Apollo 11 UFO in Moon Picture

reply to post by XIIIth


There are no stars visible because the camera was taking a photo of a bright scene, the only way to get a good exposure of the Moon surface and the astronaut would be with a shutter speed that would be too fast to make stars visible.


And for those that say that this is not true, just try to take a photo of the Moon, with all its detail visible, and some stars near it. You can post them here whenever you want it.

reply to post by woogleuk


I don't think it's Mars or Earth, with that camera and lens the Earth would appear bigger and Mars much smaller, if it was visible, which I doubt.

reply to post by zorgon

First of all, I would be surprised if something called "Star Tracker Camera" was not able to take photos of stars, after all, it was made just for that.

Second, where is the Sun in those images? Isn't it on the other side of the Moon, making the photos almost as dark as if it was night?

As have been said many times, it's the light available in the scene that prevents the stars from being visible. If the astronaut had pointed the camera to the sky and take a photo we could see the stars (I think the cameras and film were good enough for it), to bad they didn't did it (as far as I know), it would have been a pretty sight.

Edited to add:
Stars were visible in the Apollo missions with the cameras they were using, as these photo from Apollo 15 shows.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/7bdf2adbc937b898.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/8d286423e6b4f4e6.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 12/10/2009 by ArMaP]

reply to post by ArMaP
Hi ArMap,
Did you look at the four pics that Acharya has posted?. They are strange in that the spot seen on them seems to be slightly eclipsed, presumably by the Moon, could it actually be the Earth? Why are posters still talking about Videos and slowing Video down, and live pictures instead of camera shots which is the subject here.

reply to post by GideonHM

It's not in the same place.

In the second photo, the white spot that appears when we change the brightness is too much to the right, it's outside the view of the first photo.

reply to post by smurfy

Yes, but knowing that those photos were taken inside the LM and the fact that the object does not move much from that position makes me think it was something on the LM window, along with other dust particles that are visible in the dark areas.

reply to post by ArMaP
I meant to add re; Acharya's photo clips how long is it,(if known) between the four pics being taken. the object does look like a planet though, and is not a star.

reply to post by smurfy

As I don't know what photos were used, that is something that only the person that made the video can answer, anything I would say would trying to guess which photo was used when.

reply to post by ArMaP
I'm just talking about the four pictures he posted, not the animation. Maybe the Eagle had a tv monitor and the object is a window reflection of that. I know the Columbia did not have such a monitor.

Originally posted by Acharya


here, here, here here





[edit on 12-10-2009 by smurfy]

reply to post by smurfy

Thanks, I didn't noticed that post.

Those photos were usually taken one after the other, probably with just some 5 seconds between photos.

Looking at the bigger object, it looks like a drop of water or other liquid refracting the scene behind it upside-down.

But I don't have any real idea of what that thing is.

I was browsing the web and found quite a few pictures of the moon landings with lights in the background. Some say these are studio lights. Myself, I am unsure of what they are.

















And blue Lights:

I would just like to thank all of you for finally making me clean my screen. And to promise never to sneeze on it again.

Because I am personally seeing a lot less ufo's in these pictures than I was before I got out the windex.

Still - I LOVE the discussion and the photos and the banter! This subject never gets old. amazingly.

reply to post by Whiteone


Any sources of the pics would be appreciated.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


So how come the same spot was visible on the live feed? Your theory was already debunked on the previous page. Try harder!

reply to post by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

The lunar photos taken by the astronauts on the moon used pre-digital cameras. IOW, they used emulsion film which did not have a wide exposure allowance. So visualize you're on the moon and it's bright as hell and you want to take photos of the ground or rocks, or whatever. Of course, you have to take the extreme brightness into consideration so your camera has to be adjusted appropriately. That means closing down the lens opening to the smallest possible. You'll also want to use a higher than normal shutter speed 'cause you're wearing unwieldly gloves and you're probably not able to hold the camera steady.

Since the bright surface is closer than those dim stars in the distance, that means that the camera is not going to be able to record stars as recording stars require a higher lens opening than for brightness. So let's say for the surface you need f16 or f22 or even smaller lens opening. For the stars you're going to need f2, f4 and you may not be able to use f8 which is considered normal on earth.

Dim objects such as faraway stars require a longer exposure than something bright. However, in some photos and videos (actually emulsion films converted to video) you can see the brighter stars but not a sky full. The astronauts probably saw a skyfull of stars but they just couldn't photograph them, nothing of interest to use the film on.

Ay ay, thanks very much for answering. I knew there was going to a very simple explanation involving something that I just didn't think of.

Well, like I said... forgive my ignorance.

Best regards,
XIIIth.

I swear, you conspiracy nuts never stop do you. OK the man made an honest mistake. It was not Venus. But if any of you would ever pick up a book on real science you could not fail to recognize it as either swamp gas or headlights reflecting off a flight of geese passing through an inversion layer in the atmosphere. Or perhaps a simple misidentification of a lighthouse in the distance.
Why do you keep insisting on these outrageous explanations? How can you continue to label this a UFO? Flying? Yet magnifying the image produces nothing resembling wings. Unknown? How can you label it unknown after the the clear and concise explanations I've just offered. Object? Why the assumption of object? It could just be light reflecting off the vacuum of space. Are there any real physicists here? Is everyone ignorant of the reflectivity of empty space in a vacuum?
You just cannot handle reality I guess.

Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow
How can you continue to label this a UFO? Flying? Yet magnifying the image produces nothing resembling wings.

You must be kidding, right? I hope you realize that a helicopter flies without the help of
wings Too many amateurs on this thread LOL.

reply to post by Nichiren


i could be wrong but i think he was kidding around ?

ufo 'light ships' or luminosity's have been seen by thousands of people and do not have wings.

here in this clip from Apollo 12 there is an object in the crater that flashes and has no wings...











strange luminosity's have been seen on the Moon many times

Hmm, thread seems to be dead. Too bad, because I'd love to hear a logical explanation why the object in question appears on the same spot on the pics and on the Parks Station video that was shot by a different camera.

Isn't this corroborating evidence that the object was a real UFO? Any debunkers left

reply to post by easynow


Hi easynow,

Fascinating! When you look at the crater's right side there is another object close to the flash. Can we get a better video?

Thanks.