Why doesnt Nasa have any detailed pictures of the Moon anomally Shard?, page 24

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:52 AM

link

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by Justoneman

Hoagland is nutty to some but he can back his claims with the help of degree'd scientist who do and or did work for NASA for years. Common sense says NASA, by running from a good chance to explore interesting possible artifacts at most every turn, is apparently hiding something. At least to the thought process of those who dare to use simple logic. At this point it is logical to conclude something has been strange for some time with respect to the image quality alone in the disputed areas of Mars and the Moon, period.The only good answer is better data and NASA is holding us all back IMHO.

Hey, remember the famous "Mars Face" from the old 1976 Viking probe images?

You know what NASA did? They sent a probe (Mars Global Surveyor) up there in 1997 and then re-imaged the Cydonia area INCLUDING THE MARS FACE and "beamed" the new, high-res images LIVE down and released them instantly on the internet for anyone to see, before they even processed them internally.

So much for "NASA is holding back"....

Ok and it looked like some new material like dirt had covered it up to me but you could still make out some of the basics even then. SO that is a fail. The same mission has tons of artifacts in those pics that we discussed in threads here and I am convinced there are similar markings on Mars as in many places on Earth made by humanity.Why do you wish to hide from the truth?

Saint Exupery

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 07:00 AM

link

I'll make this brief. I'm having a very busy week and do not have time to read all 23 pages.

I know where the area of the "shard" is located.
LROC has not imaged this area (yet), however I did find a dozen or so good quality pix of the area with adequate resolution. They are from 3 different missions, from different angles and with different sun elevations.

Let me know if this information has been posted. If it has not, I will try to post it in the next day or two.

Thanks in advance,
Saint-Ex

AthlonSavage

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 07:02 AM

link

reply to post by Saint Exupery

No it hasnt been posted. Please provide a coordinate position where Shard is located.

flexy123

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 07:04 AM

link

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by FlyingFox

Just like the formations at the lower right of pic?

Now tell me what and where those "formations" are supposed to be - because I don't see anything even remotely artificial or out of the norm on this image. I actually took a few minutes of my time examining that image, zooming, looking at the "lower right"...THERE IS NOTHING. So, one of us must have a defect with their eyes/perception?

draknoir2

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 07:26 AM

link

Originally posted by Justoneman

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by Justoneman

Hoagland is nutty to some but he can back his claims with the help of degree'd scientist who do and or did work for NASA for years. Common sense says NASA, by running from a good chance to explore interesting possible artifacts at most every turn, is apparently hiding something. At least to the thought process of those who dare to use simple logic. At this point it is logical to conclude something has been strange for some time with respect to the image quality alone in the disputed areas of Mars and the Moon, period.The only good answer is better data and NASA is holding us all back IMHO.

Hey, remember the famous "Mars Face" from the old 1976 Viking probe images?

You know what NASA did? They sent a probe (Mars Global Surveyor) up there in 1997 and then re-imaged the Cydonia area INCLUDING THE MARS FACE and "beamed" the new, high-res images LIVE down and released them instantly on the internet for anyone to see, before they even processed them internally.

So much for "NASA is holding back"....

Ok and it looked like some new material like dirt had covered it up to me but you could still make out some of the basics even then. SO that is a fail. The same mission has tons of artifacts in those pics that we discussed in threads here and I am convinced there are similar markings on Mars as in many places on Earth made by humanity.Why do you wish to hide from the truth?

That's cuz NASA went up there and kicked dirt all over it to cover it up. Cuz that's what NASA does.... spends billions of dollars searching for stuff to hide.

rockymcgilicutty

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:01 AM

link

reply to post by flexy123

Because the shrad is not there.One picture from and not another from ANY country since.

ArMaP

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:09 AM

link

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

Originally posted by Justoneman
Ok I will bite. What photo's are better than the ones we are looking at in this thread?

The photos taken by other missions, like Apollo, Clementine and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

I see a non natural looking spire what about you?

I see what looks like a problem in the photo, something that doesn't look part of the scene being photographed.

I also have viewed a ton of the Mars stuff over the years by pulling down the huge files that took forever with that level of technology making it hard for most to take the time to pour over them.

That's why I always thank the people that spend their time doing it, their work is something we (the people that like to discuss these topics) need.

I doubt these pics are on this computer as it was around y2k and I have new hardware a couple of times since then. But tome of the things I recall seeing included images of animals from the jungles of Earth scattered like litter all over the surface.

I have seen thousands of photos from Mars and I don't remember seeing one like you describe. Without more information I cannot know what to look for.

These locations are NOT being pursued currently and when one does Phage, or some other doubting Thomas will pooh pooh it I am certain. There have been a bunch of past threads on this but yet people still feign ignorance is my take.

Could you point me to one of those threads about those locations? Thanks in advance.

Every one of the interesting things we have seen on the surface of the planets and moons of our solar system over the years can't all be bogus and so easily explained away.

THAT has to be the truth.
Why? Many things I have seen in Moon photos (for example) are the result of bad copies (low resolution, few colours or shades of grey, too much compression) from sites that are not from NASA or other space agency.

Many cases are just bad interpretation from the people making the claims (in my opinion, obviously).

Other cases are really interesting, but those are usually ignored because they are not worthy (for the OMG!!! ALIENS !!!! people) of being discussed or investigated, usually because they are geological features.

Sure some are provable as artifacts of collecting the image but others like say the monolith on a moon of mars and the Cydonia location on Mars have artificiality that tells me we are being used like the cat's litter box (pun intended).

Well, to me they do not have any signs of artificiality, they just look different.

Arthur C. Clarke made a point to say there was big life on Mars at the South Pole and there has been some discussion on this too.With Arthur, I tend to think he was not ignorant nor stupid but somebody will say he was wrong with a straight face.

Why, couldn't he be wrong?

About the famous "trees" near the Martian south pole, I have always said that they looked flat and not tree-like, even if they were a living being, and higher resolution photos show that they are just that.

I would love to know what he had to say about it, but I haven't seen anything about it.

I read this whole episode as a case of someone deciding for now that we "can't handle the truth".

Anyone can handle the truth, even those that create a different version based on their imagination. Sometimes it's harder, sometimes it's easier, but we were made to handle the truth and, if necessary, adapt to it.

What some people can't handle is that other people have different opinions about the same information.

At least that's how I see it.

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

AceWombat04

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:47 AM

link

reply to post by Kandinsky

reply to post by NeoVain

reply to post by AthlonSavage

Well, all one can do is try. There's no danger in trying a thing, and you don't have to assume responsibility for the reply you receive to your attempt. That's all you can really do as a layperson when attempting to extract information from those far more intelligent, educated, and knowledgeable than you are (or than I am in this case.) Make an honest effort at dialogue and see what comes of it. Let it fall where it may.

Although, in typically clumsy fashion on the part of the dyscalculic, mild autism having dude who tends to drop something on the kitchen floor every time he makes his own breakfast and can't quite get the hang of making a newspaper dispenser open after putting his coins in due to the challenge of timing the pull correctly (lol) - it appears looking at my outbox and drafts folders that I MAY have accidentally sent out a crappier first draft of the email I was writing rather than the final one I posted here. *Facepalm and D'oh*

Hopefully not. If I did though, if they reply I'll let them know that and send the improved one.

As some of you said, at least I tried.

Peace.

iksose7

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:42 PM

link

I have to say, this is the first thread i have actually made an effort to read here on ATS in quite a while - having been interested in this object for quite some time now. My conspiracy fuelled mind has somewhat wandered over the past half a year, but this thread has pulled me back in :lol

Check out this video from Sander, who is actually a member (ex?) here. Just uploaded not long ago, just in time for this thread. His videos are always top notch.

edit on 12-2-2013 by iksose7 because: spelling

Phage

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:56 PM

link

reply to post by iksose7

His videos are always top notch.

I disagree.

Here's another of his little gems.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 2/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

iksose7

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:35 PM

link

reply to post by Phage

well maybe i shouldnt of used the word "always" but you cant say with certainty that every single video he has made can be explained as easily. The Zeeman crater anomalie has a valid explanation, as i'm sure some of his other videos do. But i'd say not all of them.

At least he is making an effort and actually putting time into his work. I'm sure even you Phage can respect that, even if Sander is not always spot on with his conclusions.

Phage

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:39 PM

link

reply to post by iksose7

actually putting time into his work

My dog puts time into chasing his tail.

ArMaP

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:27 PM

link

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

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
No it hasnt been posted. Please provide a coordinate position where Shard is located.

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

Does that mean that you haven't read my posts yet?

signalfire

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:06 PM

link

Do members agrees with Phage or Tardacus????

Not having visited the moon personally, and not knowing whether certain photos are doctored, 'anomalies' or whatever, I haven't got an opinion.

I do, however, have issues with ATS members who use as their avatars photos of celebrities or movie actors, presumably without the person's permission. Seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Phage

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:24 PM

link

reply to post by signalfire

Funny you should say that. I put in an inquiry to licensing at MGM but got no response. If they get mad I'll take it down but it's sort of grown on me. Let me worry about the lawsuit.

edit on 2/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

TRiPWiRE

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:07 PM

link

Originally posted by LABTECH767

Man, I stare at these pictures for ages until my eyes dribble out of my skull, yet I struggle to see most things that others think are obvious. In this picture, all I can see is a cartoon dog.

AthlonSavage

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:45 PM

link

reply to post by TRiPWiRE

I see a Dog as well and i might be interested in asking Nasa for more information on it if the Dog was sitting at attention and tall as mount olympus.

AthlonSavage

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:46 PM

link

reply to post by ArMaP

Does that mean that you haven't read my posts yet?

Im just catching up with members posts now and so getting to the Mod posts, but im working backwards so replied to this one first.

AthlonSavage

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:49 PM

link

reply to post by signalfire

I do, however, have issues with ATS members who use as their avatars photos of celebrities or movie actors, presumably without the person's permission. Seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

This is too off topic for here but it looks like a subject for a good thread. Some people use avatars of dead actors i dont think they have much to worry about as the dead dont have a habit of filing law suits.

AthlonSavage

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 07:03 PM

link

reply to post by flexy123

Now tell me what and where those "formations" are supposed to be - because I don't see anything even remotely artificial or out of the norm on this image. I actually took a few minutes of my time examining that image, zooming, looking at the "lower right"...THERE IS NOTHING. So, one of us must have a defect with their eyes/perception?

If there is really a shard and it is really natural the question will fall back to how did the moon form its topology. The craters look like either something has hit the moon or alternatively like enegry beneath the the surface of moon has exploded outwards; or not exploded has been liberated from its interior in a more slower and uniform process.

The appearance of hills and moutainous areas cant be explained by erosion processes by ocean or winds such as on earth since the moon doesnt have them physical properties. Where did the moon come from and how was it formed? Mabey with a correct model of how this occurred surface anomallies on the moon can be explained due to a natural process when the moon was formed.

edit on 12-2-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)