as to why NASA brodcasted a lower quality video then what they claim to have recieved from space then I would love to hear it.


In the case of LCROSS, if they really did get better quality images, it could simply be a bandwidth issue for broadcasting it live.


Originally posted by ROBL240
You'd have thought verification of impact would have been picked up by the Seismometers left after the Apollo missions


The seismic monitors left by Apollo were stopped on Sept 30, 1977. Where did you get the idea they were still going?


Originally posted by olegkvasha
Below is a video of Ranger 8 impacting the moon on 20 February 1965 1965! look at the footage quality


All Ranger 8 did was send back images, it had no other scientific equipment, unlike LCROSS. It sent back images at about 5.2 fps, if I did the math right. And the quality images weren't that much better in my opinion. Here's a link to some nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...


the ENTIRE ranger program cost around $170 million.... for 9! different spacecraft!


Is that adjusted for inflation?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I think it's weird that your defending NASA as feverishly as you have... It almost appears that your taking it personal... just an observation.

NASA has lied to us so much over the years it's hard to believe anything they say. There is so much proof that they have lied and covered up info... I don't blame people for not putting all their trust into them now. It's really hard to put trust into someone or something that is a constant...in NASA's case they are constantly covering up and lying!

I always like going to this page for SunSpots, Asteroids, space news...they have an interesting out-take on the events we're discussing..

www.spaceweather.com...



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Been a long time fan and reader and just decided to join so this is my first post.

I cant help but wonder if it will reappear after it returns to earth to nuke us.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
ooops. replied to wrong topic, so, deleted.


[edit on 12/10/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


What's wrong with that? Does it NOT do it's job?

Yes, the most expensive operations must shine with platinum radiance..




Google in it's hey day.

Wow, such a slack setup should sure never succeed.




new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join