Large Object Crashes Into The North Side Of The Moon Captured Live

a reply to: kwakakev

Yeah?

Did he provide anything to the National Science Foundation?

Wouldn't the news cover something like this?

Just asking. YouTube is not a reliable source for anything.

a reply to: kwakakev

Not allowed?

No no just no.

The moon moves too fast across the sky is all. Its a hard target to focus on.

I know conspiracy theories and all but
deny ignorance at the same time for christs sake.

a reply to: kwakakev

Thats why you should research for yourself.

It took all of three seconds to search for that info.

This goes for all subjects btw.

a reply to: Oleandra88

I had a huge post about how it's a deep space telescope, but on investigation, saw it can, indeed, do this.

I didn't know whether to slap myself, post anyway or rethink my stance. I did all three, then stopped myself from further self harm.

But lets concur, it is a deep space device, much better at long range imaging, than close. gah Never A Straight Answer, indeed.

I can take the lens off my webcam and turn it into a microscope, doesn't make it one...

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: gallop

Thanks for the link to Hubble images of the moon. I got the perception that Hubble did not look at the moon from one thread here a while back.

As did I..

I don't think it's design merits things like this, it's intended for better things.. but, yeah... I was also under the impression is couldn't before a bit of a gander..

blardy nasa huh!!

One mile wide.

We can be sure all those moon dinosaurs are dead now.

a reply to: gallop

I definitely wanted to slap myself but the least I could do was adding the last sentence. This way I admit it without making the message disappear. I just hope peoples attention span is long enough to make it to that last sentence.

What I learned: Recheck things I heard before I post them online. I am glad I saw that link in time.

a reply to: kwakakev

Hubble has looked at the moon. It doesn't give the best picture of it because it isn't designed to look at something that close.

hubblesite.org...

Edit: I see other people took the three seconds needed to do the fact checking required! Apologies for the duplication.

Having seen the video, and who made it, I think we can safely draw the conclusion that this piece of clickbait is not showing what it claims to show.

What area of the moon is considered the north side?

a reply to: bally001

The object passing by the sun was interesting as well.

I guess it was passing the sun but I think a more accurate description would be passing the camera as it most likely was much much much closer to the camera than it was to the sun.

To my eyes, that is a fast, controlled landing.

I call straight-up BS on the video in the OP!

An object that big striking the moon would be the lead story, hell it would be the ONLY story, on every single MSM outlet around the Globe!!! There would have been a MASSIVE explosion, and likely the entire Moon would be shrouded in a giant fireball and dust cloud. Even here on ATS there would be 500 stories about how the Moon was going to crash into Earth. Every space agency on the globe would be screaming from every rooftop about it. NASA would be spinning up a hasty rocket launch to go study all the different phenomenon (water, ice, etc).

The event would have such enormous impact that ANTIFA would forget all about Trump...and THAT is YUGE!

BULL #E!

a reply to: gallop

As I understand it, the Hubble telescope can take photos of the Moon (obviously, as there are some), as the Moon is far enough from Earth for it to be able to focus on the Moon's surface, but it doesn't have much of a resolution to get high definition photos (it has only a 2.4 metres diameter mirror), photos from the probes orbiting the Moon are much better.

Hubble's strong point is that being outside the atmosphere it's easier to get images of faint objects, that's why most of it's work is dedicated to deep space imaging.

But I may be wrong.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: kwakakev

Just asking. YouTube is not a reliable source for anything.

Nor is ATS.

originally posted by: kwakakev

This video has been put together by an amateur astronomer who captured something large hitting the moon. From his estimates he puts the object that hit the moon at about 1 mile wide. Various filters are used to help clear the object and subsequent explosions.

To finish off the video he includes another video that was captured of something large passing by the sun.

it's fake. an Impact from an object a couple of meters across would throw up a large dust cloud that would be visible to any amateur moon watcher. Because the moon has only a low gravitational effect the dust plume would not be pulled back to the surface in the same way that it would on earth and it wouldn't be dispersed by the wind. It would create a mini mushroom type cloud miles across.

A one mile side impactor would not only create a dust cloud that could potentially obscure the entire surface of the moon as Sen from earth, but it would possibly even alter the moon's orbit. The crater from a one mile impactor would be easily visibility the naked eye, once the dust cloud had cleared. Of course that might be a year later, once the dust cloud had cleared.

Debris from an impact of that magnitude could also be going back in to space and the fall on earth. We could see fragments many meters across causing wide spread destruction when they hit.

A one mile object hitting the moon could trigger mass casualties on earth.

If the object had an iron core, it might even effect the moon sufficiently as to alter the tides on earth forever.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
it's fake. A. Impact from an object a couple of meters across would throw up a large dust cloud that would be visible to any amateur moon watcher.

It's not necessarily fake, but it most likely isn't an object hitting the Moon.

It could be a real video of a real object, but it might have just been something passing between the camera and the moon. That object could easily be in earth's atmosphere, or even close to the camera.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
it's fake. A. Impact from an object a couple of meters across would throw up a large dust cloud that would be visible to any amateur moon watcher.

It's not necessarily fake, but it most likely isn't an object hitting the Moon.

It could be a real video of a real object, but it might have just been something passing between the camera and the moon. That object could easily be in earth's atmosphere, or even close to the camera.

I'm not disputing that sections of the video are real, I was more thinking of the claim as a whole. When you combine the video and the story that has been put with it in to a single narrative, a complete package if you Will, it's fake.

a reply to: kwakakev

It looks like that YouTube guy has been posting lots of fake UFO blurry Moon videos for years.... I will have to dismiss this one.... probably a bug in front of his scope.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: kwakakev

For something apparently so large, shouldn't it have caused more disruption? Ejecta and perhaps an energetic flash?

With the absence of such, the irregularity could have been an insect flying across the aperture of the telescope or a bird, or aircraft, far off in the sky.

There is nothing to identify scale or distance of the object. The assumption that a visual disturbance in a telescope image is at the maximum focii is unfounded. There is a lot of intervening distance which can also have objects that cross the aperture.

Therein lies the problem.

1. At one mile across, you could not have seen it incoming. The moon is about 239,000 miles away. Even with a good telescope you are not going to see craters that are one mile across. Maybe some really big 2 meter plus professional observatories, not sure about that even.

2. A one mile across object would make one heck of a bang. It would make a crater probably more than 10 miles across. It would for sure be seen from earth. The impact would probably be easily seen without a telescope, and debris would be seen though scopes from all over the world for hours after, at the very least.

3. Nearly all Near Earth Asteroids that are 1KM or larger have been found and tracked in the last 20 years. I would have to look it up, but I know it is upwards of 95%. Not a chance something one mile across or larger has not been seen yet.

I call BS on this whole thing. Sounds and looks fake.