NASA "Moon Bombing" mission -- DISAPPEARS

Is it just me or do you all agree that the pictures we get to see will have been airbrushed and edited?

and did you all note (several times) the NASA speaker kept stating that , "this is somewhere we've never been before"......

[edit on 9-10-2009 by ButterCookie]

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I don't understand what you mean by a PR mess. They hit their target and collect a lot of data. The plume was expected to be so small that I'm not surprised the ground-based photos have not detected them yet. I expect that the plume will be visible after the photos are further processed.

Even if the wasn't a plume -- that's very telling to the scientists. That means that LCROSS did not hit water ice but instead hit hard bedrock. Either way -- no plume or big plume -- the result would be telling to scientists (even though the common person may find the result boring).

Come on now - NASA promised us a 6 mile plume now where is it!? Oh wait, I see in your statement above - they will "process" it into the pictures - with Photoshop!?!? You'd figure with all of the lunar landings that supposedly happened and all of the tests that they conducted that they would know WTF would happen if they fired a missile into the moon. So either .a) this mission failed, b.) they've never been to the moon and didn't know what to expect and got it wrong, or c.) the ETs living on the moon interecepted the missile and destroyed it. Any way you shake it, it still seems like a complete waste of money and resources.

Like I said in my post, not seeing a plume is very telling in of itself.

No plume or a smaller-than expected plume means they perhaps hit dry bedrock rather than icy soil. THAT result (hitting dry bedrock) would be just as meaningful to scientists as hitting icy soil.

It may not be as interesting and sexy to the average citizen, but science shouldn't be concerned about what would is "cool and interesting to the general public" -- it should only be concerned about what "is".

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

Originally posted by nerdychemist
I heard there is Uranium on the moon as there is on the earth as originally the moon is part of earth.

Uranium Found on the Moon

BAM! You just got linked!

-E-

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Is it just me or do you all agree that the pictures we get to see will have been airbrushed and edited?

At the risk of sounding crass, what's the point of you discussing the results of this experiment if you have no faith in the authenticity of those results anyway?

Would you only be satisfied if the experiment's results matched some pre-conceived notion of what they are "supposed" to be.

For example, the resulting plume seems smaller than expected. Some people will use that unexpected data (small plume) to cast doubt the whole experiment, while a good scientist will try to figure out why the plume was small.

This smells a bit fishy to me

Nasa officials said their instruments were working, but the planned live photos were missing. The only evidence of an impact was a small heat signature picked up by the LCROSS probe's infra-red camera.

Mmmm...... Thats convenient

Mail Online

i haven't seen a mission control room or whatever they call where those people were since, a shuttle launch.

they seem kinda low rent to me. looks like a dorm room.

given the mission, i was expecting alittle more flash, i guess.

Just seen on BBC News that hubble was used to image the event , so if the hubble pictures dont show a plume then there wasnt one .
And If the hubble pictures dont get released then conspiracy on

Originally posted by kozmo
Come on now - NASA promised us a 6 mile plume now where is it!? Oh wait, I see in your statement above - they will "process" it into the pictures - with Photoshop!?!?

That is not what SGiP said. He said when further photos are process it may be seen.

Originally posted by kozmo
So either .a) this mission failed, b.) they've never been to the moon and didn't know what to expect and got it wrong, or c.) the ETs living on the moon interecepted the missile and destroyed it. Any way you shake it, it still seems like a complete waste of money and resources.

Or d) they got a result they did not expect. Why did you not foreward that possibility as well? Why does it have to either be a failure or some sort of conspiracy because it did not fit your preconcieved notion of how the mission would accomplish?

By the way, I have a real strong feel we would be having the exact same conversation if the mission had ended just as planned. We would be hearing from the same people the same excuses, how the photos are faked, how the mission really failed but they aren't telling us, and so forth, the same lies, distortions, half-truths and ignorance.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by DoomsdayRex]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
No plume or a smaller-than expected plume means they perhaps hit dry bedrock rather than icy soil. THAT result (hitting dry bedrock) would be just as meaningful to scientists as hitting icy soil.

Exactly! Any knowledge is valuable, and this one also has practical aspects -- if there is solid rock exposed in a few places, caverns can be excavated to provide a habitat for colonists. Much better protection against radiation and all than some aluminum dome on the surface.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


I see it the other way. Why are you and a few others not able to sdmit that the missioin was possibly a failure. At the very least it looks as though it did not hit with the velocity it was designed to hit with.

It's quite humorous to me that some of you guys keep talking as though a compleate failure of the mission is somehow still great science and well worth the time and money.

The whole point was to kick up dust and anylize said dust. If the dust isn't kicked up then the mission is FAIL

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
No plume or a smaller-than expected plume means they perhaps hit dry bedrock rather than icy soil. THAT result (hitting dry bedrock) would be just as meaningful to scientists as hitting icy soil.

Exactly! Any knowledge is valuable, and this one also has practical aspects -- if there is solid rock exposed in a few places, caverns can be excavated to provide a habitat for colonists. Much better protection against radiation and all than some aluminum dome on the surface.

Yep. And if you guys wait another 50 years, NASA may tell you they have found some fossils on the moon.

Ever wondered why our technology on Earth moves at a fast pace while NASA seems to make "discoveries" at snails pace? No? Ok carry on.



[edit on 9-10-2009 by Copernicus]

reply to post by redoubt


Thew red flashes on the above video seems to show something "activating"
I think the moon just got angry...
there wasnt an impact at all imo. The reactions of the employee's was like this..

" WTF! oh crap the cameras are on...hey guys! mission done!"

perhaps the crater bottom opened let the satellites fly in and closed the crater..thus no impact/crash

i would laugh so hard if a the LCROSS crashes into NASA HQ

something smells fishy about this.. this happens the day Obama get's a Nobel prize so the media focus on that?

If it did any damage to a colony expect a response soon.

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

 

I see it the other way. Why are you and a few others not able to sdmit that the missioin was possibly a failure. At the very least it looks as though it did not hit with the velocity it was designed to hit with.

It's quite humorous to me that some of you guys keep talking as though a compleate failure of the mission is somehow still great science and well worth the time and money.

The whole point was to kick up dust and anylize said dust. If the dust isn't kicked up then the mission is FAIL

There is evidence that it DID hit where and when it was supposed to (a lot of data shows that it did). The only surprise was the size of the plume. That could easily mean that the impactor hit a harder-and-drier than expected surface (i.e., rock instead of icy soil) or the impact occurred at an angle that was greater than expected (i.e., so the ejecta moved sideways in the shadow instead of up high enough for sunlight to shine on it).

It appears they got spectroscopic analysis of something -- it was to early to know if it was the plume, but initial analysis indicates that they DID get the spectral data from the plume. They also have IR images of the impact. (by the way -- they never intended to analyze the plume by "seeing" it with visible light.)

So there is that evidence that it DID impact and possible create a plume from which they collected data...where is your evidence to the contrary?


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

If it did any damage to a colony expect a response soon.

My response - rolling eyes at the thought of a colony on the moon.

The thing about SCIENCE is that you must analyze the data that are there. Not the data you expect. Not the data you want. Not the data you imagine coming from a hollow moon filled with colonies.

We can debate whether data is accurate or being manipulated or covered up in service of a larger more nefarious activities.

What we can not do is waste time discussing colonies on the moon like a bunch of retards.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


you say there is evidence that it did hit , can you post that evidence for us to see please , or are you saying that there is evidence because NASA say there is.

Originally posted by redoubt
This report from the AP seems a little odd...

NASA probes give moon a double smack
...NASA officials said their instruments were working, but live photos of the actual crash were missing.

Why does this seem so incredibly typical?

The ice ought to be there -- if it's not, it's even more surprising.

Using it for life support may require more energy to extract, than to import it from Earth -- or better, from Phobos.

What the layers really show are pages of a book of history of the inner solar system -- thin layers of hoarfrost overlain by occasional dust from moon-wide craters, a dust/ice sandwich more than a billion years old.

THAT's a book we gotta read.

Aside from the visual disappointment, looks like a great success -- all kidding aside.

I see the same people are still in the same camps. At least Jim's got a sense of humor.

Science involves observation perhaps the people here who have alternative hypothesis's have those beliefs because they lack actual data. Really the best thing the NASA LCROSS team could do is release information as quickly as possible to dispel notions of tampering.

In a way I'm happy I didn't see a huge 6 mile plume. I'd prefer the ratio of mass between our planet and the moon to remain as close to the same as long as possible, thank you very much.

Cheers guys!

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Xtraeme]

Originally posted by MysterE

Originally posted by nerdychemist
I heard there is Uranium on the moon as there is on the earth as originally the moon is part of earth.

Uranium Found on the Moon

BAM! You just got linked!

-E-

Even mentions the treaty as well, basically today is in complete violation!

I have a feeling NASA is trying to search for the uranium rather than the water to be honest.