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

page: 26
85
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Saint Exupery
Link?

I'm sorry, ArMap. I really, really do not have time to root though this thread.

You just have to click on the "member" menu under any member's avatar to get a little drop-down menu that has several options. One of those options is "posts in thread", and that shows all the posts from that member on the thread you are reading.


But here are the direct links to some of my posts:
About the location
Another image from NASA
Image from Jaxa's Kaguya/Selene

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




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


So all we need is a photo of the shard from a second source to completely crush the photo error argument that some of the others claim. Well actually they also claim a back-up theory about a cloud. But if you posted a thread saying there were clouds and water vapor they would flame you just as they do about the shard. Why? They just don't want it to be true so they lean that way. While perhaps we lean towards believing it. Any way...

As I stated above a second photo of this alleged object would confirm...that it does in fact exist. But we all know there is no way to prove the location unless a second photo appears with the shard and a clear landmark to confirm the coordinates.

So Japan or China don't have a single photo of this area?

p.s. To the person asking why this thread continues is because no one has proven jacksquat and no one can just yet. Just because a theory sounds good just doesn't make it so. It's called a discussion forum. ;|



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


Very good picture by picture analysis. Just your final coordinates are wrong.
Should be 4.4°S 8.6°W (not North).
Looks like the shard should be located "behind" the "lonely hill" mound right where there's a darker patch of soil (crater ejecta) in the same direction of what would be shadow of the shard.
Which means that there's no shard and the shadow is a dark patch of soil.
Also the area is entirely mapped by lroc narrow angle camera (nac) you can find it in lroc wms.

edit on 13-2-2013 by MysticEngineer because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-2-2013 by MysticEngineer because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-2-2013 by MysticEngineer because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-2-2013 by MysticEngineer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Spookycolt
 


When listening to a radio broadcast by Richard.c.Hoagland, he talks about a moon study done in the early 60's by a team determined by NASA to evaluate the conditions of the Lunar surface.

The findings were that it had a weak atmosphere, some gravity and even a soft wind. If you google "Moon weather study of the moon 60's-70's you will find more info about the document.

So perhaps millions of years ago the weather on the Moon was more active and violent and this could have caused all kinds of geological forms? All but the shard have worn away or been levelled by meteor bombardment.

Just a theory thought



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by firegoggles
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


p.s. To the person asking why this thread continues is because no one has proven jacksquat and no one can just yet. Just because a theory sounds good just doesn't make it so. It's called a discussion forum. ;|


Nicely Put. Couldn't agree more.

We needed Sir P.Moore on this thread, R.I.P.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysticEngineer
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


Very good picture by picture analysis. Just your final coordinates are wrong.
Should be 4.4°S 8.6°W (not North).


Thank you! I hate mistakes like that. I was able to edit it before the timer expired.


Also the area is entirely mapped by lroc narrow angle camera (nac) you can find it in lroc wms.


I checked both the PDS Archive interface and the ACT-REACT QuickMap feature, and neither of them showed NAC data for the east rim & ejecta blanket. Here is the QuickMap display (annotated):

However, it is readily apparent from this that the WAC data does have adequate resolution for what we are looking for.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by firegoggles
 


Why is the assumption always that skeptics "don't want to believe?" Or in this case, that people simply "don't want it to be there" as you put it.

I for one would love for there to be something unusual on the moon. I would love to be visited by an alien. I would love to be abducted by them even if their intentions weren't good, just so I could know that the phenomenon was real - that fantastical, amazing things can and do happen to people that are profoundly outside of the realm of typical human experience.

I would love to see a clearly otherworldly craft in the sky that couldn't possibly be explained away by the possibility of experimental aircraft or other explanations. I would love to have compelling reasons to have a strong spiritual faith.

There are myriad things I want more than anything to believe in and to know are true. It would give me peace of mind, an inner peace, and far greater fulfillment in life. It would alleviate my depression, much of my anxiety, and other issues I struggle with. Believe me (no pun intended,) not only do I want to believe, I yearn to.

I just can't. Not without compelling evidence beyond the mere possibility of what may be, and inconclusive photographs for which other more mundane explanations are potentially valid. Skepticism is not closed-mindedness. It is rigor.

Peace.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by firegoggles
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 

Why? They just don't want it to be true so they lean that way. While perhaps we lean towards believing it. Any way...

As I stated above a second photo of this alleged object would confirm...that it does in fact exist.


First line is a straw man.

Second is true, so long as it's not the same photo from a second source cropped, modified, or "enhanced".
edit on 13-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


Check here.

wms.lroc.asu.edu...


Indeed some of the data strips are listed but for some reason the image is grayed out, so u have to double check.

For instance the east rim of the lalande crater. You can literally count the boulders.
wms.lroc.asu.edu...



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


I'm referring to the habitually skeptic folks. I can be skeptical but I'm not a habitual skeptic like so many are. I also believe in some outlandish things due to direct experience. That said I'm ok with finding out there is no "Shard" on the moon. But if we look around we see many other claims of structures and objects floating around the internet. Not that it makes it all true but I have found in my 44 years on earth that "where there is smoke there is fire".


It seems to me that some folks in this very thread are determined to prove it's nothing.. why? Does he really know? No. They lean towards the "it's nothing" belief (and that's all it is by the way there is no proof either way)because of either pure deceit(lets hope not) or pride that science and his wonderful pool of knowledge so many retort and mimic as there own truth is the answer to all and the final word. If science is wrong about some basic things like the history of earth the moon and mankind then how many other things would they be found out to be wrong about?! GASP!!

Well I have news for them modern science is not the final word and knowledge is ever evolving. And you can learn all the missing pieces of science buy studying all the ancient cultures occult knowledge. It would do some of our in house famous skeptics to study some of the ancient stuff and be more balanced. So far I have only seen a few folks that are somewhat balanced not leaning to far to being overly skeptical or overly ready to believe the first conspiracy that comes down the pike.

So any way... what makes the argument that it's "nothing" even less valid is other claims of the same sorts along with photos (that often do show what appear to be structures). Other sources now producing there own set of photos with anomalies in them. Japan has pictures showing what seem to be structures as well, not just NASA. Whether some of the images has been doctored is yet to be determined but some are claimed to be absolutely legit and un-edited in any way. Time will tell.

So again where there is smoke there is fire so I myself will admit I lean towards the possibility based on my own research and direct witnessing of crafts crossing the surface of the moon through a 12-inch Newtonian telescope but I'm pretty sure that subject will be very frowned upon by the community and that I'm a liar or crazy. Not that seeing any craft whether it be of human origin or ..other prove one way or the other that there are structures it just makes me lean towards it I'll admit.

So before I continue what was nearly a rant but yet somehow on topic.....

Can anyone produce a second picture of the shard with landmarks to confirm location and from an entirely different source?

If not we have to go with the fact that none of us know if the shard is an object or cloud plumes or photographic errors due to some glitch of some sort. We certainly can't say with any certainty if we are truly being intellectually honest in this debate over the alleged "shard".

-FG
edit on 2/13/2013 by firegoggles because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by firegoggles

But if we look around we see many other claims of structures and objects floating around the internet. Not that it makes it all true but I have found in my 44 years on earth that "where there is smoke there is fire".


In the Land of Hoag.



Originally posted by firegoggles

It seems to me that some folks in this very thread are determined to prove it's nothing.. why? Does he really know? No. They lean towards the "it's nothing" belief (and that's all it is by the way there is no proof either way)because of either pure deceit(lets hope not) or pride that science and his wonderful pool of knowledge so many retort and mimic as there own truth is the answer to all and the final word. If science is wrong about some basic things like the history of earth the moon and mankind then how many other things would they be found out to be wrong about?! GASP!!


Who is "he"?


True science is self correcting, self adjusting... never "the final word".


Originally posted by firegogglesWell I have news for them modern science is not the final word and knowledge is ever evolving.


See my previous comment.


I can't tell what it is from the one available pic. Could be real, could be an artifact. Has yet to be explained.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


I agree with everything you said. Oh and the "he" is a couple folks sorry think "they" and it will make more sense and be less of an accusation sounding deal..but the folks are no doubt just habitual "debunkers" because they have such great faith in science and thinks as long as they side with science that they couldn't possibly be mistaken. Do we see how silly that is even on the surface? But I'm pretty sure that's what the habitual debunkers believe whole heartily it's all to apparent in the threads they interject in with the "canned" science jargon answer

And for the record I was not talking about Hoagland he would be the very last source I would use to try and prove well.. ANYTHING.

p.s. I even agreed my comment before has a strawman .. but I went on to explain it better in my next post hope you seen it im guessing you did..
edit on 2/13/2013 by firegoggles because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
If you ask me it looks like the little Google street view guy standing on the moon.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Well since you went there with it.. I think it looks more like a giant Oscar award! Maybe a giant memorial for Stanley Kubriks fine work ! hehe


No but all joking aside... I await for the OP to produce a second photo of this alleged "Shard" from a totally different source and blow us all away with it!



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by firegoggles
 






So Japan or China don't have a single photo of this area?

p.s. To the person asking why this thread continues is because no one has proven jacksquat and no one can just yet. Just because a theory sounds good just doesn't make it so. It's called a discussion forum. ;|


Some members have posted coordinates of the region they believe it is in although that isnt confirmed, its also speculation. Your comment about that certain person is right i laughed wonderring if he had read through the thead at all.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
reply to post by firegoggles
 


Why is the assumption always that skeptics "don't want to believe?" Or in this case, that people simply "don't want it to be there" as you put it.

I for one would love for there to be something unusual on the moon. I would love to be visited by an alien. I would love to be abducted by them even if their intentions weren't good, just so I could know that the phenomenon was real - that fantastical, amazing things can and do happen to people that are profoundly outside of the realm of typical human experience.

I would love to see a clearly otherworldly craft in the sky that couldn't possibly be explained away by the possibility of experimental aircraft or other explanations. I would love to have compelling reasons to have a strong spiritual faith.

There are myriad things I want more than anything to believe in and to know are true. It would give me peace of mind, an inner peace, and far greater fulfillment in life. It would alleviate my depression, much of my anxiety, and other issues I struggle with. Believe me (no pun intended,) not only do I want to believe, I yearn to.

I just can't. Not without compelling evidence beyond the mere possibility of what may be, and inconclusive photographs for which other more mundane explanations are potentially valid. Skepticism is not closed-mindedness. It is rigor.

Peace.



Well put my friend. You and me both. And considering how popular the Alien and Ufos forum is here on ATS(it is the most popular of all forums, create a thread there and 2x the flags and stars of any comparable thread elsewhere it seems...) i would say we are a clear majority feeling this way.

I bet even some of the debunkers feel the same way actually, but they may just be so tired of hoping for something that always seem to disappoint them, so they feel the urge to debunk any claim asap so they don´t have to hope any more.


I am pretty sure us "searchers" are way more numerous than the "debunkers" though, and will always be. It´s a sign we haven´t given up, just yet.

If i got to choose on getting 100 billion dollars, the love of my life OR an Alien Invasion(even if hostile) i would choose the alien invasion without question. I´d rather "KNOW" we are not alone than be satisfied by this meager existence among 7 billion other humans striving to survive on one measly planet whose resources are dwindling and we are just awaiting our doom anyway.
edit on 13-2-2013 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 





So the central premise of the OP is not correct: NASA has repeatedly imaged the area many times from manned & unmanned missions, and has released these images to the public.



Thankyou for adding pictures with all the nice arrow/text additions. I have to admit looking atyour data i still am not convinced its the area the shard in but will look again over your data tonight.

Also your statement quote is misleading as my question asks where are the pictures with sufficient resolution to be able to view the Shard and confirm its nature as either natural, artifical or photo defect. Therefore please avoid the use of inference statements that may me interpreted as my OP is trying to mislead. My OP question is straight forward and relevant.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by firegoggles
I'm referring to the habitually skeptic folks. I can be skeptical but I'm not a habitual skeptic like so many are.

What's a "habitual sceptic"? Someone that is sceptic about most things? If yes, is that bad? Why?



Not that it makes it all true but I have found in my 44 years on earth that "where there is smoke there is fire".

But is it smoke or dust?

In my 49 years on Earth I have found that many times, what is presented as smoke it's not, it's just something that is presented as smoke so people think that there must be a fire.


They lean towards the "it's nothing" belief (and that's all it is by the way there is no proof either way)because of either pure deceit(lets hope not) or pride that science and his wonderful pool of knowledge so many retort and mimic as there own truth is the answer to all and the final word.

You forgot the possibility that those people just interpret the image in a different way.



So any way... what makes the argument that it's "nothing" even less valid is other claims of the same sorts along with photos (that often do show what appear to be structures). Other sources now producing there own set of photos with anomalies in them. Japan has pictures showing what seem to be structures as well, not just NASA. Whether some of the images has been doctored is yet to be determined but some are claimed to be absolutely legit and un-edited in any way. Time will tell.

But things that "seem to be structures" may not be structures, right?


So again where there is smoke there is fire so I myself will admit I lean towards the possibility based on my own research and direct witnessing of crafts crossing the surface of the moon through a 12-inch Newtonian telescope but I'm pretty sure that subject will be very frowned upon by the community and that I'm a liar or crazy.

You may be a liar or crazy, but I will not consider you any of those just because you tell us that you have seen crafts crossing the surface of the Moon, as I wasn't there to see them for myself.

Have you made a thread about that?



Not that seeing any craft whether it be of human origin or ..other prove one way or the other that there are structures it just makes me lean towards it I'll admit.

Being sceptic is good.



Can anyone produce a second picture of the shard with landmarks to confirm location and from an entirely different source?

As far as I know, there isn't any other photo that shows the shard.


If not we have to go with the fact that none of us know if the shard is an object or cloud plumes or photographic errors due to some glitch of some sort. We certainly can't say with any certainty if we are truly being intellectually honest in this debate over the alleged "shard".

What do you think of the fact that photos of that area taken before and after don't show the shard?

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



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I'll just comment on the couple strong points ...
I think being skeptic at all times is limiting in the area of discovery because this type of person is prone to saying that couldn't be possible show me. When you could just say .. "Show me" it may be? See the diff?

And as far as what I have to say about the area being imaged twice as you say... I have seen a couple set of alleged coordinates of the shard and would have to see for my own self if anything shows up or has been edited etc...

I'll say this I have a pretty keen eye and understanding of telescopes and things to do with lenses, images etc.. and that object does seem to be in the picture and not some sort of photo glitch. and if that is a plume of smoke or a cloud then the non believers have a whole worse set of problems explaining where a 1 mile high plume of dust or cloud came from on for all purposes is supposed to be a dead moon. I would go with the rock left by an asteroid quick if I was a habitual skeptic
edit on 2/13/2013 by firegoggles because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by firegoggles
 


I will confess I'm a bit confounded by the phrase "habitual skeptic." I'm a skeptic. Skepticism is as much a philosophical stance as it is a rational approach to determining reality. There's never a time when I'm not skeptical. Does that make it habitual? And does that carry a negative connotation? Skepticism does not mean to reject possibilities or to assert that they are invalid without proof. On the contrary, skepticism simply means to not accept a thing as true or reality, or make assertions about it, without supporting proof.

I've seen no compelling evidence that this object, if indeed it is present on the surface of the moon, is anything out of the ordinary or of any peculiarity. It may well be, and I'm open to that possibility. But I have seen no evidence to suggest that's the case in any compelling, non-circumstantial way that can't be potentially explained away. On the other hand, throughout this topic evidence has been presented from multiple sources suggesting either that the object isn't there, or that it's a natural formation on the moon's surface. Right now, at least within the scope of this topic, that's the possibility with the most supporting evidence in my opinion. But then, I'm a layperson without the knowledge or skills necessary to analyze the photographic evidence with any degree of objective reliability as far as I'm concerned.

So, I'm open to the possibility of something being there, but I have yet to see compelling evidence of its existence, let alone its nature or anything to indicate that if it's there it is anything unusual. Note that I make no assertion as to whether it's there or not, or to what it may be if it is. So, would you say I fall into the "habitual skeptic" or "debunker" category? Or am I just keeping an open mind while being skeptical? I feel I am doing the latter, but my skepticism could definitely be accurately labeled "habitual" since it is my philosophical and rational approach to everything.

Peace.
edit on 2/13/2013 by AceWombat04 because: Typo





new topics
top topics
 
85
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join