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

page: 27
85
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Oh, I am sure that they do.. Deciding to show the public and uncover the biggest lie ever told is a different story.




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 

Sounds balanced enough to me.
Do you think it's fishy that we don't have color images and movies to begin with these days?

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



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by firegoggles
 


Of course! we can send electronics to mars and the moon and land on them, you bet we have the highest pixel fancy pants camera available. They change it to black and white on purpose.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


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.

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 @ 07:48 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


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.


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 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by firegoggles
 


Well, the skeptical answer would be, "I don't know." I'm not knowledgeable as to the specific parameters of the missions' specific goals, why they might or might not want to use color photography, what if any budget limitations they were working within, or other possible contributing factors to the decision to go with non-color imagery.

Someone who's actually familiar with the technology used, the missions, and other details would be able to say more definitively than I can whether it's fishy or not. I honestly don't know. Of course, if you treat what anyone involved in the projects says with suspicion, then one can't accept those assurances either. So I suppose it depends on where you stand with respect to that, combined with how much or how little you know. (I'll go with "how little" in my case.
)

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



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


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. There is a few reasons why they will be effective at this because many times the unsual can be explained with conventional ideas and secondly many times the unsual is due to some rare but natural effect or phenomenom.

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.





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


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.

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.

edit on 14-2-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


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.



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



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 





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 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.





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




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




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?


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

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

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. 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. Thanks for your input.


edit on 14-2-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Hiya.
No sure if this is relevant but this LRO photo has a shard like tower anomaly (maybe)... well the shadow certainly makes it look like a tall 'shard-like' structure.
The info for the image is in the description for the video.


The image in question is LROC image number nacl00000141





posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


I found a website that has the coordinates for this anomally see link.

The image data/coordinates are

Image Data
Time (DOY:181) 2009-06-30T16:04:33 Orbit 73 Center Longitude -8.84825° Center Latitude 72.18645° Resolution 1.85 m/pixel

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

edit on 14-2-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


I Found this lunar map from US navy . Check this out

www.nrl.navy.mil...



edit on 14-2-2013 by wolveriine because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by wolveriine
 


I looked at it the most interesting thing i noticed was that it was image of large area on moon surface witha distinctive small rectangle area within blacked out. Whats going on there is anyones guess. Seems unsual theyd just be missing that small section.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


Absolutely true . Am surprised to see so many rectangular boxes
www.nrl.navy.mil...



edit on 14-2-2013 by wolveriine because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by ArMaP
 


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.


Why invent an exciting, extraordinary explanation when a conventional one will suffice? That's not being skeptical... that's being logical.

By the same token, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.".
edit on 14-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 





Why invent an exciting, extraordinary explanation when a conventional one will suffice? That's not being skeptical... that's being logical.

By the same token, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.".


I think you have articulated well how the two halves of perception are deviating in this thread. An ice breaker such as a second photograph of the shard is required or it wil be just another thread that ends with these two loose ends hanging.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


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.




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



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by wolveriine
 


That's the Clementine online browser. Those black areas are areas not covered by Clementine. All the Clementine photos are available in the Planetary Data System.

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



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


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.




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


You did wonder why i debate with members and not moderators. Well now you know!



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
edit on 14-2-2013 by wolveriine because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
85
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join