It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Apollo 11 UFO in Moon Picture

page: 2
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
thanks everyone for the great replies


we've been told that stars and planets cannot be seen in photos from the surface of the Moon and i am sure it's not the command module because it's too low and would not be seen just like the stars and planets


the lunar landscape is so bright that the camera exposure settings to take a good lunar landscape photo are not sensitive enough to image the much (much Much MUCH) fainter stars that are in the lunar sky. If the camera was set to record the stars, the moonscape would be washed out white and featureless.


www.skywise711.com...


i think the main point here is we have conflicting data since the pictures all look different. did anyone else notice how dark from shadow the Astronauts life support system (backpack) is in the first photo and then bright as day in the other two ?




posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

So we have three different versions of the same photo, and only one has the "UFO".

That makes me think that it's a problem with that copy. The type of "UFO", without any definition, also makes me think of a problem with that copy or, more likely, with the scan.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

That first photo looks like a bad digital version, with too much contrast.

The third looks like a copy from the famous TIFF files that "disappeared" while I was trying to download them, never to reaper. These are the best copies.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



That makes me think that it's a problem with that copy.


might help if you showed some examples of what your saying because at this point it's all guesses and conjecture


thanks for the reply



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



That first photo looks like a bad digital version, with too much contrast.


did you notice the life support system (backpack) on the astronaut is dark from shadow and in the other versions it's bright as day and no shadow ?



The third looks like a copy from the famous TIFF files that "disappeared" while I was trying to download them, never to reaper. These are the best copies.



really ?

i can't say either way because i didn't see the disappearing pics like you did so i don't know what to say on that. what exactly makes you think it's from those TIFF collection ?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

I mean things like this one, at the bottom of the photo.



If you look carefully you can see many signs of a somewhat dirty copy or scanner.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



I mean things like this one, at the bottom of the photo.


i don't know ArMaP,

that doesn't look much like the ufo in the Op pic. i think it's a possibility but a stretch to assume that's the explanation as of right now. but thanks for the example,



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by easynow
 

So we have three different versions of the same photo, and only one has the "UFO".

That makes me think that it's a problem with that copy. The type of "UFO", without any definition, also makes me think of a problem with that copy or, more likely, with the scan.


Even on the official NASA site you can find different versions of the same images with blacked out sky. This is particularly noticeable in the panoramic images that were stitched. The final versions all have the sky solid black, but the raw images are on there too. I'll have a hunt and provide some links. Brb.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   


I also saw this thing in a picture check it out it dosent seem like foot print seems like a squarish object lying there on moon from a long long time
just a thought. by the way i believe landings were real



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
did you notice the life support system (backpack) on the astronaut is dark from shadow and in the other versions it's bright as day and no shadow ?

Yes, and that's exactly that loss of subtle details that makes me think of a bad digital version or a digital version of a bad physical copy of the original photo.


i can't say either way because i didn't see the disappearing pics like you did so i don't know what to say on that. what exactly makes you think it's from those TIFF collection ?
Those images are still available, although not in TIFF format, the best at the time. Unfortunately, that site (The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth) is not working this weekend.

You can detect them because those images were digitised from the full plate, so it shows a little more than the normal photo, going a little beyond the emulsion area, that's why we see that slightly darker area around the photo, just before the image ends.

You can see in this crop from that first photo what is visible and what is not.
(click for full size)


In this crop from that last photo you can see much more detail, the flag on the shoulder of the astronaut was not even visible in the first photo.
(click for full size)


Knowing that's impossible to create detail where it did not existed, it makes me think that the first photo can only be a bad copy of the the third (or a copy from another version that was at least as good as the third photo).

I also tried to make an image that looked like the first using the third image, by changing the brightness and contrast, and this is the result.
(click for full size)


After doing this I used PaintShopPro's count function, to see how many colours the three versions have.

The crop with more colours (58664 colours) is the one from the first image you posted, making me think that this was after all a scan of a bad original and not a bad scan of a good original, a bad scan would have less colours. Also, the image in which I changed the brightness and contrast, as expected, as much less colours, only 7484. Before those adjustments it had 43066 colours.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



(or a copy from another version that was at least as good as the third photo).


see this is all guess work (no offense intended)

i think to prove without any doubt what the object is we would need the original negative of the photo. i believe saying the object is something from a bad scan is using circular logic to dismiss this without any real proof. i'm not trying to be difficult or insisting that the object is in fact a UFO, i just want more than guess work as an explanation. i doubt we can prove anything either way but thanks for the excellent post and the info on the TIFF pics . star for you





[edit on 11-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
see this is all guess work (no offense intended)
Obviously, I wasn't there and I have never seen the original, I can only guess.



i believe saying the object is something from a bad scan is using circular logic to dismiss this without any real proof.
Calling it a UFO based in one of three different photos is not really based on proof either, and that's the problem, we do not have proof of anything, we are limited to the available photos.


i'm not trying to be difficult or insisting that the object is in fact a UFO, i just want more than guess work as an explanation.
Guess work is the only thing we can do at this time, but we can base our guesses in something.

My guess that this is only something on the physical photo or a result of the scan (my guess is not even as good as to have only one explanation) is based on the fact that there are other two versions that do not show the "UFO" and do not have any signs of tampering, and in what I have seen of scanned images in more than 10 years, either made by me or by other people in the company where I work (or in which I work, what's more correct?).

But that means little, as I said it's just really a guess.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Looks like one of those plasma critters.


I like the critters.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
thanks everyone for the great replies


we've been told that stars and planets cannot be seen in photos from the surface of the Moon and i am sure it's not the command module because it's too low and would not be seen just like the stars and planets


the lunar landscape is so bright that the camera exposure settings to take a good lunar landscape photo are not sensitive enough to image the much (much Much MUCH) fainter stars that are in the lunar sky. If the camera was set to record the stars, the moonscape would be washed out white and featureless.


www.skywise711.com...


i think the main point here is we have conflicting data since the pictures all look different. did anyone else notice how dark from shadow the Astronauts life support system (backpack) is in the first photo and then bright as day in the other two ?


Thats it distort the truth again MOST people on here with any photo knowhow have told you STARS would not show something like Venus which shows up becuase of reflected sunlight which guess what is what happens with the MOON!! would probably show ! but armaps solution could just as easily be right and as you cannot PROVE ufo's venus or scanner problem is more likely.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



i think to prove without any doubt what the object is we would need the original negative of the photo.


i might be nit picking ...lol...but is there a reason you left that part out of your post quoting me ?

do you agree with that or no ?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 




but armaps solution could just as easily be right and as you cannot PROVE ufo's venus or scanner problem is more likely.



so asking for real proof is not something you approve of eh ?


based on your logic we should embrace ignorance , not deny it





[edit on 11-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
i might be nit picking ...lol...
I do not have a nit-picking monopoly, you can nit-pick all that you want.



but is there a reason you left that part out of your post quoting me ?

do you agree with that or no ?
Because I implied precisely that in my answer, without the original negatives we cannot know for sure what is and what is not in them.

But I can also argue that even looking at the negatives we cannot be sure what was on the Moon, after all we were not there when the photo was taken, negatives can also be altered.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Anybody notice the Flag is waving in the wind?

No wind on the moon.....

~Keeper



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

You see the flag waving in a photo?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


No, of course not, but look at the show, clearly the Flag seems to be moved by some form of invisible force.

I know there is a rod thingy that keeps it straight up but it would not have the "flutter" effect I see in the photo.

~Keeper



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join