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

reply to post by NeoVain


I dont think a second light source explanation is required. Look at the red lines of best fit i drew through the major shadows and you can see all the lines are quite parallel with that of shard shadow. No the shard is not a camera defect im convinced its very real object protruding from lunar surface.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by NeoVain

 

I dont think a second light source explanation is required. Look at the red lines of best fit i drew through the major shadows and you can see all the lines are quite parallel with that of shard shadow. No the shard is not a camera defect im convinced its very real object protruding from lunar surface.

Yes i know but remember that picture is only part of the bigger picture where the craters are clearly lit from another direction. This is what we need to explain. The crater shadows in the area of the anomaly is consistent with the anomalys shadow, but the other craters (from the full picture) are not, as phage pointed out.

reply to post by NeoVain

Yes i know but remember that picture is only part of the bigger picture where the craters are clearly lit from another direction. This is what we need to explain. The crater shadows in the area of the anomaly is consistent with the anomalys shadow, but the other craters (from the full picture) are not, as phage pointed out.

I see no inconsistencies of the shadows in the craters i drew lines through. Those craters are not close to the shard. The lines of best fit i drew through their elongated shadows are running parallel with the shard shadow. I think it will be best i stay out of that debate because i am satisfied with the evidence the shard and its shadow are real.

reply to post by NeoVain

We still see a faint shadow in another direction though(pointing to the left)

Let me point out that shadow

reply to post by wolveriine


If you move the arrow you have made to other side of shard 3 oclock position thats the shard shadow. What you are pointing to looks like a shadow thats being created by a rise in the topology adjacent to the shard.

reply to post by AthlonSavage

If you move the arrow you have made to other side of shard 3 oclock position thats the shard shadow

I have no doubt that the shadow you are telling me is the shard's shadow

What you are pointing to looks like a shadow thats being created by a rise in the topology adjacent to the shard

Can that be shadow of the shard too ?

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by wolveriine

 

If you move the arrow you have made to other side of shard 3 oclock position thats the shard shadow. What you are pointing to looks like a shadow thats being created by a rise in the topology adjacent to the shard.

Or it´s the other way around. The shadow that we previously thought was from the tower, may be the one due to the topology of the area, while the one Wolverine just poiinted out, is the ACTUAL shadow from the shard!

Well considering the horrible quality of this pic, i don´t think we will get much more out of this pic. We need a better pic, simple as that.

reply to post by NeoVain

Or it´s the other way around. The shadow that we previously thought was from the tower, may be the one due to the topology of the area, while the one Wolverine just poiinted out, is the ACTUAL shadow from the shard!

Well considering the horrible quality of this pic, i don´t think we will get much more out of this pic. We need a better pic, simple as that.

Agree, unfortunately because of the horrible quality of picture its unlikely that anyone can debate this to a final conclusion.

reply to post by zandra

He saw women as the future leaders of the world (a better reason for men to neglect him just like they did with Alfred Russel Wallace).

This is off topic but i think you have an idea for a good topic thread here.

Originally posted by signalfire
Are there available *any* pictures of this thing, clearly showing detail proving it's a rock formation, and how high it is compared to the surrounding area? It seems like an anomaly this this would warrant such a photograph given how the entire moon has been photographed by now with the best camera technology available...

After ALLLL the posts, discussing this and that, you ask THIS question?????? Toooo funny. May I refer you to topic of thread "Why doesn't Nasa have any detailed pictures of the Moon anomally Shard?"

I'm sorry, but I have read all the posts up till now, will continue to read the rest, but made me laugh.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by NeoVain

 

I dont think a second light source explanation is required. Look at the red lines of best fit i drew through the major shadows and you can see all the lines are quite parallel with that of shard shadow. No the shard is not a camera defect im convinced its very real object protruding from lunar surface.

And you have a photo from a Chinese, or Russian, or European, or Japanese, or Indian moon mapping mission that also sees it? Please share it.

For whatever little it may be worth, I emailed NASA's public inquiries office, asking if there are any further images of this region of the moon beyond those already posted and discussed in detail in this topic. It's doubtful, but I figured actually asking couldn't go amiss. I'll post any response I receive (with their permission.)

Peace.

Originally posted by wolveriine
reply to post by flexy123

 

I also have reason to believe that the part (dot) of the "shard" which is ABOVE the horizon is just a coincidental artifact or maybe even a star, by pure random coincidence lining up with the lower part of the "shard" - resulting in that it APPEARS like a tall, vertical shard.

That dot above the shard looks like a star to me

edit on 11-2-2013 by wolveriine because: (no reason given)

I am not talking about the *obvious*, separate dot above the "structure". (Which, by the way, is an image marker). I am talking about the part of the structure which is above the horizon, under that other dot.
There is a chance that this is just another dot/marker/star/artifact by coincidence more or less aligning with the structure.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
For whatever little it may be worth, I emailed NASA's public inquiries office, asking if there are any further images of this region of the moon beyond those already posted and discussed in detail in this topic. It's doubtful, but I figured actually asking couldn't go amiss. I'll post any response I receive (with their permission.)

Good for you. Please show us the letter you sent and the address used.

"a photo from a Chinese, or Russian, or European, or Japanese, or Indian moon mapping mission"

Now there is a thread topic for you. Would these other countries out NASA over doctored photos?
Or has the US sent them all a healthy check to cover their butt and add to their space fund?

reply to post by flexy123

Which, by the way, is an image marker

Why did NASA put image mark above the shard ?

Originally posted by wolveriine
reply to post by flexy123

 

Which, by the way, is an image marker

Why did NASA put image mark above the shard ?

They are all over the picture in a grid, the one above 'the shard' is in its place. BTW, the arrow you made could be pointing to a shard shadow if there was a shard, the sunlight is coming in from the right. But it also looks just like a continuation of what could be terrain that is other than flat. The thing is, the shard itself has some texture of light and shade, which is unlike the damage that is already in the picture, but it could also just be a lump of fluff & dirt, the kind of stuff you dig out of the back of radiators, and computer fans, etc.

Originally posted by wolveriine
reply to post by flexy123

 

Which, by the way, is an image marker

Why did NASA put image mark above the shard ?

Now here is a good example of how your own mind misleads you.

In what you think is a question, you have inserted a statement of 'fact' which is actually the essence of the question you are pretending to ask.

It's a fundamental logic flaw. To appear to prove something is true, you start out implicitly assuming it is true.

Do you see how you let yourself fall into that fallacy?

reply to post by JimOberg

And you have a photo from a Chinese, or Russian, or European, or Japanese, or Indian moon mapping mission that also sees it? Please share it.

Btw i said im convinced others wont be.
No i havent seen their photos. If you have access to them could you have a look much appreciated.

There is alot of strange structures on the moon.