Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UFO in Apollo 12 Mission Moon Photograph

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by roughycannon


The UFO has been deliberately blurred by NASA


Why didn't they deliberately delete it instead?
edit on 12-1-2013 by roughycannon because: (no reason given)


Can't tell if you're serious or not.

I'll explain.

If they had deleted it, then people would be asking why they deleted something. Obviously they do not want this.

So they blur it. No one will ever notice it if it's blurred out.

hang on, thats not right...




posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Connman
 

The images are scanned from the original film. If you have ever scanned film you know that the results vary from scanner to scanner and settings to settings. In other words, there is no such thing as an original scan.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connman
I'd really like to know why they doctored up photos at all to begin with. What color was actually seen when looking out there taking this shot? Did the camera not like the true color so needed their change?
What does it really look like compared to what they want us to think it looks like?


I dunno, every time I go on vacation and I have to build my car from scratch and factor in how much fuel I need, how safe it will be to drive at high speed around that turn without a rail, how my tyres are - flat? too full? bald? Do I get new tyres or just retreads? I can't tell but either way, I still have to worry about how I'll be able to breath the air in my car seeing as I don't like the country air, I need my air con on, so that needs to be checked ..

after all that I sure do make sure I've got my iphone charged. Yeah because I need to take colour pictures for people I don't know, when my own little wonky 3 mega pixel camera would do me just fine.

"Hey guys look at this picture of a neat cave I found"

"THAT'S A CRAP PICTURE, YOU'RE CRAP. STOP TAKING CRAP PICTURES! IT'S CRAP!"




posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Look at how in the greenish and original image the glow of the moon seemingly also envelops the ufo. In the altered image that has been somehow filtered away so the glow from moon insnt enveloping craft. Coincidence? If i was Nasa tying to hide the fact its a real Ufo object outside the Apollo module and near the moon i would filter the image to take away the moons enveloping glow around the ufo. Then it would be easy to legitimately argue the objects a reflections from a dispaly light projected on the inner window of Apollo.
edit on 13-1-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Explanation: No response?


Pretty weak argument then IMO. :shk:


I have however strengthened my own argument ...

Here is how I am seeing the issue ...



Now to get some better 'clues'! ... 12 Nasa Blueprints to help you build your own spaceship [gizmodo.com.au]

Basic Apollo Command Module diagram.



Detailed Apollo Command Module Interior Configuration diagram.



Detailed Apollo Command Module Control Panel diagram.



Apollo (spacecraft).

Apollo (spacecraft) [wiki]

External view of Apollo (15) from the LM (Luna Module).



External view of Apollo (17) from the LM (Luna Module).



Apollo 12 (mission details).

Apollo 12 [wiki]

Apollo SpaceCraft Windows.

Apollo SpacCraft Windows (caution .pdf) [lpi.usra.edu]



Apollo 12 Crew.



Apollo 12 issues (lightning strike).


Apollo 12 launched on schedule from Kennedy Space Center, during a rainstorm. It was the first rocket launch attended by an incumbent US president, Richard Nixon. Thirty-six-and-a-half seconds after lift-off, the vehicle triggered a lightning discharge through itself and down to the earth through the Saturn's ionized plume. Protective circuits on the fuel cells in the service module falsely detected overloads and took all three fuel cells offline, along with much of the CSM instrumentation. A second strike at 52 seconds after launch knocked out the "8-ball" attitude indicator. The telemetry stream at Mission Control was garbled. However, the Saturn V continued to fly correctly; the strikes had not affected the Instrument Unit.

The loss of all three fuel cells put the CSM entirely on batteries. They were unable to maintain normal 28V DC bus voltages into the heavy 75 amp launch loads. One of the AC inverters dropped offline. These power supply problems lit nearly every warning light on the control panel and caused much of the instrumentation to malfunction.


Possible origins of 'UFO' reflection.

Apollo 12 spaceship interior: Control Panel lights.

Apollo 12 astronaut suit: Colour Anodized Aluminium Space Suit connection ports and rings.

Apollo 12 astronaut patches.

Apollo patch.



Apollo 12 Mission Patch.



Apollo 12 Mission Insignia (patch).


Mission insignia
The Apollo 12 mission patch shows the crew's navy background; all three astronauts at the time of the mission were U.S. Navy commanders. It features a clipper ship arriving at the Moon, representing the command module Yankee Clipper. The ship trails fire, and flies the flag of the United States. The mission name APOLLO XII and the crew names are on a wide gold border, with a small blue trim. Blue and gold are traditionally U.S. navy colors. The patch has four stars on it — one each for the three astronauts who flew the mission and one for Clifton Williams, a U.S. naval aviator and astronaut who was killed on October 5, 1967, after a mechanical failure caused the controls of his T-38 trainer to stop responding. He trained with Conrad and Gordon as part of the back-up crew for what would be the Apollo 9 mission, and would have been assigned as Lunar Module pilot for Apollo 12.


Personal Disclosure: Continued next post below ...
edit on 13-1-2013 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to redact broken quik view link.
edit on 13-1-2013 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to fix spelling.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Explanation: Continued from previous post ...

Apollo 12 Saturn V S-IVB


After lunar module separation, the S-IVB was intended to fly into solar orbit. The S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system was fired and the remaining propellants vented to slow it down to fly past the Moon's trailing edge (the Apollo spacecraft always approached the Moon's leading edge). The Moon's gravity would then slingshot the stage into solar orbit. However, a small error in the state vector in the Saturn's guidance system caused the S-IVB to fly past the Moon at too high an altitude to achieve earth escape velocity. It remained in a semi-stable earth orbit after passing the Moon on November 18, 1969. It finally escaped earth orbit in 1971 but was briefly recaptured in Earth orbit 31 years later. It was discovered by amateur astronomer Bill Yeung who gave it the temporary designation J002E3 before it was determined to be an artificial object.


The Sun and The Earth.

The 70mm 500EL/M Hassablad Camera.

Hasselblad: Hasselblad cameras in space [wiki]



Other???

Personal Disclosure: I REITERATE ... can we try to correctly identify what created those reflections please?


Because if we can't identify what is being reflected ..then indeed it may not be a reflection at all ... as AthlonSavage points out here.




posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


What is being reflected is just light, light entering the lens by one side make strange looking shapes and colours because the lens were not made for that, they were made for the light entering from the front and passing all the lens' elements in a straight line to the film/sensor.

Light entering from the side may reach the film/sensor after being refracted by some lens elements and reflected by others, that's why we can see lens flares moving in their own way when we capture one on a camera while taking a photo and try to move away from it (the best approach is not to move away from it, is to put something between the camera and the light to stop it from entering the lens).


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



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Explanation: St*rred!

The source of the light ... is what I am trying to identify ok!


Everything else you posted I concur with!


Personal Disclosure: Can you please help me identify the SOURCE of this 'light' anomaly?


Because ... Phages ambigous claim of interior lights isn't going to pass muster IMO.

edit on 13-1-2013 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to fix spelling.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Pesky UFO. Just wouldn't leave them alone.

www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...




Nice river bed in that last pic. Wonder what made that?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by OmegaLogos
 

You're right, I only wrote about lens flare, not about that being a reflection on the _


I will look for a possible source.

Edit: I cannot find a clear source for that, the closest thing I can see is the window rim itself, but I cannot even convince myself about it.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 13/1/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Connman
 



I'd really like to know why they doctored up photos at all to begin with. What color was actually seen when looking out there taking this shot? Did the camera not like the true color so needed their change?
What does it really look like compared to what they want us to think it looks like?


Simple answer: cameras don't "see" the same way as the human eye. Somewhat more detailed answer: It is often necessary to re-balance the color on a film photograph in order to correct for "color temperature". Go through your old snapshots. Color photographs taken indoors often have an orange or green tint to them. This is caused by the color temperature of the light source. Incandescent bulbs are brightest in the orange end of the spectrum and florescent bulbs in the blue-green. We do not normally notice this because, well, our eyes are not as sensitive as the chemicals in film, and our brain is adept at balancing the color automatically. When light bounces of certain types of surfaces, it can scatter at different frequencies. The mineral Labradorite, for example, changes color as you turn it under a light. Sometimes, as I have explained, film can be more sensitive at certain wavelengths than the human eye. NASA corrected the color balance of the image to re-create what the Moon would have looked like if one were actually seeing it with the human eye, rather than recording the light on photographic film.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Connman
I'd really like to know why they doctored up photos at all to begin with. What color was actually seen when looking out there taking this shot? Did the camera not like the true color so needed their change?
What does it really look like compared to what they want us to think it looks like?


Having different versions with different colours is not unusual, if you ask for two copies of the same negative at different times from different sources it's highly likely that you will get different colours, consistent colour reproduction is a difficult job, specially in chemical photos, where the colours on a copy depend on many factors.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 13/1/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 





Regardless of what was reflected ... everything out there in space is indeed 'flying'.


Do you really fly in space or is an atmosphere required to fly?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Explanation: St*rred!

Thanks for responding!


Personal Disclosure: And thank you very much for following up on looking for a possible source and I shall take what you see at face value aka 'the rim of the window', which IMO is a very interesting, logical and reasonable proposition, and add that to the list of possible 'sources' for the anomaly for further analysis.


Outstanding contribution!



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 


Explanation: Uhmmm???



Do you really fly in space or is an atmosphere required to fly?


I think that is just splitting hairs over individual techical terms ... but let us see what those boffins at Nasa have to say about it ...

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center [nasa.gov]

What is in a name?


Personal Disclosure: The technical term I think you are 'looking for' [waves hand jedi stylez] is 'areodynamic lift' and that has barely if anything ... to do with this thread.

Please turn your attention to what could possibly be the light source of the anomaly ok.






top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join