Gemini 10 UFO Photo: New Color-Manipulatons

a reply to: peacefulpete

I am not trying to undermine the intent of the thread, because it is interesting. I am just offering an aspect of it that is part of the physical reality of optics because I had some experience with it.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
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.

The thread and video were made in good faith, i.e. I didn't think it was NASA's craft (and "booster" is really not the right word for it, either).

I did not have access to the original high-res images until after I made the thread and vid.

Re: Editing: Deja vu, I feel like I've been trolled about this before lol. All I did was increase the colors of the original photo, leaving the image unedited BESIDES increasing the colors.

I'm not interested to argue whether increasing colors counts as "editing" an image. It was a lame non-issue when you started trolling about that, months and months ago lol.

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: peacefulpete

I am not trying to undermine the intent of the thread, because it is interesting. I am just offering an aspect of it that is part of the physical reality of optics because I had some experience with it.

Thank you, I do appreciate it, and you're right that glare can always be an explanation behind any photo.

I also remember an email exchange I had years ago, with Bruce Maccabee ( I guess back when you could talk to this man). It was about another suspected reflection of a blue object over the moon surface... Anyway, he said that the higher the resolution the better. If it is good enough, a chromatic aberration pattern on an image's edges could sometimes be used to tell if the image was being transmitted through glass, or off it's surface, like a mirror. I am sure he has seen this image, and it would be cool to hear what he thinks about it as well.

originally posted by: charlyv
I also remember an email exchange I had years ago, with Bruce Maccabee ( I guess back when you could talk to this man). It was about another suspected reflection of a blue object over the moon surface... Anyway, he said that the higher the resolution the better. If it is good enough, a chromatic aberration pattern on an image's edges could sometimes be used to tell if the image was being transmitted through glass, or off it's surface, like a mirror. I am sure he has seen this image, and it would be cool to hear what he thinks about it as well.

Very interesting, although I think in this case, the UFO really has been all-but-proven that it's one of NASA's unmanned craft, which the astronauts were docking with.

Actually pics like this make it seem that sunlight behaves differently in space, it seems much brighter glare in space (which makes sense, due to the lack of air diffusing the sunlight, as we see on Earth).

OK now here's the ORIGINAL high-res image, that this thread is about.

Despite being in high-res, it still looks very much the same.

Here's the link to the high-res original:

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

I'll embed it in this thread, one sec.

OK now I'm embedding the ORIGINAL, UNEDITED, HIGH-RES photo, that this thread is based on.

The full image is linked above, and I didn't want to embed that giant pic. So I'm just zoomed into the UFO that I made the thread about.

There's no editing, no color manipulation. The only "editing" is the zoom:





^As you can see, the UFO looks quite the same, even in high-res.

It's actually the OTHER photos, directly after it, that show more clearly, that the object is NASA's unmanned craft that they were docking with.

This one pic is just showing the craft catching an extremely bright sun-glare for a moment.

Here's the next pic that seems to show the object again. The same pic that people were posting earlier in the thread. It is four pictures AFTER the link above (for the pic, that I made the thread about).

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

And the next image was already posted by someone else earlier in the thread:
tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

Then this pic really shows the object most clear, of all:
tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

Phage that website is awesome ("To the Moon"), but I'm trying to understand what exactly that site is, though?

It seems to be a website from a college, that works with NASA?

a reply to: peacefulpete

From the shape it is the Agena docking target

An Agena was launched 100 minutes before Gemini 10 on July 18, 1966

Gemini 10 was to rendezvous and dock with the Agena which it did

After undocking from this Agena were to attempt to locate and rendezvous with an Agena in orbit from March as part of the Gemini 8 mission

This they did after mistaking their Agena before locating the Gemini 8 Agena

After undocking from their Agena, the crew thought they sighted the Gemini 8 Agena. It however turned out to be their own Agena 3.0 nautical miles (5.5 km) away, while their target was 95 nautical miles (176 km) away. It wasn't until just over 16 nautical miles (30 km) away that they saw it as a faint star. After a few more correction burns, they were station-keeping 10 feet (3.0 m) away from the Gemini 8 Agena. They found the Agena to be very stable and in good condition.

Doesn't anyone do research … ?

...

originally posted by: peacefulpete


Phage that website is awesome ("To the Moon"), but I'm trying to understand what exactly that site is, though?

It seems to be a website from a college, that works with NASA?

It's Arizona State University, which has a faculty dedicated to space research and is very much linked with NASA and other space research agencies. It also hosts some incredibly detailed scans of the Apollo Panoramic and Metric Mapping Camera images and also processes the photographs from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

target.lroc.asu.edu...

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: peacefulpete

From the shape it is the Agena docking target

An Agena was launched 100 minutes before Gemini 10 on July 18, 1966

Gemini 10 was to rendezvous and dock with the Agena which it did

After undocking from this Agena were to attempt to locate and rendezvous with an Agena in orbit from March as part of the Gemini 8 mission

This they did after mistaking their Agena before locating the Gemini 8 Agena

After undocking from their Agena, the crew thought they sighted the Gemini 8 Agena. It however turned out to be their own Agena 3.0 nautical miles (5.5 km) away, while their target was 95 nautical miles (176 km) away. It wasn't until just over 16 nautical miles (30 km) away that they saw it as a faint star. After a few more correction burns, they were station-keeping 10 feet (3.0 m) away from the Gemini 8 Agena. They found the Agena to be very stable and in good condition.

Doesn't anyone do research … ?

Doesn't anyone read threads?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

sorry

Did not feel like wading through pages of ignorant woo - woo by conspiracy types

Was surprised that OP accepted the evidence given him that was the Agena docking target

Usual response is to deny and continue with their conspiracy fantasy ……..

If anyone's interested, I just made a quick update video, which shows the high-res photos we've been discussing, and zooms in, to show the object more clearly, as NASA's craft.

The vid also wraps up by showing 3 NEW UFO's which have not been mentioned yet. I'll embed pics right here:

A blue blob of light:


A floating amoeba with 2 antennae:


A bizarre jumbled mass of machinery (or a very bizarre organic creature):


That's all the content of my video, but if anyone wants to watch it, in motion:


Now I'm going to look some more at those high-res photos (at that site hosted by Arizona State) and I'll see how many more anomalies I can find.

a reply to: peacefulpete

These are scans from film. Dust and crud happens.

a reply to: peacefulpete

You seem to be fond of flogging dead horses and endlessly arguing about edited photos. Give it a rest, man.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Can you please identify the exact photo numbers?

a reply to: peacefulpete

Now I'm going to look some more at those high-res photos (at that site hosted by Arizona State) and I'll see how many more anomalies I can find.

Please don't.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: peacefulpete

Can you please identify the exact photo numbers?

Sure, here is the link for the photo with the blue blob of light:
tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

And here is the pic with the 2 organic-type anomalies:
tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

Also, I just want to say that the original pics are a treasure-trove of anomalies. Especially keeping in mind that the astronauts were using 1966 film-cameras.

There's no end of anomalies to pinpoint in the original high-res photo set.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Especially keeping in mind that the astronauts were using 1966 film-cameras.

Indeed. Film. Which attracts dirt and dust. And is scanned.