It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# A huge object is filmed impacting and bouncing off the Moon - no one bats an eyelid

page: 5
25
share:

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 03:16 PM
Mass is irrelative too size.a reply to: ngchunter

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 03:29 PM

originally posted by: BobAthome
Mass is irrelative too size.a reply to: ngchunter

Show me a solid, opaque, celestial body large enough to meet the above criteria but with the mass you described. Just one. Again, your assumption is not reasonable.

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 03:58 PM

originally posted by: BobAthome
And now apply the correct Gravitational Force,

Earth vs Moon

Why would I want to do that? If the object is slamming into the moon at 3000000 kilometres per hour then I think we can safely discount the gravitational force acting on it

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 03:59 PM

originally posted by: BobAthome
Mass is irrelative too size.a reply to: ngchunter

So what's More likely? A large (1 km) object struck the Moon at an incredibly fantastic speed yet must have been extraordinarily low in mass because it left no crater or mark behind, despite its size and its momentum...

...or a bird that flew between the Moon and the camera?

edit on 5/28/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:00 PM

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: BobAthome
Mass is irrelative too size.a reply to: ngchunter

So what's More likely? A huge (1 km) object struck the Moon at a fantastic speed yet must have been extraordinarily low in mass because it left no crater or mark behind, despite its size and its momentum...

...or a bird that flew between the Moon and the camera?

geez thats for u guys too figure out,, im just an observer

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:02 PM

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: BobAthome
And now apply the correct Gravitational Force,

Earth vs Moon

Why would I want to do that? If the object is slamming into the moon at 3000000 kilometres per hour then I think we can safely discount the gravitational force acting on it

ya im sure thats what they said about the Lunar Lander,,mass? gravity,, of course its different on the the moon,, right??? it is different,, right?
"we can safely discount the gravitational force"
lol,,,
edit on 5/28/2014 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:03 PM

So you like to stir the pot.

Are you the reincarnation of Zorgon? (he was a past pot-stirrer here on ATS)

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:05 PM
the only Zorgon in know of was a very bad charactuer portraid by, "James Bond" lol
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:07 PM
"So you like to stir the pot. "

only if the outcome results in creative thought.

or conjectuer backed by reasonable fact,
presented in a pleasing manner,
with pics

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:17 PM

originally posted by: BobAthome
"So you like to stir the pot. "

only if the outcome results in creative thought.

or conjectuer backed by reasonable fact,
presented in a pleasing manner,
with pics

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I ask again then, show me a single example of an opaque celestial body large enough to be resolved by a small amateur telescope (I think the one we're dealing with here has an aperture of about 150mm) but with a mass consistent with the examples you listed. You claim to back your conjecture based on "reasonable" facts, with pics, so let's see a pic of such a celestial body that meets the description you've given. Otherwise there is nothing "reasonable" about this line of conjecture.
edit on 28-5-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:20 PM

i quote "with the examples you listed"

of coure there not all listed ,,its the Galaxy,,,,kinda big!

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:26 PM
Its a big Galaxy out there:

then tell me the most likely combination of Chemical Makeup,, Mass,, speed angle of deflection, would be needed,,to produce the observed effect IF IT WAS indeed, true as observed.

edit on 5/28/2014 by BobAthome because: its called backwards engineering,, and its not an alien way of thinking,,

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:37 PM

originally posted by: BobAthome

i quote "with the examples you listed"

of coure there not all listed ,,its the Galaxy,,,,kinda big!

None of the examples you listed would be seen by such a scope silhouetted by the moon at the distance of the moon. Again, you claimed to be offering "reasonable" conjecture. I see nothing reasonable about it. It's up to you to support your claim, not me.

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:40 PM

originally posted by: BobAthome
Its a big Galaxy out there:

then tell me the most likely combination of Chemical Makeup,, Mass,, speed angle of deflection, would be needed,,to produce the observed effect IF IT WAS indeed, true as observed.

It was not true, it was not a lunar impact as claimed, and it is physically not possible for an impact to skip across the face of the moon above galactic escape velocity (to say nothing of lunar escape velocity) and re-impact the moon elsewhere across its spherical surface.

originally posted by: ngchunter

Here's a high resolution comparison than what DSW74 can manage. Here's where his crater is, according to him:

In truth, there's nothing new there at all,I photographed the moon last night at the same phase angle as he did when he claims to have observed an impact, but with higher angular resolution:

His crater should be right in the center of the image, but nothing new is there. Here's a comparison between my image from last night and a photo of the moon from the Photographic Lunar Atlas published in 1960.
dropcanvas.com...

This comparison image flashes between my image and the corresponding Lunar Atlas photo which would contain his crater's location, then at the end holds for a moment on his photo where he himself circled his crater's location. As you can see, nothing is there in my photo which is not also in the Lunar Atlas photo from 1960.

It is not up to me to try to come up with some conjecture that fits a physically impossible claim based on an event which has been shown not to be true. It's not my claim, it is your claim, it is therefore up to you to support it. That's how this works.
edit on 28-5-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:45 PM
sorry if it was already mentioned,

the whispey striations which seem too be eminating outward, in a arc pattern??
what are they?
surface or atmospheric in nature?

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 07:08 PM

originally posted by: BobAthome
sorry if it was already mentioned,

the whispey striations which seem too be eminating outward, in a arc pattern??
what are they?
surface or atmospheric in nature?

Ejecta rays from Copernicus crater. They're surface features.
edit on 28-5-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2014 @ 07:09 AM
Why are you all wasting time and energy responding to this guy?
edit on 29-5-2014 by Mogget because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 03:22 PM

To be honest I don't give a damn to the video and its claims because it doesn't make any sense. I don't care either if the guy is a hoax but assuming that the video is legit and that it depicts real objects (no I don't mean meteors, keep reading), what you can see is not something hiting the moon but the aftermath. My guess is, because I'll not bother doing the maths or losing any more time with it, a string of meteorites hit the moon (the amount of energy released by each meteorite (impossible to see through small telescopes ... 1 second of arc at the moon distance is about 2 km in diameter) striking the moon is huge, enough to throw up some lunar dust as the vibration wave irradiates from the impact point (just a small crater comes from the impact, not visible through telescopes on earth, small or big). But if you want to go with "nothing struck the moon in that footage", you're free to do just that.

new topics

top topics

25