Notices
Results 1 to 83 of 83

Thread: Astronomy Image Of The Day

  1. #1 Astronomy Image Of The Day 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Hope you like it!



    I like the color 8)


    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore cleft's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    137
    Very nice, what is the blob in the center?


    "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
    - H. G. Wells (1866-1946)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    A UFO, unknown light source or perhaps a lens flare?

    We will probably never know for sure, but what do you think it is? I don't see any other sources of light in the photograph to produce a lens flare or second source of light. It's in two frames as well
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    maybe an asteroid? it seems to be too big for that, but the lense isnt focussed on it so that may blur the picture and make it seem bigger then it really is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Asteroid.. I don't think NASA or the astronauts made any mention of that. Also, it appears in two consecutive frames and does not appear to move much, if at all.

    The really wierd aspect to it, is that it seems to cast a green color across the Lunar surface. 8)
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Looks like a spec of dust to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Looks like a spec of dust to me.
    No, really.. lol
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by btimsah
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Looks like a spec of dust to me.
    No, really.. lol
    Multi element Lens with a spec of dust on one of the elements. This would explain the image showing up on more then one frame and also not moving much. It may have been knocked free after a few shots.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Here's another cool one.. Who says Mars is the only body with a face?




    Good quality image, and cool surface feature.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Quote Originally Posted by btimsah
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Looks like a spec of dust to me.
    No, really.. lol
    Multi element Lens with a spec of dust on one of the elements. This would explain the image showing up on more then one frame and also not moving much. It may have been knocked free after a few shots.
    I find it difficult to believe a spec of dust would create that. Firstly, the color is rather brilliant. Secondly, light and color apppears to be eminating from the object and casting down across the lunar surface, creating a green tint. Now, that may be because of Yellow and blue combining.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    JX
    JX is offline
    Forum Junior JX's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by btimsah
    Secondly, light and color apppears to be eminating from the object and casting down across the lunar surface, creating a green tint. Now, that may be because of Yellow and blue combining.
    Must be something else because when yellow and blue light combine you get white light, not green. It's not the same as pigment combining.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke
    Quote Originally Posted by btimsah
    Secondly, light and color apppears to be eminating from the object and casting down across the lunar surface, creating a green tint. Now, that may be because of Yellow and blue combining.
    Must be something else because when yellow and blue light combine you get white light, not green. It's not the same as pigment combining.
    After staring at the image for a while I can't figure out what the sun angle is? It's lit rather inconsistantly, and I guess that's why I was thinking it looks like a light source. Also, is that the sun rising on the horizon?
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    It still looks like dust to me, on an inside element reflecting backward on the one next to it. The blue color is much like that used in coated optics.

    Edit:Place the sun above the picture and the dust works out even better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    It still looks like dust to me, on an inside element reflecting backward on the one next to it. The blue color is much like that used in coated optics.

    Edit:Place the sun above the picture and the dust works out even better.
    Perhaps, perhaps.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    61
    First, what is it a picture of? The moon?
    Second, it's probably, one image put onto another.
    Im not too good in photography, but if you use a heat camera(or w.e. its called) and you leave a finger print on a peice of glass, then take a picture of it. The figerprint will be cooling off, so you'll get cool shades, all the way from yellow to blue. Probably, someone just took a single pic, then went to "microsoft paint" and make cool blobs and then smuged it. But the idea of aliens sounds way cooler, doesnt it? If they are aliens, they have a good sence of colours, cause that looks wicked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman Communist Hamster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30
    I think it might be something in the spacecraft (the one the picture was taken from) lit up reflecting in the window. Like a control panel or a radio.
    Up the workers!
    Down Mcdonalds and their evil McCholesterol McShite
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Can you post the other frame?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Yeah, I have it on my hardrive somewhere... **LOOKING** FOUND IT!



    As I said it's virtually identical.. Just a bit further along in their loop.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    ok, that's weird; the object is definitely different, but the elongated shadows on the surface are the same; the position of the object has also changed.

    The object is not the primary light source; that is to the right, at about 3:30, about 100 degrees.

    It looks like the shuttle, doesn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    JX
    JX is offline
    Forum Junior JX's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Communist Hamster
    I think it might be something in the spacecraft (the one the picture was taken from) lit up reflecting in the window. Like a control panel or a radio.
    Unless the pic was taken from an external camera and not by an actual astronaut. Hmm, I really can't guess what it is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Well, how about we agree it's a UFO?




















    NO, NEVER
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by btimsah
    Well, how about we agree it's a UFO?
    The blue tail does indicate a moving object.

    The object is not on the surface of the moon.

    We do not know what it is.

    That qualifies an Unidentified Flying Object for me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    btimsah

    The moon is clearly in focus from the fore side to the aft, relative to the shot. Yet, the object in question is a blur. If the object is out of focus due to distance, it would be a very small object or an object much larger than the moon. If due to velocity, the blur would not so homogeneous.

    We can probably rule out that the blur is an object in space.

    No, we can not agree on UFO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    btimsah
    If the object is out of focus due to distance, it would be a very small object or an object much larger than the moon.
    So? I agree that it is more likely to be very small than much larger than the moon. I don't see what point you are making.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    btimsah
    If due to velocity, the blur would not so homogeneous.
    Now this I would like you to explain; the object doesn't apear homgeneous to me. How would you expect the object to look in the photograph, and what assumptions are you making about the object that it should look so?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    At the risk of being called a 'debunker' again by btimsah, here's what I notice when I look at the picture.

    The object I have no explanation for. It could be anything. I don't even know anything about the photo, how it was taken, when, why, or whatever.

    But, what I notice and that I notice no one else has mentioned, is that the blue 'tail' behind the object is not the only example of that type of blurring in the photo. There is also a bluish, blurry corona just above the horizon of the moon. I suppose btimsah, if he noticed it, feels that it's part of the light shed by the object onto the surface of the moon or something. But, to me, it seems to be evidence that the blue tail behind the object is not really significant.

    But, knowing nothing about the photo, and not being trained in this area, I really can't say.


    J,

    The blue tail does indicate a moving object.
    I don't think it indicates any such thing.

    1.) By btimsah's own admission and should be readily apparent to the eye, the object doesn't move much at all between the two frames. What does move is the source of the photo. The whole landscape shifts. I've just superimposed the images onto each other and can't even line up the various features on the moon. It's rotated and changed perspective in such a fashion that won't allow the frames to be superimposed easily. Maybe with skew and stretch or something, I'm not going to spend that much time on this and not sure if that would invalidate any findings anyway.

    But.

    2.) The object, to me, doesn't appear to move at all. If you slide back and forth between the two frames (once you've lined them up as good as you can, the object appears to stay in exactly the same place above certain featurs of the moon.

    However, and this is telling, the greenish glow that btimsah is on about does move...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    I don't see what point you are making.

    I already made the point - it is most likely not an object in space.

    How would you expect the object to look in the photograph, and what assumptions are you making about the object that it should look so?

    If it was a slow moving object, it should be in focus. If a fast moving object, then it should appear streaked with more definition on one side than the other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Meh.
    I had a spare moment or two and I thought of another method of showing how the object hasn't moved in the frames.





    Note the surface features that I've used to 'sight' with.

    Now. There is a problem with this. And one I'm not entirely sure what the outcome is.

    If the obect were on the camera lens, it would stay in the same spot in the frame and would not be motionless with respect to the moon. But, if the source of the photo is in motion, then shouldn't the object also appear in a slightly different position based on that motion and the change of perspective?

    So. I don't know if this means that it's an object in space. I don't know if it means that it's close. Or far. I know nothing about what took the picture. I know nothing about what might have been done with the image by way of editing. I know none of these things and I refuse to conjecture.

    Take it as you will. And do with it what you will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    If the obect were on the camera lens, it would stay in the same spot in the frame and would not be motionless with respect to the moon. But, if the source of the photo is in motion, then shouldn't the object also appear in a slightly different position based on that motion and the change of perspective?
    Based on your own lines it appears the moon has moved but not the object. This would be consistant with the lens. You also have to consider the framing may be slightly off if this was traditional film. The processing would have caused a shift based on where the negative was cut or printed. The object would not be impacted by processing, unless of course that imperfection was caused by the processing.

    Regardless it still appears to be a problem with in/or on the lens. I would say something large on the lens, or something small inside the lens. Inside makes more sense as it appears to be reflecting back on another element.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    Meh.
    I had a spare moment or two and I thought of another method of showing how the object hasn't moved in the frames.





    Note the surface features that I've used to 'sight' with.

    Now. There is a problem with this. And one I'm not entirely sure what the outcome is.

    If the obect were on the camera lens, it would stay in the same spot in the frame and would not be motionless with respect to the moon. But, if the source of the photo is in motion, then shouldn't the object also appear in a slightly different position based on that motion and the change of perspective?

    So. I don't know if this means that it's an object in space. I don't know if it means that it's close. Or far. I know nothing about what took the picture. I know nothing about what might have been done with the image by way of editing. I know none of these things and I refuse to conjecture.

    Take it as you will. And do with it what you will.
    GOOD JOB AND I AGREE! (has hell froze over?)

    I have no idea what that light is at all. I suppose if someone wanted to they could go to the Flight Journal and see when it was taken and what the context was.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Here's a cool equalized version I was toying with in Photoshop just to see.

    I used the auto contrast, color levels and equalize and it came out to this. It almost appears that the light on the horizon is apart of the bright object above it.

    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    New image of the day. This is one of the few I've found which look like a city from sattelite. Also appears to be vegitation/trees? What are the dark blurry areas. Kinda cool to look at and dream about the what-ifs. This is near the south pole I believe. 8)



    Can read more about the whole image here: http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/...m.cgi?read=701
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Junior Cuete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    4722,28 miles away from home
    Posts
    218
    I agree with the dust particle sticking to the lens thing... it doesn't seem to be over the moon's surface, or even to be anything solid flying around.

    (I was about to type something about swamp gas... no swamps at the moon I guess... pitty! That would save us a lot of discussion! )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuete
    I agree with the dust particle sticking to the lens thing... it doesn't seem to be over the moon's surface, or even to be anything solid flying around.

    (I was about to type something about swamp gas... no swamps at the moon I guess... pitty! That would save us a lot of discussion! )
    Well.. isnt there a purple glow across the surface of the Moon? Or whatever true color it is. From the way I was looking at it, it appeared that the "light source" above was producing a colored light across the surface of the Moon. In that way, a dust particle would not be sufficient.

    I guess it could be the sun from directly overhead, reflecting off of the inside of the camera?
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    61
    A dust particle wouldnt give off all different colours, it would appear only as a grey blob.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by flying_kiwi
    A dust particle wouldnt give off all different colours, it would appear only as a grey blob.
    Hmm.. good point. Well, then it's a giant saucer shapped UFO craft.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by btimsah
    Quote Originally Posted by flying_kiwi
    A dust particle wouldnt give off all different colours, it would appear only as a grey blob.
    Hmm.. good point. Well, then it's a giant saucer shapped UFO craft.
    Quoting myself.. Except it's not saucer shaped.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    61
    well.its a moving saucer then.....that way you get the motion blurr.

    I'm tellin you, someone just took a pic of the moon and then played around with the picture and got the funky blurr with all the colours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by flying_kiwi
    well.its a moving saucer then.....that way you get the motion blurr.

    I'm tellin you, someone just took a pic of the moon and then played around with the picture and got the funky blurr with all the colours.
    Huh? AS12-51-7553 is the image. Look it up if you think I faked it.

    http://dateiwao.fc2web.com/ufoapollo12moon1.jpg

    I got the colored version from Keithlaney.com, which is down. However if you do a google-image search for AS12-51-7553 his image will show up in the results still.

    The amazing thing is, Keith's image is the only one of it's kind that I can find! It's a good thing I have it on my hardrive.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    61
    im not saying you faked it, i'm saying that someone else could have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by flying_kiwi
    im not saying you faked it, i'm saying that someone else could have.
    Not unless NASA faked it. :wink:
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    61
    maybe they did...as a joke...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by flying_kiwi
    maybe they did...as a joke...
    They must have a bad sense of humor!

    I'm always interested when someone will say; I think this is a fake, but it's nothing of interest. Like it can be both? Why would someone fake somethign that is not of interest?

    I'm not sure if you are doing that, but I've been told something looks fake before - Even when it's from NASA's own website.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    61
    Im not saying its not interesting, I have nothing against the pic. Im just saying, it's a fake.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by flying_kiwi
    Im not saying its not interesting, I have nothing against the pic. Im just saying, it's a fake.
    Did you click any of the links? The picture is routinely available from NASA. lol
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    61
    oh, i give up. It's a fake. Period.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    61
    by the way... if you got it from an official NASA site doesnt mean that NASA took the pic. :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by flying_kiwi
    by the way... if you got it from an official NASA site doesnt mean that NASA took the pic. :?
    The Apollo astronauts took the pic. End of story.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    61
    Im tellin you....somebody messed with the picture.....rainbow coloured blobs dont float around in space..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    61
    Apollo eh??? well in tjose times they didnt have digital cameras...so they had to process the picture first.when they were processing it.... some light got onto that spot, explains the blob...and the colour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by flying_kiwi
    Apollo eh??? well in tjose times they didnt have digital cameras...so they had to process the picture first.when they were processing it.... some light got onto that spot, explains the blob...and the colour.
    lol.. It's on 2 (two) consecutive images.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Three whole pages speculating on the reflection on the porthole glass of the Command Module?

    The depth of field for cameras used on Apollo missions and set to photograph the Moon this way would be right at 2 meters to infinity. Any object beyond 2 meters from the camera should have been in focus. Therefore, the spot we see in the photo must be closer than 2 meters. Certainly the Astronauts in the Command Module (or, I suppose the L/LM could be the source of the photo) would have noticed an object that hung around less than two meters from their porthole for 2+ frames! And if they did, they wouldn't have released the pics if it was anything to worry about.

    There are three panes of glass separating the interior of the CM from the vacuum of space: a thick outer and a double-paned inner. This configuration can create two types of reflections visible from the interior of the CM (or even the L/LM) if the lighting is right. An exterior sourced and an interior sourced reflection.



    If a double reflection were to be seen in a photo shot from a 35mm camera, one of the 70mm Hasselblads, or even the Westinghouse color TV camera, the result would be a reflection of at least two colors and intensities (one pane is coated with anti-glare) and would appear to be two distinct reflections (there are double panes with a space between and an angle of reflection).

    This is consistent, by the way, with the "blob" of light in the photos btimsah showed us. The most interesting thing in those photos isn't the reflection that the mind-virus of belief in extraterrestrials provokes the immediate hypothesis of UFO... rather it is the Moon itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Okay thanks skinwalker. It's a reflection of what? Also does the green light cast across the moon look unusual to you at all?
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by btimsah
    Okay thanks skinwalker. It's a reflection of what?
    Dunno. Ask the astronaut who took the photo. It could be any number of things from the interior: a helmet, shoulder, laser range-finder, interior light from an instrument, etc.; or it could simply be the sun from outside the CM.

    Who cares?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Junior Cottontop3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    252
    You're probably right Skinwalker, but I like to think of it as a shot of a wing of a de-cloaking Klingon bird of prey.
    Death Beckons
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Junior superluminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    259
    The interior utility lights in the command module were fluorescent and cast a yellowish/greenish light.

    It really is amazing how much analysis occurs of a blob that shows no features and no behavior other than being where an interior reflection would likely appear on a piece of glass.
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Apollo 12: OK. I wonder what that could be then?

    Mission Control: OK. We’ll go back to the drawing board.

    Apollo 12: The object is very bright and it is obviously something that is tumbling. It is tumbling one and one-half revs per second or at least it is flashing us about that. Dick is going to tell you what star it is nearing.

    Later in the same conversation;

    Mission Control: … it’s kind of tough to say just what the heck that could be.

    Apollo12: We’ll assume its friendly anyway, OK? (19)

    As the mission continued, strange noises were picked up and recorded in the log:

    Alan Bean: Do you hear a lot of background noises Pete?

    Pete Conrad: Kind of static and things?

    Alan Bean: I keep hearing a whistle.

    Pete Conrad: That’s what I hear. Okay.

    Dick Gordon: (Ten minutes later) Hey, Houston, do you hear this constant beep in the background?

    Mission Control: That’s affirmative. We’ve heard it now for about the past 45 minutes.

    Dick Gordon: That’s right, so have we. What is it? (20)

    No cause for the noise was ever publicly released, if indeed it ever became known. What is known, however, is that the astronauts not only encountered white orbs speeding across the lunar surface but they also saw a strange orange object or light over the Moon’s surface.

    They were able to take a photograph of this anomaly as it ‘hovered’ over the lunar landscape. (NASA Catalogue No. AS 12-51 –7553.)



    Hmm..
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Junior superluminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    259
    Could you link to the transcript of that conversation?
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by superluminal
    Could you link to the transcript of that conversation?
    I'm trying to find this conversation from the Apollo Surface Journal site, but I got this from:

    http://www.violations.org.uk/

    On page 2 of the space anomolies I think. The conversation does sound legit and fits with the photo - but I'd like to find it on an official NASA site. :wink:
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Who cares about a conversation between Apollo 12 and Houston? What has this to do with the photo?

    Answer: not a damn thing.

    Don't worry, btimsah... I'm unsubscribing from this thread... it's nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Junior superluminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    259
    Ok. Find the section where he talks about hearing a whistle.

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...2.tvtrbls.html

    This was from the surface and is completely out of context with the rest of what you posted (from "violations"?). I'll look for more but I think this (your post) was pieced together from normal conversations to make something false. Astronauts reported many "tumbling" objects outside their spacecraft that are clearly normal debris (explosive bolt debris, interlock mechanisms after separation...) and Houston want's to positively id them. That's all.
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Who cares about a conversation between Apollo 12 and Houston? What has this to do with the photo?

    Answer: not a damn thing.

    Don't worry, btimsah... I'm unsubscribing from this thread... it's nonsense.
    LOL - You are plugging your ears and saying, "what I can't hear you".

    The image being described in the conversation fits with what was photographed TWICE during the apollo 12 mission.

    The image and the conversation both took place during the Apollo 12 mission. That's why it's important. Now go pretend "This is nonsense".
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by superluminal
    Ok. Find the section where he talks about hearing a whistle.

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...2.tvtrbls.html

    This was from the surface and is completely out of context with the rest of what you posted (from "violations"?). I'll look for more but I think this (your post) was pieced together from normal conversations to make something false. Astronauts reported many "tumbling" objects outside their spacecraft that are clearly normal debris (explosive bolt debris, interlock mechanisms after separation...) and Houston want's to positively id them. That's all.
    Yes, but that's not the only problem. That image AND conversation are not at that site - yet the image exists.

    The Apollo 12 astronauts described seeing a bright object tumbling through space and took (maybe 2) a picture of it. Don't you think this could be what they photographed?

    Of course, that's if they did not photograph a REFLECTION. Damn Astronauts can't tell the difference can they? :P
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Junior superluminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    259
    btimsah,

    I think the "conversation" is BS. It appears to have been made up of snippets of completely normal conversations that had nothing to do with each other.
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Junior superluminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    259
    Well, it just shows that you need to find the source of this stuff to see what's really going on.
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    At this time I have no reason to believe the conversation is fake.

    Really the only reason you believe it's b.s. is because of the implication's that it's true. :wink:
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    The problem is if the image is not listed, along with the conversation then I don't know what that means. Maybe I can find the two together somewhere else. Not sure what else to do though.

    It does seem strange to leave that image, and the conversation about the image out. Usually they discuss why the image was taken and what it was taken of. Not on here!

    For example here are the two much lower quality version of the images;

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-51-7552

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-51-7553

    They exist, were not doctored - yet I still can't find the conversation or reason why this photo was taken from a NASA website. :x I'm not sure what that means though.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Junior superluminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    259
    btimsah,

    Did you go to the site I posted? The first part of the conversation and the second are not from the same log.
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Junior superluminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    259
    Ok,

    The first half is here. This is at 36 hours into the flight:

    http://history.nasa.gov/ap12fj/07day2_qettd.htm

    036:26:30 Carr: Pete, as best as we can tell, looking at things down here, on those SLA panels, we assume that they weren't imparted any great amount of Delta-V, like anything more than 1 or so feet per second when they separated. Your SLA panels would probably only be about 300 miles away from you right now.

    036:26:51 Conrad: That could be true but, gee whiz, when we turned around, I saw one of those SLA panels leaving the area at a high rate of speed; it looked to me like it was leaving us pretty - pretty rapid clip, like it got a lot more than a foot per second or so.

    036:27:21 Carr: Well, since we don't really have any idea how they left or what their trajectory could be, it's kind of tough really to say just what the heck that could be.

    036:27:33 Gordon: Okay. We'll assume it's friendly anyway, okay?

    036:27:37 Carr: Roger. If it makes any noises, it's probably just wind in the rigging.

    036:27:41 Conrad: Okay. Understand.
    The "object" is most likely an SLA panel.

    The other half of the conversation is at 116 hours and ON THE MOON!

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...2.tvtrbls.html

    116:25:18 Bean: Do you hear a little background noise, Pete? Kind of staticky and things?

    116:25:21 Conrad: I keep hearing a whistle.

    116:25:22 Bean: That's what I hear. Okay. (Long Pause)

    ...

    116:38:08 Bean: Hey, Houston, do you hear this constant beeping in the background?

    116:38:13 Gibson: That's affirmative. We've heard it now for about the past 45 minutes.

    116:38:17 Bean: What is it? (Responding to the second half of Gibson's communication) That's right, so have we. What is it?

    116:38:26 Gibson: (Static returns briefly) Intrepid, we've tried to isolate it. It appears it's something on the downlink coming from the LM. (Long Pause)

    116:38:45 Conrad: Hey, Al.

    116:38:46 Bean: Yes, sir. And there's the lunar tools all set up for you, fella.
    The conversation as presented at "violations" is a complete lie and has nothing to do with any photograph or anything. It's made up of seperate pieces by lairs. Ok?
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    It's not completely made up, but is different from the one presented on that site. Which is fine - I'm glad to find it.

    We can solve this rather easily - find the conversation that goes with this image because I can't.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Lmao.. this is exhausting. No; The site was not lying;

    036:13:29 Conrad: The object's very bright - The object's very bright, and it's obviously something that's tumbling. It's tumbling about 1½ rev's per second, or at least it's flashing at us about that. And Dick - Dick is going to tell you what star it's near. He's messing with his chart right now.

    036:13:55 Carr: Roger. We're standing by.


    [Very long comm break.]
    036:26:25 Carr: 12, Houston.
    036:26:29 Conrad: Go ahead.

    036:26:30 Carr: Pete, as best as we can tell, looking at things down here, on those SLA panels, we assume that they weren't imparted any great amount of Delta-V, like anything more than 1 or so feet per second when they separated. Your SLA panels would probably only be about 300 miles away from you right now.

    036:26:51 Conrad: That could be true but, gee whiz, when we turned around, I saw one of those SLA panels leaving the area at a high rate of speed; it looked to me like it was leaving us pretty - pretty rapid clip, like it got a lot more than a foot per second or so.

    036:27:21 Carr: Well, since we don't really have any idea how they left or what their trajectory could be, it's kind of tough really to say just what the heck that could be.

    036:27:33 Gordon: Okay. We'll assume it's friendly anyway, okay?

    036:27:37 Carr: Roger. If it makes any noises, it's probably just wind in the rigging.

    036:27:41 Conrad: Okay. Understand.


    [Very long comm break.]
    It's just selective in what it put up there.. but I don't see anywhere in here mentioning them taking a photo so I'm still confused.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Junior superluminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    259
    There probably is no conversation to go with it. They took hundreds of photos with reflections and whatnot in them. Nothing unusual to converse about.
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Junior superluminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    259
    The way you posted it, it seems like the two conversations (object/whistling noise) were the same conversation. This has nothing to do with this photo. If it was posted that way at "violations" then it is a lie.
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Hey, Superliminal. You're kicking some ass on this one. And nice job finding those journal sites. That's some interesting stuff to pore over.

    As to the quote from "Violations". Yeah. Very selective. They erased everything that made it seem like something normal. Why do you think they'd do that, Btimsah? This is another instance of motivations being key. Obfuscation to push an alien theory.

    The photo in question could not be a photo taken 36 hours in flight. It's far too close to the moon.

    Don't you have a number for the photo, Btimsah?

    The most likely answer is that it is just a reflection. Boring, huh? Well. That's life.

    I want to know why it is you find the conversation as posted on that other site 'credible'? Because it says what you wanted to hear?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by superluminal
    The way you posted it, it seems like the two conversations (object/whistling noise) were the same conversation. This has nothing to do with this photo. If it was posted that way at "violations" then it is a lie.
    Yeah the only thing I saw even close to that is this;

    036:27:37 Carr: Roger. If it makes any noises, it's probably just wind in the rigging.

    Maybe that happened later? I don't know someone would add "ringing noises" to that story really...

    I don't care about that site anymore - Now I just want to find some OFFICIAL NASA WORDS ON THE IMAGE!
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    I want to know why it is you find the conversation as posted on that other site 'credible'? Because it says what you wanted to hear?
    I never said it was credible, I simply said I had no reason NOT to believe it yet. Now I do - The site was embellishing the conversation to make it seem more sensational.

    The only one jumping to conclusions from pre-held biases is you. :wink:
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Junior superluminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    259
    Hey invert.

    I just get frustrated by lies and crap trying to make things look like what they're not. Isn't going to the moon exciting enough? Sheesh...
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by superluminal
    The way you posted it, it seems like the two conversations (object/whistling noise) were the same conversation. This has nothing to do with this photo. If it was posted that way at "violations" then it is a lie.
    I posted what they wrote, because it sounded plausable. The part I was interested in was right. I did not really care about the sounds, though again did make it seem more sensational.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus

    As to the quote from "Violations". Yeah. Very selective. They erased everything that made it seem like something normal. Why do you think they'd do that, Btimsah? This is another instance of motivations being key. Obfuscation to push an alien theory.
    Ironically the guy who made that site operates thinking NASA has motivations to hide ETI, so you end up with too much hearsay.

    You can add me to that list. I've studied enough of this (Can I say shit?) shit to feel that there is some truth to all of these rumors and images.

    Maybe one of these days I'll write a book about it all....
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Dear God.. This image won't die. I've found more - well 3 more photos of that THING.

    I just put it on my site.. I don't wanna mess with imageshack. 5 images of that THING in total. This time I was not looking for them either.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by btimsah
    Quote Originally Posted by flying_kiwi
    by the way... if you got it from an official NASA site doesnt mean that NASA took the pic. :?
    The Apollo astronauts took the pic. End of story.
    Wait, hold the phone....... rationalist flying kiwi suggested someone other than Nasa took a closeup picture of the moon from orbit, and woo-woo btimsah said it must have been the Apollo astronauts?

    What's going on? How will my worldview recover...?!!?!?!?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Why is the moon turned sideways and upside down? Is that how they come from Nasa? If the pictures are widely separated by time then it's certainly a lens artefact. This is also confirmed if the second pair of pictures are taken, as they seem to be, from closer to the moon than the first pair.

    I had thought it was a lens flare, but it must in fact be a camera artefact like a dust particle.

    By the way, Robert, you like to wind us up with your woo-woo-ishness, but I think your blogspot site is cool.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    Why is the moon turned sideways and upside down? Is that how they come from Nasa? If the pictures are widely separated by time then it's certainly a lens artefact. This is also confirmed if the second pair of pictures are taken, as they seem to be, from closer to the moon than the first pair.

    I had thought it was a lens flare, but it must in fact be a camera artefact like a dust particle.

    By the way, Robert, you like to wind us up with your woo-woo-ishness, but I think your blogspot site is cool.
    Well thank you Mr Silas. They pitch upside down many times while orbiting around the moon. I think they do - for example play this;

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...lideshow/70mm/

    That site has gotten better and better. They now have moderately high quality slide-shows of the Apollo missions. Kind of gives you a view of what they photographed and when they photographed it. 8) They also float upside down so that could account for the shots being upside down.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83 new image 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Wow, after a long vacation the image of the day is back..




    Below, is the same surface feature with no zoom:



    :-D
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •