UFO'S: A possible explanation

[realpaladin]

First time, new planet, different atmosphere, long journey, fatigue (quite possibly). I would like to see you land a craft in a different atmosphere.
So we get all the n00bz?

Nice rep we got out there...

[King of the Americas]

You believe there is a civilization of non-human life here on Earth, with industrial capabilities superior to that of humans? Is that a fair characterization of your statements?

No..."...somewhere nearby, yet not fully explored..."

[King of the Americas]

Which is not to say something didn't happen. We wouldn't be able to make anything of what did happen, but something did. To correct you, any event before the Big Bang would be free of the order cause and effect imposes. Cause and effect would still happen, but in the wrong order, like a timeline that's been knotted and twisted completely.

That's an interesting notion...

Does this further propose an active anti-universe?

[King of the Americas]

When you say, and I quote "We've all seen" you are quite patently wrong. I haven't seen anything. Nothing from the media either. Friends and family? They've seen nothing. If everyone has seen extraterrestrials, there would surely be standing proof by now, contact, even. I'm assuming you are basing your ideas on the 'symbols' within art, religion and history? I've already addressed this statement, and you have yet to reply.

I'll bet you have seen photos and or video footage...

...even if it is "unconfirmed".

[King of the Americas]

Fair dice. Each has their own.


They have a whole planet to look after. Do you really think we are so special as to recieve more attention than any other species on the planet? Let's go back to the Christmas Day tsunami in Sri Lanka, which (I think) is the event you were annoyed with on the World Peace thread. The earthquake causing said tsunami was part of the Earth's natural cycle. Shifting tectonics creates volcanoes, which in turn help the rock cycle, and allow a release of pressure from under the Earth's crust. Without earthquakes, earth itself would be stuffed. Natural disasters don't just happen because they feel like it. They happen so the cycle of nature can get back into balance. That's why it happened. Why a big voice didn't tell anyone to get away from the beach... they were way away from the beach before the tsunami hit. Our sensors picked up big a** wave, and told us to scram. We did so. The deaths (most of them) came from fatigue and starvation afterwards.

I was a world away, and can not speak to the damage sustained. I can only say that 3 reports of deaths all noted that women and children made up most of the dead. One witness noticed that the 'men' were strong enough to grab hold of something and not be swept out to sea...

If you were "all knowing", you'd have heard the 'quake' and known the direction of the resulting wave.

A loud booming voice, "MOVE AWAY FROM THE BEACH", could have saved thousands...

IF there is a omni-potent god, then he's an absentee landlord.

[TjW]

You believe there is a civilization of non-human life here on Earth, with industrial capabilities superior to that of humans? Is that a fair characterization of your statements?

No..."...somewhere nearby, yet not fully explored..."

I am taking your "No" to my statement of "here on Earth" to mean no, you don't believe they're native to any habitat on Earth, including the oceans. Within the Solar system? Within the Oort cloud?

[Cuddles]

Which part was wrong?

A singularity is not small and dense, simplistically it has zero size and infinite density, but that is inaccurate because the whole point of a singularity is that the concepts of size and density no longer make sense. In fact, even the concept of "something" doesn't make sense - the whole problem is that the theories we have that describe the universe as it is now simply don't apply before a certain point in time. However, one thing we are very sure of is that the singularity before the big bang was not a "ball of matter" and did not "bring forth light".

Which is not to say something didn't happen. We wouldn't be able to make anything of what did happen, but something did. To correct you, any event before the Big Bang would be free of the order cause and effect imposes. Cause and effect would still happen, but in the wrong order, like a timeline that's been knotted and twisted completely.

Nope.

Does this further propose an active anti-universe?

Even assuming leafman91's post were correct, no it doesn't.

[leafman91]

So we get all the n00bz?

Nice rep we got out there...

You can say that twice:D

[leafman91]

No..."...somewhere nearby, yet not fully explored..."
Such as? Name me a nearby planet we have yet to give a thorough satellite/telescope scan. No NASA conspiracies here please.

Or is this a hitherto undiscovered planet that doesn't seem to affect any of the other planet's orbits?

[leafman91]

That's an interesting notion...

Does this further propose an active anti-universe?

No.

[leafman91]

I'll bet you have seen photos and or video footage...

...even if it is "unconfirmed".

No, not that I recall. I certainly have heard of such photos/video footage, but nothing solid.

'Unconfirmed' does me no good. I need something I can stand an argument upon before I accept it.

[leafman91]

I was a world away, and can not speak to the damage sustained. I can only say that 3 reports of deaths all noted that women and children made up most of the dead. One witness noticed that the 'men' were strong enough to grab hold of something and not be swept out to sea...

If you were "all knowing", you'd have heard the 'quake' and known the direction of the resulting wave.

A loud booming voice, "MOVE AWAY FROM THE BEACH", could have saved thousands...

My point being that they were already away from the beach, and that the voice would have likely gone unnoticed, for lack of people there.


IF there is a omni-potent god, then he's an absentee landlord.

And you accuse others of using old music...

[leafman91]

Nope.

Why not?

[King of the Americas]

I am taking your "No" to my statement of "here on Earth" to mean no, you don't believe they're native to any habitat on Earth, including the oceans. Within the Solar system? Within the Oort cloud?

Earlier I proposed the ocean floor, the moon, or even a planet, or one of their moons.

There are PLENTY of places 'nearby' that we have yet to fully explore...

[TjW]

Earlier I proposed the ocean floor, the moon, or even a planet, or one of their moons.

There are PLENTY of places 'nearby' that we have yet to fully explore...

Yes, you've proposed all those, and there are undoubtedly things there yet to be discovered. An industrialized population is not one of them.

[King of the Americas]

Yes, you've proposed all those, and there are undoubtedly things there yet to be discovered. An industrialized population is not one of them.

We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

[makaya325]

Boy oh boy. Has the words "Undiscovered natural phenomona" been posted by someone other than me?

[leafman91]

We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

Fine, let's try another thought experiment. Let us suppose there is a whole civilization hidden away underwater. They have been hiding from humanity for all these years, centuries even, with highly advanced technology, their justification being "The barbarity of the human race", using such examples such as serial killers, The Vietnam War, and the Nazi deathcamps as examples. People around the world ponder upon how humanity managed to completely look past a whole civilisation, which, to be fair is situated at the bottom of Mariana trench. They then wonder how this whole civilization doesn't affect the environment in any way. The old classroom acronym, MRSGREN, applies to these people. How do they dispose of waste without disrupting the ecosystem,and without becoming part of it? If they were part of our ecosystem, would we be disrupting them? If they were part of the ecosystem, then how would they escape notice? What about their food source? I seriously doubt a sentient organism that simply lived on pure air/ water. Surely we would have seen their source disappearing without trace?(Remembering here, that bees can't live underwater, and that importing bees would likely attract attention).



Other fun questions with this scenario are: If they knew of our history of war and bloodshed, why did they do nothing to stop it? Would it be right for them to interfere? Are they right to be horrified by the actions of the human race? Or are they being too selective? Would we be rude enough as to ask them for technology? Would it be rude? Would it be within our rights to pillage their civilization for technology, if it meant we could make things better for them and us? Would you think it would happen anyway?


Feel free to borrow my thought experiments. I don't mind, honestly.

[King of the Americas]

Fine, let's try another thought experiment. Let us suppose there is a whole civilization hidden away underwater. They have been hiding from humanity for all these years, centuries even, with highly advanced technology, their justification being "The barbarity of the human race", using such examples such as serial killers, The Vietnam War, and the Nazi deathcamps as examples. People around the world ponder upon how humanity managed to completely look past a whole civilisation, which, to be fair is situated at the bottom of Mariana trench. They then wonder how this whole civilization doesn't affect the environment in any way. The old classroom acronym, MRSGREN, applies to these people. How do they dispose of waste without disrupting the ecosystem,and without becoming part of it? If they were part of our ecosystem, would we be disrupting them? If they were part of the ecosystem, then how would they escape notice? What about their food source? I seriously doubt a sentient organism that simply lived on pure air/ water. Surely we would have seen their source disappearing without trace?(Remembering here, that bees can't live underwater, and that importing bees would likely attract attention).



Other fun questions with this scenario are: If they knew of our history of war and bloodshed, why did they do nothing to stop it? Would it be right for them to interfere? Are they right to be horrified by the actions of the human race? Or are they being too selective? Would we be rude enough as to ask them for technology? Would it be rude? Would it be within our rights to pillage their civilization for technology, if it meant we could make things better for them and us? Would you think it would happen anyway?


Feel free to borrow my thought experiments. I don't mind, honestly.

There aren't enough knowns to answer any of those questions...

I mean, maybe they live on algae, that they farm using only sunlight?

While I'd 'like' for them to be civilized and organized into some kind of federation, complete with a prime directive for explorative vehicles, but that may or may not be true.

THE question I'd LOVE to be answered is whether or not the historical prophets that have come or been sent "in their name", truly WERE sent by "god" or not?

Then I'd like to know why the inconsistency between all of them? Is the inconsistency evidence of multiple factions?

Questions abound, but I'm afraid none here can offer any answers.

[leafman91]

There aren't enough knowns to answer any of those questions...

I mean, maybe they live on algae, that they farm using only sunlight?

While I'd 'like' for them to be civilized and organized into some kind of federation, complete with a prime directive for explorative vehicles, but that may or may not be true.

THE question I'd LOVE to be answered is whether or not the historical prophets that have come or been sent "in their name", truly WERE sent by "god" or not?

Then I'd like to know why the inconsistency between all of them? Is the inconsistency evidence of multiple factions?

Questions abound, but I'm afraid none here can offer any answers.

You are going off topic.

[realpaladin]

Earlier I proposed the ocean floor, the moon, or even a planet, or one of their moons.

There are PLENTY of places 'nearby' that we have yet to fully explore...
Nah, BigFoot would have noticed them. He is usually at those places.

[realpaladin]

THE question I'd LOVE to be answered is whether or not the historical prophets that have come or been sent "in their name", truly WERE sent by "god" or not?

Unless you can prove that they were sent at all, the answer is a resounding NO!

[leafman91]

There aren't enough knowns to answer any of those questions...

I mean, maybe they live on algae, that they farm using only sunlight?

How much sunlight reaches the ocean floor, again?

[King of the Americas]

How much sunlight reaches the ocean floor, again?

They migrate, not unlike the jellies of Palau.

[King of the Americas]

Unless you can prove that they were sent at all, the answer is a resounding NO!

No one 'here' can prove anything in regards to "God/gods".

[TjW]

They migrate, not unlike the jellies of Palau.

You seem to be making a case for a cryptozooid living at a subsistence level, not the industrialized civilization required to make advanced spacecraft/aircraft.

[Yeah_Right]

No one 'here' can prove anything in regards to "God/gods".


True, so why not leave this debate, up in the air, so to speak until some better evidence comes to light.

[leafman91]

They migrate, not unlike the jellies of Palau.

Migration still has it's problems. The local wildlife would be disturbed, which would draw attention from the scientific community, who will investigate. And because moving to sunnier under sea conditions means moving to shallow waters, some military installation will have mistaken them for submarines.

[Yeah_Right]

And sorry, the supposed ufos in ancient art and the bible or whatever just ain't evidence.

[Yeah_Right]

Migration still has it's problems. The local wildlife would be disturbed, which would draw attention from the scientific community, who will investigate. And because moving to sunnier under sea conditions means moving to shallow waters, some military installation will have mistaken them for submarines.

Ah, you forget, the would have cloaking technology.:rolleyes:

[leafman91]

Yeah, teleport systems too. As well as stealth ships. Oh, I suppose the cyber helmets that can link to any piece of media in the world should deserve a mention. :D:D

[leafman91]

Sorry Kota, I was having too much fun there.

[Yeah_Right]

Yeah they likeky have all the exotic technology in Star Trek and more.

[Marduk]

Yeah they like ky
yup they use it with their anal probe
:D

[Yeah_Right]

yup they use it with their anal probe
:D


Hmm, maybe KoTA's mention of Jellies brought about that unfortunate spelling.

[jimbob]

My daughter likes Artemis FowlWP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_Fowl_(novel)#Synopsis)

It seems pretty similar:

High-technology race living below ground...

Damn - it's a children's book, not reality...

[Yeah_Right]

I always feel sort of gyped that i have never seen anything fantastic as KoTA claims to have seen. Though I dare say he likely didn't see an advanced alien race that might have bases in the ocean or wherever. He, obviously, let his imagination run away with him that day, and, while there is nothing wrong with imagination of course, some solid evidence would be nice as well.

[King of the Americas]

And sorry, the supposed ufos in ancient art and the bible or whatever just ain't evidence.

It isn't 'proof', but it is weak evidence.

[King of the Americas]

I always feel sort of gyped that i have never seen anything fantastic as KoTA claims to have seen. Though I dare say he likely didn't see an advanced alien race that might have bases in the ocean or wherever. He, obviously, let his imagination run away with him that day, and, while there is nothing wrong with imagination of course, some solid evidence would be nice as well.

Really, both me AND my friend's "imagination" ran away with us...?

What would you feel IF you DID see something like what we did, and then have someone suggest it was just all your imagination?

[Yeah_Right]

Really, both me AND my friend's "imagination" ran away with us...?

What would you feel IF you DID see something like what we did, and then have someone suggest it was just all your imagination?


What if i saw something like that, I wouldn't know what to think, but being a skeptic, I wouldn't immediately jump to a conclusion that it was a vehicle piloted by beings of an advanced civilization. Now if the thing landed and the beings jumped out and greeted me in some way, then that might be a different story, but then I'd still need some evidence like a device of some sort they might be kind enough to give me and give it to scientists for further scrutiny.


Actually what I meant by imagination runnig away from you, doesn't apply to the sighting, but it deals with your interpretation of what you saw. In other words you didn't imagine it, but applied a rather fantastic explanation to the thing you saw.

[Yeah_Right]

It isn't 'proof', but it is weak evidence.

Yes, extraordinarily weak.

[TjW]

It isn't 'proof', but it is weak evidence.

It could be cited as evidence of mental instability. Not conclusive proof, but evidence.

Now considering that unstable people have been known to misinterpret things seen in the sky, and even to convince others of their misinterpretation, is it stronger evidence for that, or for a heretofore unknown intelligent species sharing the solar system with us?

[King of the Americas]

What if i saw something like that, I wouldn't know what to think, but being a skeptic, I wouldn't immediately jump to a conclusion that it was a vehicle piloted by beings of an advanced civilization. Now if the thing landed and the beings jumped out and greeted me in some way, then that might be a different story, but then I'd still need some evidence like a device of some sort they might be kind enough to give me and give it to scientists for further scrutiny.


Actually what I meant by imagination runnig away from you, doesn't apply to the sighting, but it deals with your interpretation of what you saw. In other words you didn't imagine it, but applied a rather fantastic explanation to the thing you saw.

This is a mis-representation of my thought process. 'I' went through everything it could have been, and yet its description didn't fit anything. If you can come up with something known, that shared these characteristics, please bring it forward. But for now I can only say I don't know what it was... I certainly never said I thought it was "an alien", first off.

What I saw was quite fantastic, but I can only conclude I don't have a normal explanation, yet.

[King of the Americas]

Yes, extraordinarily weak.

In and of itself, indeed...

But PILES of 'similar' "extraordinarily weak" EVIDENCE = theoretical consistency.

[gambling_cruiser]

No it only suggests that people suffering delusions are/were wide spread, now and in the past.

[King of the Americas]

No it only suggests that people suffering delusions are/were wide spread, now and in the past.

So, it's back to this?

What is the more 'simple' explanation:

-That we've ignored/misinterpreted data

OR

-That thousands of people throughout the ages suffered the 'same' delusion, featuring the same elements

[jimbob]

KoA:

Look up temporal lobe epilepsy and religious visions. They are quite common, as was ergot poisoning and visions.

Nowdays such "visions" are often interpreted as alien intervention, whereas in the middle ages they would have been considered to be supernatural.

I would suggest that there is a similarity in the psychology of claimed alien abductions and their fascination with anal probes, and the medieval reports about the succubus and incubus.

[leafman91]

In and of itself, indeed...

But PILES of 'similar' "extraordinarily weak" EVIDENCE = theoretical consistency.
How?

[leafman91]

So, it's back to this?

What is the more 'simple' explanation:

-That we've ignored/misinterpreted data

OR

-That thousands of people throughout the ages suffered the 'same' delusion, featuring the same elements

Not necessarily the same delusion. If the only common theme is the sky, then it isn't enough.

[Yeah_Right]

-That thousands of people throughout the ages suffered the 'same' delusion, featuring the same elements


Well not all the elements, in the days before the Wright Brothers flight, they were seeing what they described as blimps, not saucer shaped craft at all.

[Yeah_Right]

In and of itself, indeed...

But PILES of 'similar' "extraordinarily weak" EVIDENCE = theoretical consistency.

I think he means that things were seen and documented through the ages, but remember KoTA, they could be interpreted as anything. So the evidence is not only weak, but non-existant.

[King of the Americas]

Not necessarily the same delusion. If the only common theme is the sky, then it isn't enough.

"...round/semetrical 'things' flying in the sky/heavens..."

It's a super common mass delusion, or an actual phenomena STILL being recorded.

[King of the Americas]

KoA:

Look up temporal lobe epilepsy and religious visions. They are quite common, as was ergot poisoning and visions.

Nowdays such "visions" are often interpreted as alien intervention, whereas in the middle ages they would have been considered to be supernatural.

I would suggest that there is a similarity in the psychology of claimed alien abductions and their fascination with anal probes, and the medieval reports about the succubus and incubus.

I can't discount this as a possibility... Although, I've never been diagnosed with temporal lobe epilepsy, before. Is there a test for this condition?

[jimbob]

I can't discount this as a possibility... Although, I've never been diagnosed with temporal lobe epilepsy, before. Is there a test for this condition?

Er... Someone else please. IANAD

I am an engineer/physicist.

I also know that there are various other effects that also cause "visions".

Sleep ParalysisWP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis#Related_phenomena) for example

[King of the Americas]

Er... Someone else please. IANAD

I am an engineer/physicist.

I also know that there are various other effects that also cause "visions".

Sleep ParalysisWP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis#Related_phenomena) for example

It all boils down to this:

Mass historical delusion vs. human error and misinterpretation

Which is more simple an explanation?

[Yeah_Right]

It all boils down to this:

Mass historical delusion vs. human error and misinterpretation

Which is more simple an explanation?


I think it's a bit from column A, and a bit from column B.

[leafman91]

"...round/semetrical 'things' flying in the sky/heavens..."

It's a super common mass delusion, or an actual phenomena STILL being recorded.

As I said, not necessarily the same elements. Round symmettrical things in the sky can easily be other shapes if you want them to be. To tell you the truth, 'Yeah Right' beat me to it:

I think it's a bit from column A, and a bit from column B.


Or, you may have misinterpreted a few sources.

I need something to work with here. You have given me a statement but no evidence. What am I supposed to do with that? Where are these countless records of extraterrestrials throughout history?

[Marduk]

I need something to work with here. You have given me a statement but no evidence. What am I supposed to do with that? Where are these countless records of extraterrestrials throughout history?
would you be surprised if I told you he had already shown his evidence (which was practically non existent) and seen it soundly debunked earlier in the thread ?

:rolleyes:

[leafman91]

would you be surprised if I told you he had already shown his evidence (which was practically non existent) and seen it soundly debunked earlier in the thread ?

:rolleyes:

Kota, this smilie has been selected just for you!

:dig::dig::dig::dig:
Plus a couple I thought relevant...
:deadhorse:unicorn::alien::fairy::i:
And a couple I've really been wanting to use
:eusa_dance::gear_tounge::woowoo:woowoo:woowoo:bus ted:busted

Cheers.

[Yeah_Right]

As I said, not necessarily the same elements. Round symmettrical things in the sky can easily be other shapes if you want them to be. To tell you the truth, 'Yeah Right' beat me to it:


Or, you may have misinterpreted a few sources.

I need something to work with here. You have given me a statement but no evidence. What am I supposed to do with that? Where are these countless records of extraterrestrials throughout history?

I think yoiu have mistaken me for KoTA

[Yeah_Right]

would you be surprised if I told you he had already shown his evidence (which was practically non existent) and seen it soundly debunked earlier in the thread ?

:rolleyes:


Well actually he just had rehashed non-existent evidence you can watch on any UFO documentary.

[Marduk]

I think yoiu have mistaken me for KoTA
yup sorry, my mistake, if what youve got is better than what KOTA had I'd love to see it.

;)

[Yeah_Right]

yup sorry, my mistake, if what youve got is better than what KOTA had I'd love to see it.

;)

Since I am a skeptic of UFOs I don't have any evidence, I am waiting for KoTA to present better evidence though.

[leafman91]

I think yoiu have mistaken me for KoTA

Ah, that message may have been a bit ambiguous. It was directed at Kota.
Srry:o

[Marduk]

Since I am a skeptic of UFOs I don't have any evidence, I am waiting for KoTA to present better evidence though.

<<< hopes youre not holding your breath
;)

[King of the Americas]

<<< hopes youre not holding your breath
;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/space/5832435/Moon-landing-anniversary-UFOs-photographed-by-Apollo.html

:)

One of these is a mere shadow of a hill sticking out from behind another, but what are the others?

A blotch on the lens?

[Yeah_Right]

<<< hopes youre not holding your breath
;)

Based on that link KoTA put up, nope definitely not.

[King of the Americas]

Based on that link KoTA put up, nope definitely not.

Hey that isn't 'my' link. Someone passed it along to me, from here.

The last image featuring the blue dots is especially interesting.

[Yeah_Right]

Hey that isn't 'my' link. Someone passed it along to me, from here.

The last image featuring the blue dots is especially interesting.

Never said it was your link, said it was "a" link. And, no.

[King of the Americas]

Never said it was your link, said it was "a" link. And, no.

So what ARE those blue dots?

[Yeah_Right]

So what ARE those blue dots?


Who knows? But looking at them I don't think they make your case. Now if the astronaut was looking at them, going OMG, aliens are looking at us, there might be something to the photograph.

[Marduk]

Hey that isn't 'my' link. Someone passed it along to me, from here.


mwahhahaha
;)

[King of the Americas]

Who knows? But looking at them I don't think they make your case. Now if the astronaut was looking at them, going OMG, aliens are looking at us, there might be something to the photograph.

I didn't post them to 'make' MY case.

I just found them interesting...

[Yeah_Right]

I didn't post them to 'make' MY case.

I just found them interesting...


Yeah I guess they're mildly interesting, not evidence though, sorry.

[Vortigern99]

So what ARE those blue dots?

One possibility is ice on the window, the camera lens, or both.

[King of the Americas]

One possibility is ice on the window, the camera lens, or both.

Wouldn't water appear as a prism, featuring more than one color, given their distance from one another?

[Vortigern99]

What distance would that be? If there is ice on the camera lens, then it would be precisely 0.0 mm from the lens. If it's on the window in front of the camera, maybe we're talking about a few centimeters. Either way I'm not sure why it's relevant. By what principal does "water appear as a prism, featuring more than one color" at a given distance?

[King of the Americas]

What distance would that be? If there is ice on the camera lens, then it would be precisely 0.0 mm from the lens. If it's on the window in front of the camera, maybe we're talking about a few centimeters. Either way I'm not sure why it's relevant. By what principal does "water appear as a prism, featuring more than one color" at a given distance?

It doesn't.

You see the whole prism, usually.

[leafman91]

Wouldn't water appear as a prism, featuring more than one color, given their distance from one another?

Yes, but ice wouldn't.

[leafman91]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/space/5832435/Moon-landing-anniversary-UFOs-photographed-by-Apollo.html

:)

One of these is a mere shadow of a hill sticking out from behind another, but what are the others?

A blotch on the lens?

Dunno. I couldn't say it definitely wasn't ET, but I couldn't say it definitely was ET either. Good mystery, no idea. :ninja:

[King of the Americas]

Yes, but ice wouldn't.

Doesn't it?

Snow flakes DO, I know that...

[TjW]

Yes, but ice wouldn't.

Neither would a flaw caused by a developing process error, or a flaw in the emulsion.

[King of the Americas]

Neither would a flaw caused by a developing process error, or a flaw in the emulsion.

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?

[TjW]

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.

[leafman91]

Doesn't it?

Snow flakes DO, I know that...

Yes, but ice doesn't.

[King of the Americas]

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.

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...

[TjW]

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?

I'd expect it to be less.

What do you think NASA's failure rate is compared to commercial developers?

I'd expect it to be much smaller.
But the point is, it's not zero.



(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...

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]

I'd expect it to be less.

I'd expect it to be much smaller.
But the point is, it's not zero.

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.

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 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.

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?

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]

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.Look up Apollo Archives and you'll see a number of out of focus shots and accidental shutter trips. It happens.
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...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.
If you can't 'prove' there's a defect, the image is real. 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]

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. Suggest you source this photo from NASA too.[/QUOTE]

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5872.jpg

Sun glare...?

[Ragnarok]

Well not all the elements, in the days before the Wright Brothers flight, they were seeing what they described as blimps, not saucer shaped craft at all.

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]

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?

[leafman91]

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?

What do you think NASA's failure rate in 1969 was, compared to todays commercial developers?

These blue dots should show up in EVERY image, if it was ice on the lens..
Every image carefully selected by the publisher of the article, don't forget.

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.
And I support that view.

[leafman91]

Suggest you source this photo from NASA too.

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5872.jpg

Sun glare...?
It would have to be. Our astronaut doesn't seem too fazed.

[leafman91]

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?

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]

It would have to be. Our astronaut doesn't seem too fazed.

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

:D

[King of the Americas]

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.

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]

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.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.

[leafman91]

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]

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.