More NASA UFO's?

[psyche101]

And why was the image airbrushed out? They just didn't want to mar the shot with unsightly "space junk"?

It is still on the NASA HQ images site in the Apollo 11 section

LINK (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html)

LINK - 99K

LINK - 870K

It has not been brushed out.

[psyche101]

I think this was the one Oberg was talking about in his 1982 book, although obviously he does not believe that it was anything but debris or junk. So he said on Debunker.com.

"UFOs Past, Present and Future (written by Robert Emenegger, researched by Alan Frank Sandler) reported on "perhaps the most spectacular of all sightings" which occurred on Apollo 11. On the way out to the moon, the astronauts watched an object which seemed to change shape when they switched magnifications of their telescope "It was really weird," Collins is quoted as saying.

Fate magazine, in editor Curtis Fuller s column "I See By The Papers" (November 1970), examined the stories and concluded: "There seems to be pretty good evidence that Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong. and Michael Collins saw something that hasn't been made generally known--something variously reported, ranging from mysterious lights to formations of spaceships!"

The authenticity of the Apollo 11 sightings has been vouched for by testimony attributed to CBS TV news anchorman Walter Cronkite. In an interview with the National Enquirer, conducted by reporter Robin Leach, Cronkite gives this account: "En route for the world's first moon landing, Armstrong and the crew transmitted some earthshaking information, and I was there to hear it for myself."

Cronkite continued: "Armstrong claimed to have spotted a huge cylindrical object which was rotating or tumbling between the ship and the moon. It's officially recorded in the NASA record vaults that Armstrong indicated he went to take photographs but the object vanished as quickly as he'd first seen it. Neil Armstrong is not a man given to fanciful imagination and it wasn't just one of the crew that saw it -- they all did, and you have to respect those men."

That was good enough for Ripley's Believe It or Not, too. In late 1978 they published a syndicated series of cartoon panels dealing with UFOs; one panel contained a sketch of astronauts and the caption, "Astronaut Neil Armstrong. . . saw UFOs while on space mission. But NASA -- according to newscaster Walter Cronkite -- is keeping the evidence a secret."

But the secret leaked a little, according to the McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. In 1979 they issued a book by David C. Knight, entitled UFOs: A Pictorial History. A full-page space photo on page 171 bears this caption: "Perhaps the most spectacular of all UFO sightings from space occurred on July 19, 1969 on the Apollo-XI flight.... The crew spotted a strange object between their ship and the moon.... The object still remains unidentified." (Purists might have noted that the object shown on the page was between the ship and the earth, but who wants to be picky when dealing with such fantastic stories?).

http://www.debunker....s/apollo11.html

That is the SLA panel debacle, not that picture.

[psyche101]

I think Oberg has delivered the official NASA explanation that is was an ice particle or piece of debris very close to the camera, although that's not how it looks to a non-expert like me.

I think I would have to go with small. If they were 9 miles away, that thing would be astoundingly huge, and would definitely have been noticed by more people than NASA. James Young's observations from Table Top mounting would have without doubt recorded such a large anomaly in space as he tracked the Apollo missions by telescope. And that is not even considering the plethora of enthusiasts that would aslo be tracking the mission. I do not see how so many could possibly miss something that would be so large.

[psyche101]

Just for the record here, Boon was the first one to call it a giant sea monkey in outer space.

It's definitely not a term I would ever use.

Sorry McGuffin, no offence intended, and I was aiming that post at Boon. The Sea Monkeys reference made me smile, and I remembered seeing little spaceship air bubblers in fish tanks. I knew a picture would be out there for what I was thinking. Just a moment of mirth, no disrespect intended to anyone, or any specific reference.

[booNyzarC]

I think this was the one Oberg was talking about in his 1982 book, although obviously he does not believe that it was anything but debris or junk. So he said on Debunker.com.

"UFOs Past, Present and Future (written by Robert Emenegger, researched by Alan Frank Sandler) reported on "perhaps the most spectacular of all sightings" which occurred on Apollo 11. On the way out to the moon, the astronauts watched an object which seemed to change shape when they switched magnifications of their telescope "It was really weird," Collins is quoted as saying.

Fate magazine, in editor Curtis Fuller s column "I See By The Papers" (November 1970), examined the stories and concluded: "There seems to be pretty good evidence that Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong. and Michael Collins saw something that hasn't been made generally known--something variously reported, ranging from mysterious lights to formations of spaceships!"

The authenticity of the Apollo 11 sightings has been vouched for by testimony attributed to CBS TV news anchorman Walter Cronkite. In an interview with the National Enquirer, conducted by reporter Robin Leach, Cronkite gives this account: "En route for the world's first moon landing, Armstrong and the crew transmitted some earthshaking information, and I was there to hear it for myself."

Cronkite continued: "Armstrong claimed to have spotted a huge cylindrical object which was rotating or tumbling between the ship and the moon. It's officially recorded in the NASA record vaults that Armstrong indicated he went to take photographs but the object vanished as quickly as he'd first seen it. Neil Armstrong is not a man given to fanciful imagination and it wasn't just one of the crew that saw it -- they all did, and you have to respect those men."

That was good enough for Ripley's Believe It or Not, too. In late 1978 they published a syndicated series of cartoon panels dealing with UFOs; one panel contained a sketch of astronauts and the caption, "Astronaut Neil Armstrong. . . saw UFOs while on space mission. But NASA -- according to newscaster Walter Cronkite -- is keeping the evidence a secret."

But the secret leaked a little, according to the McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. In 1979 they issued a book by David C. Knight, entitled UFOs: A Pictorial History. A full-page space photo on page 171 bears this caption: "Perhaps the most spectacular of all UFO sightings from space occurred on July 19, 1969 on the Apollo-XI flight.... The crew spotted a strange object between their ship and the moon.... The object still remains unidentified." (Purists might have noted that the object shown on the page was between the ship and the earth, but who wants to be picky when dealing with such fantastic stories?).

http://www.debunker....s/apollo11.html

According to Oberg and NASA, the white blob was ice particles, insulation or other debris:

"Actually, one Apollo 11 photo does show a true unidentified (but hardly unidentifiable) object. Soon after pulling the LM out of the rocket garage, near the earth, a flood of spinning particles rushed past the Apollo's windows. One of the astronauts was taking a series of tourist snapshots of the receding earth, and in one of the photos was a tiny odd-shaped blob.

There is no indication that any of the astronauts saw it. Since it's out of focus on a camera with an extremely wide depth of field, photographic experts have concluded that it was probably only a few feet outside the window, and an inch or two across. As on other flights, pieces of insulation and ice surrounded the Apollo at this stage in the flight. "Unidentified" it certainly might be, but it could not by any semantic word game be called an authentic UFO--except, for example, in McGraw-Hill's UFOs a Pictorial History!"

http://www.debunker....s/apollo11.html

I think Oberg has delivered the official NASA explanation that is was an ice particle or piece of debris very close to the camera, although that's not how it looks to a non-expert like me.

Note to James Oberg:

Perhaps it is time to put pictures on your website when you are referencing pictures.

[mcrom901]

Perhaps I misspoke a bit, The 'airy discs' or bokeh are caused by the light reflecting off of the ice particles and furthermore being out of focus, not so much that they are 'separate'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

I hope that helps explain it a bit.

the bokeh are out of focus points of lights; which could be reflections from various things... in case of sts-75 it hasn't been established definitely that they were all ice particles... could there have been ice-particles out there? definitely.... but at what sizes, distances & at what sublimation rates? what about other options? did all the particles behave in a similar fashion? did they all react to the rcs synchronously? were all of them close to the camera, or, were there other objects near the tether as well? has any plasma phenomenon been definitely ruled out? i dunno... leave alone paint chips

[mcrom901]

How about we answer specific challenges to specific cases instead of running away to new cases.

jim, you never answered the questions which i had asked earlier, why?

why do you think that uaps falsify your position?

[TheMacGuffin]

That is the SLA panel debacle, not that picture.

Yes, that happened when they were much closer to the moon, on the 19th of July rather than the 16th, I think, although at the time there was that story about how the Apollo 11 was "followed" by a UFO.

[booNyzarC]

Nah, not giants the ships are really small. They get confused with Ice particles all the time.

SM-USO.............

That's awesome!

I remember looking at those ads in my comic books when I was a kid. I always wanted to order these and the X-Ray glasses, but being a kid I had no money.

I only wanted the X-Ray glasses for purely scientific reasons, of course...

[TheMacGuffin]

It is still on the NASA HQ images site in the Apollo 11 section

The one issued by the Lunar Planetary Institute was airbrushed.

[booNyzarC]

The one issued by the Lunar Planetary Institute was airbrushed.

So what? NASA has the original hosted. Just because one version of the picture is airbrushed doesn't mean that NASA is trying to hide anything.

Surely you see that right?

[psyche101]

Yes, that happened when they were much closer to the moon, on the 19th of July rather than the 16th, I think, although at the time there was that story about how the Apollo 11 was "followed" by a UFO.

Where I get the clue that the posted transcript is the SLA debacle is:

On the way out to the moon, the astronauts watched an object which seemed to change shape when they switched magnifications of their telescope "It was really weird," Collins is quoted as saying.

That was Astronaut Collins comments during the technical debriefing. The full transcript is:

Collins

No, it looked like a hollow cylinder to me. It didn't look like two connected rings. You could see this thing tumbling and, when it came around end-on, you could look right down in its guts. It was a hollow cylinder. But then you could change the focus on the sextant and it would be replaced by this open-book shape. It was really weird.

LINK

Edited October 31, 2012 by psyche101

[TheMacGuffin]

So what? NASA has the original hosted. Just because one version of the picture is airbrushed doesn't mean that NASA is trying to hide anything.

Surely you see that right?

Are you really such a trusting soul? LOL It's hard to believe, such faith in institutions.

[psyche101]

That's awesome!

I remember looking at those ads in my comic books when I was a kid. I always wanted to order these and the X-Ray glasses, but being a kid I had no money.

I only wanted the X-Ray glasses for purely scientific reasons, of course...

Me Too! But I'll come right out and say my purposes had no scientific aspect whatsoever Money was a problem for me too, I eventually got a job doing the neighbours gardens and saved up to get some. I was mighty cheesed of when I grew this:

When all along I thought I was growing

Sea Monkeys are sold buy UFOlofgists! The alien crap is just to draw our attention away from the fact they have been fleecing our youth for decades!

Ohh well!

Edited October 31, 2012 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Are you really such a trusting soul? LOL It's hard to believe, such faith in institutions.

But, what did they do in this case? They host the picture themselves on the Apollo archives?

[TheMacGuffin]

But, what did they do in this case? They host the picture themselves on the Apollo archives?

That's a good question. What did they do and why did the alter the picture? That has happened quite a bit.

Of course I don't believe the NASA-Oberg "explanations" for all these things, but you know my background. I have my reasons to think that many of those are hooey, and I have cast reasonable doubt on a number of them.

Of course, I haven't been very trusting of institutions since the days of Vietnam and Watergate--and all the stuff that has come out since then. You guys down in Australia probably don't know what all that was like, at least not from the inside the way we do.

Edited October 31, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[psyche101]

That's a good question. What did they do and why did the alter the picture? That has happened quite a bit.

Of course i don't believe the NASA-Oberg "explanations" for all these things, but you know my background. I have my reasons to think that many of those are hooey, and I have cast reasonable doubt on a number of them.

Of course, I haven't been very trusting of institutions since the days of Vietnam and Watergate--and all the stuff that has come out since then. You guys down in Australia probably don't know what all that was like, at least not from the inside the way we do.

But the picture remains on site unaltered to this day? That is where I am getting lost. It has not gone missing, it is still there.

I grabbed that link this morning. It is not airbrushed, it is publicly available in the Apollo Archives for all to see. If a version was altered, it could be for advertising, sale to a magazine, anything, but the original version has not been removed to this day. I too will be interested to James explanation, I have to echo boon, it looks like a processing artifact to be perfectly honest. Nothing nefarious.

That is more than fair enough, our Government is nowhere near the size of yours, and do not seem to have much of an interest in ET other than that which is thrust upon them. If you knew our PM, I suspect you would feel that any UFO presence or such in Australia would have been removed with the Nixon administration. The last party was on the ball, but this lot. Crikey Moses, bunch of children. All they do is schoolyard bicker. An embarrassment to the nation I feel.

For sure you would have a far better understanding of the watergate years than we, but in school we do get out fair share of American Culture. I learned about the Pinta, Nina and Santa Maria before I learned about the Endeavour, and I knew who sat on an American dollar before I knew the faces on the Australian ones. Pretty ordinary I always thought. Seems better these days though.

[S2F]

the bokeh are out of focus points of lights; which could be reflections from various things... in case of sts-75 it hasn't been established definitely that they were all ice particles... could there have been ice-particles out there? definitely.... but at what sizes, distances & at what sublimation rates? what about other options? did all the particles behave in a similar fashion? did they all react to the rcs synchronously? were all of them close to the camera, or, were there other objects near the tether as well? has any plasma phenomenon been definitely ruled out? i dunno... leave alone paint chips

Hey mcrom, you are right of course, there likely was other debris in the field of view other than just ice crystals. In fact I think in the audio from the event someone stated that they were seeing debris from the broken tether if I'm not mistaken. Even though we can't positively identify each individual particle, I think that the prosaic 'ice/debris' conclusion is still the best contender. Could there be other things going on as well, like plasmas or some such? I don't know enough to say yea or nay but I think it is possible. The level of scrutiny to determine everything that was going on in the tether video with regards to the behavior of individual particles/'lights' would be a fairly time consuming endeavor but to what end? I think there are other mysteries more deserving of such investigation than this one.

[psyche101]

the bokeh are out of focus points of lights; which could be reflections from various things... in case of sts-75 it hasn't been established definitely that they were all ice particles... could there have been ice-particles out there? definitely.... but at what sizes, distances & at what sublimation rates? what about other options? did all the particles behave in a similar fashion? did they all react to the rcs synchronously? were all of them close to the camera, or, were there other objects near the tether as well? has any plasma phenomenon been definitely ruled out? i dunno... leave alone paint chips

Is there any record of UAP appearing in such large numbers previously?

[booNyzarC]

Are you really such a trusting soul? LOL It's hard to believe, such faith in institutions.

You have got to be joking. Why would NASA try to hide that kind of obvious photographic artifact? The very notion of it is ridiculous.

Just looking at the stupid thing should be enough for anyone to realize that it isn't a physical object. The only reason to remove it from an image is to make the rest of the image more pleasant to look at.

I can't believe we are even discussing this particular picture considering how obvious it is that there is nothing actually physically there. Next we'll be discussing the demon possessed because of the red eye effects that sometimes come out in photographs. It's just silly.

Don't you have better and more compelling UFO related subjects to focus on by now McG?

[S2F]

Is there any record of UAP appearing in such large numbers previously?

Speaking of plasmas, would a large number of plasmas in relatively close proximity attract or repulse one another? Would they coalesce or scatter or meander about aimlessly? Not sure if you would know the answer to that psyche, you were just the unfortunate individual I chose to ask.

[booNyzarC]

Speaking of plasmas, would a large number of plasmas in relatively close proximity attract or repulse one another? Would they coalesce or scatter or meander about aimlessly? Not sure if you would know the answer to that psyche, you were just the unfortunate individual I chose to ask.

If I may venture a guess... all of the above are possible, but none of the above seem an appropriate explanation for the tether video and others like it. It seems very clear to me that these bokeh are just various and sundry particulates, some may be ice particles, some may be other small objects relatively close to the lens, but they all seem to exhibit the same general visual qualities. As Jim has referred to them recently, they are just various forms of 'dandruff' related to normal operations in space, but with the tether incident in particular, how much extra 'fluff' would have been floating about as a result of the disaster itself? More than normal I'd think.

I'm really not sure why MCROM presses this UAP point, and I'm not sure if he has ever really explained his reasoning, but I'd be curious to see if he is willing to elucidate about what he is thinking and why he is thinking it.

[psyche101]

If I may venture a guess... all of the above are possible, but none of the above seem an appropriate explanation for the tether video and others like it. It seems very clear to me that these bokeh are just various and sundry particulates, some may be ice particles, some may be other small objects relatively close to the lens, but they all seem to exhibit the same general visual qualities. As Jim has referred to them recently, they are just various forms of 'dandruff' related to normal operations in space, but with the tether incident in particular, how much extra 'fluff' would have been floating about as a result of the disaster itself? More than normal I'd think.

I'm really not sure why MCROM presses this UAP point, and I'm not sure if he has ever really explained his reasoning, but I'd be curious to see if he is willing to elucidate about what he is thinking and why he is thinking it.

I can see where Mcrom is coming from. Violent sudden bursts of heat in a near vacuum might (and I do mean might ) have an odd effect in space. There is stil traces of atmosphere a long way out, it seems plausible that some gases might coalese in such conditions and the effect of igniting such pockets in an unfamiliar environment might produce an effect not seen before. The temp difference would be quite extreme and very sudden I imagine.

But I do not know why that would be a more valid explanation than ice particles. But mcrom is an "out of the box" sorta guy IMHO. (that's meant as a compliment mcrom )

[S2F]

If I may venture a guess... all of the above are possible, but none of the above seem an appropriate explanation for the tether video and others like it. It seems very clear to me that these bokeh are just various and sundry particulates, some may be ice particles, some may be other small objects relatively close to the lens, but they all seem to exhibit the same general visual qualities. As Jim has referred to them recently, they are just various forms of 'dandruff' related to normal operations in space, but with the tether incident in particular, how much extra 'fluff' would have been floating about as a result of the disaster itself? More than normal I'd think.

I'm really not sure why MCROM presses this UAP point, and I'm not sure if he has ever really explained his reasoning, but I'd be curious to see if he is willing to elucidate about what he is thinking and why he is thinking it.

No problem booN, I was merely offering a line of inquiry. I'm not sure about plasmas being present in the tether video however the premise is interesting and at least possible, from my limited understanding of the phenomena at any rate. .

[psyche101]

Speaking of plasmas, would a large number of plasmas in relatively close proximity attract or repulse one another? Would they coalesce or scatter or meander about aimlessly? Not sure if you would know the answer to that psyche, you were just the unfortunate individual I chose to ask.

I know of plasmas that have coalesced in proximity to each other, but I am not sure about such great numbers. But yes, plasmas do coalesce. They will be able to repel too, as they hold a magnetic charge. Micro-particles affect the level of electricity (I am pretty sure!) so it would be dependant on the complexity of the plasma itself I would imagine. Charged nuclei inside of a plasma will repel each other, but the binding force of the plasma does not allow this. I figure this would have something to do with minimum size, but I am not sure what that size would be.

Given that, I figure the reactions would be random, as seen in the STS captures. I will rely on Bade to clarify, and point out any mistakes I may have made, but what we see is what a plasma would also show I think. I do not think what mcrom is proposing is out of the question, but I have not seen data to support that conclusion.

Except maybe the thruster flash in the 48 clip. Never seen plasma cause a thruster to fire

Edited October 31, 2012 by psyche101