Thanks for the laugh, truly.
Im a believer in a wide variety of topics on this site, rendlesham forest being one of many. I choose not to post in them as I have nothing to
contibute towards them, the motto of this website after all is deny ignorance. Using the disbelieving skeptic card isnt valid nor on topic.
At no point did I say you were delusonal.. I said your opinions on NASA not posting non descript images on there website which are avaliable through
other third party sources meaning something as being the deluded part of you. You seem intelligent and thus I wanted to debate and try and get my
point of view across, but you lowered yourself to a personal attack on my credibility once you feel your point is threatened rather than debating back
at me. Look at my post at the top of this page then look at yours directly below it. The only one who went off on a tangent and began going
off-topic/trolling is you. Every post I made before you began the personal attack on me was throughly ontopic. Anyway, heres a few posts for you to
ponder.. I wont bother posting on this thread after this
Just because NASA does not post EVERY little snippet, every little photo, every little bit of information in high quality full resolution non
thumbnail wholesome goodness does not mean they are hiding something, rather its that there is so much stuff that posting all of it would be
un-reasonable. You can view the images online at your viewing pleasure, just not on the NASA website for EVERY image as this is both unreasonable and
ridiclious. Just because you have to manually do something to get what you want, does not mean they are hiding something. It would be impossible to
get to if they wanted it hidden, they wouldent play a little game of cat and mouse where you edit a url and you get the 'prize'.
You seem to be obsessed with Nasa itself SPECIFICALLY releasing the images.
Let me ask, if you see an image in a magazine, would you care were it came from? You would accept that the image was taken by a independent
photographer and given to a third party source (the magazine).
The images were taken by NASA, a independent orginization, and released to third party sources, a.k.a websites/newspapers etc. Nasa have better things
to do than fret over images being released specifically on their website on a constant basis, especially when the images are avaliable in all there
glory on the big wide web and beyond. View the images from third party sources and appriciate the images that Nasa have provided rather than
nitpicking the ones that arent there which you can view through other mediums with relative ease (as me and others do so)
Wait, so you are continuing to post because you want a answer to a question nobody here is able to answer, or ever will be, because the very question
itself is both implausible and subject to your interpretation, with you refusing to accept any other interpretations.. sic 'Why do I have to manually
do something to a Image to make it look better.. odd, why would I need to do that?'
Why are you asking us why you have to change an url to view a image? Or click on a thumbnail to attain a higher resolution?
P.S - What response do you expect to get from Nasa? Yes we have been delibrately uploading images onto our website in a low resolution, even though
you can easily upgrade the resolution manually and we later uploaded them in high resoltuion. Yes we have been delibrately uploading images in
thumbnails.. even though you can click on the image for it to go full screen.. yes we have been delibrately holding back images from our website, even
though you can view these images on the world wide web with ease, oh wait thats not good enough for you.. has to be from our website.. ah well, we
edit on 21-8-2012 by therovers because: (no reason given)