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

page: 8
85
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Apparently a lot of the more strenuous posters here are simply unaware of other nations sending moon mapping missions. The less one really knows about real space exploration -- and the more nonsense one believes, in place of authentic information -- the easier it is to believe in these weird theories. The motto seems to be, "Embrace ignorance -- it is your friend!' Sad.



Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by MCL1150
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


I'm waiting for another Country who has a ongoing space program to come along and say: Look what we found, funny how did the other guys miss this?!?!?!?


Since the European Space Agency, Japan, India, China, and even Russia have had photographic mappers in lunar orbit, perhaps the time you're waiting for has come and gone, and no cigar.




posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
for ease of viewing, here's a close up of the item in question with various brightness/contrast adjustments






posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

What I could get based on the same information all people in this thread have, the name of the photo.

Searching for "Frame 3084" and "features", I found this page, that says:

Frame 3084: Bruce and Blagg in Sinus Medii.


With that new information I opened Google Earth, chose the Moon and looked for those two craters and aligned the view to as close as I could to what we see on frame 3084. This is what I got.

(click for full size)


Comparing it with frame 3084, it looks like the "shard" would be somewhere near that round marker that points to Rima Flammarion (although it doesn't show the name in the image I posted).

Searching for "moon", "shard" and "coordinates" I found this page, where it says:

The coordinates of the shard are approximately 3 to 4 degrees South and between 5 and 6 degrees West.
, consistent with what I thought was the approximate location.

So, it looks like now we have to sources (me and the above mentioned site) that point to a location around latitude 3ºS, longitude 6º W.

First thing that we can see about that is that's not on the far side of the Moon (like someone said) but it's close to the centre of the face that is always facing the Earth.

Now I will look for photos of that area, although I know that "NASA cannot be trusted".


Edit: another page pointing to the same general area.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 9/2/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 

Why did you flip it?

For reference, here is a context image. Can anyone explain how the "shadow" of the "shard" could be cast in that direction? The incidence angle of the Sun is 80º, that is in the upper right of the image.


Again, the full resolution image:
www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhageWhy did you flip it?


so the ground was at the base of the image. i prefer my landscapes that way. no biggie (or is it?)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 

You didn't just rotate it, you flipped it, reversing the direction of the "shadow".



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

According to the possible location pointed in my previous post, this image (large 12MB image) shows the area where the "shard" should be (on the top left corner area). extra DIV



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 

You didn't just rotate it, you flipped it, reversing the direction of the "shadow".



ah i see. i just 'vertical flipped' it on irfanview to make a qucik gif and didn't take into account the reversal. my bad.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

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

According to the possible location pointed in my previous post, this image (large 12MB image) shows the area where the "shard" should be (on the top left corner area).


yes, and there`s nothing there. Judging from the pictures it looks like this thing is located on relatively flat ground and is the tallest thing around the general area,so this thing should stick out like a sore thumb when you use the elevation layers but it doesn`t.all that is there when using the elevation layers, are some hills/mountains. extra DIV



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





What has NASA lied about?


Secretly funding HAARP, the obvious assassination of Jim Henson from the Muppets, the shroud of Turin, hiding pyramids under dirt in Bosnia, they blatantly kill kittens and puppies in demonic rituals, they refuse to admit that Hubble is spying on us, they block out Nibiru on Google sky, they claim they don't know where the cap stone to the great pyramid is (right!!!), they insist that interstellar "clouds" of gas and dust are natural formations when they are obviously gigantic space faring sentient beings, they have suppressed tricorder technology and under no circumstances will admit that the death star is in fact currently in orbit around Mars. Oh, and the moon landings.

Now, do you really need more proof?
edit on 9-2-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
For reference, here is a context image. Can anyone explain how the "shadow" of the "shard" could be cast in that direction? The incidence angle of the Sun is 80º, that is in the upper right of the image.

Again, the full resolution image:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

That looks more like shallow depressions that give an illusion of a shadow. Similar to the other "straight lines" of approximately the same length and width that you can find elsewhere in the image. If you follow the edge of the moon there is one almost identical just a bit darker above and to the left of the "two dots" near the edge of the moon along the center line of the image.
edit on 9-2-2013 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
This is one I have not heart of or seen before. I love this kind of thing. I love coming across stuff like this that is new to me. I admit, I don't have much to add as far as thoughts or ideas as to what it could be.

I just know that when I come across something like this that is new to me, I always find myself researching, studying and generally looking for answers. I doubt I will find any...But if I do come up with any good thoughts or ideas in my research, I will be posting them here.

I've never been one to buy into "lunar conspiracies" or whatever you would like to call them...But this does seem like something NASA would want to look at.... The way I see it, either they checked it out and there was something they didn't want us to see...Or they have not checked it out to any major extent at at all...And again...I can't see them not wanting to check it out....

I really don't know. It's times like this that I wish I knew some one who worked for NASA or something. You know what? Now that I think about it, I have been told that I have a 2nd-3rd Cousin that was an astronaut in the 90's.

I can't remember her name. I will have to ask my family and see. Hey, maybe I can get in touch with her. Maybe she still knows some people in NASA? I doubt she would be able to help me out, but it can't hurt to ask....
edit on 9-2-2013 by DirtyLiberalHippie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Truly fascinating, I used to often visti the now vanished website lunararcheoloy.com that is now redirected to a web hosting service, they had many very intriguing image's both official release and NASA back catalogue of the lunar mission's, this is an area with a great many debunker's and sceptic's that make it really easy for any government to occlude the truth through the seas of dis-information, some deliberate and some self generating.

Some of the lunar mission's may have been faked and the very large fund allocation syphoned into black operation's but some were undoubtaedly genuine and the shard is a genuine anomoly, misguided though it may have been the policy of keeping anything like this out of the public knowledge was probably initialy done for the security of the United State's as it indicate's a possible source of either very ancient high technology from a previouse (human) race or alien technology(though sadly it now no longer in the same hand's but is helping a very dark hidden regime - that it is the manifest duty of everyone in the whole world to resist), on the mentioned now no longer available lunar archelology website they had image's of the shard that were digitaly enhanced revealing a latice like structure of scaffold like braceing and some area's were there appeared to be partially intact cladding or structure, it was definietly not a photographic anomoly, more interesting though was there suggesestion of NASA using data gathered on the moon to reverse engineer device's and technology's that appeared to be very old and possibly the victim's of a devastating war, several shot's showed humanoid skull's and one in particular describes as showing what looked like a face plate or helmet on closer examination appeared to be indeed that complete with the rematins of a translucent face plate and the dust that filled the helmet seemed to have faciel symetry, an upper torso could also be made out like the remain's of the upper body in a hard suit,.

It is one thing to reverse engineer a device but another to reverse engineer dust, with a long enough exposure any item other than a dense crystaline molecular structure on the moon will decay to dust through the following cause's, thermal variation causing expansion and contraction that brakes up moleculare structure's and solar radiation that smashes into atomic bond's that then become weakened a bit like a sub moleculare sand blaster but it doese take time to achieve this so how old are these thing's,.

It is my belief despite the fact that any one looking into lunar phenomena of this type will soon find themselve's up against some really strange opinion's and idea's that there are ruin's and technology's on the moon, that they are very old and somebody else is also there who may be dangerouse to us if provoked as they may be the same being's who murdered that civilisation and also wiped it out here on earth, though unless they are imortal they will think of it as ancient history and may see themselve's as fellow citizen's of the solar system,.

I don't know if it is possible to upload it anywere but I had a habit of downloading the lunar archeology web page's and image's and have most in a file on my system as well as hard copy backup's, despite what it may sound that was not a lunatic (no pun) site as it took it's research very seriousely even if it was highly coloured by there belief's, belief's that I share.

It is very convenient for these same corporate interest's that have control of our world to suppress these site's and I for one would not be surprised if they had already tried this with this site, it is not to keep people safe or nation's secure but to keep profit's safe and government's and people under there malevolent control.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by LABTECH767
Some of the lunar mission's may have been faked and the very large fund allocation syphoned into black operation's but some were undoubtaedly genuine and the shard is a genuine anomoly, misguided though it may have been the policy of keeping anything like this out of the public knowledge was probably initialy done for the security of the United State's as it indicate's a possible source of either very ancient high technology from a previouse (human) race or alien technology(though sadly it now no longer in the same hand's but is helping a very dark hidden regime - that it is the manifest duty of everyone in the whole world to resist)

If the shard is real, why wasn't it photographed by all other missions?


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

edit on 9/2/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

Here's a really large version:
apollo.sese.asu.edu...

And a handy viewer if you don't want to download it.
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

I think the location of the "shard" is the upper center of the image.
edit on 2/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
You know what they say....You can't spell moron without moon.


ok I said it. But someday they'll say it!



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 

Why did you flip it?

For reference, here is a context image. Can anyone explain how the "shadow" of the "shard" could be cast in that direction? The incidence angle of the Sun is 80º, that is in the upper right of the image.


Again, the full resolution image:
www.lpi.usra.edu...


This is common in so-called "Anomaly" images flipping the orientation and zooming in can trick the brain as you already know. Like making a crater into a mound, when shown in context it is clearly a crater.

Although I think there may be artifacts on the moon, photos as old as these only prove photography has gotten better over the years LOL

Tagging you Phage because I don't always agree with you but in this case the evidence is unsubstantial and an optical illusion.
www.weirdoptics.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by LABTECH767
 

To upload,
Go to tools, (top of page) then ATS uploads, (same position) then open green box at top left of the screen.

BTW, these pictures you speak of, where do you think they came from?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Phage, with shadows seemingly being cast in all directions, how can you be so fixed in your opinion?

How can shadows be cast in all directions? There is only one light source.


The keyword in my statement was "seemingly" and the image I was referring to is this...



..Oh, I see now. The light is sooo clearly coming from only one direction. Clear as mud. You could even set your watch by it.


Is NASA essentially deceitful, serving some flawed elitist agenda? Yes.

Really?


Well, according to more people than is possible to count, people who range from very high ranking employees (such as Werner von Braun) to mere photo imaging ´specialists´ who are WAAYYYY more qualified to comment than the likes of you or I shall ever be...

...Yes, REALLY!!! (unless someone around here is also trying to deceive).



Can NASA be trusted about anything with possible Extra-Terrestrial origin?

No. What has NASA lied about?


Sorry Phage, I only have another 50 years of life left, which is clearly not enough time to list all their lies.
They were created with deception, have fooled the sheeple ever since and if you honestly don´t know that, then in your own words, "You haven't really looked, have you?"


So Phage, may I suggest that if you wish to win this argument without appearing to be a rude bully, then por favor, take the time to SHOW all the ignorant souls on this thread that there really is no such thing as the Shard on the Moon.

What's the point? It already has been claimed that high resolution images have been doctored. From what you posted above it's pretty obvious you would except nothing less than an image showing a tower thousands of meters tall.


A wise man does not presume, that which he does not know. - It doesn´t particularly bother me either way which image I ´ACCEPT´, my comments were only because I felt you were being overly rude.. As far as I was aware however, the posters on this thread were asking to see a clear, high res´ image WITHOUT an enormous tower.



Have you ever heard the expression, "teach a man to fish?"

No, can´t say I have ever had that pleasure. Is it something to do with ladies vagina´s?


Whilst we´re speaking in riddles.. Do you know what it is to "have a Bubble?"


edit on 9-2-2013 by AuntieChrist because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-2-2013 by AuntieChrist because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-2-2013 by AuntieChrist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AuntieChrist
 


The keyword in my statement was "seemingly" and the image I was referring to is this...
Why not use the full, high resolution image which has been linked several times. Here it is again.




Well, according to more people than is possible to count, people who range from very high ranking employees (such as Werner von Braun) to mere photo imaging ´specialists´ who are WAAYYYY more qualified to comment than the likes of you or I shall ever be...
Really? Von Braun said NASA is decietful? Who else?


Sorry Phage, I only have another 50 years of life left, which is clearly not enough time to list all their lies.
I see, you're a youngster with no list.


I felt you were being overly rude..
You're welcome to your opinion.



No, can´t say I have ever had that pleasure. Is it something to do with ladies vagina´s?
No. It has to do with doing something for yourself and learning in the process. And you should learn proper use of apostrophes.
edit on 2/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
85
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join