Whenever I see anyone calling themselves a "renegade" I think of the trailer to the Jerry Seinfeld movie "Comedian" where the voicover chap goes a bit mental ..... link here

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

"....In a world...."

__________________
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

Ow! Ow! Hahaha - Thank you Mellow! That is genius! I love it.

Please OP - post something that funny or please make your point. Either one would be great.

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.

Ya that trailer is really funny. I remember that from a few years ago.

",,One man...."

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

Sure I do...

Sorry I couldn't reply during the week (but I work) and can only log-on on the weekend.

I'm sorry for the poor quality, but the quality is actually quite good (the exact quality of the recorded images from various NASA Footage documentaries).

I didn't expect skeptics on UFOs to admit ANYTHING but "blurs, lights, reflections, etc." to be in those images.
However, most people can see a few of the images (at least...) - for instance the one with the Eagle and the "Anomaly" underneath - are decent enough quality to be worthy of further study. After all, you can easily see the Eagle Module (its reasonable quality), and you can easily see "the Saucer-like" structure underneath it, on the Lunar surface. No distortions on either, no vagueness about the startling Anomaly in the image...there a few different "stills" from various angles of the same Anomaly just to show it is really there, and really that shape. Its a UFO - or an Anomalous Structure. It sure isn't a Crater...
(SEE ATTACHED IMAGES regarding what I spoke of above here...)

Regarding my days with Particle Accelerators (not that this should have anything to do with the issue at hand...) - yes, may mate built one in his backyard in the early 90s. And I have had the privilege to spend some time in ones such as the "Antares" Particle Accelerator in Canberra (when I was doing Astrophysics at Uni...). I dropped out of Uni - thats why I am a "Renegade Researcher"...We won't go into "Rail-Guns", but (dodgy and dangeous ones...) they can be constructed by any 1st year student with access to a Particle Accelerator...

Back to the images, I spent a lot of time putting that collection together, and I have had an accomplished Aerospace Engineer acknowledge "there is definitely some thing wierd and hitherto unspoken about in a lot of old Apollo 11 Footage."

Anyway, thanks for you "analysis" and "dismissal" of the Images, I appreciate all feedback.

Attached Thumbnails

     

A couple of other "not so unclear images..." from the Collection.

Attached Thumbnails

       

bold mine
Is that pride or a veiled dig at someone? Good for you though! I just pic food out of rubbish bins and get online at McDonalds with my stolen laptop.

Such conviction is refreshing!

Seriously though, you post a picture, it's common courtesy to explain it. What do you see in those? Explain what makes you so sure of your findings.

The pics look cropped. If so, from what source pics are these cropped?

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.

what is so weird about them ?
the 1's you referenced

__________________
it shows you how much i know....not much i guess----"sohhfly"

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

No that there is anything "wrong" with that, but you should know that when you initiate a thread, particularly a controversial one, you will be required to respond to other posters. This is rather difficult to do when your time here is limited to just the "weekend".

Certainly not "impressed" by the opinion of unnamed "engineers". How about providing a name?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

My apologies to Nommos Prime (Dogon) and everyone else.

You are right Swift. Sorry.

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

I reckon the image is weird of the "saucer-shaped" object under the Eagle. Its plain as can be, explain how that is a natural structure of the Moon.

I won't name the "highly respected" in his field - Aerospace Engineer (good friend) of mine. He is retired now, but he doesn't need the grief this sort of thing attracts...

You might want to check out the meaning of "pareidolia". Quite frankly, it looks like a bunch of blurry, overexposed pixels and looks less like a saucer-shaped object than the cloud I saw yesterday looked like a horse.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Again, sorry for the other post, but may I ask - if you're referring to the pic in your post, #34, is that the full picture? If not, what is the (presumably NASA) source picture?

It could be that a bit of context may reveal more, even though it's not necessarily as zoomed it. The zooming in sometimes makes it a lot harder to appreciate the details.

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.

No, it's not as "plain as can be"...that is your "interpretation". The images are too out of focus to determine anything about them.

If the posters here can not evaluate his opinion by questioning him, then his opinion is worthless.

In other words, you should not have introduced him into this discussion to begin with.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Are you talking about this 'saucer'?

If so, compare it to the perfectly ordinary crater I've highlighted above it in the image. Note that the shading is the same in the crater as in the presumed 'saucer'. That demonstrates that it is in fact a hollow bowl-shaped object - in fact it is a crater, one of literally billions on the Moon.
If it were a flying saucer the illumination would be reversed. Illumination of craters can look strange sometimes- very often they look like domes instead of bowls, because of the way the eye percieves shadow- you have to be very aware of the direction of illumination.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

I'm sorry for the poor quality, but the quality is actually quite good...

No. It's utterly unsuitable for attempts to identify objects at the scale you've represented here.

Back to the images, I spent a lot of time putting that collection together...

The amount of time you have spent is irrelevant. The world wants to know what you did to ensure that your process would produce usable results. You seem to be claiming those features do not belong in those images and thus ought to be considered candidates for evidence of farfetched hypotheses to explain their presence.

You have presented your evidence. But you have simply begged the question that they don't belong there. Please continue making your case.

I have had an accomplished Aerospace Engineer acknowledge "there is definitely some thing wierd and hitherto unspoken about in a lot of old Apollo 11 Footage."

I'm also an accomplished aerospace engineer; and further I have had training and experience in photographic analysis which has been demonstrated on international television, published in Science, and recognized by such publications as the New York Times (both newspaper and magazine) and Newsweek.

I disagree with your anonymous "expert" opinion.

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

Unacceptable. His opinion is worthless as expert testimony unless third parties can verify that he is the expert you claim he is. Please either identify your witness or withdraw his second-hand anonymous opinion from consideration.

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

No, the quality of these images is atrocious. You are far inside the natural resolution of your underlying medium. Your tonal ranges are clipped both at the bright and dim end. You have clear chromatic shifts.

These images are unsuitable for photographic analysis attempting to identify the features.

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

My personal opinion is that the zooming has very little to do with it, while the overexposure has most to do with it.
While it may be "obvious" to you that there is something, it is just as obvious to me that it is a crater. (in the picture in #34)
The bigger the crater, the more chance you have of a relatively large flat surface to reflect the sun. Look at some of those other spots around the picture. They are just about as bright, they just don't stand out because they are smaller. If those were also non-natural objects, then the entire moon's surface would have to be littered with them, and that would be difficult to hide with so many pictures.

Add in the illumination angles and shading that eburacum45 mentions, and you come up with nothing.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Are you talking about this 'saucer'?

If you own the Spacecraft Films DVD set for Apollo 11, compare Disc 3, Title 5, Chapter 1, offset 3:19.

The image represented here has been flipped horizontally, and is tonally degraded almost to the point of uselessness. The feature in question happens to land in the middle of the dark portion of a CRT field refresh, caused by photographing a television screen improperly. This makes it even more difficult to interpret the tone variations.

However, the SCF DVD is crystal clear and very obviously shows the "saucer" to be an ordinary crater. And since the original source is 16mm film, we can observe the feature in motion and conclusively determine it to be an ordinary crater. This interpretation would have been painfully obvious to anyone who bothered to look at the proper data.

I was able to confirm this identification in less than 30 minutes will consumer-available data. This does not bode well for an analysis that is claimed to have required considerable time and effort. Further, the (IMO) deliberate attempts to obfuscate the original source (e.g., flipping the immage) of this and other material suggest that the evidence is not being presented transparently.

If it were a flying saucer the illumination would be reversed.

Correct. The illumination angle is easily determined by other cues in the image: chiefly the illumination on the LM as it ascends. The "ceiling" above the LM forward hatch, the inboard edge of the propellant tank, and the steerable high-gain S-band antenna, are all lit consistently with the ground features. The lighting pattern on the feature in question is utterly inconsistent with the expectation of shade on a convex object with the established illumination angle.

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

Nor for Nommos Prime (Dogon)'s "highly respected in his field - Aerospace Engineer".

It's no wonder that he doesn't want to be identified...if my investigative "skills" were that bad, I'd be too embarrassed to give my name.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

This is not a dig but a serious and direct question:

Have you ever seriously considered the possibility that aliens are not visiting us?

FWIW, I have seriously considered the possibility that they are. But despite sometimes wishing they were, I have never seen any evidence that is even slightly compelling.

I suspect that a lot of people feel the same way as me.

__________________
Nothing beautiful was ever made from gravel.

But let's be charitable. Assuming that any such expert exists, we can suppose that he was simply handed N. Prime's heavily degraded images. A natural, non-committal reaction to such context-free visual goo would be that further investigation is warranted.

And yes, further investigation is warranted, in the form of restoring the context of these images and obtaining better copies of the photographs to determine what ordinary phenomenon are being misrepresented or misinterpreted.

UFO fanatics hold out hope that some blurry blob might be an alien spaceship largely on the presumption that a skeptic won't be able to shoulder an affirmative burden of proof. A few unscrupulous fanatics even go to some length to make that affirmative rebuttal more difficult, such as obscuring the original data or applying detrimental effects to the data. The aim is to be able to say, "I showed these images to the skeptics at BAUT and they were utterly unable to identify them as any mundane cause." That bolsters the common (though incorrect) belief system that the failure to refute by affirmative means somehow supports the ET hypothesis.

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

Well, there is just too much for me to even begin to address...

How about facing into Space? Similar type of object. Again Apollo 11 Film...

Attached Thumbnails

 

Then please begin by addressing the photo you claim is of a "saucer" but which is clearly a crater, and has been obfuscated to make that identification more difficult.

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

Why don't you show the film then, instead of a heavily-degraded, grossly-magnified context-free still? Are you afraid that the film might reveal that your "UFO" is merely the ordinary sort of debris that's produced by launch-vehicle staging? Why don't you begin by identifying where this particular poorly-processed still came from: which exact film roll, through what source, and approximately where in the film to look.

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

Ok, if I buy some software to download Videos, and then work out how to upload said Videos, (I couldn't do it when I tried other Videos to Youtube OR this Forum), would that stop claims of me deliberately "obfuscating", making the quality poor etc??

I'm sure this will be a major exercise, seeing it took me 6 months of "frame-by-frame" analysis to take Photos off my TV Screen, for the images I have presented.

I think I may come back to this Forum, when I have done this and present the Videos (like I said, its going to take a While).

You might as well close the Thread, seeing my amateur efforts, and stone-age technology is not worthy for the moment...

Why would you need to upload the video? Just point to where it is on the internet, and provide where the phenomenon can be seen (minutes, seconds into the video). A good, free, multimedia viewer is VLC. It even supports slowing down the video.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

...I'll second that "motion", but for different reasons.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov