Something is Rotten on the Moon and it ain’t the Cheese

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

After second thoughts, I think it's the moon pulling tongues

Source: The Apollo 8 Flight Journal

Check your favorite sources……

Some geometric symmetry?

More Moonies…..




👽🛸🤔🧐🍸

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
Apollo 8 was the first crewed spacecraft to leave low Earth orbit, and also the first human spaceflight to reach another astronomical object, namely the Moon, which the crew orbited without landing, and then departed safely back to Earth

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

In other words, we caught them by surprise. That explains why the Chinese keep coming up empty in their far-side of the Moon search.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

As others have pointed out, it's smaller because it's the end of the roll, but it has always been available. It was even published in the original Photography Report

ntrs.nasa.gov...

Though it is less obvious what it is - here's the photograph in my own personal copy of that report:

a reply to: TheAlleghenyGentleman

There is complete coverage from 1960s lunar orbiter series, and the modern Kaguya, Chang'e-1 and 2 and LRO probes, a partial coverage from India's two probes and the 1960s Zond series of the then USSR.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

It's worth remembering that these are scans of physical copies of the photographs, which are developed from negatives. both those physical media attract bits of dust and lint and can be damaged during any part of the loading, shooting, unloading and development phase. That's what you're seeing there.

The quality of the scan also contributes to what you see. Here's that area od AS03-13-2343 as shown on the Flickr archive

www.flickr.com...

and here from the raw scan at the 'March to the Moon' archive:

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...-13-2343

as well as the bright spot you identify, the one above also very obviously shows bits of dust all over the positive film.

I found more information on the damaged photograph in here, a copy of which I own:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

it's on page 125 of the document (135 of the pdf).

The film was intended to be used for astronomical phenomen, and was mistakenly used for the moon itself. Consequently modified development techniques were needed to recover the films:

The LMP did not use the film for the programed astronomical experiments, but he did use the film for general lunar surface photography; he exposed the film for an ASA (speed) of 80, not 2000 to 6000 as the film is rated by the manufacturer. This is approximately six stops overexposure, or far beyond the normal latitude of the film. The Precision Laboratory formulated a special chemistry and photographic technique in order to "save" the data recorded. After 6 days of experimental testing, a chemistry and processing technique evolved; but when this technique was attempted in the Versamat Model M-llC processor, the chemistry could not be changed fast enough to prevent the image from destroying
itself...The bleach technique removed the effect of the vastly overexposed emulsion by destroying the external latent image and then overdeveloping the internal molecular latent image in order to produce a more nearly normal negative.

So the development process employed on an incorrectly used film caused the damage we see.

Why would they share the damaged photo with well anyone? Why not specify the damaged photo has some obvious artifact? Leaving that up to the viewer to describe seems a bit odd, don’t you think?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

You can download a 300Mb+ version of the image here:

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...-18-2908

If it was an actual physical feature something that would have been visible in any lunar far side images taken over the years, including the Soviet ones:

mentallandscape.com...

As has been said, it's a piece of damaged film at the end of roll. I've seen suggestions that it's chemical damage that was happening to the whole film, and that as it was the last on the roll it wasn't able to be salvaged during development.

a reply to: Terpene

I agree the Hasselblad set of photographs was from prior to 1951.

Similar copycat operation January 10, 1946 probably to verify the original secret 1920's data.

www.universetoday.com...

********************************************************************************************************************************

OP apparently wants us to shift to the Jodrell Bank Luna 3 digital compression artifacts 30 years later in the 1950's.

www.svengrahn.pp.se...


They didn't have (accurate) looped digital metal tape magnetic storage in the 1920's.
I doubt the Poulsen Telegraphone recorder from 1922 would have the accuracy to time integrate data, surprise me...

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

People like you are why I love ATS! You found something cray cray and posted it for us with OooOOooo but along comes a debunk, which I personally agree with, and you took it on the chin. Even so far as to prove Armap's debunk is the right one.

*sends positive juju-mojo to you*

a reply to: Skepticape

For the sake of completeness of the record, just as they published all the photos from the missions regardless of quality. It's only the pretty 'money shots' that made it into the papers and the photo sets for sale, and many people assume those are the only ones they made available. If they hadn't published it, we'd be having threads about them hiding the photograph, which they didn't.

My later post on this has the description of what went wrong with the development and film.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

It's worth remembering that these are scans of physical copies of the photographs, which are developed from negatives. both those physical media attract bits of dust and lint and can be damaged during any part of the loading, shooting, unloading and development phase. That's what you're seeing there.

The quality of the scan also contributes to what you see. Here's that area od AS03-13-2343 as shown on the Flickr archive

www.flickr.com...

and here from the raw scan at the 'March to the Moon' archive:

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...-13-2343

as well as the bright spot you identify, the one above also very obviously shows bits of dust all over the positive film.

Yes…..as I have been zooming in on the Apollo 8 photographs, I have indeed noticed what to me are dust particles…..below is the same AS08-13-2330 photograph in my previous post. This piece of lint, as I believe it to be, is to the left side. So I expect to see dust particles as you have shown, and I now have shown…..

Dust


In terms of dust…..I expect to see Irregular shapes, and not what appears to me as uniformed symmetrical regular shapes. imo.

Reference from my most previous post the collage of zoomed in pics of AS08-13-2330 and AS08-13-2343…..I see an overall Glowing Triangular shape, and a semi spherical Glowing Orb….to my eyes these are not irregular shapes, but instead, uniformed geometric shapes. You’ll also notice, within these shapes, there appears to be a waffle grid pattern of uniformed squares….you may have to angle your display for it to be noticeable.

Immediately, I thought of pixels…..but I’m not certain it is. These photographs back then…would not have been digital, obviously, and so digital pixels to my understanding, are of the digital age. Now could it be part of the post processing and possible digital compression process for display on the www? I’m not certain it is. Bear in mind these anomalies I have found are zoomed in from a larger overall picture. If your not looking in with a zoomed in eye….it would never be generally notice by the viewers eyes.

I don’t now what to think of these two elements of these photographs, 1) overall glowing geometric shapes and 2) grid pattern within these glowing shapes.

AS08-13-2330


AS08-13-2343


👽🛸🤔🧐🍸

originally posted by: Skepticape
Why would they share the damaged photo with well anyone? Why not specify the damaged photo has some obvious artifact? Leaving that up to the viewer to describe seems a bit odd, don’t you think?

I don't know their idea, but as someone that has been working with historical archives for the last 30 years and knows a little about the theory behind the organisation of archives, if there are public documents or documents that are to be made public then you should publish them all, unless there's some information that should be kept private.

In this case, they had a roll of photos and a catalog of those photos, with technical description. There was no reason for not publishing that photo or other photos even worse than that, that's why there are also cases of photos in which we see nothing.

Here are several examples of "shorter" photos, photos with too much light, photos with serious lens flare, etc:
AS09-23-3618


AS09-26A-3835A


AS09-26C-3823C


AS11-40-5970


AS12-46-6868


AS12-47-7021


AS14-76-10356


AS15-81-11046


AS15-86-11530


AS15-86-11694


AS15-87-11859


AS15-88-11883


AS15-88-12014


AS15-96-13136


AS16-106-17238


AS16-106-17418


AS16-107-17419


AS16-114-18442


AS16-116-18722


AS16-116-18724


AS16-117-18856


AS16-118-18908


AS16-119-19184


AS16-131-20134


AS17-133-20375


AS17-135-20679
(this one appeared on two ATS threads about "pyramids on the Moon")


AS17-139-21350


AS17-141-21668


AS17-142-21833


AS17-144-22046


AS17-144-22078


AS17-146-22450


AS17-147-22606


AS17-148-22775


AS17-154-23594


PS: many of those flawed photos are the either the first or last on the roll, with several cases of the last photo having some tape over it.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
From my most previous post…..I see an overall Glowing Triangular shape, and a semi spherical Glowing Orb….to my eyes these are not irregular shapes, but instead, uniformed geometric shapes. You’ll also notice, within these shapes, there appears to be a waffle grid pattern of uniformed squares….you may have to angle your display for it to be noticeable.

First, do not fall on the trap of assuming things that there are not on the photo, like saying the triangle and orb are "glowing", they are just white on a dark background.

Second, when you resize an image, try to do it (if the software you are using allows it) with "pixel resize" or "no resampling" or something like that, otherwise you will see the results of the resampling algorithm and not what is on the image.

This is what the triangle looks like when resized to 3000% with no resampling.



And the "orb".



PS: I have been involved in several scanning projects for a total of more than 2 million images, and in the last one I was the responsible for the quality control, so I looked at almost all of the 324670 resulting images, so I'm used to see these kind of "artefacts" on scanned images.

a reply to: ArMaP

Ok……so what I have presented are successive pinched zooms on my mini iPad…. no processing of any kind, using other software etc. …just zooms.

So, your experiences are well noted in the technical aspects……

From what you have demonstrated…….don’t you think the triangular and orb shapes are a bit strange? At all?


Added: perhaps instead of using “glowing” or just plain “white” as you mentioned……..the anomalies present themselves to have a quality of luminance.

……”What is difference between luminance and illuminance?
Illuminance is measured as the amount of light striking a surface. ... Luminance is the measurement of the product of the incident light and the surface – anything that is reflected. Luminance is also considered the human perception of brightness, or how bright we perceive the light that is reflected off of the surface.”….




👽🛸🍺

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Ok……so what I have presented are successive pinched zooms on my mini iPad…. no processing of any kind, using other software etc. …just zooms.

It's the same, the zooming applies a resampling algorithm to avoid creating those big squares you can see in the images I posted and to makes things look better.

It works, it makes things look better, but it doesn't show how they really look, for that you need to look at non-resampled image, like the ones I posted.

From what you have demonstrated…….don’t you think the triangular and orb shapes are a bit strange? At all?

No. A small piece of paper, for example, can have any shape, and the white "orb" can either be something that was scanned along with the photo or something that was on the physical photo itself. Looking at my zoomed-in version, and based on the sharp edges it appears to show, I think it more likely that it was something like, for example, a place where the photographic emulsion was scraped from the paper, so we are looking at the paper below the emulsion and not something that was photographed.

Added: perhaps instead of using “glowing” or just plain “white” as you mentioned……..the anomalies present themselves to have a quality of luminance.

Only when resampled, don't ignore that fact. Resampling creates a new image.

a reply to: ArMaP

It’s becoming obvious, Moon “Eureka!” moment’s, are far and few in between.

Touché!

👽🥂

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: TheAlleghenyGentleman
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

joking aside, here is a website that lets you magnify the image

AS08-18-2908

Excellent! 🍻

A NASA joke! It actually looks like a slice of Cheese Cake!

Added:

Once you get past the laughter of a slice of Cheese Cake…..and assuming it’s not a NASA images lab technicians joke….

Then let’s scrutinize deeper…….

It looks as though the black edging are the inner side walls of an entrance and the object is either rising from it or lowering into it….

👽🛸👍🏼

It looks like a piece of scotch tape laying on top of the picture to me.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Not all dust is round. The things you see on the photographs could have been acquired at any point in the process, not necessarily scanning - from the manufacturer of the film to the production of the finished photograph.

The 'glowing' and geometric shapes are definitely a product of the digitisation process, they are not there in reality.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

👍🏼

It certainly cuts down exponentially, the possible “What If’s” when it comes to perceived Moon anomalies.

👽🍻