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.

 

Aliens shoot down NASA LCROSS probe before Impact: Video

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I keep hearing people say "it missed" or "was a dud."

The thing was on target, headed straight for it. It can't be a dud. Neither could it miss. It just vanished.

A large object traveling 3 times the speed of a rifle bullet is going to cause a splash, no matter what.

The fact that nobody saw anything is definitely very weird.




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I refuse to be swayed by videos with crappy sound tracks. When somebody goes to such lengths to make a "production" instead of just presenting the facts documentary style, then you can bet that the facts will not speak for themselves. They need the "production" to prop them up.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by 30_seconds
 


Yeah and if there is something surprising happening that was not expected, chances are it will be suppressed to oblivion since nobody in the scientific establishment actually likes surprises since it might jeopardize their source of income. Do we seriously expect today's establishment to be able to introduce us in to an interesting future?
We have to actually pray that their theories are correct or else they are going to choke any new evidence that goes contrary to their established beliefs and stall exploration efforts until Kingdom come.
What if reality out there for these white collar people who get to spend most of their lives behind desks is totally different from what they expecting it to be?
Then God save us poor folks right? It has to be their way or no way eh?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I think this was a "payload drop" to the surface of the moon for something. Not say it was to some base or anything of the sort but if you wanted to put something on the moon with four or five other nations watching the best way to do it would be to tell them you are doing one thing to give the purpose of presence and you will always have the plausible deny ability that something went wrong but it happened on the moon and we can't investigate so oh well, sorry taxpayers. Like the old Russian footage where the probes last frames show a shadow on the surface representing something in the air and then nothing, or the mars rover that quit working. The one undeniable fact I see in this whole mellow drama is NASA is still good at throwing up the smoke screen.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sunny_2008ny
 


This whole mission was stupid.
We put 2 cool rovers on Mars.
Lets put 2 on the moon.
--------------------------------------
That huge telescope on Palomar with a 200 inch mirror
and adaptive optics should have seen something.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I originally joined ATS because of my interest in these topics. Nearly all threads now are like this so I seldom look anymore. Why bother when people do their research by watching video's on YouTube made by children, nut jobs and liars who are looking for attention. Not much truth around here anymore. Just lots of ignorance and childish behavior.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 
That is something I have wondered about too. I must try and see if I can find some technical reason like extremes of temperature or lack of atmosphere or both for not having some kind of rover on the Moon.

Edit to add: In fact it seems like a lot of people have the same query, but it seems like it is now a competition sponsored by Google to get a rover on the moon by er, 2012!

[edit on 10-10-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Hmmm...This is a NASA mission. Organized by NASA using NASA equipment. Planned by NASA. Studied by NASA scientists. But you will not except a NASA explanation for a thoroughly NASA endeavor. OK, I'll bite. Instead the same 'ol cat chasing it's tail arguments amounting to nothing, how about a simple and direct question?

To those not vilifying or qualifying the NASA outcome and results, who's pray tell, results are you hoping to get that would qualify, verify and quantify the LCROSS Mission?

Please gawd don't say Steven Greer or anything CSETI. That's my only request.

Just curious. Your answer could be fuel for a whole other thread.

Cheers,

Erik



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
May be just me, but why the white out? Why does the screen just completely white out? Can someone explain what that was?
I watched this live , and even the news anchor didn't know what we were seeing. I want to see more data.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 
Hi Red,
I know you're not talking to me, but are you talking to somebody in particular, or everyone who has some doubt about the "Moonshot". Whatever, it seems to me that the whole mission was a "Shot in NASA's own foot anyway. It was not an imperative scientific mission like "as now" but it did waste a lot of precious money that should have been better spent for longer term projects like a robotic Moon rover,(especially when NASA is saying they won't have the money for another manned Moon landing) The Lacross mission did not make any sense, no matter how far back the planning began. Would it also have been technically possible to have had the original rovers made robotic as well as manual, I don't know, but if so, it sure was an opportunity missed.


[edit on 10-10-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by sunny_2008ny
 


This whole mission was stupid.
We put 2 cool rovers on Mars.
Lets put 2 on the moon.
--------------------------------------
That huge telescope on Palomar with a 200 inch mirror
and adaptive optics should have seen something.


Place a rover with a drill on the Moon and drill for water, but I know better that

this was not a mission to find water. ^Y^



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by amari
 


You have a very good point. I think there are other ways to get the same information. Perhaps the was the cheapest?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by amari
 


Like this?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for rovers on the moon?

Lunokhod 1

Lunokhod 2



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
One thing that has always puzzled me. is that Earth surveillance satellites can now see and focus on incredibly small terrestrial objects, even through Earth's shimmering atmosphere.

Yet all the pictures we ever see of the Moons surface look like they were taken through a ten dollar cell phone camera.
Why is that ?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Hubble is operated by NASA. What's your point? If Hubble had reported anything you wouldn't dismiss it as being from the dreaded NASA?


How come is it that when we talked about seeing Apollo stuff on the Moon evryone said Hubble cannot see anything in detail on the Moon...

Yet now all of a sudden Hubble CAN see detail on the Moon?

What a load of crap... either it can or it can't...



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by amari
 


Like this?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for rovers on the moon?

Lunokhod 1

Lunokhod 2



Thanks for the info, so all we had to do is ask the Russians and NASA could

of saved millions of dollars. LOL ^Y^



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
NASA said the the lack of visible plume could be because the probe(s) could have hit either a boulder or slope, so the dust would have been negligible, even though both probes hit in different places! I suspect they hit one of the holes in the cheese, as that's what the moon is made up of.

Flashes can be seen in this video @ 7.13-ish in the infra-red spectrum. A journalist at the conference asked about the flashes and NASA said they were interesting and said it could be to with a secondary reaction with the impact and the moon's exosphere; first i knew of any moon atmosphere.

He said there was a spike in the spectroscopy data in the sodium range, and they need to investigate this further. I think it was the aliens taken photos of what they deemed, an incoming UFO


Notice in the video, how the flight director snubs the high-five and packs his stuff up quick sharp and can't get out of there fast enough, blanking other team members. He wasn't a happy bunny!

NASA will extrapolate data in the "two's". 2 days to sharpen pencils, 2 weeks to put pen to paper, then 2 months to photoshop the impact to justify the $80million price tag. They will release water results in December.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Phage
Hubble is operated by NASA. What's your point? If Hubble had reported anything you wouldn't dismiss it as being from the dreaded NASA?


How come is it that when we talked about seeing Apollo stuff on the Moon evryone said Hubble cannot see anything in detail on the Moon...

Yet now all of a sudden Hubble CAN see detail on the Moon?

What a load of crap... either it can or it can't...


Hi Ron, Just maybe the Hubble was not wearing it's glasses the day of the

supposed splash on the Moon. LOL ^Y^



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 




Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to gather information and footage if they had targeted a crater on the face of the moon that faces us?


They targeted the south pole which is in perpetual darkness (due to its synchronous rotation with Earth) and thus has a far higher chance of containing ice.

They didn't get a plume because that requires dust, and as we all know, it's made of cheese.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Phage
Hubble is operated by NASA. What's your point? If Hubble had reported anything you wouldn't dismiss it as being from the dreaded NASA?


How come is it that when we talked about seeing Apollo stuff on the Moon evryone said Hubble cannot see anything in detail on the Moon...

Yet now all of a sudden Hubble CAN see detail on the Moon?

What a load of crap... either it can or it can't...


I think i have an answer for you.
They keep updating Hubble with new and improved cameras.
They now have real color images of deep space.
Before they were B/W and they just added to color to make them
pretty.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join