Apollo Mapping Bug....Or something else?

a reply to: gortex

Yes. I saw their explanation. That's why I mentioned to others to look at that page above.

However, would multiple images having similar features show that the suspected thing was actually in the images themselves? I don't know much about developing film but I would not expect it to show up on many of the images, meaning possibly thousands.

Pardon me for being overly hopeful.

a reply to: erikthegreen

The problem arises from scanning old film pictures so they can be digitised and uploaded to the web , if the fluff is in the machine it will be replicated over multiple images.


Being overly hopeful is something that affects all of us interested in this subject.

a reply to: erikthegreen

I would think the lens on the enlarger/projecter.
It's damn hard to keep a sterile lab for photo development.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I love aliens on the moon conspiracies

I dont really believe it, its more of i want to believe but they are so much fun and so interesting.

Really like the idea that the whole Apollo missions were about making contact with Alien life.

I agree, they are an utterly fascinating cultural meme -- and digging into detailed imagery is one way to determine how the stories emerged and flourished.

Here's some recent work I did on the Apollo-11 'UFOs parked on the crater' story and the actual crew comments that sparked that myth.

www.jamesoberg.com...

a reply to: hutch622

Great I look forward to that.

a reply to: gortex

Yep. I recall stumbling across those little critters when researching moon pics about 10 years ago and thought, WTH is that!?!?!

Boring, but accurate explanation.

They flew all the way to the moon to take some pictures but they couldn`t manage to develop the pictures in a clean dark room?

come on nasa these weren`t pics of your vacation to Disney world people had to go to the moon to take these pictures.

a reply to: gortex

It's lint on the film from the scanning process so the "object" is not in the actual picture, there are many other such examples.

Actually, it's from the original film. Caused by debris in the camera itself.
You'll notice that they appear in the same pixel location on every frame.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

Yep. I just re-read the link Gortex posted.

Subsequent analysis during image reprocessing revealed that foreign debris was present in the optical path of the camera system, and can be seen in the photographic exposures

a reply to: erikthegreen

I don't know much about developing film but I would not expect it to show up on many of the images, meaning possibly thousands.

It does. On every image from that camera. In the same pixel location each time.
In some it is hard to see though, because of contrast problems.

a reply to: Phage

I stand corrected.

a reply to: erikthegreen

different scans of differering " generation " stock reveal different " anomolies " see :

source

same image number - but a different generation reproduction - with different anomolies

a reply to: Phage


Actually it is not in the same pixel location....unless we are getting a cropped image or if there is some kind of motor that is moving/tilting the lens? In the original scans, you can see that it does move from left to right. Also, the orientation changes. It rotates.

As an example you can compare image AS15-M-1055 to image AS15-M-2254.

I don't think that changes much at all but just anted to mention that in case it gives you any other ideas.

It does look like something that is alive or organic doesn't it? Or is that a poor assumption on my part.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Different generation reproduction? Hmmm not sure exactly what you mean. Could you elaborate?

Somehow the image is generated differently? Different formats you mean?

a reply to: erikthegreen

Actually it is not in the same pixel location....unless we are getting a cropped image or if there is some kind of motor that is moving/tilting the lens

The lens is fixed. The film advances through the camera. There will be slight variations in the amount the film advances as well as in how the film is run through the scanner.

It does look like something that is alive or organic doesn't it? Or is that a poor assumption on my part.

Imagination is a wonderful thing. But think a bit about what you said above. How does that reconcile with it being an object on the surface of the Moon? These objects just happen to be in (approximately) the same location relative to the orbiting camera in every image?

a reply to: erikthegreen

It might be worth reminding people that the Apollo images are on film. The originals are kept in storage and prints run of those, then prints run off those, then different people scan them at different resolutions. That's how you get different formats. Many if the images were printed in reports and scientific articles at the time.

Compare the very high resolution scans on the ASU website that have been discussed here with those reproduced at the Apollo Image Atlas:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

It's also worth pointing out that Metric and Panoramic images were taken at the same time as the Panoramic camera images, and quite often there were contemporaneous 16mm and 70mm Hasselblad images. If the images depicted a real object they would appear on all of them.

a reply to: Phage

Like I said in my first post, I think its on the lense. To me it looks organic...tentacle looking things or a mouth of some kind. And then the transparency adds to that. It looks like something I would see through a microscope.

Altitude is 120 km. Resolution is 200mm/pixel. If that thing is 1 percent of the image width, and the image is 25,000 pixels, that makes it pretty small. That puts it close to the width of a dust mite. That's an approximation but depending on the width of the camera we are talking maybe a mm.

a reply to: erikthegreen

If it were on the lens it would not be in sharp focus even if it were visible.
kurtmunger.com...

It is a tiny speck, inside the camera.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I didn't count how many but taking a simple look you can see that it is on many of the AS15 images. There are over 3,000 images and while some of them are black because the moon is out of frame, I'd say at least 1000 of them have the anomaly.

Strange stuff.

a reply to: Phage

They say the film was hand cleaned and then scanned so I guess it must of been picked up there. I wouldn't expect it to be so clear either but some of the other specs look like pieces of hair or dust and also have a transparency to them...