Apollo 9: Gigantic Cilindrical Objects caught in front of the Moon...

Soylent Green Is People
Is it possible that the image was taken though the on-board sextant and telescope that the Apollo CM was equipped with?

I immediately got the same impression. It appears to be a cross-hair on recital used for some type of maneuvering, such as docking between the LEM and Command module.

Sorry but this post is not even funny. But everyone has a right to post there story's and we have to take the good with the less good.

defcon5
I immediately got the same impression. It appears to be a cross-hair on recital used for some type of maneuvering, such as docking between the LEM and Command module.

I don't think that's it, as the lines are all too close to each other.

Besides that, both the telescope and the sextant had a eye-piece (I don't know if that's the right name), as you can see in the photo below, and that would make it difficult (if not impossible) to take the photo with the Hasselblad through either the telescope or the sextant.

defcon5
I immediately got the same impression. It appears to be a cross-hair on recital used for some type of maneuvering, such as docking between the LEM and Command module.

Why would they do that?
Anyway, here's a few links,
The sexton and telescope arrangement, there may have been variations,
airandspace.si.edu...

Astronaut training in the use of the navigation equipment, and equipment used,

www.ibiblio.org...

Astronaut navigation training and results,

www.ibiblio.org...

reply to post by ArMaP

that would make it difficult (if not impossible) to take the photo with the Hasselblad through either the telescope or the sextant.

It looks like they figured out how to take photos through the sextant on Apollo 8, anyway…

The photographic equipment and materials carried by Apollo 8 were designed specifically to achieve the principal photographic objectives, which were to obtain (1) vertical and oblique overlapping, or stereo strip, photographs during at least two revolutions, (2) photographs of specified targets of opportunity, and (3) photographs of a potential landing site through the spacecraft sextant.

Source

How can you call this astonishing... Im not saying fake or anything but astonishing, come on please.

reply to post by Zarniwoop


Thanks for that information.

I looked for more about it and I found this:

Bracket-mounted in CSM rendezvous window to document maneuvers with the LM and CM entry; hand-held to document nearby objects such as SIM door after jettison and subsatellite after launch, and to photograph general targets inside outside the CSM; bracket-mounted on sextant to document landmark tracking

Source (on page 3)

The camera used for the above was the DAC, not the Hasselblad.

Zarniwoop
It looks like they figured out how to take photos through the sextant on Apollo 8, anyway…

The sextant had a very narrow field of view, it was certainly used to take pictures of possible landing sites on Apollo 8, could then the Moon picture have been taken in that way in Apollo 9? There was also a 16mm cine camera adapted to use the sextant on Apollo 8.
On Apollo 9 there were also four Hassleblads in window ports, the most likely source of the Moon picture which is more hassle per the op's picture since the green filter seems to be present as was infra red in different pictures. With the green filter in place that could make those black lines in the Op's picture of red in original colour. But then the window ports had their own problems because they were also filtered. So what you have, is four windows, each with a Hasselblad and a need to differentiate between the four with all the dirt and gubbins associated with each individual camera, another filtered window, all false colour images, something like a two foot imageing gap between cameras and different forms of 'glass' to the outside world. Biggest problem then was to navigate the stars with all the crap expended from the spacecraft, docking and undocking.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Urantia1111

 

It took me some time to find the original. Sue me.

You know, not everything is an alien spaceship. Or something extraterrestrial. Pictures do have processing errors, as well as lens scratches. Especially the cameras back then.

I have to agree, these cameras were 35 millimeter SLR's and emulsion film is prone to all kinds of anomalies, especially when used in the space program! One of the reasons they took so many photos was there were so many with 'issues'.
The Apollo IX photos of the moon wasn't as clear as those taken by telescopes on earth, they weren't in a mission to photograph the moon, they were simply testing the lunar module and other equipment while in earth orbit.
This OP doesn't deserve all the responses as it is not clear or interesting in any way, lots more photos out there that are a lot more interesting.
I love these You Tube videos that scream "Leaked NASA photos", etc. when they have been available to the public for 40 years!
Also, you ATS'ers may find this interesting (or not) but the reason for Apollo 8 which actually circled the moon with the command module only and no lunar lander was a mission thrown in quickly as NASA heard that the Soviet Union knew we were close to landing on the moon so they were planning (the Soviets) on stealing some of our thunder by sending one cosmonaut to circle the moon and return to earth. Even though they couldn't land, it would have made our manned mission less astonishing... therefore, it was decided we could send Apollo 8 to the moon (since the lander wasn't ready) to prevent the Soviets from 'reaching' the moon first!

smurfy

Zarniwoop
It looks like they figured out how to take photos through the sextant on Apollo 8, anyway…

The sextant had a very narrow field of view, it was certainly used to take pictures of possible landing sites on Apollo 8, could then the Moon picture have been taken in that way in Apollo 9? There was also a 16mm cine camera adapted to use the sextant on Apollo 8.
On Apollo 9 there were also four Hassleblads in window ports, the most likely source of the Moon picture which is more hassle per the op's picture since the green filter seems to be present as was infra red in different pictures. With the green filter in place that could make those black lines in the Op's picture of red in original colour. But then the window ports had their own problems because they were also filtered. So what you have, is four windows, each with a Hasselblad and a need to differentiate between the four with all the dirt and gubbins associated with each individual camera, another filtered window, all false colour images, something like a two foot imageing gap between cameras and different forms of 'glass' to the outside world. Biggest problem then was to navigate the stars with all the crap expended from the spacecraft, docking and undocking.

Thnks for the info...Interesting.

However, even if the sextant had a cine camera already built in, that wouldn't stop an astronaut from saying "I wonder what a picture would look like with the Hasselblad pointed through the eyepiece" and then trying it. If the Hasselblad lens could be put up to the sextant/telescope eyepiece, I would think someone would possibly try it.

Having said that, your point about the green filter on the ports is interesting. Are you saying each window had its own Hasselblad? How does that jibe with the fact that this image came from film magazine 23/D? Was that film magazine associated with a certain specific camera pointed out a specific window? If so, then why are most of the other pictures from magazine 23/D pointed at Earth with no green hue, and why are 6 of those pictures pointed inside the cabin (pictures of astronauts in the cabin)?


Do you know if any of the windows had crosshair reticules on it? I ask because (as I mentioned before) I think the OP's image shows a crosshair. The vertical component (shown with arrows in the image below) may be blurred because the image is blurred in the horizontal direction. If the image blur was generally parallel to the horizontal components of the crosshair, then the result may be what we see here -- i.e., a visible horizontal component of the crosshair, but a blurred vertical component:

cheesy
If it L shape then we are screw..
Very interesting Sir..
Hope someone can explain it..it very Huge!
SnF

Um...what you mean? L shaped is what James Gilliland email newsletter, linked a video too, and to the dark side of the moon they went, and then he sent out the newsletter saying they're here and not happy with what we've done to earth....

You know about what L shaped crafts mean?????


BREAKING! Whistleblower EXPOSES GOV'T SHUTDOWN And FEMA - 10/20/2013 - UFO Coverup - ISON

reply to post by Unity_99

BREAKING! Whistleblower EXPOSES GOV'T SHUTDOWN And FEMA - 10/20/2013 - UFO Coverup - ISON

We arranged and did the interview over the telephone, from which he called us. The number he called from was spoofed, meaning that his original location was blocked from means of tracking. This has been verified to be true. The name he used in the interview is an alias, as well as certain locations mentioned in the interview.

I have a feeling the number he called from is not the only thing that was spoofed .
124,257 hits for a video of pictures and a soundtrack of a man pretending to be from NASA , time to start my youtube UFO channel I think ....money for nothing

reply to post by gortex


Considering that I HAVE to take ufology seriously, take this kind of thing seriously too. I still am waiting for what the L shaped means, because found a little odd to begin with and there is a post relating to it.

Unity_99
and to the dark side of the moon they went,

Which side would that be?

Original (for posterity)
Adjusted contrast & highlights
Embossed
Find Edge (set to max)

Done using CS6

For me it does look like something is there, whether a fast moving object if the camera is on a time lapse, a scratch (or three) but I don't think it's a sextant - more lines would show up?

breadinspector
i believe they are ufos

The are unidentified
They are 'flying'
And they are 'objects'

Nah, they are just unidentified...so are lens scratches at times.