Fireworks on the Moon

Actually, that video is somewhat interesting.  I went through it frame by frame and found something strange.  If you watch carefully, there is a small circle of pixels on the right side, right in the middle of the right edge and horizontally just between the explosion and the right edge of the frame (vertically almost perfectly in the center).  These pixels don't fluctuate like the rest of the "static" in the picture does, which would indicate that they are a permanent feature or object, apparently on the surface of the moon.
Now to me it looks too geometrically perfect to be a large boulder or any other natural phenomenon - small crater or whatever - and also it is lit on all sides so it must either be self lit or have an external light source lighting up the dark side.
But from what we know, there are no "bases" or buildings or structures like that on the moon, so it's likely that this picture is not from the moon at all.  It could be taken in the Arizona desert, and the geometric structure could be a building or a fence (metal, reflective) around a structure.  Probably taken from high up, they didn't notice the regularity of the structure in the video because of its poor quality, or didn't think people would interpret is as such.
I would guess the video is actually taken somewhere in the southwest, in the desert at night.

HAHAHA!!! Your CD comment was brilliant!! The most illogical argument I've ever heard!! Well done!

HAHAHA!!! Your CD comment was brilliant!! The most illogical argument I've ever heard!! Well done!

Not quite up to Osseldorf's standards, but funny nonetheless.

Graphix72,

First off, thank you.  You are the first FE'er I've ever come across on this forum that will offer evidence to support his position, without needing to be asked twenty times.  Thank you.

Yes, I noticed the "Crater" as well.  If you look harder, you will see that there are simmilar phenomena all over the image.

Your right that it looks self lit, but what I forrgot to tell you was that this image wasn't taken in visible light.  This is an IR video.  SMART-1 crashed into an area where the sun had already set on the moon, so the only way to resolve the dust was in the IR spectrum.  And I don't think it looks to round to be natural.  There are some almost perfectly circlular craters on the moon.  Have you ever seen Tycho?

http://www.spacegrant.hawaii.edu/class_acts/WebImg/tycho-b'.gif

Anyway, the fact that the film is in Infra-red explains why it appears self lit.  There really isn't any light source around, what you are seeing is just leftover heat from the crater being exposed to direct sunlight for 2-weeks.

Also, there really was no reason for this to be filmed here on Earth.  The one thing that I think we can agree on is that something crashed into the surface of the moon a few nights ago.  Remember, this was observed by astronomers all over America.  So why borther faking a video wen you have the real thing to film.

Again, thank you for presenting evidence.  Keep it up!

Sorry, the link to the picture of Tycho Crater didn't work.  Try this one.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lo5tycho_big.gif

"What is you evidence that the video of SMART-1 crshing was faked?"

Dear Max Fagin,

My impression is that the very evidences you are so kindly providing are gradually proving that.

(1) Surprisingly poor quality of the videos, particularly considering that, according to the official version of the event, the videos' producers knew the time and place of the "hit" far ahead. Compare the quality of the videos with the picture of Tycho Crater you have provided. Feel the difference.

(2) They claim that the hit was intentional. From your post I have learned that "SMART-1 crashed into an area where the sun had already set on the moon". Before that you were assuring me that half of the globe was staring at their telescopes trying to see the "hit". How those amateur astronomers could observe the details of that magnificent event if it was supposed to happen in the  darkness? Had they intentionally chosen that dark place?

(3) No proof of the hit was demonstrated. A body with the mass of 2 tons moving with the speed of 70 km/s would have had kinetic energy of (2000 kg * (70,000 m/s)^2)/2 = 4,900,000,000,000 J, which is slightly more that 1 kiloton of TNT equivalent. Sounds like quite a lot. Well, maybe, we should wait 2 weeks to have the place illuminated by the Sun.

(4) There is nothing, just nothing in those videos that would definitely indicate that what was filmed really happened on the Moon.

Those are all good points Humble_Scientists.  I guess I haven't been to clear about the nature of the SMART-1 Mission and just what they were, and were not trying to do.  So let me adress each of your points and teach you some more about SMART-1 in the process:

1)  SMART-1 wasn't launched just to crash into the moon.  It had been orbiting the moon for the last couple years as a surface mapper.  It was only once the mission was complete that the ESA decided to crash it.  They gave it the biggest downward push that they could, but with SMART's ion engine, the best they could do was about 15 ft of desent per 1 km of horizontal motion.   Because SMART was falling so slowly, and the topography of the moon was so poorly understood, the scientists were not 100% certain where the impact would occur.  SMART might hit an unkown mountain and crash a full orbit and dozens of kilometers off target.

Becasue the impact sight was uncertain, the only way to photograph it was to cover a large area.  The photographes we have been seeing are actually blown up images of a picture about 200 km on a side.  for compairison, Tycho is about 90 km wide.  You can't cover an area that size with sufficient resolution to get a perfect photo.  Thats why the photos are such poor quality.  They have been blown up by a factor of a 4000.

2)  Yes, they did intentionally choose to land in darkness.   If they had landed on the day side, the brightness of the moon would outshine the flash.  Also, they actually landed very close to the terminator in the hope that the crash might kick some dust up high enough to be illuminated by the sun.  That didn't happen though.

3)  It wouldn't do any good to have the place illuminated by the sun.  The crater was only about 10 meters across.  Again, that's why they landed on the night side of the moon.  The explosion might not have been visible otherwise.  And the crater will certinally not be visible from Earth.

4)  Your right, there is nothing in those videos that indicate it was filming what acctually happened on the moon.  But something did crash into the moon, so why bother faking it?

You can see here for a more detailed discussion of what I am saying at the bellow URL.  There is also a map of where the crash took place.  Note how close it is to the terrminator line.

http://www.planetary.org/news/2006/0829_SMART1_Prepares_for_Lunar.html


Keep up the good questions everyone!

Kinetic energy of (2000 kg * (70,000 m/s)^2)/2 = 4,900,000,000,000 J, which is slightly more that 1 kiloton of TNT equivalent, and you are telling me that the crater was only about 10 meters across?  Unobservable from earth, unverifiable and completely lost after the fact?  Hmmm... sounds a little fishy to me.  Remember, 1 kiloton of TNT is 1000 tons, that alone would take up more space than 10 meters across, muchless the hole it would leave if you blew it up.  That's like a thousand times more than they used in the Oklahoma City bombing, and that tore down a whole huge building.
You can't convict a man of murder for shooting another if you can't even find the bullet hole on the dead body.

I don't know, Graphix72.  I can think of a couple explinations.  Remember, SMART struck the moon a very glancing blow, so it may not have converted all it's KE into light in the first impact.

Also, 10 meters was only the predicted size by the ESA, but it could easily be much bigger.  Unfortunatelly, we don't have any way to check, the smallest features visible on the moon from earth is still about 8km wide, so it would have to be a really big explosion to make a visible crater.

Anyway, this is a good point, and I don't have a definate answer.  But I do have some possibilities that are a bit more probable than a worldwide conspiracy.

Again, thanks for providing evidence.  It's makes the disscusions so much more enjoyable. . .

Summarizing, we have an event that happened in the darkness, was poorly documented and left no traces.

Well, that seems to be an exact description of the result of a typical scientific experiment.

However, I would not rather announce it, publish it or consider it as a proof. If that was a real hit, it was too poorly documented and should not be published. If it was a fake hit, all those "evidences" are just ridiculous.

"something did crash into the moon"

Precisely. Or rather "something exploded somewhere".

"why bother faking it?"

I am not sure. But you might wish to check yourself. Grab some NASA photos "from the Moon". But do not look at them, read this first.

According to NASA, the astronauts landed near the terminator, to lessen the radiation load. Therefore, the Sun on the Moon was just rising when they got there. Therefore, all the shades should be VERY long.

Now look at the pictures.

The shades are short.

Precisely. Or rather "something exploded somewhere".

Something definitely exploded on the Moon, not just "somewhere", as the event was visible over half the planet.

"Something definitely exploded on the Moon,"

Prove that.

Alright then, it exploded either on the Moon or at least out in space several hundred miles, as otherwise it would not have been visible over half the planet.

Okay, let's assume something DID explode, for the sake of progressing the argument. What then?

"it exploded either on the Moon or at least out in space several hundred miles"

I really like that  

Yeah, let's not argue that something exploded, let's give him that.  Where are you going with it?

Humble_Scientist,

Again, SMART-1 crashed into the night side of the moon for the express purpose of making it visible from Earth.  You seem to think that crashing the probe on the night side was meant to hide something, but irronically, if they wanted to hide the crash, they would have come down on the day side!

The Apollo astronauts did not land on the terminator.  I would like to see the source that gave you that info, becasue I beleive you have misread it.  The astronaut landed a few days after lunar sunrise, so the sun had already climbed a fair distance.  Again, you can find a detailed proffesional de-bunking of most moon hoax arguments at http://www.clavius.org
Please take a look at this site before bringing up the topic of the Moon Hoax.

I can't provide proof, in a scientific context, that SMART crashed into the moon.  But I can give you some very strong evidence.

1.  Independent confirmation from amature astronomers from all over the US.

2.  Video and still photographs from major observatories and amature astronomers.

3.  Radio observatories tracked a signal from SMART-1 right up to the time of the crash.  Granted, these observatories were in collaboration with the ESA, but it's hard to belive that the entire staff of the DSN (Deep Space Network) is in on the conspiracy.

Again, it is impossible for the explosion to have been in beetween Earth and the moon, as the parallax from the photographs would have given it away.

Now you are starting to sound as if the MOON is round too!  Its not enough that you insist that the earth is round, but now the moon too?? The next thing you'll try to feed me is that the sun and the stars are all round, right?  Why not make everything in the universe round, shall we?

What I am getting at Grafix was my origional point of this topic.

1.  We obviouslly have the technology to get equipment to the moon, so the spcae program can't really be the fraud that most FE'er make it our to be.  Granted, it is pretty simple to crash a rocket into the moon, but the FAQ doesn't seem to give NASA even that much credit.  The FAQ makes NASA sound like nothing more than a buch of Photoshop jockeys.

2.  This point is a little harder to prove, but it's at least suggested by the SMART mission.  SMART-1 was in orbit of the moon for several years before the crash.  I know, it is possible that SMART might have just been a missile launched from Earth just a few minutes before the crash.  But the crash scenario makes more sense if you allow SMART to be an orbiting probe.  You can't orbit a flat disk (Which the moon is according to the FAQ.)

And as to your last comment, yes.  The RE model suggests that all celestial bodies including asteroids, moons, planets, stars and star clusters are spherical.  But no, we don't think the everything in the universe is round.

Any larger than star clusters, and the distances become so great that gravity has trouble forming things into spheres.  So we get things like galaxies.  Which are infact flat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NGC_4414_%28NASA-med%29.jpg
http://w-uh.com/images/galaxy_M101.jpg

That's it!!! FE theory isn't wrong, it's just off by a couple orders of magnitude!  Planets and stars aren't flat, but bigger things are!

Are you willing to accept that?

Dear Max Fagin,

"The Apollo astronauts did not land on the terminator."

They did.

"I would like to see the source that gave you that info,"

Sure. For example:

"The Apollo 11 landing site was to the right of center in this photograph, near the terminator (the transition from day to night)."

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A11_LandingSite_viewsof.html


"I can't provide proof, in a scientific context, that SMART crashed into the moon."

That's the whole point. I am glad we both have agreed on that.

Oh, OK.  I see where we are getting confused.

That picture was taken in 1967, a full two years before the Apollo 11 landing, and the terminator isn't stationary. it moves as the moon rotates (yes the moon does rotate, please don't anyone correct me, it rotates once a month.)

In fact there is a good reason the earth based telescope chose to photograph the landing site when it was so close to the night side.  That is the best time to photograph it.  When the sun is low in the lunar sky, you get the longest shadows and the best contrast, as you said.

But that photo was taken from an earth based scope, we

have no idea how accuratelly it displays the terminator at the time of landing.

Also, I may not be able to provied proof that the SMART crash is what I say it is, but science isn't concerned with proof, it's concerned with evidence.  And I can (and have) provided evidence that SMART-1, a probe orbiting the moon, left orbit and crashed into the lunar surface.

Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't examine all the photos on that site.  The last one shows a view from the LM as it decends.  Give me a minute. . .

Man I love the internet.  Finding these photos and links would have taken months doing it the traditional way.  Anyway, here is my evidence that they did not land on the terminator.  The evidence is in three parts. . .

1) Testimonial:

 Here is a quote from http://clavius.org:

"The lunar landing sites and times were chosen so that the astronauts would be working there in the early morning before the temperature had risen to its hottest."

The man who said this is an Apollo technical historian, you can find his bio here:

http://www.clavius.org/about.html

If anyone knows where the day/night line was when Apollo 11 landed, I think it would be him.


2) Photographic:

Here is a panorama from the Apollo 11 mission.  

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11pan1105549.jpg

They tried to avoid photographing the sun directly if they could, but you can see where the sun is in this picture.  It's reasonablly far off the horizon.


3) Personal.

I have not seen any photographs from Apollo 11 where the shadows display an incorrect length.  Here is a website with almost all the surface photos from 11.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/

Can you find a photo that demonstrates what your saying?  Then I could perhaps make a more detailed statement.




I guess I can't explain the last photograph on the link you provided.  All I can say is that we have a very poor idea of scale (An odd angle combined with perspective makes the crater a questionable measuring tape.)  I also think that an unambiguous quote from an Apollo historian contains a bit more credability than a hard to interpret photo, but I'm open to debate on that topic.

Talk to you all tommorow. . .

Hmmm...  I hate to say this, but I think he convinced me.  The moon is round, and we did crash something into it.

I'm glad to hear it Graphix72.  Thank you for being open minded.

And remember, you should convert back to FM (Flat-Moon) if new evidence comes to light that negates my previous points.  That's how science progresses, by being skeptical of all ideas, and being ready to convert if new evidence is discovered.  I don't think it will happen, but I am ready to belive FE if new observations negate the RE theory.

Kinetic energy of (2000 kg * (70,000 m/s)^2)/2 = 4,900,000,000,000 J,.

No. SMART-1 hits with speed of 2 km/s (and with very low angle). Humble Sciencist made up this 70 km/s. Wonder where he seen that number.

Source: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM7A76LARE_index_0.html

Secondly, it WAS dust: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMWX03VRRE_index_1.html#subhead4

Small advice to Max Fagin: in your place, I would verify any numbers given by FE, as they are often notoriously incorrect (to say at least). There is a bunch of space sites with useful informations about this kind of topic.

Hmmmmm. . .

One of our sources is very confused.  Thanks for catching the fact that Humble_Scientist said 70 km per second, I think we can agree that's wrong.

But the source I've been using (http://www.planetary.org/news/2006/0829_SMART1_Prepares_for_Lunar.html) says the impact speed was 70 km per hour, not 2 km per second.  One of our source did something wrong, that's a difference by a factor of a hundred . . .

But if I had to pick one, I would say your source is more trustworthy, my info came from the planetary society, but your is a direct quote from the ESA.  Still, thanks for catching that.  It's a pretty big factor in disscusing this issue.

Just going off topic for a sec - this thread made Pink Floyd get stuck in my head all day yesterday!