1528 replies to this topic

[Pericynthion]

TheMacGuffin, on 20 November 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

I'm interested enough now to start looking into it some more.  On this website, someone claims that the images created on Apollo 14's DAC movie camera were due to lens flare caused by artificial lighting.  Have you heard of that before?

Let's stick to one topic at a time here.  Do you agree that the "blue light" marks on the Apollo 14 Hasselblad photos are photo artifacts?

Here are a couple more frames from magazine 66 showing the blue artifacts:

AS14-66-9220


There's a blue mark on the LM structure.  You can see it more clearly in the high resolution version here:
http://www.hq.nasa.g...4-66-9220HR.jpg


AS14-66-9236


There's a blue mark on the lunar surface just above the shadow of the S-band antenna.  The high resolution version of this photo is here:
http://www.hq.nasa.g...4-66-9236HR.jpg

[Pericynthion]

bmk1245, on 20 November 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

I thought it was cosmic ray hitting camera (in Apollo photos McG posted), something like


A cosmic ray hit on a camera appears as a segmented line in the image. Credit: NASA/Don Pettit.
‘Seeing’ Cosmic Rays in Space

Guess (in Apollo photos case), electric discharge makes way more sense because of orientation.

Static discharge is just an educated guess on my part.  I certainly would't rule out the possibility of cosmic rays.  My main point, as I'm sure you know, is that these blue marks are photo artifacts, not real objects.  I think they're camera-related (rather than cosmic rays, etc.) because (1) the spots I've seen always line up with the direction of film travel and (2) they seem to happen a lot more often on magazine 66.  I'm not sure if they're on the original film, or if they're defects that showed up on a later generation of the reprints.

[JimOberg]

TheMacGuffin, on 20 November 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

I didn't mean that, of course.  I just thought they had their own lights set up there on the moon.  I think I have seen pictures of that, where they had their own lighting near the lunar landers. That never seemed like a big mystery to me.

Never heard of this, McG. Did it ever happen, or do you suppose you were misinterpreting or entirely imagining it? If you can't provide any evidence aside from your own memory, the default judgment is gonna have to be 'imaginary'.

Agaiin.

[TheMacGuffin]

Pericynthion, on 20 November 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Let's stick to one topic at a time here.  Do you agree that the "blue light" marks on the Apollo 14 Hasselblad photos are photo artifacts?

There's a blue mark on the lunar surface just above the shadow of the S-band antenna.  The high resolution version of this photo is here:

Possibly, but there's a lengthy discussion of these blue artifacts on this website, by people who know far more about photography than I do.

http://www.google.co...eYr8L1vUdORppMw

It involves Ken Johnson and his appearance on Coast-to-Coast Radio,

I'll have to look that one up too, when I have the time.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 20 November 2012 - 09:53 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

JimOberg, on 20 November 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

Never heard of this, McG. Did it ever happen, or do you suppose you were misinterpreting or entirely imagining it? If you can't provide any evidence aside from your own memory, the default judgment is gonna have to be 'imaginary'.

Agaiin.

I have no idea, I was merely commenting that the moon landings were not faked in a studio.  I cannot even comprehend why you of all people would want to go after me about that!!!  LOL

At least give me a break for once on that, will you?

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 20 November 2012 - 09:56 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

This poster said that there was damage to film roll 66 on the Apollo 14 mission.

On Coast-to-Coast AM, last Christmas night, Ken Johnston drew attention to a blue flare in the lunar sky, seen in a Hasselblad frame from the Apollo 14 mission. He characterized it as "a ship."

        The frame he was referring to is this one, AS14-66-9301. It's one frame from the third of three 360° pans shot by CDR Alan Shepard. This pan encompassed frames 9294 thru 9316. Frames either side of 9301, AS14-66-9300 and AS14-66-9302, do not show the flare although they both include the same portion of the sky as does AS14-66-9301. It follows that this is not a real object having persistence over the time it takes to swing a camera through a small angle and release the shutter -- say, about one second.

        As an acknowledged expert in Apollo imagery, Johnston has to be aware of that fact. He also has to know that flares in the sky are seen in the following three frames, which show completely different parts of the sky:
AS14-66-9286
AS14-66-9290
AS14-66-9295

        It follows that, if this is a real object, it does have persistence and therefore should have been in 9300 and 9302.

        No similar flares are seen on any film magazine other than #66. A catalog is available in the NASA Image Library for that magazine.

        Are you beginning to suspect that what we have here is damage to that film roll? Suspicion turns to certainty when we notice the following additional flares:

AS14-66-9236. This is the very first frame of the first panorama, and here the flare is not in the sky but superimposed on the lunar surface.

AS14-66-9345. This shot was part of a series taken after return to lunar orbit. The blue flare is clearly visible, removing all possible doubt that it does not represent anything real, suspended in the sky over the landing site.
AS14-66-9346. Ditto. The flare is reduced here, now appearing like a small scratch.
AS14-66-9348. Ditto. Only just visible in this frame.

        Is Ken Johnston being honest in describing this artifact as a ship, do you think?

[TheMacGuffin]

I already posted some of these blue flare images earlier in this thread, but no one commented on them.

[TheMacGuffin]

Then there was another discussion here about the Apollo 14 images, with some people saying they were dust particles on the lens of the camera.  This same "Expert" was on here as well, saying that film roll 66 was damaged in some way.

http://www.google.co...vnSuXujITA31k2A

[TheMacGuffin]

On ATS, someone had more Apollo 14 pictures with blue lights appearing much closer to the camera.

http://www.google.co...hC5m64F1OVAI5nQ

[TheMacGuffin]

And this one is just for you, Sweetpumper, as long as we're clear that I'm just joking about this.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 20 November 2012 - 10:10 PM.

[bmk1245]

Pericynthion, on 20 November 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

Static discharge is just an educated guess on my part. [...]

And thats solid guess.

Pericynthion, on 20 November 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

[...] I think they're camera-related (rather than cosmic rays, etc.) because (1) the spots I've seen always line up with the direction of film travel and (2) they seem to happen a lot more often on magazine 66.  I'm not sure if they're on the original film, or if they're defects that showed up on a later generation of the reprints.

One make sense.
Although I'm not sure about film winding direction...
Anyway, once again, Peri, excellent info

[TheMacGuffin]

This video makes the Apollo 14 Blue Lights look more UFO-like, and of course the music is more dramatic.  I like it.

[psyche101]

TheMacGuffin, on 20 November 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

As to whether NASA as a whole knew about Roswell, I doubt it since that happened eleven years before it even existed.  Whatever happened at Roswell was strictly a military operation.

I would go further and add that at the time Mitchell was in NASA, Roswell was hardly known about anywhere.  Even though it was his hometown, Mitchell had to go around and ask the "old timers" if the story was true, but this was after he left NASA in 1972.

That much we do agree on.

I honestly do not know how this line can be taken any other way than how it reads:

Quote

And it’s true because none of my experience or what I said relates to NASA at all.

And he did not approach the old timers, he specifically states that they sought him out because of his standing as an American Hero and being a local boy.

Quote

EM: Yes and my information comes from what I call “the old timers,” because I grew up in the Roswell area and when I went to the moon, some of the old timers from that period, some locals, and others military and intelligence people, who were under rather severe oaths to not reveal any of this and kind of wanted to get their conscience clear and off their chests before they passed on, selected me and said, independently – this wasn’t a group effort – independently that maybe I might be a safe person to tell their story to. And all of them confirmed, and what I’m saying is they confirmed the Roswell incident was a real incident and they in some way had some part in it that they wanted to talk about.



EM: Right.  Let me give you the whole story, from the very beginning.
From the beginning, of course, is that I grew up in the Pecos River Valley, near Roswell.  I was going into my senior year of high school, in 1947, when the so-called “Roswell Incident” took place.  It appeared in the Roswell Daily Record one day that an alien craft had crashed.  However, on the next day, it was reported to be a “weather balloon.”  And that was the end of that, as far as I was concerned.  I was on my way off to college, and I wasn’t concerned about this thing at all.
However, many years later, once I had been to the Moon and back, even though my family no longer lived in the Pecos River Valley, I went back there on a speaking tour.  I guess since I’d been to the Moon, and was a local boy, it made me somewhat credible.  I was grabbed by several of the local “old timers” who were there in 1947 during the Roswell incident and were involved in it in one way or another.  (These folks will remain nameless, even though they’re all dead now.)  They’d tug at my sleeve at some event and say “can I talk to you a minute?”  Then they would tell me their story about how they were involved in either the recovering of bodies, or directing traffic, or some such thing.  They felt for sure that it was a real alien event.  They didn’t want to go to the grave with their knowledge and considered me a safe source to tell.  They pulled on my sleeve to say, “I want to tell you about it.”

LINK

[Pericynthion]

TheMacGuffin, on 20 November 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

I already posted some of these blue flare images earlier in this thread, but no one commented on them.

Yes, you did, and I'm commenting on them now.

With the images I posted and the other links you've been digging up in your recent posts, is the situation becoming more clear?

These blue marks show up mostly on magazine 66.  They appear to be oriented in the direction of film travel through the camera or photo processing equipment.  In some of the frames, they appear on top of the lunar surface or other objects in the near foreground.  They don't show up consistently on overlapping frames taken only a few seconds apart.

We have a lot of evidence to show that these are some sort of photo defects, not real objects.  Would you agree with this conclusion?  If not, what evidence do you have to show that they're something else?

[psyche101]

Hazzard, on 20 November 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

I actually thought that Dr. Mitchell claimed that NASA was part of a cover-up.  I stand corrected.

Thanks for posting, psyche and boon.

You are most welcome mate. The media made that connection, Dr Mitchell did an interview to clear the mess up, but it seems the media proliferated the net with so much personal opinion that is is regarded as fact and his interview is buried in opinion. I'd say because Dr Mitchell worked at NASA some half assed reported made an assumption, and a whole bunch of lazy reporters copied and pasted that personal opinion. You see much copy and paste on news websites these days, one wonders what reporters get paid for.