From Apollo 16 mission

http://www.geocities.com/hyperdigm/apollo16.mpeg

If link dont work try:
http://www.geocities.com/hyperdigm/nasavideo.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-20 23:39 ]</font>

That's a pretty crummy video.

Was it really taken by Apollo 16?

Geeze, with great bull$#!% like this out there, I'm gonna have to update my website again!

I know it well -- it's genuine, from Apollo-16 just after TEI. Crew is photographing receding moon. Image appears to be window reflection of sunlit camera lens assembly. I asked all three crewmen about the image, none recalled noticing anything unusual -- and there's nothing on the Hasselblad desequence or any other camera, as there would have been if something s-t-r-a-n-g-e had been seen.

I must have missed it earlier, may I have the URL?

Check out his videos --- I especially like the "Orb flying in front of shuttle's camera video" since thats (a) MIR and (b) clearly the solid waste dump canisters, which they toss overboard from time to time.

What makes you think there's any end to the bull**** out there? Trust me, you'll never run out of things to post. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

As for the links at the top, it looks like we (or someone at least), has slashdotted them both, because they are both offline.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

My favorite was the morphing spacecraft. It looks alot like the parchutes used for the capsules coming down from space.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2003-01-21 16:24 ]</font>

One should ask if the cameraman (astronaut) have see nothing why he made a rapid return to the left to focus the object at the end of the video.WE see the object continuing his travel before vanishing.At least you recongnise than the video was guinine from Apollo 16 mission

"One should ask if the cameraman (astronaut) have see nothing why he made a rapid return to the left to focus the object at the end of the video.WE see the object continuing his travel before vanishing.At least you recongnise than the video was guinine from Apollo 16 mission "

Why what? He never 'focussed' the camera, and he never centered the funny image. He was imaging the departing moon, and all other cameras in use in this period show the departing moon and nothing else. The 'funny image' looks like hundreds of other reflections and glares and typical light phenomena that fill the thousands of Apollo stills, cine, and video imagery. And I did ask John Young, Ken Mattingly, and Charlie Duke, two of whom were close professional friends and the third a professional acquaintance, and I believe they answered me fully and honestly.

The image -- not automatically 'an object' -- appears to change shape, which I interpret as moving away from the diagonal sunbeam illuminating it, so less of the arc of the lens assembly is sunlit. What's your theory?

Reflections in windows usually go unnoticed when directly observed because our attention (and the mechanisms of our ocular focus) are directed to more interesting subjects on the other side of the window. Our minds unconsciously filter them out because cues like subtle motion, retinal disparity, and convergence feedback help us understand that they are reflections. These cues are missing in photography and so it is much more common to notice reflections in photographs taken through windows than in the same scene directly observed.

This is a well known bias in photographic interpretation. Untrained people looking at photographs are much more likely to interpret features in photographs as objects in the scene rather than optical phenomena, even when those phenomena are ignored in direct observation. The human visual cortex uses many cues to "filter out" unwanted portions of the image and focus the brain's attention on the desired portion of the image. When those cues are missing or altered by photography, the brain is confused.

The camera simply projects a bundle of light rays and accumulates their effects over a brief period of time, rendering it all in the same two-dimensional image plane (i.e., the photograph). The brain must take extra care in interpreting these images, hence the training associated with photographic interpretation.

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

At a party once where someone was taking snapshots with a digital camera. At one point, upon reviewing the pics taken to see how they turned out, and thinking of other ideas for pics, we discovered a weird phenomenon, a ghostly presence floating around some of the people in the images. It was a real puzzler for a minute or two, until we realized it was smoke from the cigarettes some were smoking. We had been in the room a while (the party lasted most of the night), so the smoke was not streamers from the cigarettes, but partially dissipated background. But nobody in the room noticed the smoke visually - we tuned it out.

It's here. Updates coming soon, to include UFOs on the Moon, the amazing psychic vampire, and the oh-so-cuddly plush cthulhu doll. ^_^

__________________
"Went all the way to the Gap of Rohan only to discover that there is no Gap in Rohan... not even a Banana Republic!"

That one filmed during Apollo 12 mission
I know another reflection of the sunlight on the camera lense.
http://www.geocities.com/kryst0ph/UF...12Mission.mpeg

What is that flying orb and the flash of light in the crater?This look like an optical trick.By the way the video as a very poor quality and dont seem to be a real footage from an Apollo mission.

Some source comfirm that the video is a real footage from Apollo 12 mission,and no one was able to find an explanation.

"Some source comfirm that the video is a real footage from Apollo 12 mission,and no one was able to find an explanation."

I haven't been able to open up that video to look at it, but I need to ask, when you say "No one was able to find an explanation", where did they ask? How about the NASA JSC audiovisual office, Mr. Mike Gentry? Or did they just ask some current PAO flack at some NASA center elsewhere?

Visual anomalies outside the windows were common on Apollo (they were called 'moon pigeons') and there was lots of interest in what they were telling about the status of the spacecraft, its insolation, propellant valves, pyro bolts, etc.

This is a report that NASA commissioned to examine such phenomena. I'll bet that the sources you seem to depend on didn't tell you about this study.


Moon Pigeons
http://members.aol.com/moonpigeons/

Other items:

Apollo-11 stories
http://www.debunker.com/texts/apollo11.html

NASA’s CL-862 video (1979)
http://www.beyondroswell.com/roswell/nasaufovideo.html

Try this URL
http://www.geocities.com/kryst0ph/nasavideo2.html
and click on the "Apollo Footage" link. I personally don't favor Geocities. Their free web service comes at the price of being able to view some content only in a browser and its plugins and not to save it to disk for analysis by other tools.

Some source comfirm that the video is a real footage from Apollo 12 mission ...

I see no reason to doubt that this is authentic footage from Apollo 12, however in the future confirmation cannot come from "some source". It's not confirmation unless we know the identity of the comfirmer.

... and no one was able to find an explanation.

My, this sounds ominous. What do you think it is, and why?

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

Thanks, I've seen this one before. Wasn't it mentioned in the 'Moon Pigeons' report?

Dots outside of windows usually turn out to be sunlit small dislodged items from the spacecraft. What else are they supposed to be?

Single pixel single frame white dots also occur randomly -- can be cosmic ray hits are processing or digitizing flaws. If you're looking at the ground, they will look like something between you and the ground. What else are they supposed to be?

It looks to me as if the 'orb' and 'streak' are bits of reflective stuff floating around outside the window. The 'flash' was probably a thruster firing for an attitude correction, which would accelerate the vehicle, causing the 'orb' to appear to suddenly speed up and change direction. The streak that 'followed' it looks like another bit, passing by the window because of the acelleration.

__________________
"Went all the way to the Gap of Rohan only to discover that there is no Gap in Rohan... not even a Banana Republic!"

I often hear the "no explanation" argument. So much is read into that admission by people who desperately want the object they see to be some specific thing like a ghost or an angel or an alien spacecraft. The inability to precisely identify a speck or streak in some grainy photo doesn't mean the skeptics are stymied, nor does it necessarily prove the speck is an angel or a streak is an interplanetary interceptor missile.

The fact is that any spacecraft will be surrounded by a cloud of crap. Literally in some cases; but bits of packaging, insulation, dislodged ice, bits of frangible fasteners, squib covers, and all that detritus floats around the spacecraft and is frequently kicked around by the spacecraft's manuevering jets.

When I'm shown a video of a single moving white pixel, I can't tell if it's a piece of an explosive bolt, or a crystal of ice, or some flake of paint or insulation. You just can't tell that from a single dot. So I'm not going to authoritatively say, "it's ice," or "it's a bit of insulation." I don't have any evidence for either of those.

But, I will surely say that it's likely to be one of the various things I've mentioned. So don't anyone dare take my announcement that I don't know for sure what it is, and try to convey the notion that I haven't the foggiest clue what it is.

Those who argue it's a ghost or an alien Cadillac have the burden of proof to show that it is that. They can't just assume that's what it is because of someone's inability to precisely determine what he thinks it is.

In this case it's very likely to be a piece of typical debris.

Another thing that strikes me over and over is what poor spatial reasoning skills most conspiracists and UFO buffs seem to have. A bolt head floating just outside a spacecraft is perceived to be a mammoth alien spacecraft miles away flying at impossible speeds. Just think of how much perceptual intuition you have to ignore in order to leap to that conclusion. It's very hard for people laboring under that delusion to see why their opinions are regarded with so much amusement.

But to the unfortunately undeluded, the rapid apparent motion and immense apparent size suggest relative proximity. And that makes a wholly consistent view which, unfortunately, isn't very exciting. But the UFO enthusiast sees something "necessarily" very far away and consequently "impossibly" huge and "unbelievably" fast -- a whole chain of unsupported and implausible supposition.

Therein, I believe, lies a key element of the conspiracist psychology. Instead of settling for the most parsimonious conclusion, they intentionally reach for the interpretation which maximizes the severity of the implications. The result is a world reinvented to be a whole lot more engaging (at least to some people) than seen traditionally.

And there are people like Bart Sibrel and David Percy who will gladly take these people's money.

Sibrel is absolutely right: people will see what they want to see, regardless of who they are. The question is how well that view can be supported by truth which isn't dependent on perception. We prefer a world in which what we observe can be described and predicted in rules. And we like it this way, because understanding the rules helps us manipulate the universe in useful ways.


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

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2003-01-23 15:18 ]</font>

I will return later for some comments about apollo 12 video.

Here is an audio apollo11.zip (.wav) (205K) of the Apollo 11 mission : The two astronauts, talking to the NASA base in Houston.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8636...o/apollo11.zip

Text of the conversation:

Astronaut 1: Ha! What is it?

Astronaut 2: We have some explanation for that?

--BEEP--

Houston: We have (not), don't worry, continue your program!

--BEEP--

Astronaut 1: Oh boy it's a, it's, it, it is really something (similar to)

             fantastic here, you, you could never imagine this!

--BEEP--

Houston: Roger, we know about that, could you go the other way, go back

         the other way!

--BEEP--

Astronaut 1: Well it's kind of (rigged) ha, pretty spectacular ......

             god ... what is that there?

--BEEP--

Astronaut 1: It's (hollow), what the hell is that?

Houston: Go Tango, Tango!

--BEEP--

Astronaut 1: Ha! There's kind of light there now!

--BEEP--

Houston: Roger, we got it, we (watched it), lose communication,

         Bravo Tango, Bravo Tango, select Jezebel, Jezebel!

--BEEP--

Astronaut 1: ...... ya, ha! ...... but this is unbelievable!

Houston: (we call you up Bravo Tango, Bravo Tango)!

Sound like a real transmission,what are they talking about?-Hint- surely not about the new Chevrolet of the year!

Here is an audio apollo11.zip (.wav) (205K) of the Apollo 11 mission

Do you have any idea how many fake Apollo transmissions have been manufactured by UFO enthusiasts? Do you simply believe everything you see, read, or hear?

Those people don't sound anything like the Apollo 11 crew. The vocabulary isn't anything like the Apollo nomenclature. It's no different than some Hollywood actor pretending to be an airline pilot or an army sergeant.

Sound like a real transmission

Not to a trained ear. But it will certainly fool the masses and people who don't care enough to do the research.

Wanna know the big mistake? The Quindar beeps. Those are supposed to bracket only the CAPCOM's statements. And there are really two separate tones -- one to key in and the other to key out. They're only 25 Hz apart, but I can hear the difference. Any musician ought be able to. The higher tone keys in and the lower tone keys out. However, this recording uses the tones pretty much at random, as if the people making it had no idea what the beeps were for.

Sorry, it's a fake, and pretty easy to spot if you know your stuff.

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

BTW, the corrected URL is
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8636...o/astroufo.htm
The link to the audio file is a bit less than halfway down, right under the photos purporting to be from Apollo 11. (Hint: Apollo 11 didn't land in the mountains.)

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

I will give a moderated answer:

No,I always question everything.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-24 13:32 ]</font>

Anything that can not be immediately identified as either a stage prop or a Masonic symbol is necessarily an alien spacecraft.

Aporetic

So what was your first reaction when you heard this recording and read the transcript?

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

I actually expected the audio to sound authentic.
Then I pressed play.

I had to laugh... it even sounded like it wasn't matching the real actors' lip movements!

I might take it more seriously if I could hear it in the original italian.

__________________
Popeye ate spinach because they wanted to market spinach to children. What a relief, then, that Superman doesn't eat Kryptonite.

I was very suspect about the Beeps and the source of the information for the transcript.This is why I submit this to evaluation. Is this a trivia question?Looks like if every answer i give will be following by another question from You.