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.
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.
For reference the shard is spotted in Lunar orbitor picture frame LO-III-84M.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NeoVain
Yes. A sunlit peak.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I wander if the "Shard" anomaly is the same "Reiner Gamma" crater Anomaly....
Since we know the area, would you be able to point us to a high-res picture of the area located on NASA servers?
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?
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NeoVain
Knock yourself out.
wms.lroc.asu.edu...
There is no way they are natural rock formations.Because these are in arizona and I am sure aliens brought them.
Anything that doesn't show a tower will not be sufficient to fill your request.
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.
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.
where even google has far more impressive pics with resolutions making individual houses and cars visible on earth at resolutions far greater.
So why these crappy wide-area low detail pics?
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.
Please look at the full image. The "shadow" is cast in the wrong direction.
The shadow casting from the object indicates it highly likley to be a real object tall protruding object from surface
Agree you could be right here as well and high resolution picture will answer this conclusively.
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?