Originally posted by firegoggles
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?

A real sceptic doesn't say something is not possible because he/she also thinks that it's most likely that he/she doesn't have all the data about that something or that he/she doesn't fully understand the available data, so he/she has doubts (meaning that he/she isn't sure) about that something.

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...

The supposed area where the supposed shard should be is relatively large, but so is the "shard", so a wide view of that area should be enough to show it.

If something was edited by a professional nobody will notice.

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.

Well, I suppose I also have a keen eye and understanding of cameras, film, lens and images (including flaws in the developing process, problems in scanning and digital problems), and to me it doesn't look like something that was photographed, it looks like a 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 don't think it looks like a smoke or dust cloud.

I would go with the rock left by an asteroid quick if I was a habitual skeptic

I think that's even less likely than a dust cloud, as it does not appear in photos taken before or after and wouldn't disappear as easily as a dust cloud.

Originally posted by firegoggles
Do you think it's fishy that we don't have color images and movies to begin with these days?

Colour (as we see it) is overrated, it doesn't have that much of a scientific value, it's much more useful to have several monochromatic photos taken at different wavelengths, like they did with Clementine.

PS: Curiosity, the new Mars rover sent by NASA, has colour cameras. The result? People complain that the colours are not as they should be.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
My experience tells me a skeptic is a person who always shoots for the most bland and mundance excuse to explain something out of the ordinary.

Then you have a wrong idea of what it means to be a sceptic, like many other ATS members.

The type of people you talk about is what I call an "explainer", someone that looks for an explanation more than he/she looks for understanding the situation.

Its the 5% of cases that cant be explained away with convention ideas and logic that is where the skeptics fall down. Theres some stuff that happens which is just plain out of the ordinary it deserves a more rigourous look at by main stream science instead of trying to ignore it.

Does that mean that those that always present an out of the ordinary explanation are wrong in 95% of the cases?

Seriously, it's true that many situations cannot (apparently) have an ordinary explanation, but in those cases a real sceptic says exactly that.

In this case, to me, it looks like a photo glitch more than anything else.

What do you think about the fact no one in this blog has provided convincing proof for the coordinate position of the shard. Therefore the area its in has not been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.

First of all, this is not a blog. Second, why don't you do that kind of work and try to find the coordinates of the place instead of complaining that nobody gives you an answer that you like?

I posted 3 different sources that point to a generic location, why don't you think those are convincing?

I will be the first to admit the only thing this thread has proven so far is people are good at circular arguments and people are easy to use their assumptions as if they are facts.

I agree, but we are probably thinking about different people as examples of that.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
I can post a coordinate position and attach a picture that looks a fuzzy resemblance to the shard pic location and argue black and blue its the location. The coordinates you provided are anecdotal evidence.

What more do you want, then? That I go to Moon, take some photos, register the coordinates and bring them back to make you happy?

Some posters agree with your opinion and some dont. You see this is what has driven the debate in thread for so long.

As usual in cases like this, when people ask for evidence of a thing that exists only in one photo, there's not much real data with which we can work with.

Firstly no one except you will care about your first point.

True, but things are what they are, not what we call them. This is not a blog, this is a discussion forum.

Secondly i did have a good look for the shard on the lunar orbital imaging site in fact i posted the results on my effort at one location earlier in this thread. If i had something more solid id post it but im not a person who is prone to making imaginary leaps.

The same thing happens to everyone, what more do you want when we only have this photo with the shard?

In regard to your second point the only one who is saying im complaining is you.

That doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Some posters have backed me up on my position, and thats why this thread has continued, and some of your posts to me which complain im not reading your posts.

Yes, I have complained about it because you asked for some data, I provided what I could find and you admitted that you ignored it.

I dont intend to answer your next post if its going to to be a slinging of who is right or wrong, whose complaining about this or that, whose more believable a skeptic or a believer because it belongs in Blog.

OK.

Debate known facts and if they arnt solid to allow a reachable conclusion dont imply by default we non skeptics are, unreasonable, unrealistic or complaining just admit its your opinion based on the best data you could find.

I never imply anything, what I think I should say, I do, without the need for implying it. If you think that I am implying something else, then that's the way you interpreted my words, it was not my intention to imply a thing, much less that anyone that presents their opinion is unreasonable or unrealistic, and as you could see I didn't imply that you were complaining, I said that you were.

And I always present my opinions as such, that's why I said "I thought was the approximate location", "I think you are wrong" and I always say (unless I forget it) "I think" before posting my opinion. In fact, I have been accused of saying that too many times.

You can look at all my posts since 2004 and see if I ever said that someone that had a different opinion was "unreasonable", "unrealistic" or anything else. If you find any please tell me.

Thanks for your input.

You're welcome.