King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
UFO'S: A possible explanation
- Thread starter makaya325
- Start date
Neither would a flaw caused by a developing process error, or a flaw in the emulsion.
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
Really...?
ALL the photos featured had 'flaws' in the developing process...?
They didn't take the film to Eckards for a one hour development, and I doubt they had some high school film program do the work either. I've been in my fair share of dark rooms although admittedly the work I did was solely B&W. To get something like those to appear, you'd need to expose "2" fixed lights atop your exposure during the shoot on to the photo paper...
Why would a NASA developer 'add' features?
They shot a LOT of film. I seriously doubt they hand-processed each lot. Even with a very low failure rate, there's going to be a few failures.
The alternative, that every single exposure ever shot by NASA was absolutely free of flaws in the emulsion and mistakes or problems in the development doesn't strike me as a valid assumption.
I'm not claiming that it is the only possible explanation. Merely that there have been a lot more documented failures of quality control than of non-human artifacts.
Yes, but ice doesn't.
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
Alright, so if I take my film to the local Wal-mart, I can 'expect' to get some errors in the processing, say for argument's sake 2%.
If I get 100 pictures developed, I could expect 2 flawed pictures, maybe one or two more or less?
What do you think NASA's failure rate is compared to commercial developers?
(I'm gonna call my local film place, and get their efficiency/error rates.)
---
It seems to me WRONG to hold that the featured images aren't real, UNLESS you can positively identify/prove there's a flaw in the film processing.
These blue dots should show up in EVERY image, if it was ice on the lens...
I'd expect it to be less.
I'd expect it to be much smaller.
But the point is, it's not zero.
Photo processing errors are well known to exist. Defects in film are known to exist. More research would have to be done to show that this is the most likely explanation, but since errors and defects are already known to exist, they're still more likely than a nonhuman artifact, kept secret for tens of years.
I believe the idea was that ice had formed on the window, not the lens, but it's still true that it would be in pictures taken through that window at around that time. Do you have pictures taken through that window at around that time?
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
Properly calibrated equipment, and well trained personnel can yield a 99.99% accuracy rating, in photography and film development. Now that may not be that standard at NASA, but if a University Laboratory can, I 'think' NASA could, given how much money was spent on the mission. Getting 'quality' photos seems at least semi- important.
I say, that until you fully realize a defect in the film, equipment, or development process, what you have is a nonhuman artifact. IF the rest of your photographs present no similar images, presenting in the same way...
If you can't 'prove' there's a defect, the image is real.
Sadly no, the link came from an online newspaper. You'd have to consult NASA for similar shots.
Ice however, doesn't freeze in droplets in space. They form frost in a crystalline form. Try again.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Look up Apollo Archives and you'll see a number of out of focus shots and accidental shutter trips. It happens.
I say it's pointless discussing a newspaper's representation of the photo. It's not as though UK papers don't have a history of doctoring photos. In this case unlikely, but source the original from NASA and then discuss.
Or a photo of a real defect. Look's like Neil Armstrong sneezed on the window, to me.
Sadly no, the link came from an online newspaper. You'd have to consult NASA for similar shots. [/quote]Suggest you source this photo from NASA too.
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
Suggest you source this photo from NASA too.[/QUOTE]
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5872.jpg
Sun glare...?
Isn't there claims that some primitive islanders couldn't recognise sailboats, and plains indians couldn't recognise trains, because their minds had no comparison in which to assimilate them? If this is so, what might this suggest regarding sightings of "ufo's"?
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
This looks like 'most' of the apollo images:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
ETA:
These images...are really quite something.
However, they are 'filled' with anomalies. And most completely lack star fields of any kind. Here and there some appear as faint white lights, while others appear 'blue'.
Check out image # AS14-68-9472, from the Apollo 14 file. What is that thing?
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
ETA:
These images...are really quite something.
However, they are 'filled' with anomalies. And most completely lack star fields of any kind. Here and there some appear as faint white lights, while others appear 'blue'.
Check out image # AS14-68-9472, from the Apollo 14 file. What is that thing?
Last edited:
What do you think NASA's failure rate in 1969 was, compared to todays commercial developers?
Every image carefully selected by the publisher of the article, don't forget.
And I support that view.
It would have to be. Our astronaut doesn't seem too fazed.
Last edited:
The reason why most of the pictures don't have any star fields in the background is because the camera isn't sensitive enough to contrast. As a result, no stars.
Remember that this is technology from the 60's and 70's here. IF you had more than 64 Kb in your computer, then you had the best equipment on the market. The moon landing was plotted by a computer with less memory space than a mobile phone, significantly less. Don't expect photographic technology to be nearly as advanced as it is today.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
ah but then how would we know, toilet facilities were built into the suit because there wasn't enough room to put a flush toilet on the lander
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
After reviewing ALL the images, I'll concede this point, AND say that some of the images DO contain a star field, although faint or incomplete.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
With respect, if you were to take a "fast" photo of a brightly lit night scene with even an advanced current digital or film camera today, you are just as unlikely to see a starscape in a dark night sky in the resulting photo.
It's a shame really. I used to live in the city, where light pollution stopped me seeing most of the stars in the night sky. We used to go away to our holiday bach, a nice secluded place in a little village near the mountains, and I would look up to the night sky and see so many stars, but never be able to take the view home...
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,258
The photos from space, of the Earth or the Moon, have to be exposed for the lighting on the -subject-.
On the sunny sides, the subject usually is brightly lit.. exposure a nominal 1/ASA @ f16, a handy rule of thumb we old-timey film guys used when the meter failed.
For Plus-X then which had an ASA of 125, selecting a shutter speed of 1/100th of a second and setting the aperture at f16, the photo is properly exposed, for a normal sunlit day, which is what ALL the days on the Moon were.
Try that exposure at night, and you get nada, unless you're shooting a photo of the Moon. Not a star in sight.
Many of the first photos of the Earth from LEO were seriously overexposed, because the 'nauts had been advised to set the exposure based on metering the sky above the Earth, not the Earth itself.
Point-and-shoot cameras did a better job than the fancy Hasselblads until this was discovered.
From the 4th.
Almost 10 second exposure, at twice the "nominal aperture", and 8x the "film speed", not a star in sight!
And from a less-light polluted area, many more times the exposure, the Big Dipper just comes out. Note the "ghost" at the lower right..Taken at a Night Fly at our flying field. The lights on the ground are from a plane with lights landing.
On the sunny sides, the subject usually is brightly lit.. exposure a nominal 1/ASA @ f16, a handy rule of thumb we old-timey film guys used when the meter failed.
For Plus-X then which had an ASA of 125, selecting a shutter speed of 1/100th of a second and setting the aperture at f16, the photo is properly exposed, for a normal sunlit day, which is what ALL the days on the Moon were.
Try that exposure at night, and you get nada, unless you're shooting a photo of the Moon. Not a star in sight.
Many of the first photos of the Earth from LEO were seriously overexposed, because the 'nauts had been advised to set the exposure based on metering the sky above the Earth, not the Earth itself.
Point-and-shoot cameras did a better job than the fancy Hasselblads until this was discovered.
From the 4th.
Almost 10 second exposure, at twice the "nominal aperture", and 8x the "film speed", not a star in sight!
And from a less-light polluted area, many more times the exposure, the Big Dipper just comes out. Note the "ghost" at the lower right..Taken at a Night Fly at our flying field. The lights on the ground are from a plane with lights landing.
Attachments
Last edited: