Cable connected to some device on the Moon?

I work in a company that, besides other things, has made some scanning works, with more than 2 million images scanned for official entities (most of those 2 million images were digitized for the army archives). I have also examined hundreds of photos taken, developed and printed by my sister (she is a professional photographer) and, to me, that looks like a small fibre on the photo, either on the printing of the negative on the paper (when the image from the negative is projected on the photo paper) or during the processing of the final photo.

A hair on the lens of the camera wouldn't be in focus, and a hair on the neg would be pure white....the only option is a hair on the print while scanning......but the way it's illuminated seems wrong for that........then again, who knows?

Originally posted by Nostalgic

Originally posted by CosmicQuest

Wow. Two power cables in the same pho... Errr, no. Most definitely hairs. It's good to be open minded folks, but some of you seem to be letting your brain fall out entirely. Stay logical.

Cheers,
Nos

The fascinating thing is that the specular highlights on the hair match the direction of the Sun on the photograph.
From the photograph, it's obvious that the Sun is coming from the North or top of the picture. The light reflections on the hair match having a light source from the top of the picture. They even seem to get darker while in the "valley". Though it could just be back-reflection from the picture.

Though it does seem to be taking the long way round between a couple of points on the surface. If it were an alien structure, why wouldn't they just use the direct route between the two points in a straight line?
It get's into the realms of sci-fi design thinking that way - perhaps having a curved design would allow different parts of the structure to see each other. Maybe there's part of the lunar surface they want to connect to like a fault line, or around a crater edge.

NOT a hair on the lens.

It IS a hair (or small fiber from clothing) on the negative or on the flatbed scanner that digitized the image.

If you look, these fine hairs or fibers are all over the image, especially around the edges.

Originally posted by Flatcoat
A hair on the lens of the camera wouldn't be in focus, and a hair on the neg would be pure white....the only option is a hair on the print while scanning......but the way it's illuminated seems wrong for that........then again, who knows?

You forgot an hair on the paper during the printing, when the image is projected from the negative to the paper.

Anything between the negative and the paper will appear on the printed photo.

That's when the lab technician masks some areas of the photo to make them less bright or to give a longer exposure to other areas.

I can't tell if it is a hair or a scratch.
However, because I work with and around all sorts of cable and wire rope; if it is a cable,I will say that is one humungaloid cable. Just judging from the viewing distance and resolution.
I would like to see the machinery used to make it.

reply to post by ArMaP



Yes, but the problem with that is that anything between the neg and the paper will result in a pure white artifact on the print (unless of course the object is semi-transparent, allowing some light to react with the silver halide) , but on every print I've ever made with a contaminated neg or paper, the result is always a sharply defined, pure white artifact on the print.

Hard to believe some say hair or scratch....you are telling on yourself.....take the time to look closer....be a detective.
say scratch again....yeszz The best reaction is " what the hail is a going on here" in this universe. sumpinszzup

Originally posted by ArMaP
I work in a company that, besides other things, has made some scanning works, with more than 2 million images scanned for official entities (most of those 2 million images were digitized for the army archives). I have also examined hundreds of photos taken, developed and printed by my sister (she is a professional photographer) and, to me, that looks like a small fibre on the photo, either on the printing of the negative on the paper (when the image from the negative is projected on the photo paper) or during the processing of the final photo.

That is interesting, however there are two different looking "hairs" one which curves around a bit and ends in a white looking object, the other (which does look like a fiber to me) is circular and white looking.

Which object are you referring to in your reply?

maybe it's an unusual emulsion burr, that might explain why the 'hair' does seem to follow the features but much lighter in shade.

i found a similar thing a while ago. sadly i don't recall the exact image number, but there are probably many examples of 'it' whatever it may be (which i do not know)

It looks more like a devil's tail than a hair to me

Originally posted by SubSea
The "hair" goes into a light colored object that certainly does not match the size in relation to a hair of the follicle that might be on the end of a hair.

Second, are any of you even remotely aware of the clean room environment that everything was assembled in for the Apollo missions? I think the chance of their being a big 'ol nasty hair inside one of the Apollo cameras is about Zero and None.

The "hair" does follow the contour of the surrounding area and even appears to dip down at one point.

It may not be on the Apollo camera, but on the film negative, or on the film paper used to produce this particular print, or on the scanning device used to digitize this print.

Many of these scans (digitizing Apollo-era images) were done relatively recently -- not in during the Apollo era, and were done by third parties.

Plus, I don't think it is really following the contours, but is actually picking up the darkness and lightness of the image. It is darker where the image is dark, and is lighter where the image is light, which may make it appear to be following the contours. This could be the light from the scanner reflecting off of the bright parts of the image and onto the hair/fiber/whatever.

For being a hair on a photo or negative, it sure is weird that the hair bends where the natural bend would be if it was on the surface that was photographed. Although, not knowing for sure if colors and chemicals can make this effect on a hair, I cannot say that processing of film is not a possible cause of directional change of the hair to correspond to the terrain. It also seems to break exactly at a point to make it look like it is behind a rock. To me it seems like it is a piece of root or vine and that this picture may have not actually come from the moon.

Are you sure this picture was taken on the moon. If it was, a piece of root or vine could have blown into space from a volcanic eruption or meteor strike long ago and is sitting on the moon. This may be real evidence but actually the evidence could have many hypothesis that it can be applied to. I doubt if it is a wire. There would be mor

IMHO it is a hair.

I work in film / television and now days, we don't shoot on film but there is an old expression that was associated with anything shot on film called "Check the gate"

"The gate" (in photography or movie) is part of the camera that the film runs over whilst being shot, If a hair gets in the gate, (This happens ALL THE TIME) the hair will be appear on the final film much like in the OP's photo...

After the director yells "CUT" someone will yell "Check the gate" and if there is no hair or debris in the gate; the camera assistant will call "Gate is clear" and everyone will move on...

This is defiantly a hair and a quick google of "Check the gate" will confirm everything I have just said.

Originally posted by UKToday
reply to post by Nomad451

 

Can you not see the ignorance of your post. You say that you blame the education system and people should THINK. Well, isn't that just what some people are doing....just thinking, just daring to speak their mind and say, "hey, this looks odd to me"??

That's not thinking and using reason and logic, that's belief and faith while ignoring probability and evidence.

Real thinkers would consider the likelihood of this being something actually on the planet, consider the probabilities, think about the possible scenarios based on science.

Fantasists and illogical people immediately jump to "aliens", while ignoring the scientific facts relating to how these images were produced and the likelihood of it being something easily explainable.

Thinking outside the box is great, reaching for the fantastical explanation and ignoring logic and reason when the evidence for the banal is staring right at you is not intelligent thinking - far from it.

It's clear to all logical people here that the most plausible explanation is that these are fibres on the images deposited there through the process of their scanning. If people want others to believe that these are "cables" on the Moon, they have to provide far more convincing evidence than something which can be easily debunked.

Originally posted by SubSea
Which object are you referring to in your reply?

The one in the opening post.

Well, in my opinion, this is a fiber of some kind.

If these are hairs, then why so many? Aren't these cameras and other related equipment assembled in clean rooms?

Originally posted by ninepointfive
If these are hairs, then why so many? Aren't these cameras and other related equipment assembled in clean rooms?

If you read back, you'll find that it's already been established that these are scanned photos.

The hair/fibers are not in the camera, but more likely on the film or scanner.