1528 replies to this topic

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 21 November 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:

You have no idea how comforting it is to see you say that.

Cheers.

No, I don't believe every UFO story I'm told, but when I get interested I still want to look into things thoroughly before I make up my mind.  I had seen those Apollo 14 pictures of "blue lights", but never had a chance to go into it in any depth before.

After doing so today, I'm satisfied that they are not UFOs or moon "structures" but probably some kind of defect on the film.  Anyway, to me the explanation seems perfectly conventional and "down to earth"--so to speak.

[booNyzarC]

Slave2Fate, on 21 November 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

Nobody can fault you for that Mac.

I agree.  I would go a step further and say that I salute his investigation and well reasoned results.

I'll add that I apologize for the misunderstanding, as I was under the incorrect impression that he was presenting this information as though he agreed with and supported it.

Sorry about that MacG.

[Pericynthion]

TheMacGuffin, on 21 November 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

So what the hell is Johnston trying to say here?

I think he's claiming that Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 were taking pictures of the same "structures"?  Now I get it.  It's not UFOs he's talking about at all, but "alien structures" on the moon.  

Yep, that's what he's claiming, at least as far as I understand it.

For reference, that 'artifact' on Pete Conrad's visor in the above image is just a dusty smudge, probably a glove print from touching the visor.  The visors tended to get scratched and smudged with lunar dust as the astronauts worked.  Here's a crop from an Apollo 17 image showing a closeup of the smudges and scratches on Gene Cernan's visor during their first EVA (click the image for full size):

AS17-134-20387 (cropped)

[Pericynthion]

TheMacGuffin, on 21 November 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

No, I don't believe every UFO story I'm told, but when I get interested I still want to look into things thoroughly before I make up my mind.  I had seen those Apollo 14 pictures of "blue lights", but never had a chance to go into it in any depth before.

After doing so today, I'm satisfied that they are not UFOs or moon "structures" but probably some kind of defect on the film.  Anyway, to me the explanation seems perfectly conventional and "down to earth"--so to speak.

Glad we could sort this one out today.  Thanks for being willing to dig into it!

P.

[TheMacGuffin]

Pericynthion, on 21 November 2012 - 05:39 AM, said:

Yep, that's what he's claiming, at least as far as I understand it.

For reference, that 'artifact' on Pete Conrad's visor in the above image is just a dusty smudge, probably a glove print from touching the visor.  The visors tended to get scratched and smudged with lunar dust as the astronauts worked.  Here's a crop from an Apollo 17 image showing a closeup of the smudges and scratches on Gene Cernan's visor during their first EVA (click the image for full size):

AS17-134-20387 (cropped)

I definitely agree that it's not a UFO, a structure or anything even remotely like that, so Johnston was making much ado about nothing here.

As soon as I saw him claiming that two different Apollo mission had pictures of the same "structure" then I knew that none of it added up.

[TheMacGuffin]

This also means that Edgar Mitchell was telling the truth when he said that they saw no UFOs on Apollo 14.

My guess is that if someone were to look at all the TV footage from the mission, there would be none of the blue lights or blobs seen in the still pictures.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 21 November 2012 - 06:05 AM.

[Pericynthion]

TheMacGuffin, on 21 November 2012 - 05:54 AM, said:

I definitely agree that it's not a UFO, a structure or anything even remotely like that, so Johnston was making much ado about nothing here.

As soon as I saw him claiming that two different Apollo mission had pictures of the same "structure" then I knew that none of it added up.

Yeah, this one really falls apart when you look into it in detail.

TheMacGuffin, on 21 November 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

This also means that Edgar Mitchell was telling the truth when he said that they saw no UFOs on Apollo 14.

And I'd agree with you here, too.

On that note, I'm going to sign off for the night.  Thanks, all, for the interesting conversation!  It's nice to hear from everyone again.

P.

[TheMacGuffin]

Come to think of it, I was actually watching Apollo 14 on TV at the time and remember the guy hitting golf balls on the moon, and I did not see any UFOs, blue lights, structures or anything like that.  

As soon as I saw this picture, I remembered that I had seen it on TV back then.  

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 21 November 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

LINK


Hrmmzzzzzz............................................

Qualifications aside, has the Reformed Baptist Seminary been found as yet?

Maybe he was hoping that people would think that an Advanced degree in Metaphysics was even more impressive than one in regular Physics.

[bmk1245]

psyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

[....] You see much copy and paste on news websites these days, one wonders what reporters get paid for.

Ctrl^C / Ctrl^V is a very challenging mental and physical task.

[bmk1245]

Pericynthion, on 20 November 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

Thanks, bmk.  What I was trying to say about the film direction is that the blue glow around the spots always seems to have a strong part of it that is vertical relative to the film frame, not the real world.  No matter how the astronaut has tilted the camera, the glow shows a vertical line relative to the film.  Here's a sampling of full-size crops from the high-resolution images taken from the ALSJ:



Frame 9330 was taken with the camera tilted up to look out of the overhead rendezvous window of the LM.  Frame 9345 was taken in lunar orbit.  For these two frames especially, the camera wasn't held perfectly level relative to the ground, etc., but the streaks are still vertical.  I think this is a pretty good indication that the blue glow around the dots is somehow tied to the camera or film processing equipment.

P.

I was just wondering on insignificant (in this case) detail: which way film was positioned in camera (up/down, or left/right) and direction (film was inserted) into processing unit (relative to frames its up/down, my guess). But its not important.
Anyway, you nailed this issue with blue "UFOs".

[quillius]

JimOberg, on 20 November 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

In my experience and research I've come to realize that NASA
ALWAYS
examines unusual visual phenomena outside their space vehicles.

Aside from scientific curiosity, the dominating motive is flight and crew safety.

What does that have to do with 'UFOs'?

hey Jim, I have no issue with labelling these as UVP's as opposed to UFO's

[quillius]

psyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

OI - Wheres my link???




So no, there is no NDA in place according to Dr Mitchell, and no Apollo cover ups.

I am glad you posted this. It's good to see Dr Mitchell in a better light for a change. I feel awful about what the media have done to him.


EM: I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language.


That's some diplomacy! I really quite like that short sharp response. I would like to he seen Edgar handle the Bill Nye interview in this fashion. It would have been much more interesting.

Hey Psyche,

I did post the link in a previous post
anyhow here it is again  http://www.enterpris...com/dtran4.html

I think Edgar deals with Hoagland very well throughout and shows that Edgar is not easily fooled in and that he is careful with his words...

[quillius]

psyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

Because that interview blew Dr Mitchell's words out of proportion, hence the Lise Bonnice interview I keep referring back to, as Dr Mitchell says this is "To Clear The Record Up"


LINK

The words "Sets the record straight" I find very meaningful.

yes I agree, its what I am trying to say. He finishes interview with Kerrang.......then did the producer phone NASA and ask for confirmation? confirmation of what? Edgar doesnt say anything about NASA involvement or cover up so how and why did the producer decide to call NASA?

if he really did that is, but it does make sense as to why NASA made any sort of statement following the interview.

[quillius]

psyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

I took Edgars response to be a polite way of saying "your out of your gourd reading it like that"


And Richard cuts him off.

Mate, you give Hoagland an ounce of credence??????


Umm, Hoagland, Greer, Lazar........... pfft, girls are probably tougher.

no I dont think Edgar thought that, however I did take his response as if you are correct in what you say then yes it is interesting use of language....however as Jim pointed out, the contextual key parts were removed to create his point...very naughty indeed. And no I dont give him an ounce of credence  but will check most things out before dismissing them....maybe once I am twenty years into the study I may make more 'rash' evaluations on things said by certain people.