It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 16
86
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


This at the end of the day is not about discrediting Nasa this is about balancing of the debt owed to civilians who fund Nasa. Enclosed is a link to Nasas budget over last 40 or so years. If a member of US public asks for a more detailed picture of area of interest and Nasa have the picture in their database they should provide it no questions asked. Thanks for links.


Please link us to a copy of the letter you sent, and NASA's refusal.




posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 




Those accounts are about what other people told them


As much as I have loved enjoyed this thread, one thing has become patently clear.

On one side, we have the NASA supporters, who when requested to present valid evidence, arrogantly throw into the arena more of the same old, same old, NASA images.

On the other side of the arena, we have the NASA skeptics who dream of seeing clear, high resolution, undoctored images of the Moon?

The NASA supporters have -on the whole - been rude, arrogant and extermely condescending without actually having the right to be so.

The skeptics have a lifetime of being deceived by the alphabet agencies since they were first created... i.e. NKVD, SS, SA, KGB, SIS, CIA, GRU, MI6, NASA, FBI, NSA, MOSSAD ad infinitum!

It is difficult to maintain ATS curtesy T&C´s, when one of those protecting the sketchy alphabet gang in question is perhaps using their privileged position to influence the debate.

It is almost childish that when requested to provide evidence of an empty Moon, one is requested in response to provide proof of underhand activity from NASA.

What difference does it then make if the alphabet disciples refuse to see what others are asking for...

namely, images of the Moon with the following quality.



Zoom in and SEE the detail!

Where are these images? It is stretching all credulity to imagine that NAZA don´t have such images..

And there goes the debate. Disciples being rude to seekers.
edit on 10-2-2013 by AuntieChrist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by AuntieChrist
You know that I am unlikely to own any NASA photo´s not in the public domain, so why ask?

I ask to try to understand how do you know that those photos exist.


What I can point you to, is the accounts of some of those more in the know, than mere punters on a web forum.

Those accounts are about what other people told them and (in the case of Karl Wolfe) his own interpretation of Lunar Orbiter photos (like the one being discussed here) ....]


Karl Wolfe's story? Isn't that where he swears he saw 'lunar back side' photographs in 1965, years before NASA actually took any? Can ANYBODY championing these stories perform SIMPLE 'fact-checks' of fairy tales they enjoy thrilling themselves with? extra DIV



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by AuntieChrist
Where are these images? It is stretching all credulity to imagine that NAZA don´t have such images..


Or India, or China, or ESA, or Japan, or Russia.... why the believers' blackout on OTHER national moon imaging programs?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCL1150
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


I'm waiting for another Country who has a ongoing space program to come along and say: Look what we found, funny how did the other guys miss this?!?!?!?


Only ridicule by those who would wish it all away stops us now from properly vetting these items like the bright reflectively shining areas of the moon and mars.

At this point some country probably has reported these things IMHO. Some Russian sources for instance. I remember various news agencies from other foreign country's have also stated stuff like that in their news and those stories have been lampooned on here by skeptics and lauded by believers. Then our media ignores or pooh pooh's the stories if they do read it. Since we KNOW our system of news agencies in the west are proven liars and BELIEVE theirs in the rest of the world is too, what can you do when discussing this seriously?

I don't know what to believe just yet, other than to keep an open mind. The technological breakthroughs are here now to do great things out there.Yet, we don't seem to be sending people anymore and we're not building real space stations, nor sharing the high res images of key areas? I do see some here appearing to shill for the negative ideas at every possible turn with things like '"can't be because of" blah blah blah. They seem to never, ever agree that something might be remotely CLOSE to what the OP thinks. Those people sometimes make me go, ok they are right on this subject or that. But to me some of these ideas and concepts are more logical to debate but because some things are ludicrous to wrap your mind around in our current paradigm it is easy to attack. Even if true.

For those wishing to believe, I too see something spherical in those pics and therefore I reserve judgement that this could be artificial until we can pinpoint the location and see un-doctored, non-smokey nor strange angle pics of the site. I too am suspect of footage of the moon we have been allowed to see. I believe Richard C Hoagland has merit. And some of the arguments of people like Phage could not withstand the proof of the data and the staggering credentials of those with the proper background and training who agree with Hoagland.. Some I have heard talk on so many points concerning the jpegs from our past passes over planets in our solar system. I have reasons to believe we humans could have left the artifacts in our distant past when technology was as great or greater than today and now we are simply ready to rediscover our history. That is exciting if proven the least bit true!



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage

Well honestly every single photo they have of the moon. With todays media technology that shouldmt be hard at all. And I dont think thats asking to much at all.


I don't know how MANY sites NASA/JPL has which are entirely open to anyone, with browse-able pictures, galleries etc. There must be a site for almost any major or minor mission where people can get all the information they want, and more.

Not only that, you can use Google Earth and browse Earth/Mars/Moon in 3D, and if there is a recent mission like Curiosity, they provide 3D simulation programs, games even, IN ADDITION to their heaps of images they release on their site(s).

Not only would NASA not be "obligated" to do this, but they do this since one of their "missions" is also to educate, and IMHO (you might well disagree, I don't care) they do a fantastic job with that. You know what, I can now listen to live press conferences as well and get news and updates faster or at the same time as people from CNN or whatever media outlet. I also had people here on ATS reporting they emailed people from NASA/JPL (eg. in regards to the Curiosity mission) and they actually GOT A REPLY from a mission manager, the same guy who was present a day before in a live conference on the internet.

Now..tell me..how more transparent could it get??

You're also aware that if NASA would *not* have made so many images and mission data available to anyone, we would not even HAVE many conspiracy theories and people who see all kinds of stuff, shards, "creatures" and whatnot by going through gigabytes of images

edit on 10-2-2013 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 



I would agree that the video you chose to post is utter BS. And thanks for throwing a little "help" my way. I still diagree that it's relevant but regardless, below is a link to the same video from perhaps a less "offensive" source.

It also appears to have been available longer than I had thought. Though it's still not a common documentary. Think of it what you will, but given that it's not a YouTube member produced documentary, it is worth watching regardless of your opinion of the uploader. Out of respect for the topic of this thread, I'll bow out.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 10-2-2013 by Gtr003121 because: Omitted Link



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Here is the official NASA image from the OP: link


Location & Time Information
Date/Time (UT): 1967-02-18 T 00:35:14
Distance/Range (km): 122 km
Central Latitude/Longitude (deg): +0.80/358.96
Orbit(s): N/A
Imaging Information
Area or Feature Type: crater, mare, wrinkle ridge
Instrument: Medium-resolution Camera
Instrument Resolution (pixels): N/A
Instrument Field of View (deg): 44.2 x 37.9
Filter: Clear
Illumination Incidence Angle (deg): 80.17
Phase Angle (deg): 15.55
Instrument Look Direction: N/A
Surface Emission Angle (deg): 71.44
Ordering Information
CD-ROM Volume: N/A
NASA Image ID number: L03-M84
Other Image ID number: N/A
NSSDC Data Set ID (Photo): 66-073Z-01D
NSSDC Data Set ID (CD): N/A
Other ID: N/A
Updated 19 March 2003, DRW.


The "high res tiff" is actually pathetically low res. It looks to me as if this is a compiled image made from many very high res strips. I've seen those strips before for differnt sections of the moon and they are much higher resolution. And apparently there used to be a higher resolution copy of this image as Richard C. Hogland has it...

My problem with all this is the architect of this argument: Richard C. Hogland. Here is his info on this: link.

He says its on the "Sinus Medii" link.

Here is his high res blowup of the NASA image with annotation:

I could get the official NASA TIFF nowhere near this resolution... so where do we get the real high res nasa tiff? maybe the ordering info i listed above, but they would probably only send what they already put on their website.

This guy apparently got a copy of the negative from nasa, and says it is indeed on the negative, and the x is a camera registration mark:

For those interested in acquiring a negative of LO3-84M from the National Space Science Data Center, the following information might be of use in locating the Shard and Cube on the negative:

Dimensions of exposed region on the 8X10 inch negative: 172mm X 207mm.
Position of shard in negative: 43mm to the right of the left edge of exposed region of negative, 42mm from the top edge of exposed region.
Apparent length of shard: between 0.7mm and 0.75mm, with 0.2mm above the horizon.
Position of "cube": 1. 3mm above lunar horizon, 0.9mm to left of shard.
Dimensions of "cube" approximately 0.4mm on each side, for the region with clearly defined edges.
The distance from the shard to the lunar orbiter is about 225 miles.
The coordinates of the shard are approximately 3 to 4 degrees South and between 5 and 6 degrees West. It should be very close to the the "domes" described for LO4-108H3, and it is positioned on one of the two ridges shown in that image.
Total height of shard (if real): approximately 1 mile.
Some internal structure can be seen in both the "Shard" and the "Cube". The white "X" just above the "Shard" is a camera registration mark on the photographic film. These marks were placed on the film prior to the LO3's launch so that distortions in the transmitted image could be accounted for.

link

Hoagland at one point was claiming there were all sorts of huge domes and such on the moon. I haven't seen this supported by the india and european scans of the moon. So... there it is.

Now you can find the exact area of this object in Sinus Medii and you have the exact NASA image you can get from them, and you can maybe get an 84MB scan of the image Hoagland got if you write them and ask pretty please.

Enough side track argument on random sites. There is the exact site.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
>>
I could get the official NASA TIFF nowhere near this resolution... so where do we get the real high res nasa tiff? maybe the ordering info i listed above, but they would probably only send what they already put on their website.
>>

Didn't you know that Hoaxland has his own, high-res satellites which show better and clearer images than that from NASA?

And yes, how this image is produced I don't know since the one image I found at best shows some "blotch" where its hard to see what it even is. But Hoaxland was always good with "enhancing" images and showing us "amazing" stuff on them, as far as I remember



edit on 10-2-2013 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by AuntieChrist
On one side, we have the NASA supporters, who when requested to present valid evidence, arrogantly throw into the arena more of the same old, same old, NASA images.

I'm more of a supporter of things for which there is evidence than a NASA supporter, as I know that some people in NASA can and do change photos to suit their needs.


On the other side of the arena, we have the NASA skeptics who dream of seeing clear, high resolution, undoctored images of the Moon?

They are not NASA sceptics, they are doubters, they do not extend the benefit of the doubt to NASA, they think (or at least the way they talk about NASA makes me think that they think) that whatever comes from NASA should not be trusted.


The NASA supporters have -on the whole - been rude, arrogant and extermely condescending without actually having the right to be so.

Could you please tell me if you are including me in those NASA supporters (seeing that this was an answer to a post from me) and, if the answer is yes, when and where was I "rude, arrogant and extermely condescending"?
Thanks in advance.


It is difficult to maintain ATS curtesy T&C´s, when one of those protecting the sketchy alphabet gang in question is perhaps using their privileged position to influence the debate.

Well, I'm not protecting any foreign agency, I do not even bother to protect my country's agencies, so I'm not sure if you are talking about me or not.


It is almost childish that when requested to provide evidence of an empty Moon, one is requested in response to provide proof of underhand activity from NASA.

We are usually asked to provide evidence of what we are talking about, not of what other people are talking about, so I always try to provide evidence that supports what I say and I expect other people to present evidence that supports what they say.

Is that wrong?

Having reread your post now I don't know if I really understood what you meant, so the above two paragraphs may be pointing in the wrong direction. Sorry if that's the case.


What difference does it then make if the alphabet disciples refuse to see what others are asking for...

namely, images of the Moon with the following quality.


That image is a mosaic made with 1920 photos taken with a 400mm lens, nothing like that has ever been (as far as I know) on the Moon's surface. Mosaics/panoramas made with the photos taken during the Apollo missions and with the photos from the Soviet landers are available.

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is taking photos with a resolution between 50 cm and 25 cm per pixel, and those photos are also available to anyone on the Internet.


Where are these images? It is stretching all credulity to imagine that NAZA don´t have such images..

See, this is why I have asked for evidence, because some people keep talking about things for which they do not show any real evidence but are expecting other people to show those hypothetical photos.
How can I (or anyone else) show photos that I do not know exist?

From all the time I have spent in the last 10 years looking at this, I have never seen any evidence of other missions with high resolution photos, so I cannot show them.

(That doesn't mean that those missions didn't exist, obviously.)


And there goes the debate. Disciples being rude to seekers.

Disciples? Seekers? Now I don't understand what you mean.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by AuntieChrist
 


It is almost childish that when requested to provide evidence of an empty Moon, one is requested in response to provide proof of underhand activity from NASA.
It is completely childish to reject images which do not contain the "shard" because of the source.


What difference does it then make if the alphabet disciples refuse to see what others are asking for...

Sure. Because someone sees a flaw in an old photograph millions of dollars should be spent to land an extreme high resolution camera on the Moon to prove there is nothing really there when there are already photographs which show nothng there.


Where are these images? It is stretching all credulity to imagine that NAZA don´t have such images..
Why? Do know how such images are obtained? Besides, what's the point? If its from NASA you will reject it.

You have yourself a nice cozy position there. "I didn't say there was a shard but NASA should give us high resolution images showing it and if they don't they are lying."






edit on 2/10/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 




as I know that some people in NASA can and do change photos to suit their needs.


You see... progress..


Thank you.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Maybe the question that should be asked.Is are there really nazi's on the moon? Because from the picture the top of it sure look's like a Confederate Battle Flag.





posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by AuntieChrist
You see... progress..

Progress? I have been saying it for years and twice in this thread.


I guess most of my posts are really invisible...


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
There is no way they are natural rock formations.Because these are in arizona and I am sure aliens brought them.





You've got that back to front! lol

Because they are in Arizona and many other places shows that they ARE natural and not from aliens.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by AuntieChrist

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


An odd fixation, one not limited to you, BTW.

I only just realized there was such a feature the other day when someone else was complaining about someone being "awarded stars", and since I have started to use the feature to express agreement or approval without cluttering up the thread, like I am now. I can only presume others are using it for the same purpose. Some people's posts are bound to be more cogent, popular, or humorous than others. In any case they [stars] are easily ignored - I've been doing so for years.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziplock9000

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
There is no way they are natural rock formations.Because these are in arizona and I am sure aliens brought them.





You've got that back to front! lol

Because they are in Arizona and many other places shows that they ARE natural and not from aliens.


Except that such formations on earth are the result of wind or water erosion. Difficult to reconcile with the environment on the moon.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by pianopraze
The "high res tiff" is actually pathetically low res.

It's "high res" when compared with the 537 x 667 pixels GIF available on the page.

What we think when we read "high res" has changed a lot since that image was made, in 1995 (or at least that's the date of the file on that page).


It looks to me as if this is a compiled image made from many very high res strips. I've seen those strips before for differnt sections of the moon and they are much higher resolution. And apparently there used to be a higher resolution copy of this image as Richard C. Hogland has it...

Lunar Orbiter photos were processed and digitized on board, transmitted to Earth, and reprinted. The full frames were made of several "framelets", strips of film that, when joined back in the right order, made a reproduction of the photo originally developed aboard the Lunar Orbiter.

Anyone can buy a copy of those large photos, but it looks like some versions were better than others, the most recent probably being copies of copies were not as good as the original copies sold to many people. Those copies were the ones that were digitized by many people, Hoagland included.

The copies were not negatives, they were positives.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ziplock9000
 


Keep reading it was a set up.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Sure. Because someone sees a flaw in an old photograph millions of dollars should be spent to land an extreme high resolution camera on the Moon to prove there is nothing really there when there are already photographs which show nothng there.


Phage, my current favourite sparring partner.. here you go again.

Where on this thread (indeed this website, in fact, this galaxy), did I suggest that anyone land as much as a sausage on the Moon and take photo´s?

I am open to the possiblity that I have been misled, however certain information which has passed my way, claimed that we had satellites in orbit capable of reading a newspaper on Earth.

From following countless threads, it is apparent that many people would simply be content (and possibly silenced) if one of these ´Spy´ satellites were to be turned to clearly map our argument-causing Moon.

You are joking right? When you suggest that there is not the interest, to warrant the expense of taking digital photo´s from a camera already in orbit.

As I stated before. You see your perspective, others see theirs.

You simply do not have the authority to reject that, which other people see.

Respect those below you and you´ll become a hero.

At the end of the day, it is all angles and opinions.

Your choice.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
86
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join