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

page: 2
85
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
There is no way they are natural rock formations.Because these are in arizona and I am sure aliens brought them.







posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Have you ever studied the geography of the Moon? I have, and with that said, there are no rocky spires, unless this is a piece of a giant asteroid or boulder that remained standing after the crash.
edit on 9-2-2013 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)


+20 more 
posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:49 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.






Right. All that wind and water erosion on the Moon...



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   

For reference the shard is spotted in Lunar orbitor picture frame LO-III-84M.

For reference, there is no such frame. The actual frame number is 3084. And as can be seen there are many flaws in the image.


It is helpful to know the process by which the lunar orbiter images were produced. The film was automatically (chemically) processed, scanned, and transmitted to Earth as analog television images. There are many flaws in many of the images.
astropedia.astrogeology.usgs.gov... 42.pdf

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



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


I wander if the "Shard" anomaly is the same "Reiner Gamma" crater Anomaly....



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


+6 more 
posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Great, here comes the cavalry! (J/K) =)

Do you have any explanation to the tower seen in the movie taken by Saintsdola from his telescope? "Flaw" in each frame at constant FPS for several minutes, making it look like a tower with shadow?
edit on 9-2-2013 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 

Yes. A sunlit peak.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NeoVain
 

Yes. A sunlit peak.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Do you seriously believe that, personally?


Since we know the area, would you be able to point us to a high-res picture of the area located on NASA servers? Preferably at a different time of day where the lightning would be different. I am sure NASA should have many such photographs hidden away somewhere, right?

Thanks in advance.

Edit: To clarify, i am not talking about a wide-area extremely high altitude picture as the one you posted previously, but a more local, high-res picture where details of the "sunlit peak" would be more apparent under different lightning conditions. A more zoomed in pic with details, to put it bluntly. Not a grainy pixelated mess that is part of a far greater pic encompassing half the moon.
edit on 9-2-2013 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


I wander if the "Shard" anomaly is the same "Reiner Gamma" crater Anomaly....

No. Reiner Gamma is quite far from the location of frame 3084. It doesn't appear in any of the LOIII images.
www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Since we know the area, would you be able to point us to a high-res picture of the area located on NASA servers?

Since you know the area, why not do it yourself?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Since we know the area, would you be able to point us to a high-res picture of the area located on NASA servers?

Since you know the area, why not do it yourself?



Since i don´t have access to those pics, obviously i ask you.


The area is quite clearly shown in the post you previously referenced, here www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 9-2-2013 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 

Knock yourself out.
wms.lroc.asu.edu...


+13 more 
posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NeoVain
 

Knock yourself out.
wms.lroc.asu.edu...


What is obtainable from that site is not very impressive or even sufficiently detailed to qualify as satisfactory to fill my request, as you probably know. I also find it hard to believe that those are the best detailed pics NASA have got of the area, or any area of the moon really, in todays day and age, where even google has far more impressive pics with resolutions making individual houses and cars visible on earth at resolutions far greater.

How many satellies does NASA have/has had orbiting the moon again? And aren´t those at a significantly lower altitude then googles satellite orbiting the earth? So why these crappy wide-area low detail pics?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 





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


You do have a point and certainly they cant be ruled as some usually naturally surface anomally. Still for something so usual standout on the moon landscape i think my question is fair 'Why doesnt Nasa have any detailed pictures of the Moon anomally Shard?'.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


What is obtainable from that site is not very impressive or even sufficiently detailed to qualify as satisfactory to fill my request, as you probably know.
Anything that doesn't show a tower will not be sufficient to fill your request.


where even google has far more impressive pics with resolutions making individual houses and cars visible on earth at resolutions far greater.
The very high resolution images on Google Earth are taken from aircraft. Satellite images for commercial use are restricted by the DoD to a resolution of 0.5 meters. Images from LROC have resolutions as high as 0.25 meters.



So why these crappy wide-area low detail pics?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 2/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


i think my question is fair 'Why doesnt Nasa have any detailed pictures of the Moon anomally Shard?'.

Perhaps because there is no "shard" there.
edit on 2/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage with all respect if there were high resolution pictures available of the area in question i think its reasonable to assume someone would of brought them to the internets attention by now. The pictures posted in my OP appear to be the most detailed Nasa has provided to the public. The shadow casting from the object indicates it highly likley to be a real object tall protruding object from surface and i think its fair for anyone from the public to ask for Nasa for a high detailed pic of the location in question. Im not ruling out it its natural because it could be, and that what makes it more so worthy for a good look at, as it clearly standouts as different and unusual to what we commonly see in pictures of the moon topology, craters and mounds and large bolders.





Perhaps because there is no "shard" there.


Agree you could be right here as well and high resolution picture will answer this conclusively.
edit on 9-2-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


The shadow casting from the object indicates it highly likley to be a real object tall protruding object from surface
Please look at the full image. The "shadow" is cast in the wrong direction.




Agree you could be right here as well and high resolution picture will answer this conclusively.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 2/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





What is obtainable from that site is not very impressive or even sufficiently detailed to qualify as satisfactory to fill my request, as you probably know. I also find it hard to believe that those are the best detailed pics NASA have got of the area, or any area of the moon really, in todays day and age, where even google has far more impressive pics with resolutions making individual houses and cars visible on earth at resolutions far greater.

How many satellies does NASA have/has had orbiting the moon again? And aren´t those at a significantly lower altitude then googles satellite orbiting the earth? So why these crappy wide-area low detail pics?



I think Neovain summed this up accurately.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 

Summed what up?
The fact that he doesn't really know what he is talking about? The "shard" is enormous. It wouldn't take a very high resolution image to show it.
edit on 2/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
85
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join