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

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wellsybelieves

 

Why don't you keep reading. Armap was kind enough to do the OP's job and actually look for those pictures.

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

Well I'm glad someone did because you seemed keen to be as unhelpful as you possibly could

To be honest I had to stop reading as I was cringing at your replies

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Sounds like a question for NASA

reply to post by wellsybelieves

Well I'm glad someone did because you seemed keen to be as unhelpful as you possibly could

Then you missed the point entirely. The claim that there are no available images of the area is groundless and was made with no effort to look for any. In order to "deny ignorance" I provided some resources and information (none of which are difficult to locate). In using those resources themselves the OP and others are likely to learn something in the process (including something about the geography of the Moon, which is pretty cool).

To be honest I had to stop reading as I was cringing at your replies

That would be a personal problem beyond my control but trust me, I receive far worse than the "snarky" replies which I'm accused of.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wellsybelieves

 

Well I'm glad someone did because you seemed keen to be as unhelpful as you possibly could

Then you missed the point entirely. The claim that there are no available images of the area is groundless and was made with no effort to look for any. In order to "deny ignorance" I provided some resources and information (none of which are difficult to locate). In using those resources themselves the OP and others are likely to learn something in the process (including something about the geography of the Moon, which is pretty cool).

To be honest I had to stop reading as I was cringing at your replies

That would be a personal problem beyond my control but trust me, I receive far worse than the "snarky" replies which I'm accused of.

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

No your not "accused" of being snarky as you put it that would suggest your constant rudeness is defendable and unfortunately Phage it's not

You should use your obvious intelligence for some good now and then

The OP pretty much started the thread to ask for help for a high res image and finally got it by the sounds of things

If the OP found the site user unfriendly maybe a few hints and tips would have been more helpful than..... "Wah wah wah. Poor Baby."

What do you think?

reply to post by wellsybelieves

The OP pretty much started the thread to ask for help for a high res image and finally got it by the sounds of things

No. The OP started the thread to say that no such images were available and to imply that NASA was concealing information.

From the OP:

My question is why with all the Nasa probes that have been sent to the moon manned and unmanned we still dont have one decent detailed picture of this thing?

From a bit later to my question "Did you ask?":

No i havent because i know they are not been made available in the Public arena yet. Why do i know because i am certainly not the first person to be seeking more detailed pictures of this anomally.

The OP "knew" no images were available even though he had not looked for himself, nor made any inquiries to the dreaded NASA. He was relying completely on the "work" of others.

If the OP found the site user unfriendly maybe a few hints and tips would have been more helpful than..... "Wah wah wah. Poor Baby."

What do you think?

I think you're confused. That reply was not to the OP. Apparently the OP didn't bother with the LROC website. Did you even read the post I was replying to? The member stated the website was not worth the effort to learn how to use. Do you think they would be responsive to any "hints and tips" from me?

It sounds like you are a bit too concerned with my manner and not really paying attention to the content.

I think you're confused. That reply was not to the OP. Apparently the OP didn't bother with the LROC website. Did you even read the post I was replying to? The member stated the website was not worth the effort to learn how to use. Do you think they would be responsive to any "hints and tips" from me?

It sounds like you are a bit too concerned with my manner and not really paying attention to the content.



Actually he didn't state that he said it was user unfriendly and HARDLY worth the effort

On the second point your absolutely spot on your manners are appalling

Originally posted by ArMaP

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by crzayfool
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!

I see two problems with that:
1 - wouldn't the Sun melt the ice?
2 - nobody saw a comet hitting the Moon, so it had to have happened a long time ago, but it wasn't visible in any photos taken before the Lunar Orbiter III photo.

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

1. Yes it is a possibility that the Sun has melted a lot of the ice, considering the large temperatures swings on the Moon. What is also possible, though, even if the ice has melted, is that the 'contaminant' Moon dust that got expelled by the comet hitting, and being ejected, could have stayed put after the ice melted. So the tower may have been much larger in the past?
2. Prior to the Lunar Orbiter III photos, was optical technology sophisticated enough to photograph in a high enough resolution to make out this relatively small structure?


~CrzayFool

reply to post by wellsybelieves

On the second point your absolutely spot on your manners are appalling

This site is supposed be centered on content rather than character but you are welcome to your opinion.
I find some peoples' tenacity in clinging to ignorance appalling but I still pay attention to what they say.

reply to post by ArMaP


Where are the earlier photos you refer too that do not show this anomaly? Can you point me toward them?

reply to post by Spookycolt


Here is a very speculative theory, although I make no claim as to its rightness, and, in fact, think that it is unlikely, but I can't think of anything else that could naturally cause this tower on the Moon:

If you look at examinations of the Earth's core, the iron part of the core is not a smooth ball, but has many spikes of iron all round it. The largest spikes seem to be along the magnetic poles. When the poles have moved, new spikes are generated. I will make the assumption that this type of structure could exist on any planet that has a magnetic field and an iron core. One of those planets could be the one that formerly existed in place of the asteroid belt and was blown up. Other bodies in the solar system have evidence of being blasted by the results of this explosion. The Moon has such evidence. So, the tower could be one of the iron spikes that may have existed around the core of the planet that was blown up.

Before you can even begin to think of this theory as a possibility, you would need to accept that the spikes around the core exist and that there was a planet in the solar system that blew up. These are controversial items.

reply to post by sorgfelt

you would need to accept that the spikes around the core exist

Yes, you would need to accept that. You say there is evidence of such, I'm not familiar with it.

there was a planet in the solar system that blew up

There is such evidence, sort of. There is evidence of collisions in the early Solar System, not exactly planets blowing up. The original planets remain more or less intact though very beat up.

You would also have to have some evidence that the "shard" is actually a physical thing which exists (or did in 1967)

But if you accept all three things, sure, why not? But if you're going for that you might as well go for an extraterrestrial created structure because there is the same amount of evidence for it.

The shard can be seen in this photograph [ HD ] from NASA

Resolution : 2418 X 3020



LINK



Description :

Mission
- Lunar Orbiter 3

Spacecraft Position
- Altitude: 46.75 km
- Latitude: 1.61°
- Longitude: 2.92°

Principal Point
- Latitude: 0.80°
- Longitude: -1.04°

Illumination
- Sun Azimuth: 91.64°
- Incident Angle: 80.17°
- Emission Angle: 71.44°
- Phase Angle: 15.55°
- Alpha: 57.86°

Lunar Orbiter III is known as the site-confirmation mission. It was tasked to re-photograph 12 potential landing sites identified by LO I and II with a comprehensive array of vertical, oblique, and forward wide-angle stereo and convergent telephoto stereo photography. These data led to a down-select to eight candidate landing sites for early Apollo missions. This mission also targeted secondary sites of scientific interest on the lunar farside and at higher latitudes on the lunar nearside. The spacecraft was launched February 5, 1967. Between February 15 and 23 it produced 211 photographs during 54 orbits. Approximately 75% of the photographs were transmitted to Earth, but the remaining images were lost.

reply to post by wolveriine

Yes. Thanks. It's been posted several times.
I still don't understand why it needs to be rotated though. Makes it look more towery?

reply to post by Phage


Without rotation too , the tower can be observed easily

reply to post by wolveriine

Did you notice that the "shadow" is in the wrong direction?
Did you notice the other flaws in the image?

reply to post by Phage


I believe all the research by Nasa has led them to believe that there was at least one more planet if not two in the early history of our solar system. The best research points to a planet the call Tiamet that existed between the Earth and Mars that hit the Earth in the early days of our system and created our moon before being thrown out of our system. This is the general theory on how our moon was created. Lastly could you please post the high res image of the so called shard or a link i have only ever seen the low quality one. The telescope image i agree does look very suspect i too regularly observe the moon through a scope and the light on the termination line between light and dark causes some strange illusions that can make shadows appear very real. To me this does not appear to be true of the shard pictures. I am a natural skeptic but also a curious skeptic too.

reply to post by Terrestial

This is the general theory on how our moon was created.

Not exactly. The giant impact theory is that a small planet collided with the Earth about 4.5 billion years ago, pretty much destroying itself and remelting the Earth in the process. The debris formed a ring around the Earth which coalesced to form the Moon. Tiamat is the creation of Zecharia Sitchin.
www.youtube.com...

Lastly could you please post the high res image of the so called shard or a link i have only ever seen the low quality one.

You're in luck. The highest quality image I know of was just linked (again) 4 posts up.

Sorry, all - it's my fault. It's just one of these. I asked Apple Maps to find me the nearest train station.



Regards,
Rewey