Unknown Thing In Apollo 11

Welcome guys, another unique thing in the image.
Image By NASA


In this image there is nothing like that.

It seems to be a tattoo, below that unknown thing there seems to be some bubbles..Is that unknown thing is flying? or NASA played with the photo? Lets see our space expert Jim's thinking.

reply to post by HiddenSecrets

Is that unknown thing is flying?

No it isn't flying as it isn't in the picture , it's on the picture either it's a bit of lint (most likely) or an artifact from the scanning process .

reply to post by gortex


It seems to be on the screen the picture but why will NASA play with Apollo 11's picture? There already many things happened with the First man on moon with jump n more...

reply to post by HiddenSecrets

It seems to be on the screen the picture but why will NASA play with Apollo 11's picture?

It can happen when the original film pictures are scanned to digital , bits of dust or hair find their way into the process .

Originally posted by HiddenSecrets
Welcome guys, another unique thing in the image.
Image By NASA

There are lots of things in that image that don't belong there. Such as this:


There are other artifacts in the photograph.
I don't think they mean anything in particular except that photography in the 1960s was not perfect. There were many opportunities for contamination, processing issues (bubbles sticking to the film during developing), bubbles in the emulsion during the film manufacturing, and so on.

Jim Oberg has mentioned "Moon pigeons" which may have appeared in some moon photography that weren't problems with the photograph but might correspond to physical object of some sort, but I don't see any evidence of that here. The semi-transparent nature of what you focused on strongly suggests a photographic artifact, and there are many more in this photo. Most of them aren't on the black background of the sky so they are harder to see, but like this example, they are present.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yes the photography was not perfect that time but that seems to be an unique thing....dusts will not make a alien like thing lol..

Looks like a slightly damaged photo to me, either that or the design of ET's craft is incredibly diverse

The Spaghetti UFO...

Originally posted by HiddenSecrets
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Yes the photography was not perfect that time but that seems to be an unique thing....dusts will not make a alien like thing lol..

How do you know have you seen every possibly piece of fluff or dust

reply to post by wmd_2008


well nope..

reply to post by HiddenSecrets

In this image there is nothing like that.

Which is a very good indication that it is a flaw in the image.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by HiddenSecrets
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Yes the photography was not perfect that time but that seems to be an unique thing....dusts will not make a alien like thing lol..

How do you know have you seen every possibly piece of fluff or dust

No, not yet... But their bound to show up in this forum...sooner or later.

I believe it to be a scratch on the image (AS11-41-6156).

It's part of a short sequence of photographs taken around Daedalus crater. AS11-41-6155 was taken shosrtly before this but there is no sign of the artefact on the horizon anywhere on that one.

This version at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal has no such flaw

www.hq.nasa.gov...

If you want to see where the photo was taken my website (see my sig) has links to a Google Earth kmz file that plots the location of all orbital Apollo images.

reply to post by onebigmonkey


Nice site dude, yes I saw it.It can be errors..the link you gave, nothing like that is in that picture.

reply to post by HiddenSecrets

Sorry to be a party pooper but when I was kid in the 70's I used to do my own photography (including colour in the pitch dark !). Trust me I have had many UFO's buzzing diesel locomotives at Leeds City Station !!!!

Dust is a right royal pain in the a.se when doing old fashioned photography with an enlarger. Remember the negative (if 35mm) enlarged to an 8 by 10 will result in magnification of dust by a factor of 6. Specks can look quite interesting when enlarged.

yorkshirelad
reply to post by HiddenSecrets

 

Sorry to be a party pooper but when I was kid in the 70's I used to do my own photography (including colour in the pitch dark !). Trust me I have had many UFO's buzzing diesel locomotives at Leeds City Station !!!!

Dust is a right royal pain in the a.se when doing old fashioned photography with an enlarger. Remember the negative (if 35mm) enlarged to an 8 by 10 will result in magnification of dust by a factor of 6. Specks can look quite interesting when enlarged.

Straight to the point, what you expect from a Yorkshire lad even more so if he is in Scotland

Hi guys, this is the landing site of Apollo 11, meanwhile on the date of landing, the site was in pitch darkness.( Not being able to attach images,) please Google July 1969 moon phase, and compare it to sea of tranquility. Apollo 12 landing site, is even worse.

I have no earthly idea. Nor any unearthly ones.

a reply to: Mayanksrivastava

Moon phases for July 20th, 1969:



Landing site for Apollo 11 was Sea of Tranquility......in sun light as you can see from the phase picture, and here's a near side Moon place locator for you:



Apollo 12, Moon landing was November 20 - 21, 1969. Moon phases for then:



Landing site for Apollo 12 was Oceanus Procellarum, or Sea of Storms......which had plenty of day light.

So...what are you going on about?

Reminds me of this ancient alien probe.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Interesting thread!

Just doing my part to fix ats.