Apollo 11 UFO in Moon Picture

can see the face through the visir, kinda scary face.

Looks like female bone structure

reply to post by conar


Good catch, and an apparently, relatively rare photographic event...

Normally, the high reflectivity of the gold visor would keep us from seeing Buzz's face but, as Mehring notes, in this case "his face is directly illuminated by the sunlight from the front and at a right angle to the observer's point of view, so it literally shines through the visor, especially because he's sticking his head forward. At different viewing and illumination angles and with his head deeper inside the helmet and less brightly illuminated, reflections off of the visor that would wash out anything behind it. But in this case we're lucky."

history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Zarniwoop]

What is the cable in the lower left portion for?

reply to post by RomeoDandy


Hi,

I'm not sure but I would bet it's the cable for tv camera. The one they point out to be seen even from the LRO images of the landing site.

OP's linked photo, cropped, brightness and contrast pushed.

All sort of stuff (dust?) wizzing around.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5894bf825845.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 11-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]

NASA Official 'John': Well, see it's.....uh.....umm....wait I know this one....they said it.....uh.....erm well, you see the light coming from....it hit the......then there's this gas......the dust could.....Bob?

NASA Official 'Bob': It's Venus John.

NASA Official 'John: It's Venus. We spent months reviewing it to be sure, right Bob?

NASA Official 'Bob': I dunno John, I ran into Bill in the hall and he told me to say Venus, said he was gonna catch you before the press conference, guess he didn't.

NASA Official 'John': *motions to camera guy to cut the video feed* Uh, we seem to be having a technical difficulty, we'll get back to you on this.


CAMERA TURNS OFF

"John": Well crap on a cracker Bob!! Way to go, make me look like a total AZZ!

There is more "evidence" that the "UFO" is really lens reflection flare from the many sources visible in the photo. And the photo is also over-contrasted. So when toned down, as in the 2nd, more realistic image the flare is reduced to non-visibility.

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
There is more "evidence" that the "UFO" is really lens reflection flare from the many sources visible in the photo. And the photo is also over-contrasted. So when toned down, as in the 2nd, more realistic image the flare is reduced to non-visibility.

Really Ed? REALLY?

And there's no water on the moon, right?

reply to post by Stormseeker


Actually swamp gas was used to attempt to explain MOVING lights - not still images.

So it would indeed be spectacular for that to be used on the moon based on a still shot.

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
It looks as though there has been some retouching/processing between the two photos. However, the potential UFO is strikingly similar in color and size to the reflection off one of the fasteners on the backpack.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d5f5f88bafd.png[/atsimg]

Good case for "image artifact" that was removed in later processing.

I'm still convinced that ATS member Zarniwoop got it right...
...the potential "UFO" looks just like that other spot on the astronaut.

Although while he thinks the two "image artifact" were removed in later processing, I think those artifacts are only on the particular print of this image.

They weren't "removed" on the images that lack these two spots, but rather perhaps they were never there in the first place.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

but armaps solution could just as easily be right and as you cannot PROVE ufo's venus or scanner problem is more likely.

so asking for real proof is not something you approve of eh ?

based on your logic we should embrace ignorance , not deny it

[edit on 11-10-2009 by easynow]

But it appears that you are asking for proof which you yourself have said we cannot get, and in doing so refusing to entertain the notion that it might be replication artifact.

I don't really see anyone embracing ignorance. I see valid and well thought out concepts that go in favor of ArMaps hypothesis.

But even he says that it is mere guess work, and not evidence.

That is denying ignorance, and certainly not embracing it.

I'm not really sure what to think of this picture so I'm not gonna comment on the object in question itself. However, I've got a question for you lads.

Why is it that every picture from Moon (those that I've seen) has no stars? I live in a big metropolitan city and even in downtown, which is very well lit at night, if you look up at the sky you can still see plenty of stars. When you get out of the city during the night and look up - you can see millions of them (the stars that is). All those picture from the Moon have a pitch-black sky (or nearly so). I get it, lights from the craft and whatnot, but come on - pitch black?

So the question is... why are there no visible stars?

Please excuse my ignorance on the issue. When it comes to space I know little to nothing.

Best regards,
XIIIth

reply to post by easynow


"that white dot wright above the horizon on the right is a "phosphorus Spot" from the TV converter in the Parks Station in Australia""






Zelong.

reply to post by Zelong


I don't understand your point? Are you saying the OP's pic in question is actually a shot off a TV monitor? I don't think so.

Actually, maybe you have inadvertently proveded the biggest clue that the object is real and not a lense artifact. What are the odds of it showing up on the live feed and on a picture taken on location?


[edit on 11-10-2009 by Nichiren]

Is it not earth? The suns obviously to the left of it all looking at the shadows, and I have seen some of the pics of the earth from the moon and there are some where it looks this small, I know thats got something to do with a combination of atmospheric conditions (or lack of on the moon) and trick of the eye (moon from earth always appears bigger than it is.)

And to the person who mentioned the flag seemingly wafting about, wasn't that proven to be air conditioning or cooling fans in the astronauts back pack?


Or it could all just be a hoax really and thats the television studios lighting rig, hence why it was airbrushed out, tee hee. (that was a joke btw, i dont for a second believe the moon landings were faked)

edit to say i've found this pic of mars next to the moon, although its not from the lunar surface, i would imagine it not being too dissimilar when viewed from the surface.




[edit on 11/10/09 by woogleuk]

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by Zelong

 

(#1 Zelong edit)
I don't understand your point? Are you saying the OP's pic in question is actually a shot off a TV monitor? I don't think so.
(#2 Zelong edit)
Actually, maybe you have inadvertently proveded the biggest clue that the object is real and not a lense artifact. What are the odds of it showing up on the live feed and on a picture taken on location?


[edit on 11-10-2009 by Nichiren]

#1
I didn't say that.
I said the dot in question is from the TV converter.Documented Fact!

#2
There's no odds, this is on the live feed and stated on the Live broadcast.


Zelong.

[edit on 11/10/09 by Zelong]

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by Zelong

 

I don't understand your point? Are you saying the OP's pic in question is actually a shot off a TV monitor? I don't think so.

Actually, maybe you have inadvertently proveded the biggest clue that the object is real and not a lense artifact. What are the odds of it showing up on the live feed and on a picture taken on location?


[edit on 11-10-2009 by Nichiren]

To explain the waving flag, it's not from the air conditioning or fan on the suit. For one simple reason, there isn't any atmosphere on the moon. If you take a fan into space or into a vacuum, it won't push anything because it needs air molecules or sometype of atmosphere or liquid in order to push. The only other way that it can come from the suit is that there was a hole in the suit and he was venting atmosphere. If so, he's dead before he gets to the landing ship. Also looking at the picture with and without the object and the bright spot on the clasp of the astronaut, you will notice two things. One, if it was a imaging problem then why isn't the object and the glow on the same level, they should be in a straight line from one another. Another is that maybe we don't see the glow from the clasp and the object (I do believe that they may have inadvertently had this on live and pictures and didn't catch it in time) because the dialed down the contrast or up the contrast in order to have a softer light (remember we almost can't see the buzz face in the first picture with the object and after the adjustment no hard lights and you can see his face).

And you are so correct in that the poster Zeon or whatever may have just given more proof that it was a solid object from those live video feeds. I work in electronics and I know a few things. That video was a live feed and it was being converted to a better rate of scan so that you can see it on television (you know when you see another television on television sometimes you will see that the scan is out of sync) They where converting the signal, if they where converting the signal then transfering it to some media like at the time tape or something and then rebroadcasting from the tape then you can possibly say that there was a nick or something on that whole role of magnetic tape. And that is hard to believe also because if they did it the tape way (not) then instead of a dot on the screen being rebroadcast, it would have been a straight line down the whole screen or a fast growing hole.

Everybody have to remember one thing, they aren't perfect either there just like you and me. And it's almost impossible to foresee everything, they missed this and other things and attempted to obfuscate and brush out and contrast out anything that doesn't fit THEIR STORY.

Originally posted by Copernicus
Yeah.... erm, well, its Venus.
Nothing to see here. Move on back to American Idol.
Just kidding.

It could well be Venus since we can see Venus on Earth even in the evening daylight hours on Earth through a dense atmosphere...

ArMap makes a 'guess' that it is a printing error... I make a guess that they edited out Venus

The NAVY on the other hand has no problem showing us Venus and some atmosphere glow as well... even shows stars

Clementine



LBA5881Z Clementine Star Tracker Camera



LBA5883Z Clementine Star Tracker Camera



LBA5884Z Clementine Star Tracker Camera



LBA5885Z Clementine Star Tracker Camera (N.A.S.A.)



[iurl=http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Clementine_Moon_Glow.htmClementine Moon Glow[/url]



[edit on 11-10-2009 by zorgon]

If it is any help to you guys. I have the original Apollo 11 photos from KODAK taken on Kodak Ektachrome EF film. I have uploaded a few pictures of it for you guys. Let me know if you want me to make any higher quality pics of it. I have 5 from Apollo 11 in all.

Click for full size!

reply to post by hoghead cheese


The suit does have a fan of sorts to circulate the oxygen, but having read about the explanation for the waving effect of the flag is quite simple:

The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.

As far as the light in question i'm sticking with my original thought that its mars, or maybe even venus, and somehow when the photos have been touched up they have lost this detail.