Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Alisdair.MacDonald

More NASA UFO's?

Are these UFO's?   51 members have voted

  1. 1. Do these videos contain images of UFO's?


Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,529 posts in this topic

Then someone else claimed that NASA was "mucking about" with all the images, which I have heard many times before. There was quite a long discussion about it which I just don't have enough time to read at the moment.

A14DAC22.jpg

A14DAC2.jpg

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flare is from studio lights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bmk...

IF Edgar Mitchell had got his info from a couple of girls you might have a point..... :P

.

Sometimes grownups are more imaginative than kids...

If you don't like aforementioned example, how about you believing in B.Cathie's nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on vacation this week, so I have some free time. Care to comment on the image I just posted? Does that satisfy you that these are just film artifacts?

Hey Peri, good to see you. Hope you enjoy your vacation. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "blue lights" on the Apollo 14 images aren't real objects. They're blemishes on the film. I believe they're static electricity discharge marks. They occur quite frequently on magazine 66 and they're always oriented in the direction of film travel through the camera. Here's a frame where the marks appear on top of the lunar module:

[...]

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

cosmic-ray-streak1.jpg

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Peri, good to see you. Hope you enjoy your vacation. :tu:

I agree, we don't see you enough around here Peri. It's good to know you haven't forgotten about us. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been looking back through the last few pages looking at this "blue light" phenomenon.

I didn't see this picture posted.

My apologies if it already was...

I downloaded this pic some time ago and do not recall the source, so I make no claims as to it's authenticity.

Regarding this phenomena, I would have to agree with a previous post, that these artefacts are possibly caused by a static discharge within the camera itself or during the film development/printing phase.

In my younger years, I was an avid amateur photographer and developed and printed my own black and whites for a number of years. I switched to color reproduction when the price and availability of equipment became feasible. I recall seeing such blue marks on my prints and being puzzled by it. I had a professional see my prints once and right away he said it was static discharges either happening within the camera, when I was transferring the film to a development canister, or when I was removing my photo paper from the light proof envelope within the dark room. He gave me a few tips on how to ground myself and equipment during the development process. This still left the possibility of it occuring within the camera, however, it virtually eliminated it happening during the development phase.

Using his suggestions, the frequency of the appearance was greatly reduced.

I'm not saying that is what we are viewing in these Moon shots, however in my mind it is certainly a possibility.

My gut feeling is that what we are viewing here is a film or development anomaly.

I remain eager to be proven wrong, and that indeed we are viewing some evidence of ET's!

Lunar-Anomaly-Blue-Ship.jpg

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] I recall seeing such blue marks on my prints and being puzzled by it. [...]

Have you, on occasion, one of those photos (if survived I don't need this, and this, and...? Just for comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are quite a few of these pictures from the Apollo missions, usually explained as reflections, lens flares, film artifacts and so on.

apollo15a.jpg

1971 - Apollo 15. This photograph is from NASA, and some say we are looking at a UFO on the Moon at the time of Apollo 15 mission. Reference: NASA AS15-85/08.

This bluish light mass has been explained as either debris from the capsule or some camera anomaly. Still, a very good picture, and quite a conversation piece.

1972apollo16a.jpg

1972 - Apollo 16, Moon Mission Dates: April 16-27, CDR: John W. Young, CMP: Kenneth Mattingly, LMP: Charles Duke, Importance: Explored the Moon's rocky central highlands. NASA archives (photo No AS16-109-17804)

Mission Apollo 16 on the Moon. Astronaut John Young on rim of Plum crater gathering lunar rock samples. UFO at top right.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures3.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flare is from studio lights.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

AS14-66-9220.jpg

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

AS14-66-9236.jpg

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

cosmic-ray-streak1.jpg

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdorkmission.blogspot.com%2F2012%2F07%2Fbriefing-for-mike-blue-flares-in-lunar.html&ei=kPqrUKL9B4Wa9gS3soGYBw&usg=AFQjCNGMX1qoTLOg5d18wDOOd7nL-j6MtQ&sig2=bTRbvWVvnSuXujITA31k2A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Apollo_11_001.jpg

Apollo_11_003.jpg

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

And thats solid guess.

[...] 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 :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.