Astronaut Major James McDivitt UFO Discovered In 1965 Gemini NASA Photo Archive

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Don't know If this has been posted before or not.I was reading Scot's blog and found something that I want to post.


Date of discovery: Photo taken in June 1965
Image: tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

Eyewitness states:
In June 1965, Major James McDivitt saw, filmed, and photographed an object, which approached the Gemini IV (3rd June -- 7th June 1965) capsule in which they were orbiting the Earth, passing over Hawaii. He stated: "It had a very definite shape - a cylindrical object - it was white - it had a long arm that stuck out on the side."

With some color settings


The whole thing seems to be a source of light when I only click on one setting in photoscape.I just really don't know what should I say about this.But I am really amazed after it.




posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   


The whole thing seems to be a source of light when I only click on one setting in photoscape.I just really don't know what should I say about this.But I am really amazed after it.



You're amazed by burn in?

It's a processing artifact.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


How can you say that?



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   
[Snip]
edit on 5/10/13 by JAK because: Here, because you seem to be confused about ATS:



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
edit on 5-10-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   
might be film burn, maybe



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by AbleEndangered
 


Any example on film burn? I never saw film burn actually.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Are you certain of this?
Can you explain why this is a processing artifact, and give evidence to back this up?

I'm genuinely interested in how this image was formed. To my eyes it looks like there is an illuminated object, and that's about all I can ascertain. If you have the eyes, and the experience with photography/photographic analysis, I'm interested in how you have arrived at your conclusions.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by HiddenSecrets
 


I actually can't find a film burn quite like that.

Some cigarette burns were close but didn't give the rainbow effect.

Someone could have literally nicked it with their finger nail or pinched some how.

Other than that possibility, it might be like the:

www.google.com/search?q=vallee+ufo+costa+rica



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Looking through the 363 images available from the Gemini IV reel you can see alot of film issues, #74 shows another burn

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

And you can see them all here

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by AbleEndangered
 


How Costa Rica got debunked?



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by EV150
 


wow the last URL is great.How do you find these URLs easily?



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by HiddenSecrets
 


Nah, costa rica never really debunked imo..



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 04:15 AM
link   
What it looks like to me, and as indicated by others I see, is a bit of heat or chemical melting through the film. I have no question about it, actually. To my eyes it's as obvious an artifact as a big 'ol hair laying over the top of a frame.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 04:23 AM
link   

cuckooold
reply to post by boncho
 


Are you certain of this?
Can you explain why this is a processing artifact, and give evidence to back this up?

I'm genuinely interested in how this image was formed. To my eyes it looks like there is an illuminated object, and that's about all I can ascertain. If you have the eyes, and the experience with photography/photographic analysis, I'm interested in how you have arrived at your conclusions.


I am certain it is a processing artifact, choose the one you like:

Artifacts 101

My family is full of professional photographers, and while I don't have every term easy access in my head, I grew up playing around in dark rooms, and this is a very common artifact.



Could be chemical deposit, could be a number of things. In any case, look to the right of the artifact and you will notice the same blue tinge the main artifact has.

This is not a UFO, alien ship, nothing, nada, zilch, beyond a mistake in the dark room.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   

HiddenSecrets
reply to post by EV150
 


wow the last URL is great.How do you find these URLs easily?


HS, that's a great question. Search engines seem to focus people into the well-trodden paths of echo chambers, not into any balanced lay-out of different interpretations of any topic.

Often the best way is just to ask on ATS. The natural intelligence represented here far outweighs the 'artificial intelligence' of all trhe search engines on the Internet.

Regarding a space UFO case that particularly interests you, one search technique I suggest you ought to have caught on to by now is searching that case AND my name!!



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   

HiddenSecrets
Don't know If this has been posted before or not.I was reading Scot's blog and found something that I want to post.
...


Whose blog? How is this whazzit supposed to have any connection with the object McDivitt tried to photograph?

His verbal description of the object looks like a pretty good match with the known appearance of the satellite he had spent hours trying to rendezvous with earlier on the flight, then let it drift off. The question has always been whether its orbit had allowed it to drift back in again, or the Gemini's orbit had unintentionally been steered in its direction. McDivitt thinks not, since the unknown object appeared 'above' him rather than near the horizon where he'd seen the target satellite. But cabin air contamination during this period had gotten pretty severe and he also had been complaining about his eyes. Interesting story, but hardly as earth-shaking as is widely portrayed.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

HiddenSecrets
wow the last URL is great.How do you find these URLs easily?


That's a weird question since you posted a link to that site in your original post.


HiddenSecrets
Date of discovery: Photo taken in June 1965
Image: tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...



I think it's time to take a break from reposting everything you see on Scott C. Waring's blog. It's all hoax bin worthy nonsense.

edit on 5-10-2013 by freelance_zenarchist because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I concur with the posters above that this image appears to be artefact. I'm curious how it came to be associated with James McDivitt, however.

Diogenes



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DiogenesTheDog
 


You can thank internet douche bag and hoaxer Scott Waring for that.

www.ufosightingsdaily.com...





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join