alien presence on moon???

kyle_baron · Dec 28, 2007

Banned for what? Full text of Uplink Policies & Guidelines. UPG 1. Thou shalt not ignore instructions from Moderators or MCT. If given an instruction by a Moderator or MCT, you must comply immediately with that instruction. If you disagree with the instruction, there are several options available to you. You may PM a Moderator or MCT, or you may use the Contact Us link at the bottom of each page to voice your concerns directly to the Administrators. In the meantime, you cannot wait until you get a response before complying with the instruction. You must comply with the instruction completely and immediately. If a moderator gives you advice, we advise you to take it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

aphh · Dec 28, 2007

Okay. But I think I've already said more than I should. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

MeteorWayne · Dec 28, 2007

What I mean was "That is obviously a 6x6 Hasselblad image". What makes it obvious it is a Hasselblad image? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

aphh · Dec 28, 2007

That was what they had onboard: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html These cameras were so great, that even today there are numerous photographers, that only use these. I could calculate the comparable resolution, but it's needless because it is not 2 million pixels (like SELENE's HDTV), but more like 10 million. In any case more than enough. The film frame was 70 mm across, SELENE's HDTV ccd's are probably 1/3 inch, meaning they are about 8-9 millimeters across. That 70 mm across imaging device captures so much detail, that they didn't bother with telephoto lenses from the orbit. They knew they could get all they needed with a standard lens.

telfrow · Dec 28, 2007

If you're talking about 2158-2161, they were taken with the Mapping Camera System. The purpose of the mapping camera system was to obtain photographs of high geometric precision of all lunar surface features overflown by the spacecraft in sunlight. This camera system consisted of a 76-millimeter Fairchild mapping camera (SIM3) using 5-inch film, a 3-inch stellar camera using 35-millimeter film, and a laser altimeter. The electrically operated system was powered by 115 volts, 400 Hertz alternating current (AC), and 28 volts direct current (DC) spacecraft power. IIRC, the film used was Eastman Kodak 3400 Pan-X Aerial. Link Edit: BTW, the same mapping system was used on 15, 16, and 17. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

aphh · Dec 28, 2007

Okay, thanks for the info. But even if the image in question was a 35 mm slide, it would still be better than SELENE's HDTV. But to me it looks better than 35 mm, meaning it's probably a 76 mm slide with millions and millions of pixels of resolution.

yevaud · Dec 28, 2007

The laser altimeter, when operating independently, gave altitude data at a frequency of three data points per minute when the mapping camera was off and approximately 2.5 points per minute when the camera was on. The altimeter malfunctioned during the orbital mission, and no data were obtained after revolution 38. A complete girth of the Moon with the altimeter was acquired on revolution 15/16; sporadic data were recorded otherwise. About 30% of the planned altimeter data was obtained. Well, that's damned inconvenient for claiming all four images were taken under "stable" orbital conditions - which is to say that precise altimetry data for each image was measured, so that all images could be corrected for varying altitude to make them uniform - since it throws any argument of "anomaly" out the window. To rectify this, each image would have to be measured against a control image, and using various algorithms I no longer recollect, adjusted such that all images conformed to a precision "ideal" orbit. Until then, no claim of "four images taken under identical conditions, save time" can be made. And even if performed, it still doesn't leave out simpler explanations (artifact, data drop-out, cosmic rays, etc.) in any way shape or form. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

telfrow · Dec 28, 2007

As seen here it's five inch film, which means it was taken with the 76-millimeter Fairchild mapping camera using EK 3400 Pan-X. Pan-X was a relatively fine grained film that used a thin Estar base. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

aphh · Dec 28, 2007

The distance is enough for the lens to be adjusted for eternity. No need to adjust the focus for a few metres. Like I said, anything that gets in the way of the 76 mm film will be captured. Even if they downconverted it when scanning, there would still be 5.8 million pixels to capture phenomena (scanned image is 2400x2426). Come on, you simply do not fool that. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

yevaud · Dec 28, 2007

APHH, you clearly don't know Remote Sensing and Image Analysis. It is precise. Imagery without proper altitude data is frequently if not mostly useless. There is no common reference. Without one, the images are unreliable. Period. That's how it works. Try to process and analyze an image using PCI or ARC. You will be shut out of 90% of their processing abilities, inasmuch as you do not have any reliable altitude benchmarks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

aphh · Dec 28, 2007

* APHH, you clearly don't know Remote Sensing and Image * Analysis. It is precise. Perhaps, but I know about lenses and photographing. At 60 nautical miles you focus for eternity. Even a few miles would not make a difference whatsoever. The camera captured something, and I want to know what it is. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

telfrow · Dec 28, 2007

Okay, here's another shot of the same location (AS15-M-0474) taken at a sun elevation of 23 degrees taken on Apollo 15. Here's another (AS-15-M-0475). As opposed to the photo you cited taken on Apollo 17 (2159) with a 7 degree sun elevation. You can also see additional photos of the same area in AS17-M-2597 and AS 17-M-2598 (five degree elevation) No "anomaly." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

pyoko · Dec 28, 2007

The phosphatidylcholine intent of megaloblastic conundrum prospects in the catachresis hence and forth proclaimed in such a phenomenalised intent hinders the true centralization. A metaphysical anthrophomorphism forwarded by Dr Zippo frustrated many a great mind in its' much adored perquisites. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -pyoko the duck It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. </div>

aphh · Dec 29, 2007

It looks like somebody else has noticed the anomaly at crater Pirquet before we did. Here is a hi-light of the Apollo 17 trajectory map: http://www.zweg.com/dump/photo/reddot.jpg Brown crosses mark the trajectory of Apollo 17 during orbit 62. Notice the red dot near crater Pirquet? Somebody has marked the location of the anomaly on the trajectory map? Could be just a red dot, could be not. There does not appear to be many red dots on the trajectory map, but one is at the Pirquet, where the anomaly resides in the picture 2159. The red dot is actually EXACTLY where the anomaly is in picture 2159. Coincidence? Hmmm... Full image here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/apolloindex/apollo17/as17indexmap04/150dpi.jpg Anomaly in picture 2159 at Pirquet region: http://www.zweg.com/dump/photo/struktuuri.jpg

lsbd · Dec 29, 2007

holy crap...12 hours later and still argueing over a fraking piece of floating debris or lint on the lens. "the village called.....***ad hominem deleted*** <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

aphh · Dec 29, 2007

Actually, that trajectory map is a lead number 2. The red marker pen just didn't accidentally point out our anomaly in image 2159.

aphh · Dec 29, 2007

What is it? Is it a military installation on the Moon? Is it our, their, or perhaps not at all from this world? Mr. Military Police, I ask you as the citizen of this world; was Apollo just a front for a real space-program, that was of military nature?

telfrow · Dec 29, 2007

One more: AS17-M-2599. No "anomaly." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

aphh · Dec 29, 2007

I'm beginning to think that image 2159 and the red dot in the trajectory map are the only clues left for us by somebody. A patriotic citizen working for NASA wanted to inform us about this stranger than strange anomaly?

lsbd · Dec 29, 2007

and, yet again,......sometimes, a rock is just a rock. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

yevaud · Dec 29, 2007

I'm a bit unhappy that serious and well-accepted points about Remote Sensing and Image Analysis are bypassed or glossed over. I do have a clue what I'm talking about, after all. You look for the simplest explanations first, not the most obscure ones. This thread has somehow reversed that equation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

aphh · Dec 30, 2007

Yevaud, I'm looking at this problem with all that we have, that is anomaly in the image 2159 plus a strange red dot on the trajectory map for orbit 62, the same orbit that the images were taken. I positioned the image 2159 on the trajectory map and aligned the two as best as I could. It appears that the red dot is not in exact same location as the anomaly in image 2159, but close enough to be a suspect (meaning that they might be related to each other): http://www.zweg.com/dump/photo/reddot2.jpg The larger red dot is where the anomaly is in the image 2159.

aphh · Dec 30, 2007

* If you look at the hi res version of 2597 you can actually * see a piece of hair was trapped on the glass plate Yes, I only now studied the image 2162 a bit, and it too has hair and quite a bit of dust. I'm going to go with the dirt on the scanner explanation for the anomaly for now, unless a better explanation can be had.

deapfreeze · Dec 30, 2007

As logical as this sounds ( hair or dust on the lens ) It still does not explain how the red dot on the map pin points the dust on the scanner so I unfortunately can't accept this answer. It may be just some floating debri or a mother ship or a rock but definately not dust on the scanner. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> William ( deapfreeze ) Hooperhttp://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/ </div>

aphh · Dec 30, 2007

It could be a spacecraft or something else flying, and the red dot indicates the area where the spacecraft or flying thing was spotted. Unfortunately we will never know, unless somebody who was involved in the process tells more about it. And so we have one more theory out and alive.

alien presence on moon???

kyle_baron

Guest

aphh

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

aphh

Guest

telfrow

Guest

aphh

Guest

yevaud

Guest

telfrow

Guest

aphh

Guest

yevaud

Guest

aphh

Guest

telfrow

Guest

pyoko

Guest

aphh

Guest

lsbd

Guest

aphh

Guest

aphh

Guest

telfrow

Guest

aphh

Guest

lsbd

Guest

yevaud

Guest

aphh

Guest

aphh

Guest

deapfreeze

Guest

aphh

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page