Mysterious Debris in Lunar Orbit

reply to post by Breadfan


Does failure taste sweet, or bitter?

This has already been debunked as a torn photograph. When you made the images low-res, it was harder to distinguish the torn edges.

Case closed.

Originally posted by Hexidecimal
This has already been debunked as a torn photograph. When you made the images low-res, it was harder to distinguish the torn edges.

Case closed.

But in another thread here on ATS, it has just effectively been debunked as part of the mylar covering that got loose. You can't both be right.

Debunkers are as bad as believers, seperate explanations for everything.

Now believers fight it out over who's right, so it's only fair that you guys settle it in a civilized dustup.

Edit: My bad. It was here in this thread that it was stated. Still, who is right?

[edit on 10-11-2007 by NGC2736]

reply to post by Hexidecimal


You need to give the link to the "torn paper" debunk. I've got to say, I could not drink enough to believe that. 3 pictures all torn the same way? What description of reality did that escape from?

I saw a John Lear thread on this, but did not read the whole thing.

Really want to see that debunk. Could be a hoot.


ZG

Originally posted by Hexidecimal
This has already been debunked as a torn photograph. When you made the images low-res, it was harder to distinguish the torn edges.

Case closed.

So, basically, we should stop discussing it because YOU closed the case, uh?
May i ask some links to the debunk?
Or some infos about how, when, where and by who it has been debunked?
Or shall we accept your two-lines post as proof (with ALL the due respect of course)?
Not stating that you're wrong, just asking you to back up somehow your statement.

Anyway...
ZeroGhost,

Lunar Explorer Italia, a non profit association, required to LPI these three frames in a higher resolution. They answered much time later, but they sent the file in attached and in the body of the message they wrote:

"...we do not know what this object may represent, nor we have sources to contact in this regard. There really isn't anyone you can talk to about what an image shows. The people who analyzed the images originally have long since moved on to other jobs, retired, or died. All we have are the documents they left behind - some of which are online (...) However, as you correctly assumed, the artifact is not part of the US Spacecraft, but it was something caught in Lunar Orbit at the time the picture was taken. Its origin is, and most likely shall remain, unknown.

I don't know if the link to the source works, because i'm subscribed there and its access may be restricted to only members: please let me know.

Source:
www.lunexit.it...


[edit on 12/11/2007 by internos]

Seems to be reflecting a a fair amount of light - personally I would go with the Mylar explanation. Considering the object must of been moving relative to the craft as 3 pictures were taken, and as someone mentioned the camera had no motor drive for weight reasons it must be some part of he craft that has become detached as the probability of finding your self in a matching orbit with space junk from another mission by chance is very minute - there's a lot of space out there man!

reply to post by internos


OK, THAT is interesting! If not a part of the Apollo spacecraft and lander, it could be anything!

The link you posted was all Italian text. I will see if I can get a translator program to look closer.

I was ready for the explanation proposed in the previous thread entries, but I would not be surprised if it was not "ours". The mylar gold and silver fabric NASA uses is quite layered with other materials to give it strength and insulating ability. Full sunlight in space can be hundreds of degrees different than shadow surfaces. It seemed plausible this was that. And the fact that the shape, if rigid would not fit any configuration I could find in spacecraft known to be in lunar orbit.

All the artificial stuff we put on or in orbit of the moon.

It seems like a lot, especially if you take into consideration delivery stages and other materials associated with all these missions. But, still it would be rare to run into some of these before 1969.

When I was contracting with NASA Advanced Life Support Division at Ames, I was working with many different scientists. One group I worked with was doing the new spacesuits for Moon and Mars. That was in the early 90's, and they used many layers in the suits. I saw very thick fabrics with 20 and more layers. Now also Kevlar for micro meteorites are likely too. Very heavy and hard to maneuver when wearing. (My sig image was one illustration I did for them.) I did not work with Johnson Space Center where they where working on the spacecrafts, so never saw the "blankets" used for that, but assumed the materials where similar in the multi layers for the same reasons.

The edges of the artifact in the photo had the look of such materials "ripped", but on thinking about this, I realize that these where not just tinfoil, and would be very hard to tear like in this seemed to have been.

So It was as mysterious as I first thought.

Anything near the spacecraft is very rare. (and dangerous) Space is way too big to be near anything and you have to be very lucky, or, very unlucky to run into anything out there. (Apollo 13 was very unlucky) Earth orbit is one thing, littered with thousands of spent satellites and garbage, but the Moon is quite clean from our litter and would not have had much of anything of ours likely.

Apollo 8 and 10 went to the Moon, and 9 was Earth orbit only I think. So not a lot of hardware other than the landing surveyors and some Russian and Asian probes ever went there. (see above link) So what could this be but alien?

So book open again.

It could be interesting to hear a statement from Aldrin, Armstrong or Collins on this. I bet they did not forget it, and that it was not a "bug-eyed-alien in a space ship", they might not have problems talking about this or commenting.

Collins, Aldrin and Armstrong are all only 77 and living, so they are all here and can be asked.

I wonder if a letter would get a response if properly posed and with with photos?

These guys are my childhood heroes. I would love to ask them properly about this. It is getting close to disclosure I think. Lips are loosening.

Thanks again for such good research Internos


ZG

reply to post by ZeroGhost


O crud! Yea, Apollo 10, so different set of astronauts. Adjusting for stupidity here.

Well, I'll write to the Apollo 10 crew then. Better chance of getting an answer. That was Stafford, Young and Cernan.

Mondays are bad for biocomputers. Rough weekend wedding for a buddy burned some neurons.

ZG

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
The link you posted was all Italian text. I will see if I can get a translator program to look closer.


ZG

I try to translate it for you

Many thanks to Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI) which, much time after the request from Lunar Explorer Italia (made by Dr Paolo C. Fienga), has found in NASA-Apollo archives this rare and controversial frame from Apollo 10 mission and sent it to us in its original uncompressed version.
These are their comments:

"...we do not know what this object may represent, nor we have sources to contact in this regard. There really isn't anyone you can talk to about what an image shows. The people who analyzed the images originally have long since moved on to other jobs, retired, or died. All we have are the documents they left behind - some of which are online (...) However, as you correctly assumed, the artifact is not part of the US Spacecraft, but it was something caught in Lunar Orbit at the time the picture was taken. Its origin is, and most likely shall remain, unknown.

I hope it's understandable

[edit on 12/11/2007 by internos]

Whatever the object is, the fact that it had about the same velocity as the CM, was there at all (space is big!) and was on close enough to the same track to have three shots taken of it just about has to mean it originated from the CM or LM.

reply to post by internos


You did good my friend. we need a few dozen more good intelligent folks here like you to get above the crumbsucking details these posts never get beyond. Research cannot be trusted in just the official orgs we ask for answers from. We need to do some digging ourselves and take responsibility for our world,...One question at a time.

Thanks again for such due diligence.

ZG

reply to post by ZeroGhost




Since Apollo 10 has been Launched on 1969, IMHO it would be a good idea to take a look at what has been sent to the Moon before: if we believe what NASA stated (they have no idea of what is it but they're sure that is NOT an U.S. debris), i guess that we should know what usually happened when the soviet modules undocked from the launch vehicles: i know that some debris were almost always ejected in the moment of the undocking, but i have no idea about how it happened.
I thnk that we should do this in order to try give an "ordinary" explanation, because the alternative would mean that the debris has an incident in its background. I looked for detailed drawings of soviet launch vehicles, but so far i've found nothing of really useful: we'd need even an hi-res photo of the launch vehicles used by soviets till '69, i mean from 8K72 to 8K78M, if i'm correct.
I'll keep looking for.
It's deceiving the fact that it's a "simple" debris; the problem is that it could be far out of place, for this reason is worthy to be investigated, IMHO.







[edit on 15/11/2007 by internos]

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

During the following front side pass, 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."


They had done the maneuver to get the Command Module in position to take photos of the planned Apollo 11 landing site and it seems likely that they had a camera ready with a fresh magazine loaded and took a few pictures of the Mylar.


NASA was always interested in stuff seen out windows, for safety reasons. see here:

members.aol.com...

reply to post by JimO

Thank you for your post JimO:
Yes, we've noticed that stuff before:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It's a quote from Here ?
If it's so, it seems that there's no official source which confirms the quoted statement.
Despite it would be a almost normal explanation, once asked NASA denied
to know its origin. And besides, from which part would it come?
www.fi.edu...
IMHO, most likely the possible explanation could be found somewhere
in the soviet space program, but we'd need detailed drawings


upload.wikimedia.org...
www.astronautix.com...
img218.imageshack.us...

Edit to add:
Apollo spacecraft configuration:


Two types of reflection:


Other links:
Research

Apollo 10 Photo debriefing [PDF file]

External image


[edit on 17/11/2007 by internos]

Originally posted by JimO

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

During the following front side pass, 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."


They had done the maneuver to get the Command Module in position to take photos of the planned Apollo 11 landing site and it seems likely that they had a camera ready with a fresh magazine loaded and took a few pictures of the Mylar.


NASA was always interested in stuff seen out windows, for safety reasons. see here:

members.aol.com...

It certanly looks like conventional material, even though we have no "unconventional" materials to gauge against. I already pointed out the observed layers seen in the photos, and it seems consistent with our spacecrafts materials design, but, again, we do not know what this is, and the fact that this "tough material (they don't want this stuff to rip easily) and it is ripped, leads me to believe this is not the usual debris. What forces would rip such materials?

In the three high resolution shots we have, the shape does not change. Also, the surface looks fairly rough and not smooth like it would need to be to reflect heat and drag. There are no rivits, seams or insignia/text and any identifiable traits seem to not be there.

This is a big piece too. When you see the images you can see it is some distance away from the orbiter. It must be a few yards or larger in diameter at least.

Internos's posts show some good candidates for the debris, but still we cannot find such an event in the record, or explain how several tough layers of materials can be ripped. I have to believe this is either an unusual event in Earth-based spaceflight or is something more inexplicable.

I can only get some letters to the astronauts who where on Apollo 10. They will have the best answers.

ZG

[edit on 11/21/2007 by ZeroGhost]

reply to post by ZeroGhost


I don't know who and why bumped this one: anyway, James Oberg did take the time to analyze what we see here: the thread, started by bigfatfurrytexan, can be foundhere

[edit on 4/9/2008 by internos]

I was being most facetious friend. I imagine I should have said that. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost

Originally posted by jpm1602
Lens flare, space junk, weather balloon, move along, nothing to see. Go home.

I know it is hard to see, but if you know something about the science and history of the space program, you can tell this is out of place.

It could be something quite ordinary, but it is very unusual in that when you are out in space, if something like that is near you, you are in danger. The astronaut, Collins maybe, got 3 shots off, so knowing he did not have a motor drive on the Hasselblad (for weight reasons) he had to get these 3 shots within at least a minuet. It changed it's attitude in that time.

Also, this is the LUNAR orbit. Very few things are in lunar orbit we know of. It is not a recognizable piece of the LEM or the orbiter, and this is Apollo 11, not 13.

The left over rocket that got them into a moon trajectory was NOT blown up, so where is this possibly from?

I don't expect a plumber to know cybernetics or vice versa. But this is quite serious. You might want to listen to what we find.

Keep one ear here at least.

ZG

This object / debris or whatever , really has caught my attention. Ive found this site which may have an answer. Link to Secretplanets Quite an amazing image. Not sure how to take this but ive looked closer at it and im pretty sure its genuine.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by harry20007]