Why didn't THEY show the impact on the moon.

why why why  
the answer lies in my breast
noticed that pre to the impact, it was all a video compilation
couldn't copy an impact because the flying of moon dust would have been studied to the minutest detail. you'd think the shadows of the moon landing were bad.
soooooo , nobody or machine ever went to the moon. it stands to proof!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if there is water on the moon, then that means that it is no further than 100 miles above sea-level. water only has a purpose for life as we know and experience and need; all living things. CAN'T WE SEE ON A NIGHTLY AND DAILY BASIS THAT THERE IS NO LIFE UP THERE??
WE HAVEN'T EVEN COMMUNICATED WITH ANYTHING FROM UP THERE.
idiots try to convince us [through cartoons] that martians exist. where are the moontians???
all those involved in space flight are round-earthers; an initiatory society: pearl supplied swine.

Apparently, with a 10-inch telescope, you could see the impact from earth if you were in the Western Hemisphere.

Apparently, with a 10-inch telescope, you could see the impact from earth if you were in the Western Hemisphere.

No, you couldn't. NASA initially said you could, but when their hologram projectors failed, they blamed it on a smaller than expected plume of dust.

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 07:38:17 PM

Apparently, with a 10-inch telescope, you could see the impact from earth if you were in the Western Hemisphere.

No, you couldn't. NASA initially said you could, but when their hologram projectors failed, they blamed it on a smaller than expected plume of dust.

I guess you are right. I found this video that shows you don't see anything even from a close view from another telescope .

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on October 11, 2009, 07:45:16 PM

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 07:38:17 PM

Apparently, with a 10-inch telescope, you could see the impact from earth if you were in the Western Hemisphere.

No, you couldn't. NASA initially said you could, but when their hologram projectors failed, they blamed it on a smaller than expected plume of dust.

I guess you are right. I found this video that shows you don't see anything even from a close view from another telescope .

It always makes my day to convert a new believer, glad to have you aboard.

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 08:03:11 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on October 11, 2009, 07:45:16 PM

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 07:38:17 PM

Apparently, with a 10-inch telescope, you could see the impact from earth if you were in the Western Hemisphere.

No, you couldn't. NASA initially said you could, but when their hologram projectors failed, they blamed it on a smaller than expected plume of dust.

I guess you are right. I found this video that shows you don't see anything even from a close view from another telescope .

It always makes my day to convert a new believer, glad to have you aboard.

Hmm, I think that you falsely assume that you have "converted" me to FET. I would have to say you have not. I was merely stating that the last time I looked, it was stated that the crash would be visible. Now, since the event has happened, we know it was not viewable. I have not really been able to keep up with the news as I am an undergraduate at college inundated with work.

I am though a skeptic. I look at both sides of an an argument and base my view on evidence. As far as I am concerned, I see good points on both sides, but am currently leaning towards the RET due to many inadequacies in the FET. I was a former member of this board but was banned for no reason, so I am not a noob to this debate.

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on October 11, 2009, 08:16:14 PM

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 08:03:11 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on October 11, 2009, 07:45:16 PM

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 07:38:17 PM

Apparently, with a 10-inch telescope, you could see the impact from earth if you were in the Western Hemisphere.

No, you couldn't. NASA initially said you could, but when their hologram projectors failed, they blamed it on a smaller than expected plume of dust.

I guess you are right. I found this video that shows you don't see anything even from a close view from another telescope .

It always makes my day to convert a new believer, glad to have you aboard.

Hmm, I think that you falsely assume that you have "converted" me to FET. I would have to say you have not. I was merely stating that the last time I looked, it was stated that the crash would be visible. Now, since the event has happened, we know it was not viewable. I have not really been able to keep up with the news as I am an undergraduate at college inundated with work.

I am though a skeptic. I look at both sides of an an argument and base my view on evidence. As far as I am concerned, I see good points on both sides, but am currently leaning towards the RET due to many inadequacies in the FET. I was a former member of this board but was banned for no reason, so I am not a noob to this debate.

Do you remember me?

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 08:29:38 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on October 11, 2009, 08:16:14 PM

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 08:03:11 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on October 11, 2009, 07:45:16 PM

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 07:38:17 PM

Apparently, with a 10-inch telescope, you could see the impact from earth if you were in the Western Hemisphere.

No, you couldn't. NASA initially said you could, but when their hologram projectors failed, they blamed it on a smaller than expected plume of dust.

I guess you are right. I found this video that shows you don't see anything even from a close view from another telescope .

It always makes my day to convert a new believer, glad to have you aboard.

Hmm, I think that you falsely assume that you have "converted" me to FET. I would have to say you have not. I was merely stating that the last time I looked, it was stated that the crash would be visible. Now, since the event has happened, we know it was not viewable. I have not really been able to keep up with the news as I am an undergraduate at college inundated with work.

I am though a skeptic. I look at both sides of an an argument and base my view on evidence. As far as I am concerned, I see good points on both sides, but am currently leaning towards the RET due to many inadequacies in the FET. I was a former member of this board but was banned for no reason, so I am not a noob to this debate.

Do you remember me?

Uh, I do not know. Do you remember astronomy101 or Tim Bishop, my former usernames.

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on October 11, 2009, 08:31:35 PM

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 08:29:38 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on October 11, 2009, 08:16:14 PM

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 08:03:11 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on October 11, 2009, 07:45:16 PM

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 07:38:17 PM

Apparently, with a 10-inch telescope, you could see the impact from earth if you were in the Western Hemisphere.

No, you couldn't. NASA initially said you could, but when their hologram projectors failed, they blamed it on a smaller than expected plume of dust.

I guess you are right. I found this video that shows you don't see anything even from a close view from another telescope .

It always makes my day to convert a new believer, glad to have you aboard.

Hmm, I think that you falsely assume that you have "converted" me to FET. I would have to say you have not. I was merely stating that the last time I looked, it was stated that the crash would be visible. Now, since the event has happened, we know it was not viewable. I have not really been able to keep up with the news as I am an undergraduate at college inundated with work.

I am though a skeptic. I look at both sides of an an argument and base my view on evidence. As far as I am concerned, I see good points on both sides, but am currently leaning towards the RET due to many inadequacies in the FET. I was a former member of this board but was banned for no reason, so I am not a noob to this debate.

Do you remember me?

Uh, I do not know. Do you remember astronomy101 or Tim Bishop, my former usernames.

I remember you.

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 08:33:20 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on October 11, 2009, 08:31:35 PM

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 08:29:38 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on October 11, 2009, 08:16:14 PM

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 08:03:11 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on October 11, 2009, 07:45:16 PM

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 07:38:17 PM

Apparently, with a 10-inch telescope, you could see the impact from earth if you were in the Western Hemisphere.

No, you couldn't. NASA initially said you could, but when their hologram projectors failed, they blamed it on a smaller than expected plume of dust.

I guess you are right. I found this video that shows you don't see anything even from a close view from another telescope .

It always makes my day to convert a new believer, glad to have you aboard.

Hmm, I think that you falsely assume that you have "converted" me to FET. I would have to say you have not. I was merely stating that the last time I looked, it was stated that the crash would be visible. Now, since the event has happened, we know it was not viewable. I have not really been able to keep up with the news as I am an undergraduate at college inundated with work.

I am though a skeptic. I look at both sides of an an argument and base my view on evidence. As far as I am concerned, I see good points on both sides, but am currently leaning towards the RET due to many inadequacies in the FET. I was a former member of this board but was banned for no reason, so I am not a noob to this debate.

Do you remember me?

Uh, I do not know. Do you remember astronomy101 or Tim Bishop, my former usernames.

I remember you.

I promise I will be better this time.
I came up with good questions for FET, but since I was banned I could not ask them on here, and have since forgot them.
Now, if I have something, I will propose it as soon as I can.

WE HAVEN'T EVEN COMMUNICATED WITH ANYTHING FROM UP THERE.

lol no.

It's just another nail in NASA's coffin of lies.  Gee, who would have expected that the event wouldn't be visible after all?  Only a substantial amount of the people HERE.

It's just another nail in NASA's coffin of lies.  Gee, who would have expected that the event wouldn't be visible after all?  Only a substantial amount of the people HERE.

There are other reasons why the suspected plume would not be visible, reasons that do not include the earth being flat. The moon, in that area, could consist of different materials in different proportions than other areas. I don't know everything about the event, but could the trajectory have been messed up and they hit somewhere else?

There are other reasons why the suspected plume would not be visible, reasons that do not include the earth being flat. The moon, in that area, could consist of different materials in different proportions than other areas. I don't know everything about the event, but could the trajectory have been messed up and they hit somewhere else?

That could be one of many possible answers. Another one could be as you suggest that the bed of the crater was more hard rock...I mean that the crater was formed by an impact from a meteorite or equ. therefore the dust-plume and debries would have vanished in the first impact, right. And being that the moon has no atmosphere and subs. no winds, how would the crater re-fill with more dust?
I think that they might have been more successful if they were to plan an impact in places other than craters.
My two cents...

Quote from: deathsink on October 11, 2009, 08:53:52 PM

There are other reasons why the suspected plume would not be visible, reasons that do not include the earth being flat. The moon, in that area, could consist of different materials in different proportions than other areas. I don't know everything about the event, but could the trajectory have been messed up and they hit somewhere else?

That could be one of many possible answers. Another one could be as you suggest that the bed of the crater was more hard rock...I mean that the crater was formed by an impact from a meteorite or equ. therefore the dust-plume and debries would have vanished in the first impact, right. And being that the moon has no atmosphere and subs. no winds, how would the crater re-fill with more dust?
I think that they might have been more successful if they were to plan an impact in places other than craters.
My two cents...

Or, there's always the possibility that the primary objective of the mission was to conduct a scientific mission to look for water ice rather than to put on a pretty show for the skeptics.  Yes, an impact plume visible from earth would have made for a nice show, but that the lack of an impact plume visible from earth is hardly evidence of failure or evidence of the mission being faked.

any attempt against nasa makes you a flat earther