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

reply to post by Phage


I'm sure you are right.
As I really can't work out the distances from photos or even the official site can you please estimate the left to right/right to left distance for this image... the width of the image...

reply to post by manmental

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Phage


Thanks.. i couldn't see the dimensions of the image as requested but I read this

Using Photoshop I got a shadow length of 522.3 metres.

So the width of the image is approx 1.3 km.

Do you really agree that the tower is 4m high?

reply to post by manmental

I agree with Armap's math.
That would make the rock pile (or boulder) about 4 meters high.

reply to post by Phage


Okay, so you don't even think its a hill any more... you think that could be a boulder... really?
A huge pile of rocks maybe... but one boulder?

If right I will have to look at moon photos with a very different eye in the future... I thought those were big craters and not just pot marks!

reply to post by manmental

A huge pile of rocks maybe... but one boulder?

13 feet is a huge pile?
One boulder? Sure. Why not?
Here's one on Earth

Here's one on the Moon.

I thought those were big craters and not just pot marks!

There are some very large craters and some not so large.

NASA has admitted that there are "Spires" on the moon:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Furthermore people can see what appear to be "spires" from earth with a good telescope:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So the question then becomes are they artificial or naturally occurring. The moon unlike the earth does not have weathering processes nor geologic processes. They are bombarded with meteors, so really any sharp object that could really only have formed when the moon was created, should have been rounded down to a hill or completely destroyed by a meteor strike.

reply to post by ArMaP


Well NASA came close they said:

"Judging by the shadows cast by the sun, one (referring to the spires) looks like the George Washington Monument, the NASA spokesman said" "Some of the smaller ones look like upside down Ice Cream Cones, he said, I've never seen anything like it before."

St. Joseph Gazette Nov 23, 1966, page 2A, under the heading "Photos Show Moon Spires"

Also, they stated "A [NASA] spokesman said the area had about six protuberances with the largest appearing to be 50 feet wide at the base and 40 to 75 feet high"

The Sun Nov 23, 1966, Front page, under the heading "Satellite Photos Bare Eerie Shapes on Moon"

reply to post by AthlonSavage


You know is Nasa is a Civilian space agency then why not use the Public for support.


its really military painted as public agency so they can bilk us twice out of money ^^

Looks to me like a thermal exhaust, which built a tower over time. Could this be possible? If so, imagine the implications. Check out ocean thermal vents to assert your own opinion. Give me your ideas.

i see some people have seen too much on that blurry photo and their imagination ran unchecked.

there are a lot of unknown stuff on the moon but in my opinion everything can be explaned naturally..

how about the strange moon light phenomena seen since centuries ago ? still no explanation but doesnt mean we have to go to extraterrestrial or paranormal explanation for them

how about those monolith photo from mars's moon ? still no explanation yet but dont let arthur c clarke's science FICTION clouded your subjectivity..

i see some people have seen too much on that blurry photo and their imagination ran unchecked.

there are a lot of unknown stuff on the moon but in my opinion everything can be explaned naturally..

how about the strange moon light phenomena seen since centuries ago ? still no explanation but doesnt mean we have to go to extraterrestrial or paranormal explanation for them

how about those monolith photo from mars's moon ? still no explanation yet but dont let arthur c clarke's science FICTION clouded your subjectivity..

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Thank you, it seems to have worked extremely well, i got 500kb/s throughout the download and i now have both files. !

I also took the liberty to re-upload it to youtube.

Here it is.

edit on 8-2-2013 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)

I haven't noticed this video being discussed much, if at all. To me, there's clearly something sticking out of the surface that looks like a tower.

I can't see how it can be anything else.

Can't believe seeing this is a thread about the alleged tower, yet the video in my post above hasn't been discussed?

Anyone??

Certainly not covered extensively. Has it been proved what it is?

Can you link me the thread armap please?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ArMaP

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

Originally posted by AuntieChrist
You know that I am unlikely to own any NASA photo´s not in the public domain, so why ask?

I ask to try to understand how do you know that those photos exist.

What I can point you to, is the accounts of some of those more in the know, than mere punters on a web forum.

Those accounts are about what other people told them and (in the case of Karl Wolfe) his own interpretation of Lunar Orbiter photos (like the one being discussed here) ....]

Karl Wolfe's story? Isn't that where he swears he saw 'lunar back side' photographs in 1965, years before NASA actually took any? Can ANYBODY championing these stories perform SIMPLE 'fact-checks' of fairy tales they enjoy thrilling themselves with?

As you wish : en.wikipedia.org...

First photo of the dark side of the moon. Taken in 1959, simple enough for you? extra DIV