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: 17
86
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The image was taken during the Lunar Orbiter 3 mission and the original is here (TIFF too). NASA dropped the Surveyer 6 to explore the Sinus Medii plains where 'The Shard' is alleged to be looming up to a height of anything from 1 to 1.5 miles.

I notice that some members in this thread are really keen on keeping the idea alive and insisting that there's a gap of possibility that this massive artefact is up there. Sure, it's possible for someone like NASA to hide the images and pretend it's 'not really there,' but where is the evidence for that?

An obvious question would be why would they? Wouldn't a potentially unnatural structure be the tipping point towards an economic boom-time for aerospace and space archaeology? Since when were scientists 'scared' of exploration? Why would a force like the USA ignore the attractive possibilities of actually visiting a purportedly artificial structure?

If these questions can only be answered with conspiracy-talk, it's more than likely there's no such structure as 'The Shard.' NASA and other space agencies would have been sending manned missions to the Sinus Medii instead of everywhere else. Logically, it doesn't exist and that answers Athlon's question.


By now you must know that some people MUST see conspiracies everywhere.




posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by AuntieChrist
 


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.
You have been misled. But don't take my word for it. It is not difficult to determine what would be required to produce such resolutions from a satellite. You can start with something called the Raleigh limit.


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.
The photos are being taken. You reject them.


Respect those below you and you´ll become a hero.
I don't want to be a hero. Encouraging people to do their own research and thereby learning something does interest me though.

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



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpenEars123
I find this thread intriguing, however I'm not enjoying the arrogance of a specific well respected member. Who pi$$ed on your chips today???


I don't see arrogance myself. I see someone who is offering the tools for other to investigate when others choose to make blind assumptions.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreefer703
Nasa is part of the government, there is a lot of things they know that we don't. Its a proven fact that nasa has edited photos, they obviously don't want us to see something.


Do you also think there is only one country in the world?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by PLAYERONE01
If America and China or America and Russia were at somewhat the odds we are all lead to believe, would it not be beneficial for these countries that are apparently our enemy's to gain photographic evidence of these anomalies and prove once and for all what they are, also the moon landing site would be a good one to cause discourse and incite revolt among our populace, lets say , if nothing was there and China took some satellite imagery of it and done an expose of it it would be damaging, but I guess the American government would just deny it, after all how could myth busters be wrong and of course china and Russia don't have technology that advanced they still plow fields with horses.


Did you deliberately leave out ESA and Japan's space agencies to just support your argument?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


I didn't read the whole thread but OP do you even have to ask where is the NASA pic of Shard

COVER UP MAN

welcome to 60 years of cover up



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by CrypticSouthpaw
could this be the star gate put up by the aliens after the fall of Atlantis? Micheal Tsarion spoke about it in one of his documentaries. I don't take all of his interpretations literally. But he does find authentic texts and make his own assumptions. I think this could be part of the crystal technology that exists here on earth we will soon recover from the depths of Atlantis.

I try to stress this point, Crystals are everything. Our future and technology will rely on crystals and the formations of different crystals with different properties to manipulate frequencies, to influence molecules and the such. You know what your dvd player uses? Many things use quartz. Now i'm telling you the gov is most likely developing such crystals with abilties to trap oxygen, hydrogen, any element almost. Imagine coating the inside of a soldier helmet with synthesized crystals with a chip and current programming the crystal to enhance proteins and amino acids who knows.They are working on ways to trap energy and exert it within the crystal to exert fields of frequencies. If that is a crystal structure, it most likely will have properties of that of a weapon, a shield, or a portal. We don't know exactly what this tower if it be one would be used for, since as i explained the applications of crystal technology is pretty much endless.


Do pink unicorns live there too?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

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.


I never mentioned the moon. I mentioned Arizona and the back to front assumption they are alien creations.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Maybe I'm being dumb here, but you would have thought that at some point in the past almost half century someone (from any country) would have gone "WOAH" WTF! let's get a really good photo of whatever that is and see what it is. We've got a mission coming up in X years that'll go right over that...make sure it's got good cameras."

I don't care if it exists or not, but I would have thought that someone would have photographed the area properly in the last almost 50 years and that those photos had a resolution that gave an unambiguous answer to the "WTF is that" question.

Having a possible mile high POS sticking out of our nearest neighbour and going "meh" just doesn't wash.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
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.


Indeed, I believe you are correct. My comment was that it is a compilation; we need those strips to get the real high res.

I was quoting the person who got a copy "of the negative" as he put it, which i suppose means an original copy of the strip and gave the exact information for ordering it from nasa.

he following information might be of use in locating the Shard and Cube on the negative:


Position of shard in negative: 43mm to the right of the left edge
.

My whole post was in agreement with your post saying "lets quit posting random locations" i went and found the exact location and the exact information to get the original high quality image as well as the originator of the argument the OP is espousing so we can fully judge the merit of this argument.

I trust Hoagland less than NASA, but he does have some interesting points from time to time.

I was surprised, after reading all the post before mine, no one had shown that this really all comes back to Hoagland. And as Flexy123 pointed out, always consider the source...



edit on 10-2-2013 by pianopraze because: typos



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
To answer the OP question is simple: We should not expect NASA or any other government space agency, whether it’s Russian, Chinese, Japanese, or European, to give us any evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life until we have had formal worldwide disclosure.
edit on 10-2-2013 by 1questioner because: because



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.....soooooo...it must be an alien structure.



I am glad to see that our reasoning skills and common sense are starting to kick in.

...however....I may be a secret plant by the government to come on this websight and spread disinformation.....that has to be the truth.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
They from USA dot GOV, they sent a message named, NASA is spying the neighboring galaxy, something like that

Some blog post about... I am out of reach here


They can not throw the signal, that

www.hark.com... lag-13

edit on 2/10/2013 by dragnik because: additional text

edit on 2/10/2013 by dragnik because: additional link



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



The Rayleigh Limit..


Limiting droplet size at which self-fragmentation will occur with static charge droplets generated in ESI or other ionization processes. Self-fragmentation occurs when the Coulombic repulsion force generated by the excess charge in a droplet exceeds the surface tension maintaining the droplet. Vaporization of electrons and ions from the static charge droplet surface occurs even with droplets having large sizes. As the size becomes even smaller, the surface tension begins to squeeze the droplet and promote further vaporization.


Ok. you got me..

Self-fragmentation does indeed occur when the ´Coulombic repulsion force generated by the excess charge in a droplet exceeds the surface tension maintaining the droplet´.



The photos are being taken. You reject them.


The Nazi´s (NASA) also said that the extermination camps didn´t exist.

Would you have slated me when I rejected their claims too?




I don't want to be a hero. Encouraging people to do their own research and thereby learning something does interest me though.


This I like.. Here you are quasi Noble. Here, you win respect!



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1questioner
To answer the OP question is simple: We should not expect NASA or any other government space agency, whether it’s Russian, Chinese, Japanese, or European, to give us any evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life until we have had formal worldwide disclosure.
edit on 10-2-2013 by 1questioner because: because


Well, suppose a UFO believer such as millionaire robert bigelow had a few satellites of his own, with external TV cameras, hooked to his private mission control center -- do you think HE would conceal UFO photos that those cameras took?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


If he were to be payed enough then yes , i think for a price his silence could be bought, like most people.
2nd line



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by AuntieChrist
 


Ok. you got me..

I would have thought you might have looked for something having to to with optics since that was what was being discussed. Here's a more pointed start for you. You can take it from there.
www.cityastronomy.com...


Would you have slated me when I rejected their claims too?
I would have asked for evidence.


This I like.. Here you are quasi Noble. Here, you win respect!
For some reason I doubt your sincerity.


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



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Funny there a lots and lots of very clear pictures of the surface of the moon but none showing this "thing". Perhaps because its not real? I betcha thats why.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
My mind instantly wanderes to; "didn't we recently bomb the moon?"

Did it happen?
In that case, if the anamoly seem to have disappeared now than perhaps we have an explanation for it.
If the elite didn't want the masses to know about the various anamolies people report seeing on the moon than bombing those anomolies off of the face of the moon would appear to be a good way for keeping the masses in the dark.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ABeing
 

No. We did not recently bomb the Moon but the spacecraft impacts you may be referring to occurred in very different locations.
The image showing the region of the "shard" (with no shard present) was taken in 1972.
edit on 2/10/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join