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

Originally posted by ArMaP

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

Originally posted by DazDaKing
That's just one example though, let's not mention how Nasa never talk about the pyramids on mars, the face or mars and this tower is just amazing!

It was NASA that published the photo with the "face" and said it looked like a human head.

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

edit on 10/2/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)

Ooops! My bad. Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.

The email I sent:

To whom it may concern,

I am contacting you with regard to lunar images of a region of the moon photographed during a lunar orbiter mission in 1967.

There are claims on the internet that what is referred to as "Lunar Orbiter frame LO-III-84-M" (however one of the members of our online community has said that the actual frame is in question is "3084") contains an anomalous structure or object referred to as a "shard" or "tower." These claims of have sparked an ongoing discussion of the matter in an online community of which I am a member.

Many of the more knowledgeable members of the online community where the aforementioned claims are currently circulating have stated that this object or structure is likely a combination of natural moon features and photographic flaws, resulting in the illusion of this structure's presence. Nevertheless, suspicion to the contrary persists among some, hence my inquiry.

Your website requests that emails to you not contain any attachments, so unfortunately I am unable to attach those images I have already seen, however a large image of the region of moon where the feature in question is visible can be viewed at the following web address: www.lpi.usra.edu...

A few of the other web addresses already discussed in the discussion pertaining to this "anomaly" include:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu... (with the approximate location of this "anomaly" being identified by one member of the ongoing discussion as roughly 7ºW 3.5ºS)

apollo.sese.asu.edu... (An image of the same location ostensibly disproving the presence of the so-called shard.)

My query is, are there any other images other than those already discussed of this region of the lunar surface with greater detail, resolution, possibly a more advantageous viewing angle, or having significantly fewer flaws? I ask this because some have asserted that neither NASA nor any other space agency or resources have sufficiently detailed imagery as to fully explain away or disprove the presence of this supposed anomaly. I am skeptical of its existence personally and feel that sufficient imagery has likely already been furnished, but I am asking in the interest of thoroughness.

I understand that this is a somewhat unusual request, however I have little doubt that you receive them or something like them all the time, for better or worse.

Thank-you for your time and indulgence.

Curiously yours,
(Real name withheld)

The email address it was sent to, as listed on NASA's website, is: [email protected]

reply to post by AceWombat04
Well done for making the effort

Unfortunately, the notoriety of Hoagland and his endless, ridiculous and enthusiastic (!) claims are well-known in the NASA PR department. Imagine receiving a question that's generated by his claims? It's like a policeman being told by a child that a leprechaun has a gun around the corner - the same child who, just the week before, told him about a leprechaun with a samurai sword.

"But sir, this time I'm telling the truth. He's got little silver buttons and a loaded AK-47!"

reply to post by AceWombat04


Bad move. You shouldn´t have disclosed that.
You realize the guy you answered is working for NASA right? Jim Oberg. He will most probably snatch that letter and give you the same answer that he has been peddling in this thread, although with different more official sounding words.

Originally posted by smurfy

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.

edit on 11-2-2013 by smurfy because: Text.

Well played

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by AceWombat04

 

Well done for making the effort

Unfortunately, the notoriety of Hoagland and his endless, ridiculous and enthusiastic (!) claims are well-known in the NASA PR department. Imagine receiving a question that's generated by his claims? It's like a policeman being told by a child that a leprechaun has a gun around the corner - the same child who, just the week before, told him about a leprechaun with a samurai sword.

"But sir, this time I'm telling the truth. He's got little silver buttons and a loaded AK-47!"

And you are full of poop as a christmas turkey.

Ridicule is all you've got?

I may not agree with all of Phage's posts but you can see his logic and follow along.


Even when data IS out there and IS being considered by scientists who are looking for truth as opposed to the hacks distracting the facts for some unknown agenda? It is people like you who would largely ignore the data. Follow the data, where ever it goes and we will find out many things. Obfuscation of the data, in this case aimed at probably keeping knowledge of our past hidden, will have people with just enough intelligence to get in out of the rain figuring out that someone is lying to them.

Hoagland is nutty to some but he can back his claims with the help of degree'd scientist who do and or did work for NASA for years. Common sense says NASA, by running from a good chance to explore interesting possible artifacts at most every turn, is apparently hiding something. At least to the thought process of those who dare to use simple logic. At this point it is logical to conclude something has been strange for some time with respect to the image quality alone in the disputed areas of Mars and the Moon, period.The only good answer is better data and NASA is holding us all back IMHO.

reply to post by AceWombat04

www.lpi.usra.edu... (with the approximate location of this "anomaly" being identified by one member of the ongoing discussion as roughly 7ºW 3.5ºS)

Nice letter although i wouldnt of place coordinates in it as the location of the shard is speculative in itself as well. Nice effort all the same.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
There is no way they are natural rock formations.Because these are in arizona and I am sure aliens brought them.

Thanks for making my point. Those terrestrial formations are caused by heavy erosion.

Didn't China produce a GB sized lunar image recently?

Another point, it's hard to imaging a structure THAT tall standing above the regolith, meaning it must be footed quite solidly, and PERFECTLY balanced (lunar gravity not withstanding). It appears about 3 to 5km tall!

"Moon Megalith"? Let me guess, same date as Puma Punku and Gobekli Tepe? It looks like the classic Easter Island bust.

I wonder if aliens could have left artifacts on Earth and elsewhere....on purpose. Maybe to stimulate the thought process of Man...?

Edit RE the upright shape of the terrestrial formations, being perfectly balanced... That's the normal shape they take *because* of the process that forms them, erosion.

My best Geology 101 guess would be an igneous *extrusion* that got frozen in the cold of the "dark" side. Voila'





Maybe the same way an ant hill is formed....www.travel-pictures-gallery.com...


www.travel-images.com...

reply to post by Phage


en.wikipedia.org...:Tesla_Broadcast_Tower_1904.jpeg

Sorry may be it was a deviation to talk about eugenics. But not to talk about Tesla. The tower on the moon in the video made me think about the towers that Tesla created. Apparently there is electromagnetism on the moon. Apparently there are strange lights. Some people claim the moon is moved by an anti gravity force.

And there are credible theories that Tesla with his towers, electromagnetism and strange lights, could create an anti gravity force and move a small planet like the moon may be once was ...

reply to post by AceWombat04


Congratulations on being pro-active and making a genuine effort. A lot of us around here should learn a lot from you, myself included.
Very well written e mail too... at the very least they should respond politely... please keep us updated! You should also post a hard copy... you never know... it might arrive at the desk of someone worthy.

Originally posted by ArMaP

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

Originally posted by Justoneman
At this point it is logical to conclude something has been strange for some time with respect to the image quality alone in the disputed areas of Mars and the Moon, period.The only good answer is better data and NASA is holding us all back IMHO.

How does that logic work?

The only problem with image quality comes from people that do not know (and some that look like they don't want to know) that there are better photos available.

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

Ok I will bite. What photo's are better than the ones we are looking at in this thread?

I see a non natural looking spire what about you? I also have viewed a ton of the Mars stuff over the years by pulling down the huge files that took forever with that level of technology making it hard for most to take the time to pour over them. I doubt these pics are on this computer as it was around y2k and I have new hardware a couple of times since then. But tome of the things I recall seeing included images of animals from the jungles of Earth scattered like litter all over the surface. These locations are NOT being pursued currently and when one does Phage, or some other doubting Thomas will pooh pooh it I am certain. There have been a bunch of past threads on this but yet people still feign ignorance is my take.

Every one of the interesting things we have seen on the surface of the planets and moons of our solar system over the years can't all be bogus and so easily explained away. THAT has to be the truth. Sure some are provable as artifacts of collecting the image but others like say the monolith on a moon of mars and the Cydonia location on Mars have artificiality that tells me we are being used like the cat's litter box (pun intended). Arthur C. Clarke made a point to say there was big life on Mars at the South Pole and there has been some discussion on this too.With Arthur, I tend to think he was not ignorant nor stupid but somebody will say he was wrong with a straight face.

I read this whole episode as a case of someone deciding for now that we "can't handle the truth".

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by AceWombat04

 

Bad move. You shouldn´t have disclosed that.
You realize the guy you answered is working for NASA right? ....:

I hear that BS a lot. It's an anti-reality defense mechanism. It would be nice if I could file invoices at NASA and get some big bucks that they say the debunkers all share in. Sigh...

Originally posted by Justoneman

Hoagland is nutty to some but he can back his claims with the help of degree'd scientist who do and or did work for NASA for years. Common sense says NASA, by running from a good chance to explore interesting possible artifacts at most every turn, is apparently hiding something. ;;;;

You mean like Ken Johnston, with his phony 'test pilot' job, and his phony 'PhD' in 'Meta Physics', and his phony 'photo department head' title? 'Nutty' is the right word for people who so easily fall for such ego-boosting mythologies. Try some reality checks.

Originally posted by Justoneman

Hoagland is nutty to some but he can back his claims with the help of degree'd scientist who do and or did work for NASA for years. Common sense says NASA, by running from a good chance to explore interesting possible artifacts at most every turn, is apparently hiding something. At least to the thought process of those who dare to use simple logic. At this point it is logical to conclude something has been strange for some time with respect to the image quality alone in the disputed areas of Mars and the Moon, period.The only good answer is better data and NASA is holding us all back IMHO.

Hey, remember the famous "Mars Face" from the old 1976 Viking probe images?

You know what NASA did? They sent a probe (Mars Global Surveyor) up there in 1997 and then re-imaged the Cydonia area INCLUDING THE MARS FACE and "beamed" the new, high-res images LIVE down and released them instantly on the internet for anyone to see, before they even processed them internally.

So much for "NASA is holding back"....

reply to post by FlyingFox


Just like the formations at the lower right of pic?

Originally posted by Justoneman

Hoagland is nutty to some but he can back his claims with the help of degree'd scientist who do and or did work for NASA for years.

In addition to being an Ig Nobel laureate.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Justoneman

Hoagland is nutty to some but he can back his claims with the help of degree'd scientist who do and or did work for NASA for years. Common sense says NASA, by running from a good chance to explore interesting possible artifacts at most every turn, is apparently hiding something. ;;;;

You mean like Ken Johnston, with his phony 'test pilot' job, and his phony 'PhD' in 'Meta Physics', and his phony 'photo department head' title? 'Nutty' is the right word for people who so easily fall for such ego-boosting mythologies. Try some reality checks.

Never recall his name mentioned so I don't know one way or the other. I would like to stick to ones we can all recognize like Astronauts and other scientists with firsthand knowledge of the data but you will say they are crazy if I am guessing you right. I see lots of evidence that there are those who would prefer we not explore the truth. I suppose if Arthur C. Clarke is not good enough for you, then nothing will be.I am NOT saying keep such an open mind your brain falls out but you have to take ALL of this in including the deceptions. Once we've established the lying tendencies of whomever, we are required to look elsewhere for the truth. Logic dictates that since we have caught them in lies and our eyes are being declared as faulty for seeing such things by those who claim falsely to have the true understanding of what our eyes see, I have to conclude there is way more to this story. Once I get there, logic dictates that I ask what is it I see and start looking hard at things for myself. Having done this I have but one conclusion. There is an attempt to cover up our violent past when we must have had technology that rivals today. Ancient texts from past civilizations give us clues to these things and ancient stories passed by word of mouth from tribal peoples, plus the data seen here and elsewhere give this story legs and no name calling will correct that situation for you.