Mysterious Debris in Lunar Orbit

you know when i was young lad i had the idea that the best way to disguise yourself is to appear as a natural object.

If i wanted to observe earth without being observed in return i would just float about as an asteroid etc.

also notice how it is at an angle exactly face on,rather coincidental.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by wierdalienshiznit]

reply to post by wierdalienshiznit


You tell me. I gave you everything I got, including source. A sharp member Internos, found them in the NASA image library. I did not know they where there.

Lets find a statement for what they are from the record. NASA has a record of everything. Well, not everything. They lost the bloody Apollo high resolution tapes, the idiots.

ZG

It looks like there was a tear in the photo when it was scaned. If you look closely you can see the thickness of the photo paper.

C'mom dude, it's parity. I've seen them with my own eyes. I was attempting some levity.

reply to post by jpm1602


it just gets a bit irritating when the same objects are mentioned over and over again...

i mean are you telling me thats a lens flare!?,random space junk on the pristine moon!?,weather balloon on the moon!!??,cmon!!

hmmm wds, I am unremarked at our horrible re?attempts at the moon.

reply to post by jpm1602


huh?.

After long and extensive analysis, thorough research and 10 hours of coffee consumption, I came to the following conclusion:

It's a swamp gas!

Originally posted by wsamplet
It looks like there was a tear in the photo when it was scaned. If you look closely you can see the thickness of the photo paper.

I agree, does look like a scanned torn image.

As said, the mission is Apollo 10

I've found this possible explanation on a forum, looks plausible, even NOT conclusive:

It is almost certainly a piece of Mylar that came off during a backside maneuver at about MET 188 hours.

John Young told MCC,


"This morning when we were turning around, first time, we had about - I estimate - maybe a foot-and- a-half or more of Mylar with that insulation coating on the back of it. It would appear out in front of our window, and I guess it was from the top hatch which is where that insulation came from in the first place. It just sort of sat there for a while, and then quietly floated off."

/2z9phz

Moon Pigeons
and other unidentified visual
phenomena associated with space flight


The following pages are from an Apollo-era NASA report provided by James Oberg to be made available on the internet primarily as an instructive tool for those interested in moving objects photographed near inflight spacecraft.

Unfortunately an original copy of the report could not be obtained and the photographs in this copy are unusable and were not included here. Attempts will be made to obtain usable photographs for inclusion at a later date. Though the original format of the report has been altered for these web pages, the text is complete and unedited. The text was converted to ascii format using OCR software and errors produced by it have been corrected when found. Spelling errors and typographical errors in the original report have not been corrected here.

LM - CSM Docking
Undocked: May 22, 1969 - 19:00:57 UTC
Redocked: May 23, 1969 - 03:11:02 UTC

LM closest approach to lunar surface
May 22, 1969, 21:29:43 UTC
On May 22, 1969 at 20:35:02 UTC, a 27.4 second LM descent propulsion system burn inserted the LM into a descent orbit of 112.8 km by 15.7 km so that the resulting lowest point in the orbit occurred about 15° from lunar landing site 2 (the Apollo 11 landing site). The lowest measured point in the trajectory was 15.6 km above the lunar surface at 21:29:43 UTC.

en.wikipedia.org...


In some video i've seen parts coming off while undocking.

Of course, if it isn't a part of apollo 10 or of its module, it's an out of place part, but MUCH out of place. Anyway, the explanation provided looks, as said plausible.

Apollo 10 (26)
The Dress Rehearsal

Pad 39-B (1)
Saturn-V AS-505 (5)
1st Launch LC-39B
High Bay 2
MLP 3
Firing Room 3



Mission Objective


Demonstrate performance of LM and CSM in lunar gravitation field. Evaluate CSM and LM docked and undocked lunar navigation. All mission objectives were achieved.

Launch



May 18, 1969; 12:49:00pm EDT Kennedy Space Center. FL. No Delays.

Orbit



Altitude: 190km x 184km
Inclination: xxx degrees
Orbits: 31revolutions
Duration: 08 Days, 0 hours, 03 min, 23 seconds
Distance: miles

Landing


May 26, 1969; 12:52:23pm EDT. Landing point 15deg 2min South by 164deg 39min West; Less than 4 miles (6.4km) from target point and recover ship . Crew on board U.S.S. Princeton at 01:31 p.m. EDT; spacecraft aboard ship at 02:28 p.m.
Mission Highlights



Apogee 190 kilometers
Perigee 184km
Trans-lunar injection 02:39:21 MET (Mission Elapsed Time)
Maximum distance from Earth 399,194km
First CSM-LM docking in translunar trajectory 03:17:37 MET
First LM undocking in lunar orbit 98:11:57 MET
First LM staging in lunar orbit 102:45:17 MET
First manned LM-CSM docking in lunar orbit 106:22:02 MET
Trans-earth injection, 137:36:29 MET

Dress rehearsal for Moon landing. First manned CSM/LM operations in cislunar and lunar environment; simulation of first lunar landing profile. In lunar orbit 61.6 hours, with 31
orbits. LM taken to within 15,243 m (50,000 ft) of lunar surface. First live color TV from space. LM ascent stage jettisoned in orbit.

www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...
upload.wikimedia.org...
jleslie48.com...

Here's the low-res sequence from LPI:






[edit on 10/11/2007 by internos]

Interesting teory Internos.

This images have been discussed here a few days ago:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 10-11-2007 by Orion437]

[edit on 10-11-2007 by Orion437]

Originally posted by internos

John Young told MCC,

"This morning when we were turning around, first time, we had about - I estimate - maybe a foot-and- a-half or more of Mylar with that insulation coating on the back of it. It would appear out in front of our window, and I guess it was from the top hatch which is where that insulation came from in the first place. It just sort of sat there for a while, and then quietly floated off."

Good work Internos. Of course it'll be ignored and there'll still be three more pages of speculation that NASA came up with that as a cover story because the Apollo crew were really attacked by aliens, cleverly disguised as a piece of torn fabric.

reply to post by internos


Good find. This is the kind of truth we need. It's good to look for things that make us go "Ah", but it's easier to find those when the rubbish is swept away first.

This is great work.

the series of still 3 images could be a close object the size of a fingernail...
rather than something as large as an apollo capsule at the moons horizon.


i would suggest the camera operator photographed anything & everything
i their field of vision...not because it was an anomaly or 'alien'...
even boring (moon pigeons as they refer to them) are recorded for
future analysis...for the purpose of creating a library of knowledge


in fact a moon pebble could have been deliberately lofted into a trajectory
for recording it's motion....too bad a caption or text that identifies the images is missing, or maybe that's the way some creative mission techniction seeks to create a mystery & generate interest,
~leaving their 'signature' as-it-were, in the Apollo program~

huh? jpm? What I was attempting to say is if we put astronaut boot on our very own personal satellite, why are we pussyfooting about? With orbiters and landers. Hmmm? Could it be advanced...dare I say it...aliens. Me thinks so.

Collins was a she...and she informed Houston of some very 'unordinary' things. We gots some crazy funky stuff up there. And they are doing their collective dangdest to keep our activities under a microscope.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by jpm1602]

reply to post by internos



Great finds Intuos!

I tend to believe this is the best explanation. Sorry I did not see the other thread, but the process of discovery and the new HR images where just the thing this needed.

My assumption was that this was at the least odd. Anything off the space ship is not a good thing. The flexible mylar would explain the odd shape, and the many insulative materials in layers fit the visuals. But I can't think this was something NASA felt good about. A good gamma burst would have had an easier time of penetrating into the crew compartment.

I think we can put this thread to rest, as I am satisfied that if it was something not from the space ship that it would be bigger news and maybe completely off the record.

This is the intelligent process however to find answers. Hats off to Intuos

Good researcher to have here.

I was going to spend time last night on the NASA sites, but I am best man for my buddy today and rehearsals and speech writing was top on my to-do list first. I probably wont be much use after the reception tonight, but will dig deeper on Sunday to satisfy with some detail.

There are still some questions, but not for this string. Unless we find some specific mention of anomalous facts. Thanks all.

Now to squeeze into the tux.

reply to post by jainatorres


Do you people get warnings for you idiotic one line posts?

I do. But I then criticize myself for them. Do you?

Originally posted by icybreeze
reply to post by eRauzed

 

ok, giving you the benefit of the doubt and lets say they did come from NASA, with all the "dust" around the object could it possibly be a corner of a pice of paper that is in the lens or scanner? look at it! it is exactly what it looks like.

Entirely the reason why you'd take a happy snap of it. I know when I go on holidays, I take photos of small bits of paper and dust floating on water, for no reason.

it gets me, it really does.. The pictures may show something completely mundane, or not. But you lot just have to come in screaming how quirky people are.

Crikey, it's damn insane...

How did this get here..

Damn double postings.. yikes!



[edit on 10/11/2007 by badw0lf]