Why doesnt Nasa have any detailed pictures of the Moon anomally Shard?

reply to post by ArMaP

You're a mod.
You're not a normal member.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
It might be for the same reason there is no NASA picture of the 'crashed' space ship on the other side of the moon.... it doesn't exist?

Maybe a ship doesn't exist, but what do you mean about this shard? Are you saying it is photoshopped in? Otherwise, something is there. It may just be a rock, but something is there.

reply to post by Phage

I liked Barbara Bain myself.

Yes i must admit she is the best special effect in series.

reply to post by ArMaP

I guess my posts are invisible...

i do read Mods posts but not before members as i always figured Mods are acting as..the umpire or abritrator is here in the debating room.

I hate to agree with page lol because I do think his is as closed minded as a lot of conspiracy therost but
I dont think the video with the anomalies (anomaly) as i said above only one thing in the video posted warrants more looking at.
That video is from the top of the moon as we look at it.
I think the posted vid is a red herring in looking for the area that the shard tower is at.
Not that the weird tower thing on left is worth discussing but i don't believe its the same spot as the shard.
I wish i hadnt edited out the stuff when i did my moon vid.
I took it be posting because i knew it would cause debate and i know it was a trick of light

Sorry double post

reply to post by Phage

I see. So my earlier "presumption" was accurate. You are presented with that which you requested and you reject it (because it is from NASA) when it doesn't not contain a tower. But when a NASA image contains ambiguous "evidence" it's valid. Surprise.

Phage, calm down before you write something you regret. Take a deep breath and THINK.

I must have missed my post where I declared the Shard photo as factual evidence.

You seem to have forgotten that my intro´ into this debate was a comment on the angle of the alleged shadow, coupled with some questions about sincerity, humility, integrity and curtesy.

My cards were laid out clearly for all to see, that I deeply distrust NASA, and have no opinion either way as to the verity of the existence of any Shard, however someone around here is casting aspersions upon my good character.

I simply distrust NASA from ALL angles. It´s not rocket science.

As stated various times now, my impression earlier was that you were being unnecessarily harsh and failing to give respect to those who you consider below you. Don´t forget that you were also once a Newbie.

Yet the sheeple still award you stars, even when you have made false accusations!

reply to post by AuntieChrist

Phage, calm down before you write something you regret. Take a deep breath and THINK.

What makes you think I'm not calm?

I must have missed my post where I declared the Shard photo as factual evidence.

So you have no opinion on it? You just don't like my manner and felt you had to let me know?

You seem to have forgotten that my intro´ into this debate was a comment on the angle of the alleged shadow, coupled with some questions about sincerity, humility, integrity and curtesy.

I haven't forgotten. The only part of which was on topic was your comment about the shadow. I and my manner (or your opinion of it) are off topic.

My cards were laid out clearly for all to see, that I deeply distrust NASA, and have no opinion either way as to the verity of the existence of any Shard, however someone around here is casting aspersions upon my good character.

I simply distrust NASA from ALL angles. It´s not rocket science.

Yes, and that distrust means you would not accept an image which showed no "shard"...as I presumed. Do you consider a strong prejudice to be a sign of good character or helpful in looking for answers?

Yet the sheeple still award you stars, even when you have made false accusations!

What false accusations? Did you not reject the Apollo 16 image because of it's source?

reply to post by Phage


Out of curiosity Phage, can your prove the moon is a natural satellite? I already know for a fact I can't prove it's not (yet). But what is the evidence to prove it is? I'm not asking for a lot, I know all about the data, arguments for or against. What would you say is the best evidence that it is natural?

I'll tell you what I think it is...

It is a tower of frozen water that has been ejected by a comet* hitting the Moons surface at a near vertical angle of attack.

*comets are made of ice, which generally have no contaminants or impurities.

The surface of the moon is very cold, if not below freezing at some times. Purified water, that has no contaminents, freezes almost instantly when it comes in contact with contaminants at temperatures close to zero. 3-4degrees C  would suffice to freeze it. Another characteristic of freezing purified water is that it piles up and sticks to itself as it freezes (if poured out of a bottle).

So... As the comet hits the Moon, the energy released melts the ice, the ice comes in contact with the Moons surface and as Lunar Ejection occurs it mixes the fine moon dust (the contaminant) with the water and hey presto... A big wobbly looking tower!

This is the most logical explanation I can come up with and would also give reason for a cover up - Water on the Moon! 

What y'all  think?

~CrzayFool

reply to post by Helious

But what is the evidence to prove it is?

All of it.
And none to the contrary.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Helious

 

But what is the evidence to prove it is?

All of it.
And none to the contrary.

edit on 2/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I don't know what to say or think about that statement really. I guess I honestly believe that is how you feel and that is ok by me. I'm not going to turn this thread into a circus over it and I will admit, I have no idea other than the facts we both have since it's a topic we both educate ourselves in, I guess I just see different aspects of the moon different than you do.

I used to think that NASA lied about everything, much like others in this thread but I don't think that any more. I do think they may have embellished or excluded some things but I don't think they make things up just because. I will state however that I do not think they are at liberty to disclose anything that could be considered alien life, I think they would have to go through government for that as it would fall to national security.

NASA is government funded and I can prove that and it is bound by national security so that could be a cause for concern because people assume it is an independent agency because many out there like to point this false fact out to those who say there is no agenda because they are a civilian based and funded operation and that is not the case.

DP, delete please.

reply to post by Helious

I will state however that I do not think they are at liberty to disclose anything that could be considered alien life, I think they would have to go through government for that as it would fall to national security.

Its good that you pointed this out as this thought was running through my mind earlier. Any discovery of anything artifical that was considered not to be put there by any earthly nation would have to undergo a national security review.

It is debatable who would make up the national secruity group who make the assessment, but the decison makers are sure to include some members within the US goverment and not necessarily including the US president. Nasa's upper echelon of managment would be told the outcome of that meething and given orders and directions on how to manage non-disclosure of the facts (if that was the directive given).

And this isnt conspiracy talk as consider this hypothetical scenario. The US send their first satelitte around the moon and find the russians have landed there. A person with common sense will release the secruity apparatus will make that infomation secret and then send it off to the NSA and military for assessment as to the risks it presents to the US. So now replace Alien with Russian and im sure the secrecy will be an order of magnitude even greater.

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Helious

 

But what is the evidence to prove it is?

All of it.
And none to the contrary.

edit on 2/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I don't know what to say or think about that statement really. I guess I honestly believe that is how you feel and that is ok by me. I'm not going to turn this thread into a circus over it and I will admit, I have no idea other than the facts we both have since it's a topic we both educate ourselves in, I guess I just see different aspects of the moon different than you do.

I used to think that NASA lied about everything, much like others in this thread but I don't think that any more. I do think they may have embellished or excluded some things but I don't think they make things up just because. I will state however that I do not think they are at liberty to disclose anything that could be considered alien life, I think they would have to go through government for that as it would fall to national security.

NASA is government funded and I can prove that and it is bound by national security so that could be a cause for concern because people assume it is an independent agency because many out there like to point this false fact out to those how say there is no agenda.

edit on 9-2-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)

Easter Island statue.

/conspiracy

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by Phage

 

Out of curiosity Phage, can your prove the moon is a natural satellite? I already know for a fact I can't prove it's not (yet). But what is the evidence to prove it is? I'm not asking for a lot, I know all about the data, arguments for or against. What would you say is the best evidence that it is natural?

The fact that it is an 81 billion tonne rock hurtling through space at about 1.5 miles per second!

The processes any civilisation would have to go through to balance that sort of orbital dance would be too huge to overcome!

The 600quintillion tonne rock next to it that has an immense gravitational pull would make things even harder... And don't forget outward momentum from the moon trying to break away from us. 

This can simply only happen over billions of years. Everything needs to "settle" into a perfect sequence. It's not something that can be manufactured.

Throw a rock past Earth and it'll come back, depending on its speed of course... each time it comes back and goes past again (millions of times) it'll slowly but surely end up in an orbit, where its outward momentum reaches an equilibrium versus mass and acceleration.

~CrzayFool

Originally posted by crzayfool

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by Phage

 

Out of curiosity Phage, can your prove the moon is a natural satellite? I already know for a fact I can't prove it's not (yet). But what is the evidence to prove it is? I'm not asking for a lot, I know all about the data, arguments for or against. What would you say is the best evidence that it is natural?

The fact that it is an 81 billion tonne rock hurtling through space at about 1.5 miles per second!

The processes any civilisation would have to go through to balance that sort of orbital dance would be too huge to overcome!

The 600quintillion tonne rock next to it that has an immense gravitational pull would make things even harder... And don't forget outward momentum from the moon trying to break away from us. 

This can simply only have over billions of years. Everything needs to "settle" into a perfect sequence. It's not something that can be manufactured.

~CrzayFool

This is a very poor excuse for the moon exhibiting the characteristics it does, there is no math or even basic conjecture about anything settling in. This is nonsense. By all reasonable accounts, even by by most experts, the moon is a complete mystery. There is no good answer as far as rational science is concerned on it's origins or it's unique "properties" as is it is concerned with Earth.

Here is another to add feul to the fire.
What if they destroyed the tower at some point since origanal pictures were taken.
All that money to get man on the moon
I wouldn't be suprised if there are people living up there now
Not aliens humans.
Just a thought

reply to post by jaffer44

What if they destroyed the tower at some point since origanal pictures were taken.

That was bound to be said.

But what if it is just a photographic flaw? One of many others on the image. Why is that so hard to accept? There is nothing that says it is not.