More NASA UFO's?

[bmk1245]

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]

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]

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.enterprisemission.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]

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]

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.

[Hazzard]

Good to see you again, peri,... I always enjoy reading your posts. I learn something new every time.

[bmk1245]

Jim, can you clarify few things about McDivitt photos? In your article you mentioned photo designation number 65-H-1013. From mission transcript (and composite air-to-ground and onboard voice transcript), sighting took place around 29:55 GET. There are three photos from list in "Earth photographs from Gemini III, IV, and V" (page 260, though GMT time here is off by 1 hour) and from Gemini 4 photo identification list (page 6) that fit time (magazine 7, frames 18-20) McDivitt tried to take photograph of the object. Is one of those three photos we are discussing about?

[validator]

Exhibit B: Another illustration from Mike Bara's horrible error-filled book, chapter 4.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-J_4CTZcW5eo/UFFvYohZKII/AAAAAAAABnI/yJ1rBdEy3hA/s512/AS12-46-6807-enhanced.jpg

Mike's caption is "Apollo 12 image showing astronaut Alan Bean in front of glass like lunar structures beyond the horizon". The "official" version is here:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6807.jpg

What Hoagland & Bara have done, disgracefully, is to boost brightness and contrast beyond the point at which this photograph is showing us anything real. Again, what we're looking at in the sky is imperfections in Hoagland's office scanner.

Just to ram home the point, the "glass like lunar structures" appear just as much in Al Bean's shadow as they do in the sky. Of course -- anywhere that's black picks up the scanner glass.

[synchronomy]

Exhibit B: Another illustration from Mike Bara's horrible error-filled book, chapter 4.

https://lh5.googleus...07-enhanced.jpg

Mike's caption is "Apollo 12 image showing astronaut Alan Bean in front of glass like lunar structures beyond the horizon". The "official" version is here:

http://history.nasa....S12-46-6807.jpg

What Hoagland & Bara have done, disgracefully, is to boost brightness and contrast beyond the point at which this photograph is showing us anything real. Again, what we're looking at in the sky is imperfections in Hoagland's office scanner.

Just to ram home the point, the "glass like lunar structures" appear just as much in Al Bean's shadow as they do in the sky. Of course -- anywhere that's black picks up the scanner glass.

It amazes me that so called (self-professed) experts get away with crap like this.

There is an abundance of hustlers, cheats, and conmen associated with UFO's, conspiracy theories, and black-ops myths.

And when I say abundance, I mean that the vast majority of them are lying just to make cash.

They are even permitted to publish their books as "non-fiction".

As long as the subject is dominated by twits like this perpetuating and creating falsehoods, we will never be able to determine the truth in anything.

Just take a look at the Hoagland video I submitted a few posts back. He claims there are huge structures built within the rings of Saturn. He even says that due to the low gravity environment, "they could be built using spaghetti".

And the audience sits there silently taking it all in as facts.

It makes me sick.

Edited November 21, 2012 by synchronomy

[Hazzard]

Same here, synchronomy... I wouldnt say that people like Bara and RCH are getting away with their BS though. I think that most people can see through their "fantastic" claims.

Debunking this type of crap can be important.

In this day and age when the internet has given global reach to the bizarre and archive it forever, it is essential for men and women of reason resolutely to counter the delusions of the fringe element.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Hazzard

[synchronomy]

Same here, synchronomy... I wouldnt say that people like Bara and RCH are getting away with their BS though.

As long as there are skeptics in the audience willing to speak up and call them on it,...

Seems they are getting away with it to the extent they are making money from it.

They keep getting invited back to a lot of UFO conferences, selling books, guests on C2C and Rense...etc.

Much of the best information comes out of forums such as this, simply because a lot of people are doing their own research and providing immediate feedback.

[JesseCuster]

Exhibit B: Another illustration from Mike Bara's horrible error-filled book, chapter 4.

https://lh5.googleus...07-enhanced.jpg

Mike's caption is "Apollo 12 image showing astronaut Alan Bean in front of glass like lunar structures beyond the horizon". The "official" version is here:

http://history.nasa....S12-46-6807.jpg

What Hoagland & Bara have done, disgracefully, is to boost brightness and contrast beyond the point at which this photograph is showing us anything real. Again, what we're looking at in the sky is imperfections in Hoagland's office scanner.

Just to ram home the point, the "glass like lunar structures" appear just as much in Al Bean's shadow as they do in the sky. Of course -- anywhere that's black picks up the scanner glass.

Looks like lens flare to me.

Here's another picture of Alan Bean from Apollo 12:

Yup, very common polygonal lens flare artefact. I'd be willing to guess that the cameras used for that moon mission had a 5-bladed aperture, hence the pentagon shaped lens flare in the photos.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Archimedes

[synchronomy]

Looks like lens flare to me.

Here's another picture of Alan Bean from Apollo 12:

*snipped picture*

Yup, very common polygonal lens flare artefact. I'd be willing to guess that the cameras used for that moon mission had a 5-bladed aperture, hence the pentagon shaped lens flare in the photos.

It's so obvious that a child wouldn't give it a second thought.

Hoagland & Bara know this, then deliberately distort the hell out of it and present it with some cake and icecream.

I don't know how they can sleep at night.

[TheMacGuffin]

Not to beat a dead horse any further, but their website finally sank to the level of absolute absurdity when they actually posted this picture as "proof" that there was an atmosphere on the moon.

Not just absurd, but imbecilic.

http://www.google.co...ej3ZsRrxc_rO5kQ

Edited November 21, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

And this is also another "UFO" picture that should have been dropped long ago, yet it still lives on forever--on the Internet.

[TheMacGuffin]

What other zaniness can we find here? Apollo 12 astronauts "amid the ruins".

And "ruins above the horizon". LOL This is too much to bear.

Edited November 21, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

Edgar Mitchell "under glass"???????????????????????? Absurd, utterly bonkers.

[booNyzarC]

I really like this side of you MacGuffin!

It's great to see.

[TheMacGuffin]

All of this might as well be from the Theater of the Absurd.

[TheMacGuffin]

I really like this side of you MacGuffin!

It's great to see.

Well, if I look at something very carefully and then decide that it's just silly, goofy or crazy, I won't hesitate to say so. I see no reason to jump on every UFO and ET bandwagon that rolls into town.

Of course, that doesn't mean I think it's ALL nonsense, as this stuff obviously is.

[S2F]

It amazes me that so called (self-professed) experts get away with crap like this.

There is an abundance of hustlers, cheats, and conmen associated with UFO's, conspiracy theories, and black-ops myths.

And when I say abundance, I mean that the vast majority of them are lying just to make cash.

They are even permitted to publish their books as "non-fiction".

As long as the subject is dominated by twits like this perpetuating and creating falsehoods, we will never be able to determine the truth in anything.

Just take a look at the Hoagland video I submitted a few posts back. He claims there are huge structures built within the rings of Saturn. He even says that due to the low gravity environment, "they could be built using spaghetti".

And the audience sits there silently taking it all in as facts.

It makes me sick.

I think that most of the people who buy into this obvious nonsense have a fantasy prone personality.

Fantasy prone personality (FPP) is a disposition or personality trait in which a person experiences a lifelong extensive and deep involvement in fantasy.^[1] This disposition is an attempt, at least in part, to better describe the popular term "overactive imagination".^[2] An individual with this trait (termed a fantasizer) may have difficulty differentiating between fantasy and reality and may experience hallucinations, as well as self-suggested psychosomatic symptoms. Three closely related psychological constructs are daydreaming, absorption and eidetic memory.

Wilson and Barber also put forth 14 characteristics in their 1981 study. They require having six or more of these traits to be characterised as "fantasy prone." These are:

• excellent hypnotic subject
  
• having imaginary friends as child
  
• fantasizing often as child
  
• having an actual fantasy identity
  
• experiencing imagined sensations as real
  
• having vivid sensory perceptions
  
• reliving past experiences
  
• claiming psychic powers
  
• having out-of-body experiences
  
• receiving information from higher powers, spirits, intelligences
  
• involved in "healing"
  
• encountered apparitions
  
• hypnogogic hallucinations (waking dreams)
  
• seeing hypnogogic hallucinations (ghosts, aliens, etc.)^[8]
  

Subsequent studies have recorded additional potential features:

• claiming to have been abducted by aliens
  
• believes they can receive sexual satisfaction without any stimulation
  
• believes they have mystical healing and can do great things^[9]
  

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

[psyche101]

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...

Thanks mate. I found it myself, but I like links with your posts as they are always very much worth the read I find.

I agree, I thought Dr Mitchell held his own very well. Much better than the Bill Nye interview IMHO.

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.

Surely NASA's involvement is due to the large number of assumptions made in error about the Source of Edgar's information. As per the many links MacGuffin left, reporters are more than willing to take that leap and make the link to NASA themselves. We can see ourselves that many posters were under the impression that Edgar implicated NASA when he had not.

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.

As opposed to 20 or more years of UFO chasing, my interest in astronomy negates Hoagland's claims at face value. They make absolutely no sense, and I suspect that 99.9% of astronomers would be able to do little more than chuckle at Hoagland's suggestions.

[mcrom901]

I think that most of the people who buy into this obvious nonsense have a fantasy prone personality.

http://en.wikipedia....one_personality

i wonder how precise memory recall (photographic memory) could lead to fantasizing...

[Space Commander Travis]

I think that most of the people who buy into this obvious nonsense have a fantasy prone personality.

http://en.wikipedia....one_personality

And what's wrong with any of those, i ask?

Particularly when we come to the supplementary characterististics.:

• claiming to have been abducted by aliens
  
• believes they can receive sexual satisfaction without any stimulation
  
• believes they have mystical healing and can do great things^[9]
  

[S2F]

And what's wrong with any of those, i ask?

Particularly when we come to the supplementary characterististics.:

• claiming to have been abducted by aliens
  
• believes they can receive sexual satisfaction without any stimulation
  
• believes they have mystical healing and can do great things^[9]
  

I never said anything was wrong with any of those characteristics individually. When a person exhibits several of them (6 or more according to the Wilson and Barber study) then it can become a detriment. With the recent invasion of UFOlogy by the new agers who rather vocally promote many of the characteristics listed, it seems that FPP could be a relatively large percentage of UFOlogy. They would be the ones most likely to believe the Sitchins and Hoaglands of the world in my opinion.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Slave2Fate