I asked this question over at apollohoax and no one seem to know what it was, so I thought i'd ask here. Does anyone know what this is in this image, top center?

If you look at the whole film http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apo...m/magazine/?84 you see that some light fell on it when the magazine was changed. Maybe some intense reflections.
Another possibility: Looks as if the last photos were taken after lunar lift-off. Maybe these are some reflections in the window. But I doubt as they look pretty much in focus.

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

According to the ALSJ, the A15-84 magazine is 500 mm photos. The photos AS15-84-11292 through A15-84-11349 are from Station 6, the Mount Hadley delta on EVA-2. The last three photos are from orbit.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/images15.html#MagMM

There is a reference in that sequence between 11347 and 11348 to timeline time ref 144:52:03

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15....r.html#1445203

The actual comments for the pics
I'm not certain what is showing up - it is up-sun, so it is possible it is an internal reflection. It is not out the LM window.

What do you mean by internal reflection?

Light scattering within the optics of the camera itself.

This happens particularly if the camera is pointed generally up-sun ... e.g see
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apo...14/64/9088.jpg
as an example.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

When light passes through a piece of glass, some of it will reflect off the front surface, but some of it will also reflect off the back surface too, after passing through the glass.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

When I brought this subject up in Apollohoax, I was under the imprerssion you didn't know what it was. Was I wrong? Are you saying now that you believe it to be a lens flare?

Looks internal reflection to me, I get it quite a bit in my own photography.

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender

Does anyone know what this is in this image, top center?

My guess is that it's writing on the edge of the negative that, in this case, has crept into the picture area.

I recently bought the CD version of the ALSJ and many of the small black and white images show parts of the borders. One clearly shows the entire AS??-??-????? number on the right-hand side, and most of them show on the left just the tips of letters written in a slanting hand. Sometimes this encroaches on the picture area and some photos have writing between the frames too.

Most of we professional photographers identified our negatives with Indian ink in a similar way.

I believe that Harald is right about the light area within the picture -- sun strike, but not related to the markings on the edge.

Are you saying now that you believe it to be a lens flare?

No, I'm merely commenting on the principle of internal reflection for the benefit of those who may not know what that is.

At Apollohoax you merely posted the photo and asked if anyone could tell you what caused it. It was a general question, and it was answered in a general way. The most prominent artifact in the photo is the band caused by sunstrike, so I told you about sunstrike. You waited a long time before bringing up the photo again, in a separate thread, telling us that you weren't satisfied with the sunstrike explanation. Then, and only then, did you tell us that you were interested in the squiggle localized at the top. You asked if I considered that sunstrike, and I responded thus:

That is still my answer. There are literally infinite opportunities for improper exposure. The sunstrike confirms that this frame was additionally exposed outside the proper optical path, therefore we should not be surprised to see other artifacts from unintended exposure. These might include direct exposure, reflections, and refractions. To ask that it be narrowed down any further than that prior to making a judgment is more insistent than the data can support. I cannot say that an internal reflection caused the particular artifact, nor can I rule it out. But the varieties of accidental exposure are so vast that they can practically never be ruled out. There's no way to definitively state that some particular artifact cannot be a stray light leak or sunstrike.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Have you ever seen this in any other Apollo pic?

I'll tell you what I think it looks like, it looks like lights on some sort of tracking. It's probably not, just what I think it looks like.

The business at the top looks to me like a sunstrike or maybe even an artifact of minor emulsion damage to the film. Anybody who's done photography and processed his own film can think of a hundred ways something like this could happen.

It kinda looks like rocket thrusters to me. Of course, what it looks like and what it is are two entirely different things. The image could make for an interesting Rorschach-like test.

Obviously, any HB-er who thought that they were lights would have to explain why NASA, after successfully accomplishing an incredible conspiracy, fooling millions of people, and subtly killing all sorts of trouble makers, would have neglected to scan their pictures for images of the light banks.

So if I thought they look like lights, then I have to explain the mechanics and motives of this conspiracy? It would just be unsubstantiated speculation. Where's the value in that?

Conspiracy theorists never attempt to explain the mechanics of the conspiracy, preferring instead to indulge in fantasies of conspiracies and their uncovering of them. Conspiracy theorists, however, will expect explanations from others for the anomalies and suspicious artifacts they find in photos.

You're already into speculation territory by declaring that they look like track lights, so it's fair to ask you to justify your speculative hypothesis. If you were to poll the habitues of this board, you'd likely get hypotheses consistent with the appearance of the marks and the likely circumstances of their creation. Track lights wouldn't be one of these hypotheses. They don't look like track lights, and there's no credible scenario that would put track lights in the picture.

Have you ever seen this in any other Apollo pic?

Red herring.

It's probably not, just what I think it looks like.

Fair enough, but what is it?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

So if I thought they look like lights, then I have to explain the mechanics and motives of this conspiracy?

If you're simply trying to describe the overall graphical appearance of something by referring to a familiar shape or object, you wouldn't have to delve into any conspiracy. I can say a cloud looks like Mickey Mouse without figuring out how Disney managed to do that; I'm merely referring to a familiar shape for convenience in description.

If you're saying that because they look like track lights, they must therefore be track lights, then you need to explain how and why track lights are in the picture. Any hypothesis you come up with along those lines has to be shown to be the hypothesis best supported by evidence in order for others to be obliged to believe it.

The human visual system is overly aggressive when it attempts to identify what it sees. "Looks like" is therefore not sufficient proof of "is", no matter what Jack White says he sees on the grassy knoll.

It would just be unsubstantiated speculation. Where's the value in that?

Most conspiracy theories are unsubstantiated speculation, and the value runs $30-40 a copy, depending on shipping.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Ouch!

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

How so? How is asking if an anomaly appears in any other pic a "red herring"? I find it quite relevant.




I'm asking the experts. I don't know what it is. And I'm thinking no one else here knows what it is either or isn't saying.

I'm asking the experts. I don't know what it is. And I'm thinking no one else here knows what it is either or isn't saying.