Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NASA "Moon Bombing" mission -- DISAPPEARS

page: 6
71
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I think the Free MAsons had a child molestation hotel up there and the Zionist got jealous so they hit with a ballistic fence pole.




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE! SHOW US SOME PROOF! THIS IS FAKE!

Sounds familiar? thats the obvious post that hit anyone that post anything of aliens and ufo or chemtrail or whatever on this site..

Now, after seing this "live coverage", are you kidding me?
How can anyone defend NASA after this cr@p!!!!!!

SOMEONE IS LAUGHING AT THE ENTIRE WORLD RIGHT NOW!
PROBABLY DRINKING CHAMPAGNE WITH OBAMA!

And saying!

"hahahaha... we got 500.000.000.000$ for this!! Only by using ms paint and, 1 image from google and some work in powerpoint"... And you got the nobel peace prize! hahaha... great work all.. cheers"...




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 


maybe it broke up when it hit the dome

very disapointing


moonpie



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Really the best thing the NASA LCROSS team could do is release information as quickly as possible to dispel notions of tampering.


That would not have mattered one bit to the anti-NASA crowd. To them that would prove a cover-up just as much as a delay would. There is nothing NASA can do to satisfy them.


Cynic much?
Notice I said the best thing, not some infallible cure-all that would convert conspiracy theorists to objective ISTJs.

Frankly the results are curious. Hence releasing data gives a people who would prefer to speculate something real to munch on instead of interstitial pictures that do nothing but stir up a $#!7 storm.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Annav
 


Its because people are not really making their conclusions based on the actual information, but the credibility of it.

People who think NASA is credible will believe this video as what really happened.

The sceptics are no better. We dont believe it because we dont trust NASA, so the exact same mechanisms are in us as well.



[edit on 9-10-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
It wasn't the flashy dramatic part of the mission, it WAS the mission.


You were expecting a giant plume of lunar soil but that was not the mission. While the results were less dramatic than expected by many, that does not mean the mission was a failure. Not getting the results you wanted does not mean the experiment was a failure; it means there is something to learn, it brings new questions.


Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
And yes there is such a thing as failure. Mars polar lander never landed so it was 100% a failure. Unless you think learning that it didn't work was some how worth it all.


You are confusing conducting an experiment and not getting the results you want with not being able to conduct the experiment in the first place.


Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
Same with this. I'm waiting to see the results just like you are, but it's hard to ignore the facts.


Then why are you ignoring them? You don't even have all the facts yet and you've declared it a failure because it isn't what you expected.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
they already knew water ice was there, 27 million couldve been used in a much better way...



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
How much of a plume would expect if you fire a bullet into mud!


That's a great point.

NASA does all kinds of experiments on different soils to measure crater size based on impacts of various energies. But depending on the terrain, to get a good splash one would need an object of at least a given size, a small object will penetrate the terrain. Maybe this is some of what happened here, where the projectile buried itself some distance, and as a result not much dirt was kicked up. perhaps a crash at a shallow angle would have a greater chance of kicking up dirt, although in that case we can't rely as much on gravity and fuel would be required to achieve a shallow angle impact trajectory, so it would be a more expensive mission.

-rrr



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
There are people who will work on this mission for many months to come, analyzing the data. Don't tell those people the mission is over...for them it has only just begun.


Exactly. The experiment was to find if there was ice-water in these particular craters. They are looking to answer a question, whatever the answer may be. One particular answer would mean success or failure.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


It has nothing to do with what I want. The experiment was to kick up dust and analyze the dust. If the dust didn't get kicked up then it failed.

You are neglecting to recognize that NASA may have made a mistake that made the expiriment impossible to conduct.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

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



Seriously that made me laugh


Now you are just splitting hairs. Whatever. If you guys want to think that NASA can do no wrong and that a mission never goes wrong then more power to ya. I think the history speaks for itself though. NASA has a problem with almost every thing it ever does. Just a few days ago we got new pictures of Mercury and just at the moment it was to get the money shot it had a technical "hic-up". Problems are the rule with NASA not the exception. I don't understand why you guys can't fathom the possibility that something may have gone wrong.


No -- I don't think that NASA can do no wrong. I think it is possible thatthere are things that NASA knows that they aren't telling the general public (although I'm not talking about alien bases on the Moon or things as radical as that). Plus there are times that NASA seems frustratingly short-sighted.

However, it seems to me that if they wanted to hide some truth about this LCROSS mission, they would not have bothered with the elaborate dog-and-pony show.

If people would have asked "can we see the plume from Earth with a big telescope?", they could have simply said "no -- the plume will be too low in the crater's shadow to catch the sunlight".

That would have been much more simple than raising expectations that they knew would not be met.

If NASA knew that there wouldn't be a visible plume (for whatever reason you chose to believe), why would they bother putting themselves under the microscope of people looking for the plume.

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



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 




6 mile plume


The NASA mission summary states 60 kilometers. That's 37 miles, not 6.

That NASA mission summary also states that BOTH IMPACTS (you did realize there were supposed to be two, right?) would be visible from earth based assets, and in particular they state that it would be visible with "10-12 inch telescopes."

And yet, even with images taken on 200 inch telescopes, the alleged event is, as others in this thread have phrased it "only a couple pixels." And personally, I had to play back the IR video a couple times and the "couple pixels" that I saw don't look like an event to me. They look like a video artifact.

Also, I notice that the image posted in the second post of this thread (having difficulty linking, check page two), posted by easynow, shows what is implied to be the crater after impact. However, if you watch the impact video, you'll see that the crater in the center of the screen of that picture already exists before the impact.

Also...if you watch the second impact at roughly 5:00 - 5:10 on the impact video, you'll notice that the impact is not actually shown. What you're seeing is a computer graphical sequence shown from behind the craft...you hear "spacecraft impact - station reports LOS," then they cut the animated sequence, and people stand up and start clapping.




[edit on 9-10-2009 by LordBucket]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 

You seem to be forgetting that this happened on the Moon , no atmosphere . little gravity , something hitting the surface of the Moon at that speed must throw up some debris .



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
India found water already... No plume seen anywhere, all i got to see was a tiny white blobbed up photo. Remember these NASA guys are meant to be very qualified and smart scientists, when they say 6 mile plume i expect one.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haydn_17
India found water already...


No, India did not find water. It was a NASA experiment on board an Indian mission that discovered the "water". And that was not what LCROSS was looking for. While the earlier experiment found water molecules, LCROSS was looking for ice water not mere molecules.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Just heard on the news that even Hubble saw nothing , curiouser and curiouser



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
It has nothing to do with what I want. The experiment was to kick up dust and analyze the dust. If the dust didn't get kicked up then it failed.


And even if it didn't excavate any soil, we still need to learn why. Therefore, it is not a failure because something is learned, added to our knowledge and extrapolated to later experiments and discoveries.

But before the data has even been analyzed, you have declared it a failure because the explosion wasn't as big as you wanted. You are declaring it a failure because you didn't get the sole result you wanted.


[edit on 9-10-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Theres indians on the moon makes sense



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
And look even if the mission is a total failure as some are claiming, NASA can still win the Nobel Prize in physics. They may not have accomplished anything but they had the potential too.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Can someone please help me with this as I'm just recently getting into space exploration?

In the weeks up to the launch NASA said it was no big deal to hurl objects at the moon as it is hit with meteorites and such multiple times a month. I can go along with that its riddled with scars, fine.

Now, first if these events happen "multiple times per month" why do we need spend the money and recreate something that is occurring continually? Can't we simply position the satellites we have up there to give us 360 coverage of the surface and wait a month (or less) for it to occur and collect the data?

Second, since these events do regularly occur, have photographs been taken of natural impacts? Is there a plum after these events? If no, why would we expect this time? And if yes, where was it this time?

Thank you
edit to add the word "the"

[edit on 9-10-2009 by searching4truth]





new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join