quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake
This is NASA photo number AS13-61-8865. The reference is to Apollo 13, magazine 61, photo 8865. You can look it up. Here is the link to the close-up.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS13/61/8865.jpg

The description NASA gave this image is : LUNAR DISC WITH BRIGHT DISC PARTIALLY COVERING MOON.

quote:

lets say for a minute that there are aliens out there and they are here either on or near earth. Don't believe it myself but lets just say they're here.

What the fuck are they doing? To get here from wherever they were they must be so far in advance of where we are that their tech would probably be unrecognisable to us. So if they wanted to come along and say hi, why haven't they done it? If they wanted to observe us I am sure they could do it without us having the slightest clue they are there.

But they haven't chosen either of those routes, they have chosen to fuck about now and again in our atmosphere, where they are half seen or glimpsed through some cloud in a way that no one can agree if they are there or not, and they have been doing it for 100's of years. Why? Why would that be their choice? To see how we might react? Well they have had loads of time to work that out haven't they?

they are not fucking here and it's all paranoid bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

I am certain that there is other intelligent life somewhere in the universe but as to UFO sightings here on Earth I'm with HCM:

quote:

lets say for a minute that there are aliens out there and they are here either on or near earth. Don't believe it myself but lets just say they're here.

What the fuck are they doing? To get here from wherever they were they must be so far in advance of where we are that their tech would probably be unrecognisable to us. So if they wanted to come along and say hi, why haven't they done it? If they wanted to observe us I am sure they could do it without us having the slightest clue they are there.

But they haven't chosen either of those routes, they have chosen to fuck about now and again in our atmosphere, where they are half seen or glimpsed through some cloud in a way that no one can agree if they are there or not, and they have been doing it for 100's of years. Why? Why would that be their choice? To see how we might react? Well they have had loads of time to work that out haven't they?

they are not fucking here and it's all paranoid bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake
This is NASA photo number AS13-61-8865. The reference is to Apollo 13, magazine 61, photo 8865. You can look it up. Here is the link to the close-up.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS13/61/8865.jpg

The description NASA gave this image is : LUNAR DISC WITH BRIGHT DISC PARTIALLY COVERING MOON.

I am very sorry, but that appears to be an artefact, likely of the same type as the recent spaceship-near-Mercury-artefact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake
An artifact brighter than what caused it is not possible.

Care to try again?

quote:


we've put it to scientists in the solar physics branch at the United States Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)

According to Russ Howard, head scientist of the NRL group, and Nathan Rich, lead ground systems engineer, it is simply an artifact left over from the way raw HI-1 telescope data gets processed. Rather than a UFO mothership parked near Mercury, the bright spot is "where the planet was on the previous day," Rich told Life's Little Mysteries. [A History of Recent UFO 'Sightings' ]

To make the relatively faint glow of a coronal mass ejection stand out against the bright glare of space — caused by interplanetary dust and the stellar/galactic background — the NRL scientists must remove as much background light as possible. They explained that they determine what light is background light, and thus can be subtracted out, by calculating the average amount of light that entered each camera pixel on the day of the CME event and on the previous day. Light appearing in the pixels on both days is considered to be background light and is removed from the footage of the CME. The remaining light is then enhanced.

This works great for objects far off in the distance, such as stars, which don't move much relative to the sun. But it gets a little trickier when trying to account for nearer objects, particularly moving ones, like planets.

"When [this averaging process] is done between the previous day and the current day and there is a feature like a planet, this introduces dark (negative) artifacts in the background where the planet was on the previous day, which then show up as bright areas in the enhanced image," Rich wrote in an email.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

woooooooooooooosh!

i saw the pic b4 and didn't understand what was wrong. what are we looking at besides the moon? are u saying the BRIGHT DISC isn't identified, and is a UFO?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake
An artifact brighter than what caused it is not possible.

Care to try again?

I quote from this website on the Mercury "spaceship" artefact:

quote:


we've put it to scientists in the solar physics branch at the United States Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)

According to Russ Howard, head scientist of the NRL group, and Nathan Rich, lead ground systems engineer, it is simply an artifact left over from the way raw HI-1 telescope data gets processed. Rather than a UFO mothership parked near Mercury, the bright spot is "where the planet was on the previous day," Rich told Life's Little Mysteries. [A History of Recent UFO 'Sightings' ]

To make the relatively faint glow of a coronal mass ejection stand out against the bright glare of space — caused by interplanetary dust and the stellar/galactic background — the NRL scientists must remove as much background light as possible. They explained that they determine what light is background light, and thus can be subtracted out, by calculating the average amount of light that entered each camera pixel on the day of the CME event and on the previous day. Light appearing in the pixels on both days is considered to be background light and is removed from the footage of the CME. The remaining light is then enhanced.

This works great for objects far off in the distance, such as stars, which don't move much relative to the sun. But it gets a little trickier when trying to account for nearer objects, particularly moving ones, like planets.

"When [this averaging process] is done between the previous day and the current day and there is a feature like a planet, this introduces dark (negative) artifacts in the background where the planet was on the previous day, which then show up as bright areas in the enhanced image," Rich wrote in an email.

I also note that the artefact in the photo is the same size and as gibbous as the image of the Moon itself. Clearly here the same error is at work as in the case of the Mercury spaceship artefact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake
I am sorry, again, Rule, but we have on Apollo 13 an entirely different situation of two sequential photographs using the same camera and the same lens on the same roll of film. The images have not been 'subtracted'. The case is, one image shows an inexplicable object (reserving the extraterrestrial hypothesis) and the next doesn't. The clear implication is "it" was there, and then "it" wasn't. Further, in that the Hasselblad had no focusing mechanism, it is also clear that what is lacking in the focus was due to the motion of the camera. The motion was recorded by the streaked stars. Astronauts were not unaware of the need to hold the camera steady. If you are capable of drawing inference, this would be a good time. So, you are looking at an object in as clear a focus as the moon behind it. Very clearly, the object was not the moon, as the features of the moon are not reproduced and it was much more reflective as well. Just as clearly, the object was manufactured, because it was too small to become spherical due to gravity, yet presented a (pristine!)spherical profile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

woooooooooooooosh!

i saw the pic b4 and didn't understand what was wrong. what are we looking at besides the moon? are u saying the BRIGHT DISC isn't identified, and is a UFO?

Sorry to have overlooked your post, Karmastic.

Hardycybermaster pissed me off.

As is his habit.

The disk is unidentified. But that is not what is important. The important thing is who took the photo, where he was standing and what direction the camera was pointed. The key point to take in is that there is no one from this planet who could have gotten in front of the camera, under any imaginable circumstance. And yet someone did. And, (nails drumming the desk) no one told us.

That someone did get in front of Apollo 13 is likely the reason the camera was used. And I'd like to have the whole story. But, ...NASA doesn't report UFOs. Not even if they jump up and down in front of the shuttle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP2Nk1WwZmA

But NASA does photograph ufos

ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-65.JPG
ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-67.JPG
ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-69.JPG
ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-70.JPG

For whom. do you suppose?

That NASA had irrefutable proof at least as early as 1970 means that for at least 42 years Some People have been studying the matter. On a black budget. With the power of the State to keep the curious at bay. We have no idea what they have learned, what they have accomplished, what they plan to do. But we can surmise they don't plan to tell us, because they haven't told us.

Us. "We the People".

When you consider the damage an elite clique armed with advanced technology could do to our democracy, you begin to appreciate the real point of disclosure. And resistance to disclosure. Anyone who has spent any time absorbing history understands that 'getting on top of the other guys' is the basic theme.

Do please think that through.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake
I am sorry, again, Rule, but we have on Apollo 13 an entirely different situation of two sequential photographs using the same camera and the same lens on the same roll of film. The images have not been 'subtracted'. The case is, one image shows an inexplicable object (reserving the extraterrestrial hypothesis) and the next doesn't. The clear implication is "it" was there, and then "it" wasn't. Further, in that the Hasselblad had no focusing mechanism, it is also clear that what is lacking in the focus was due to the motion of the camera. The motion was recorded by the streaked stars. Astronauts were not unaware of the need to hold the camera steady. If you are capable of drawing inference, this would be a good time. So, you are looking at an object in as clear a focus as the moon behind it. Very clearly, the object was not the moon, as the features of the moon are not reproduced and it was much more reflective as well. Just as clearly, the object was manufactured, because it was too small to become spherical due to gravity, yet presented a (pristine!)spherical profile.

I am no expert in such matters, FF, however, it does occur to me that it may yet be an artefact. What do you think about the subsequent hypothesis:

Did the camera have a mirror? Cannot this mirror have reflected the image of the Moon onto the glass of the port-hole and this reflection be photographed together with the Moon? Or alternatively, may the lens itself have reflected that image onto the glass of the port-hole?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

woooooooooooooosh!

i saw the pic b4 and didn't understand what was wrong. what are we looking at besides the moon? are u saying the BRIGHT DISC isn't identified, and is a UFO?

Sorry to have overlooked your post, Karmastic.

Hardycybermaster pissed me off.

As is his habit.

The disk is unidentified. But that is not what is important. The important thing is who took the photo, where he was standing and what direction the camera was pointed. The key point to take in is that there is no one from this planet who could have gotten in front of the camera, under any imaginable circumstance. And yet someone did. And, (nails drumming the desk) no one told us.

That someone did get in front of Apollo 13 is likely the reason the camera was used. And I'd like to have the whole story. But, ...NASA doesn't report UFOs. Not even if they jump up and down in front of the shuttle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP2Nk1WwZmA

But NASA does photograph ufos

ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-65.JPG
ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-67.JPG
ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-69.JPG
ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-70.JPG

For whom. do you suppose?

That NASA had irrefutable proof at least as early as 1970 means that for at least 42 years Some People have been studying the matter. On a black budget. With the power of the State to keep the curious at bay. We have no idea what they have learned, what they have accomplished, what they plan to do. But we can surmise they don't plan to tell us, because they haven't told us.

Us. "We the People".

When you consider the damage an elite clique armed with advanced technology could do to our democracy, you begin to appreciate the real point of disclosure. And resistance to disclosure. Anyone who has spent any time absorbing history understands that 'getting on top of the other guys' is the basic theme.

Do please think that through.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Azonier

Human vanity?

Isn't that what earthlings call an oxymoron?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

woooooooooooooosh!

i saw the pic b4 and didn't understand what was wrong. what are we looking at besides the moon? are u saying the BRIGHT DISC isn't identified, and is a UFO?

Sorry to have overlooked your post, Karmastic.

Hardycybermaster pissed me off.

As is his habit.

The disk is unidentified. But that is not what is important. The important thing is who took the photo, where he was standing and what direction the camera was pointed. The key point to take in is that there is no one from this planet who could have gotten in front of the camera, under any imaginable circumstance. And yet someone did. And, (nails drumming the desk) no one told us.

That someone did get in front of Apollo 13 is likely the reason the camera was used. And I'd like to have the whole story. But, ...NASA doesn't report UFOs. Not even if they jump up and down in front of the shuttle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP2Nk1WwZmA

But NASA does photograph ufos

ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-65.JPG
ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-67.JPG
ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-69.JPG
ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-70.JPG

For whom. do you suppose?

That NASA had irrefutable proof at least as early as 1970 means that for at least 42 years Some People have been studying the matter. On a black budget. With the power of the State to keep the curious at bay. We have no idea what they have learned, what they have accomplished, what they plan to do. But we can surmise they don't plan to tell us, because they haven't told us.

Us. "We the People".

When you consider the damage an elite clique armed with advanced technology could do to our democracy, you begin to appreciate the real point of disclosure. And resistance to disclosure. Anyone who has spent any time absorbing history understands that 'getting on top of the other guys' is the basic theme.

Do please think that through.

read that through a couple of times, have a think, and if you still believe it visit a doctor. Please

ps could someone point this out to him as he may have put me on hide.....lmao

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

woooooooooooooosh!

i saw the pic b4 and didn't understand what was wrong. what are we looking at besides the moon? are u saying the BRIGHT DISC isn't identified, and is a UFO?

Sorry to have overlooked your post, Karmastic.

Hardycybermaster pissed me off.

As is his habit.

The disk is unidentified. But that is not what is important. The important thing is who took the photo, where he was standing and what direction the camera was pointed. The key point to take in is that there is no one from this planet who could have gotten in front of the camera, under any imaginable circumstance. And yet someone did. And, (nails drumming the desk) no one told us.

That someone did get in front of Apollo 13 is likely the reason the camera was used. And I'd like to have the whole story. But, ...NASA doesn't report UFOs. Not even if they jump up and down in front of the shuttle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP2Nk1WwZmA

But NASA does photograph ufos

ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-65.JPG
ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-67.JPG
ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-69.JPG
ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-70.JPG

For whom. do you suppose?

That NASA had irrefutable proof at least as early as 1970 means that for at least 42 years Some People have been studying the matter. On a black budget. With the power of the State to keep the curious at bay. We have no idea what they have learned, what they have accomplished, what they plan to do. But we can surmise they don't plan to tell us, because they haven't told us.

Us. "We the People".

When you consider the damage an elite clique armed with advanced technology could do to our democracy, you begin to appreciate the real point of disclosure. And resistance to disclosure. Anyone who has spent any time absorbing history understands that 'getting on top of the other guys' is the basic theme.

Do please think that through.

read that through a couple of times, have a think, and if you still believe it visit a doctor. Please

ps could someone point this out to him as he may have put me on hide.....lmao

You are on hide now. I am finished your game. Good bye.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

I am certain that there is other intelligent life somewhere in the universe but as to UFO sightings here on Earth I'm with HCM:

quote:

if they wanted to come along and say hi, why haven't they done it? If they wanted to observe us I am sure they could do it without us having the slightest clue they are there.

But they haven't chosen either of those routes, they have chosen to fuck about now and again in our atmosphere... Why? Why would that be their choice? To see how we might react? Well they have had loads of time to work that out haven't they?

they are not fucking here and it's all paranoid bullshit.

You are entitled to your opinion, but his argument is irrational nonsense. It does not follow from our inability to answer the questions he asks that the phenomenon is "paranoid bullshit." Moreover, his contempt for the integrity and mental health of experienced pilots and astronauts is both offensive and suggestive of some issues of his own.

K.

quote:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/mission.shtml
The Lunar and Planetary Institute, a division of the Universities Space Research Association, was established during the Apollo missions to foster international collaboration and to serve as a repository for information gathered during the early years of the space program.

Today, the LPI is an intellectual leader in lunar and planetary science. The Institute

*serves as a scientific forum attracting world-class visiting scientists, postdoctoral fellows, students, and resident experts;
*supports and serves the research community through newsletters, meetings, and other activities;
*collects and disseminates planetary data while facilitating the community's access to NASA science; and
*engages, excites, and educates the public about space science and invests in the development of future generations of explorers.

The research carried out at the LPI supports the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) efforts to explore the solar system.