That's either a typo or an ambiguity in that mission summary. I've heard and read multiple other sources say "6 miles" and they have been saying that for a while.
I love it. I quote the official NASA mission summary and you say it might be a typo because other sources said something different?
I'm sure most would agree with me that they heard the plume was supposed to be 6 miles.
That's nice. And I heard the crater resulting from the impact was supposed to be five miles in diameter. I heard this repeatedly, and just a few days ago cited news sources making that claim. But when I checked, that claim did NOT appear on the NASA summary, so I dropped it.
it has already been established that the plume did not go as high as expected
Do you understand the magnitude of difference? It went from "visible from earth using hobbyist telescopes" to "hey...see those couple pixels that we took with our biggest and best technology from NASA formally and officially monitoring the event? We think those couple pixels are probably the event."
When the UFO crowd shows vague, unclear photos they're torn to pieces and told they're idiots for believing the pictures are of anything. And now NASA is giving us a "couple pixels" and you're buying it?
I don't see how that is evidence that the impact didn't happen.
Ok. So how about give me some evidence that it did?
and if you could see an (estimated) 20-meter crater prior to the 49 second mark, then you have good eyes.
I think you misunderstood my point. The image showed a very obvious crater in the center of the image. Ths image was described as "post impact crater." The implication was that the crater in the image was the result of the impact.
If you're now saying that the alleged impact-crater was not visible in the image, and that the visible crater was simply some random, unrelated crater...then WHY are people showing that image and saying "here's the impact crater!"
It just means that something unexpected happened.
Yes. It does.
[edit on 9-10-2009 by LordBucket]