Gemini 10 UFO Photo: New Color-Manipulatons

a reply to: Phage

Hi Phage, hey can you post the hi resolution picture from the gemini cache that matches the ops photo?

I had a look through and couldn't find a match.

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: Phage

Hi Phage, hey can you post the hi resolution picture from the gemini cache that matches the ops photo?

I had a look through and couldn't find a match.

Here, it's this pic at this link, then the next few photos after it. (You only get the high-res version if you click on that choice, on the right side of each photo.)

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...-45778_G10-M

EDIT: The individual pics don't link properly. I'll have to come back and embed the pics later...

S66-45774_G10-M is the match to the image in the OP

a reply to: peacefulpete

Thanks, I looked through those and couldn't find the one Phage must have been looking at that shows the orange reflection off the booster in hi-resolution.

The booster is a plausible explanation.

a reply to: Phage

Thanks Phage

Going to have a look.

Well, here is the URL for the hi-res image: tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

Picture from the OP below:



Here is a scaled version of the S66-45775_G10-M_f.png with an insert at 200% zoom.



Okay, my question is this.

How the hell does that ten pixel blue blur ID as THE Gemini rocket booster?

I mean, I have seen better blurry UFO pictures in the UFO forum being overwhelmingly dismissed as space swamp gas and space weather balloons.

EDIT

Okay went and looked at the subsequent photos, this is from S66-45778_G10-M_f.png.



Darn, your right Phage.

Thank goodness, some actual proper checking on what it could be before deciding its a alien being in his ship nipping to Burger King..

Well done man beast Phage for your usual precise work...May you stay on here another 300yrs (god it feels like its been 300yrs on here for me).

Paul, old and feeling older daily...Still not going to go gaga after every so called ufo video or picture, didn't do it when I first joined (under an older name) and not going to start now all these years later. Look, look more and look again before calling it even a ufo let alone "alien'" technology...

originally posted by: Phage
Very high resolution scans can be found here (for the past 6 or 7 years):
tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

There are three frames in sequence which also show the object (with different lighting); S66-45778_G10-M, S66-45779_G10-M, S66-45780_G10-M



This is from the first one.

Looks to be either their booster or the one from Gemini 8. Both of which they rendevoused with.

If you click on the youtube link, the video maker seems happy to admit it's sun glare from the agena!

NOTE: I have to admit that shortly after posting this vid: Someone sent me a link to extremely high-res photos from the Gemini 10 mission. And it actually seems to clarify that the object is one of the two unmanned craft that the astronauts docked with. The photo I focused on, just happens to be catching a very bright glare of sunlight. Other pics, with less glare, show the unmanned craft, of the mission.

Here's my crop of the completely unprocessed raw TIFF image from the 'March to the moon' site.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Yes the video is mine (non-monetized YT channel), and this thread prompted me to add the note that the UFO was apparently debunked, right after I posted the video and thread. I don't think ATS lets us change the title of a thread, but ideally the thread would also be updated that the UFO is debunked.

In other words, I made the video and thread in good faith... and once it's debunked, I'm acknowledging that.

Also I'm going to post links to all the high res images of the object (or I'll just embed them) because you guys are actually pointing out the wrong picture. The OP has the original unprocessed image that I focused on.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Here is the original, unprocessed photo that I had focused on (this is just re-posting the same pics from the OP):





Now in a moment I'm going to actually post links (or embed) all of that site's high-res shots of the same object.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Have you got a link to the original photos?

Then we can compare them side by side.

You can still not rule out the reflection of a panel light or illuminated instrument behind the glass.
It is really the trouble with most spacecraft pictures taken through glass.

And if you include the glass lens, well it is every one.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

Have you got a link to the original photos?

Then we can compare them side by side.

Well my last post has one original photo in it (but it's not high-res).

Yeah I'm about to post / embed all the high-res original photos. Check back in a few minutes.

Never mind. Checked the original on a link above and it’s quite obviously a manmade booster.

originally posted by: charlyv
You can still not rule out the reflection of a panel light or illuminated instrument behind the glass.
It is really the trouble with most spacecraft pictures taken through glass.

And if you include the glass lens, well it is every one.

1.) The space mission itself was focused on open-space photography... So it really is most likely that this was open-space. (There were photos taken through an open door, and also, there was film photography developing on the side of our craft.)

2.) Glass lens of the camera itself? Seems even less likely lol but yeah I guess any photo can be blamed on the camera itself showing glare lol.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Cool - and kudos for acknowledging it in your video

a reply to: peacefulpete

2.) Glass lens of the camera itself? Seems even less likely lol but yeah I guess any photo can be blamed on the camera itself showing glare lol.

Don't laugh too loud.. I was a pro photographer in my 20's and also ran a color darkroom. The number of images affected by lens flares, aberations and outright reflections were substantial. It is not a trivial, nor uncommon concern for any lens surface. That is why so much money is spent in transmission surfaces and filters for expensive cameras.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

Have you got a link to the original photos?

Then we can compare them side by side.

Well my last post has one original photo in it (but it's not high-res).

Yeah I'm about to post / embed all the high-res original photos. Check back in a few minutes.

I wasn’t asking for your copy. I requested a direct link to the original so we can compare your edited images to the original.

Troll, I already answered everything u said, before your post lol.

"My copy" in the first post, IS the original photo, it's just not in high-res... which I already said that I'm about to post / embed...

It’s quite simple. Go to the NASA site. Find the image you used. Copy the link. Paste link in a reply.

Quite simply, it's not quite as simple as you simply seem to think that it's simply quite simple lol.

For one, it's not NASA's site that we're talking about. It's some educational site from a college or something along those lines.

Phage and others have already posted links to the site with the original high-res photos.

I also posted a link yesterday but my link didn't work (i.e. I obviously posted it wrong).

Now I'm about to go post / embed the high-res photos properly. Like I already said before your last post.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Sure. You post your edited pictures to try and make a booster look like a UFO lol.

And don’t try and say they’re not edited. As soon as you change a single thing, they’re edited and therefore not the original.

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: peacefulpete

2.) Glass lens of the camera itself? Seems even less likely lol but yeah I guess any photo can be blamed on the camera itself showing glare lol.

Don't laugh too loud.. I was a pro photographer in my 20's and also ran a color darkroom. The number of images affected by lens flares, aberations and outright reflections were substantial. It is not a trivial, nor uncommon concern for any lens surface. That is why so much money is spent in transmission surfaces and filters for expensive cameras.

Ok fair enough. I guess the funny part is that the space mission was based on open-air photography, so it seems funny to reference window glare or camera glare, in that context. But yes, glare is theoretically possible on any photo ever taken...