Pegasus Research Consortium

(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/a8_zps4c68824a.jpg)

So Apollo 8.
Done to death, but not Really.
It's a piece of lint. On the camera.
If you have, and we all have the jpg.
This cannot be seen. No matter how far you zoom.
It's only viewable on the tiff.
So, it's so small how could it have such a defined structure?
Unless it was exactly there.
It was there.
Elvis.

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on January 30, 2014, 09:31:34 PM
It was there.

It was.

On the photo, during the scanning.

Armap.
I have read everything you have said about this.
And it is too small to see unless you have the tiff.
Do you agree?

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on January 30, 2014, 09:44:08 PM
And it is too small to see unless you have the tiff.
Do you agree?

I don't remember, what's the photo ID?

I have a huge database of over 500,000 photos. Most of these never watched. From what film roll is this particular image?

Sander

I found the photo ID, AS08-12-2209. :)

Answering the question, yes, it only shows in the TIFF image, along with several other fibres/hairs and other things that are common on scanned photos.

Exuberant1
posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 05:51 AM link    (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread522361/pg3#pid7755261)


Here is a strange tube-like thing that my brother and I found in as08-13-2228hr (towards the bottom right). It sort of reminds me of the tube on that machine Lear found near Lomonosov (see below):

(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5122/moonbridgething.jpg)

This is the thing/machine from the John Lear moon thread:

(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1325/as8122209gmenzelaqr3.png)

Sherpa ordered the High res version of AS8-12-2209 - this is what was on it:

(http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x44/sherpa_album/2209clip.jpg)

So THIS CLIP is a Pegasus Original :P  The purple version is from a book scan that John has

I need to copy Exuberant1's posts from that thread.

He is another one of the originals that just vanished without a trace like Internos, BigFatFurryTexan, Luna Cognita, Sherpa, Zarniwhoop and others

Cool,
Yea I've seen johns book scan and if I'm not mistaken it looks like the object is in a slightly different position.
I think the purple book scan is a before or after shot consecutive to the grey one. That to me suggests the object has moved.
I think it was alive when it was photographed.

And someone explain to me if a piece of lint is SO TINY that it will only show up on a tiff! How on earth could it hold such defined structure and shape.?
Answer .. Because it's not lint or fluff . It's a huge organic entity that was filmed in two consecutive pictures.
Imho.

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on January 31, 2014, 08:33:18 AM
And someone explain to me if a piece of lint is SO TINY that it will only show up on a tiff!

Being a TIFF or a JPEG is irrelevant.

QuoteHow on earth could it hold such defined structure and shape.?

Answer: because it was on the photo when it was scanned or when the copy of the photo was printed. Different copies have different features.

PS: why do people talk only about that "thing" on that photo when the photo is full of fibres and other "garbage"?

Creepy spidery looking thing...

As a side note, has anybody done any studies into theose orbs that grow long tenticle legs, that can been seen on numerous NASA footage?

Quote from: Sinny on January 31, 2014, 11:41:49 AM
As a side note, has anybody done any studies into theose orbs that grow long tenticle legs, that can been seen on numerous NASA footage?

It's easier if you provide an example of what you're thinking about. :)

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on January 31, 2014, 08:33:18 AM
Cool,
Yea I've seen johns book scan and if I'm not mistaken it looks like the object is in a slightly different position.
I think the purple book scan is a before or after shot consecutive to the grey one. That to me suggests the object has moved.
I think it was alive when it was photographed.

And someone explain to me if a piece of lint is SO TINY that it will only show up on a tiff! How on earth could it hold such defined structure and shape.?
Answer .. Because it's not lint or fluff . It's a huge organic entity that was filmed in two consecutive pictures.
Imho.

To me it does not look like the object has moved but the camera has moved. Notice the "tail's" location to the crater or white spot and the location of the white spot in front of it on both pics.

If the purple pic was shot first, then the camera is moving in a CCW turn around the object. This is why I think it is something on the surface of the moon and not lint sitting on the pic when scanned.


LSWONE.

Quote from: LSWONE on January 31, 2014, 03:56:04 PM
To me it does not look like the object has moved but the camera has moved.

Nothing moved.

(http://imageshack.com/a/img691/9149/w0m.gif)

Tanks ArMaP fort the overlay. sure makes a difference when the pics are oriented the same.
:)

LSWONE.

Armap you are very good.
But I will not accept lint. I just won't.
Get some lint and squash it between two lenses and let it make the shape of a crawling thing with a tail and legs and a head.
Or throw some lint at a subject then photograph it.
It's going to be a million to one chance that it looks like a crawling entity with thorax ,  legs  ,  head  , tail  ..
Your good.
But not that good. With Huge respect and brevity.
I think that thing was alive.
Elvis.

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on January 31, 2014, 07:26:30 PM
Armap you are very good.

Thanks, I guess. :)

QuoteBut I will not accept lint. I just won't.

Why? ???

QuoteGet some lint and squash it between two lenses and let it make the shape of a crawling thing with a tail and legs and a head.

Between two lenses? Why between two lenses? Scanners don't use lenses. ???
And why are you talking about "a crawling thing with a tail and legs and a head"? That looks nothing like any "crawling thing" I have ever seen.

QuoteOr throw some lint at a subject then photograph it.

I didn't say that this was photographed, did I? Why should I take a photo of anything?

QuoteIt's going to be a million to one chance that it looks like a crawling entity with thorax ,  legs  ,  head  , tail  ..

OK, show me where do you see a thorax, legs, head and tail. And please use the best image, not the worst, like some people do.

I'm never going to  win against you Armap. And the reality is I don't want to win against anybody.
We only have these photos, these faint glimmers of what the space craft observered to give us indications of what's up there.
I myself think there is more to luna than we are led to believe.
And I like the rest of the curious.. Can't win.
Just like we never could on ATS.

I think the point is though Elvis, if you want truth, you need to really scrutinize and be honest with yourself.  An anomaly is always interesting and energizing, but you need to be willing to critically examine it and be willing to back down and say "oh, OK, not what I thought it was."  Planting a flag and wanting something to be what you want it to be doesn't advance finding real truth.

A lot of these moon/mars photos bring out the inner "Pareidolia" in all of us.  The eye sees colors/shapes and the brain always tries to see "things".  A cloud looks like a rabbit, a face on the moon, a rock looks like a lizard, ect.  The mind plays games with itself.

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on January 31, 2014, 07:46:56 PM
I'm never going to  win against you Armap. And the reality is I don't want to win against anybody.

It's not a win/lose thing, the only possible loss is if we let an opportunity of getting closer to the truth go by without looking into it, even if it goes against what we think.

Too bad you're not interested. :(

Some times the S.E.T.I. rules help.

The "signal", even if a photo, has to repeat it's self to be acceptable.

Any time one "tampers" with, or alters a photo in any way, it becomes more questionable.

Keep searching. There are plenty of NASA photos that they try to explain away that truly show some extraordinary things to get excited about.  :)

This subject bugs me...

IMHO: Make up your own.

No lint here..A bug for sure. It has 6 legs and they are articulated with joints. The tail or maybe web strand shows some joints or high spots also.

It seems that there are many NASA photos that come from a deep dark secrete place that is full of bugs. You would think they would take better care of them. I have found all sorts of bugs, larva, dust and hairs all over their prints. So the question comes up if they do this for fun to hide real things or are they just the worst photo lab in the world.

This is not lint. It is either a Moon Spider or a baby spider caught in the photo process on the negative. It shows up very well and very clean. It is sitting above the surface and I can't pick up any surface interaction like the way I would like to. Seems it is frozen in its tracks also. ie, no movement in the photo.

So it has a chance of it walking on the moon. Deuems money is on the dirty NASA lab and a baby spider caught inbetween the scanner and the negative. Maybe 30% moon 70% Spider.

100% not lint..............

For your viewing pleasure.


(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Bug1.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Bug1.jpg.html)


(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Bug2.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Bug2.jpg.html)


deuem

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on January 31, 2014, 07:46:56 PM
I'm never going to  win against you Armap. And the reality is I don't want to win against anybody.

And I like the rest of the curious.. Can't win.
Just like we never could on ATS.

Oh but we can and have :D We already have FOUR images that ArMap admits are stumpers, he has issues with the Hills of Apollo (that we haven't addressed yet), he is close to saying "Critters" on the STS  80 footage in the storm AND we agree that the skys on Mars are BLUE after many years of 'debate'

So cheer up THAT is a HUGE WIN :D

::)

QuoteWe only have these photos, these faint glimmers of what the space craft observered to give us indications of what's up there.

You have to admit though  that when people say NASA lies, covers up, airbrushes and hides images, that using NASA images to prove anything is a stretch?

::)

It like those that say the Moon Landing was a total hoax... but then use Apollo images to find anomalies :D

Still fun though  and they DO miss things... and we have caught them several times deleting stuff just after we posted it, like the oranges on ISS, the Apollo tiffs and one that really bugs me....  the blue glow around astronauts and equipment that on the Apollo Journal they said they had no ide what caused it but a few years later that text was edited.  I didn't get a screen capture but I think I can pull it up on wayback machine

This one :D

(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6826HR.jpg)

QuoteI myself think there is more to luna than we are led to believe.

So do I :D I have been told to expect an interesting revelation from Russia by October 2014 :D  We shall see if that pans out

Back and forth debate keeps it alive but ultimately the goal is to build a collection of the best anamalies and try to get as much data as possible

We must be on the right track or we wouldn't have so many NASA people watching us ;)

Quote from: WarToad on January 31, 2014, 08:08:59 PM
A lot of these moon/mars photos bring out the inner "Pareidolia" in all of us.  The eye sees colors/shapes and the brain always tries to see "things".  A cloud looks like a rabbit, a face on the moon, a rock looks like a lizard, ect.  The mind plays games with itself.

While it is true that there is a "Pareidolia" factor. it is also true that when many people see the SAME THING without prompting, that means it is MOST LIKELY physically there

Take this rock face for example...

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Rock_Faces/facerock.jpg)

Was it carved by man? by Nature? or by Spirits?  Our ancestors would say spirits... WHY do we find a single rock Gaurdian at the entrance to most valleys?

The skeptic will say coincidence and Pareidolia but what if there is more to it?  I have searched for these "Nature Spirits" for years, and found many... uncanny faces that appear one in each major storm if you take the time to look

Look at this Noctilucent cloud... it is staring right back at you 

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Eyes/Eyes_000.jpg)

and this one taken by Sky Otter

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Clouds/Sky_Otter_3022.jpg)

or this one in Russia   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOoWfUw-jNM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOoWfUw-jNM


People will believe what they will, but those that see "only blurry rocks" (and there were many on ATS :P ) may be suffering from "Prosopagnosia"  and have lost or never had the ability to see what is right in front of there nose

The Military is always hiring people that have the ability to spot small anomalies on aerial photos. They plan bombing missions based on those spotters.

To say "I don't see it so it can't exist" is foolish. A famous quote once sadi, "'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy'"

Very true :D  A couple years ago my super skeptic wife came out when we were photographing a dragon. She looked up... stopped in her tracks and said "Hey I see a dragon!"

I know several people who can summon them to appear.  You should try it but you need to be serious.

This one was summoned by Diverdown from another forum the very night we talked about it

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Eyes/Diverdown_2ikb19y.jpg)

I am fond of the Red Dragons :D

closeup

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Eyes/Diverdown_2ikb19y_02.jpg)


This one made main stream history and won first prize

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Eyes/MonumentRocks_KSa.jpg)

So don't stop looking :D 

I should do a refresher on Copernicus Crater... Never finished that and it needs a new look

Quote from: Norval on February 01, 2014, 12:29:06 AM
Some times the S.E.T.I. rules help.
The "signal", even if a photo, has to repeat it's self to be acceptable.

I agree to a point :D

Take the Copernicus Crater images

Here is an 'object' that is clearly visible in the scan that John had, but that same area is cropped off on most NASA versions (not all ;) )

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon6/Control_Valve01a.gif)

Color enhanced

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon6/Control_Valve01b.gif)


Now on that SETI rule... here is the object we labelled "Crane" Do not worry right now where they are LOL I will get back to that  the point is that the first clip is from Lunar Orbiter image LO-2-162-H2 and the second is from the same area on Lunar Orbiter LO-5-155

The first is coming at it from about a 43 degree angle and the second from straight overhead

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon/Crane_03c.gif)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon/Crane_04c.gif)

It took MONTHS to grasp the scale and match the two images for point locations, but it was that task that got me to meet John and start Pegasus

A Crane?  Yes a huge mining crane  like this one

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon/lunarmine2.jpg)

at the Copernicus mine :D

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon/Mine01_med.jpg)

Unenhaced versions  straight clips from the high res originals

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon/Crane_03a.gif)(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon/Crane_04a.gif)


A couple other cranes :D

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon/Crane_01.gif)(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon/Crane_02.gif)

Quote from: deuem on February 01, 2014, 08:06:59 AM
No lint here..A bug for sure. It has 6 legs and they are articulated with joints. The tail or maybe web strand shows some joints or high spots also.

A very strange bug.

QuoteThis is not lint. It is either a Moon Spider or a baby spider caught in the photo process on the negative.

Spiders have 8 legs, not 6, make up your mind.  :P

Quote from: zorgon on February 01, 2014, 12:34:01 PM
Now on that SETI rule... here is the object we labelled "Crane" Do not worry right now where they are LOL I will get back to that  the point is that the first clip is from Lunar Orbiter image LO-2-162-H2 and the second is from the same area on Lunar Orbiter LO-5-155

The first is coming at it from about a 43 degree angle and the second from straight overhead

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon/Crane_03c.gif)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon/Crane_04c.gif)

The famous flat, shadow-less cranes.  :P
I think there's another photo that shows it from a different angle.

Lets see, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Legs on these guys.  :-X

Maybe 2 fell off on the way to the moon.  :o

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/6leggedspiders.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/6leggedspiders.jpg.html)

Yes most spiders have 8 legs but some have 6. They are in the moon spider family.  ::)

Deuem now counting spider legs to fall asleep. Hey, sheep only have 4 and are boring.

Quote from: deuem on February 01, 2014, 02:49:31 PM
Yes most spiders have 8 legs but some have 6.

No, all spiders have 8 legs, that's one of the characteristics of the arachnids class. The only member of that class that doesn't have 8 legs are some species of mites.

To make it clear, in many spiders, the two front legs are used for feeding, working as an extra pair of pedipalps. :)

Quote from: ArMaP on February 01, 2014, 05:11:10 PM
No, all spiders have 8 legs, that's one of the characteristics of the arachnids class. The only member of that class that doesn't have 8 legs are some species of mites.

To make it clear, in many spiders, the two front legs are used for feeding, working as an extra pair of pedipalps. :)

If you want to consider the two front legs that are used for feeding, working as an extra pair of pedipalps then consider 10 leg spiders.
Go look up 6 and 10 leg spiders.
Deuem

Quote from: deuem on February 01, 2014, 06:21:02 PM
If you want to consider the two front legs that are used for feeding, working as an extra pair of pedipalps then consider 10 leg spiders.
Go look up 6 and 10 leg spiders.

No need to look for them, they do not exist. :)

The fact that a pair of legs looks like something else or that something else looks like a pair of legs doesn't change the fact that the spiders have 4 pairs of legs.

Peggy Rules.

Quote from: Sinny on February 01, 2014, 08:57:28 PM
Still of the leggy thing taken from the embedded YouTube Vid: (2.07 Mins)
(http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/s635/Sinny_Dawes/ufo1_zps11a3d5f3.png) (http://s1309.photobucket.com/user/Sinny_Dawes/media/ufo1_zps11a3d5f3.png.html)

That's an interesting one. The bigger part looks transparent and acting like a lens

QuoteHere are stills of one mid-shift at 2.21 mins:
(http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/s635/Sinny_Dawes/ufo2_zpscd858d26.png) (http://s1309.photobucket.com/user/Sinny_Dawes/media/ufo2_zpscd858d26.png.html)

(http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/s635/Sinny_Dawes/ufo3_zpsba65437f.png) (http://s1309.photobucket.com/user/Sinny_Dawes/media/ufo3_zpsba65437f.png.html)

(http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/s635/Sinny_Dawes/ufo4_zpsad8770a9.png) (http://s1309.photobucket.com/user/Sinny_Dawes/media/ufo4_zpsad8770a9.png.html)

That looks like a water droplet, possible if this was filmed from behind a window, not possible if it wasn't. :)

Come back Luna.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc

http://youtu.be/WlLN_Jcg1pc

Quote from: ArMaP on February 01, 2014, 09:22:12 PM
That's an interesting one. The bigger part looks transparent and acting like a lens
That looks like a water droplet, possible if this was filmed from behind a window, not possible if it wasn't. :)

I'm a firm believer in the Duck Thesis.
If it looks like one and and it quakes like one..

Quote from: Sinny on February 01, 2014, 09:51:39 PM
I would agree with you save for the fact it obviously looks like a shape shifting, and more notably, common UFO sphere.

Water droplets are shape shifting. UFO spheres are less common than water droplets. ;D

QuoteAnd it only remotely looks like a water droplet with a stretch of the imagination and with a view of not accounting all other supporting evidence.

No need for imagination (if imagination was needed I wouldn't see it as a water droplet, my imagination doesn't work for things like this) to see something round and transparent as a water droplet. And I haven't seen any supporting evidence.

QuoteI'm a firm believer in the Duck Thesis.
If it looks like one and and it quakes like one..

The problem is that many people see just the head of a platypus and say it's a duck, even if they don't see it walk or ear it quack, because they want it to be a duck. :)

Quote from: Sinny on February 01, 2014, 09:51:39 PM
I'm a firm believer in the Duck Thesis.
If it looks like one and and it quakes like one..

Well the thing is... the geniuses :P at NASA have made their own UFO's :D  I prefer to use clear images when I look...  but this one was found by Exuberant1

(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2553/ohnoitsbokeh.jpg)

See if you can find it on THIS image :D

(http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/9845/isdhighressts096sts0967.jpg)

here it is buzzing an astronaut...

(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/assembly/sprint/sprint_sm.jpg)

Shapeshiffting can be achieved by camera focus :P WHY are all the UFO videos always so blurry?  :o

::)

(http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/s635/Sinny_Dawes/ufo4_zpsad8770a9.png)

And yeah... we did a thread on the floating NASA SPHERES :D

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=261.msg2112#msg2112

My only question... how can we get one for Peggy?

::)

ODERACS Deployment, 9 February 1994

(http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/measure/images/Oderacs.jpg)

Quote from: zorgon on February 01, 2014, 11:13:32 PM

(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2553/ohnoitsbokeh.jpg)

Cool, it looks like the one I photographed..

Quote from: ArMaP on February 01, 2014, 06:33:04 PM
No need to look for them, they do not exist. :)

The fact that a pair of legs looks like something else or that something else looks like a pair of legs doesn't change the fact that the spiders have 4 pairs of legs.

I posted a photo of 4 spiders with 6 legs and you won't even look at it. If they do have another set of legs that they use for eating, you can't see them.

There are also 10 legged spiders that have an extra set of legs like T-rex. Just long enough to feed their face like crabs do.

Dismissing this fact of nature does not earn you any bonus points. The great ArMaP has spoken 8 Legs. Period.  Sorry but go research it and get back to us.

Many time a set of legs will also fall off due to being ill or battle. Leaving them with 3 sets. It is also possible that the photo is of a dead spider that has lost a set of legs.

The photo clearly shows a spider or spider like object with 6 legs. It is not lint.  So if I pulled a leg off of you and you were left with one leg would you still be a human?

How many you start off with and how many you have now are due to what happens to you in life and death.  Think T-Rex please

Deuem, go look it up, theis is not "Simmon says" 6 legs, 8 legs, 10 legs

(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/as10355223surface4400_zpsa0bc466c.jpg)

Heres a nice one from Apollo 10

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/AS10/AS10-35-5223.jpg

credit Max Peck over at space time

Quote from: deuem on February 02, 2014, 04:55:31 AM
I posted a photo of 4 spiders with 6 legs and you won't even look at it. If they do have another set of legs that they use for eating, you can't see them.

When you see only 4 or 6 legs you are not seeing the front legs that, in some spiders, are much smaller and are not used for locomotion.

QuoteThere are also 10 legged spiders that have an extra set of legs like T-rex. Just long enough to feed their face like crabs do.

No, that extra pair in front of the four pairs of legs are not legs, like the scorpions' pedipalps with the claws at the end.

QuoteDismissing this fact of nature does not earn you any bonus points. The great ArMaP has spoken 8 Legs. Period.  Sorry but go research it and get back to us.

It's not the great ArMaP that has spoken (there's no such thing), it's zoology that has spoken. Look it up instead of making this, as we say in Portugal, a seven-headed bug.  :P

From Wikipedia:

QuoteSpiders (order Araneae) are air-breathing arthropods that have eight legs and chelicerae with fangs that inject venom. They are the largest order of arachnids and rank seventh in total species diversity among all other groups of organisms.

QuoteArachnids are a class (Arachnida) of joint-legged invertebrate animals in the subphylum Chelicerata. All arachnids have eight legs, although the front pair of legs in some species has converted to a sensory function, while in other species, different appendages can grow large enough to take on the appearance of extra pairs of legs. The term is derived from the Greek word ?????? (aráchn?), meaning "spider".

QuoteAlmost all adult arachnids have eight legs, and arachnids may be easily distinguished from insects by this fact, since insects have six legs. However, arachnids also have two further pairs of appendages that have become adapted for feeding, defense, and sensory perception. The first pair, the chelicerae, serve in feeding and defense. The next pair of appendages, the pedipalps have been adapted for feeding, locomotion, and/or reproductive functions. In Solifugae, the palps are quite leg-like, so that these animals appear to have ten legs. The larvae of mites and Ricinulei have only six legs; the fourth pair appears when they moult into nymphs. However, there are also adult mites with six, or even four legs.

QuoteMost adult mites have four pairs of legs, like other arachnids, but some have fewer. For example, gall mites like Phyllocoptes variabilis (superfamily Eriophyioidea) have a wormlike body with only two pairs of legs; some parasitic mites have only one or three pairs of legs in the adult stage. Larval and prelarval stages have a maximum of three pairs of legs; adult mites with only three pairs of legs may be called 'larviform'.

QuoteMany time a set of legs will also fall off due to being ill or battle.

I don't think it's very likely for a complete pair to fall or be cut just at the joining with the body.

QuoteIt is also possible that the photo is of a dead spider that has lost a set of legs.

It is also possible that the photo is not of a spider. ;)

QuoteThe photo clearly shows a spider or spider like object with 6 legs. It is not lint.

It shows it so clearly that I don't see it, and I am used to look at scanned photos and documents as part of my job (the company where I work once scanned more than 1,500,000 documents).

QuoteSo if I pulled a leg off of you and you were left with one leg would you still be a human?

As much as I am with both my legs. But that wouldn't change the definition, and that's the definition that you have been denying, saying that there are spiders with 6 and 10 legs. The removal of a pair of legs wouldn't turn an 8 legged spider into a 10 legged one, right? ;)

QuoteDeuem, go look it up, theis is not "Simmon says" 6 legs, 8 legs, 10 legs

Learning something doesn't hurt, try it once in a while.  :P

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on February 02, 2014, 11:35:40 AM
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/as10355223surface4400_zpsa0bc466c.jpg)

Heres a nice one from Apollo 10

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/AS10/AS10-35-5223.jpg

credit Max Peck over at space time

That one shows one characteristic of things that are on the photo or on the scanner during the scanning process. As the light emitted by the scanner hits the photo and is returned back to the scanner sensor, something translucent like lint (I haven't used this word because I didn't know about it, so I had to look it up) will appear brighter over brighter areas of the photo and darker over darker areas, as the light is being reflected by the photo and goes through the lint.

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on February 02, 2014, 11:35:40 AM

(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/as10355223surface4400_zpsa0bc466c.jpg)

Heres a nice one from Apollo 10

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/AS10/AS10-35-5223.jpg (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/AS10/AS10-35-5223.jpg)

credit Max Peck over at space time

Hey Willease and I did this one years ago back on that other place. I hate to say it but I think it is a 2 legged spider playing golf. This one got the nickname Alien miner, probably works for Z now.

Deuem

Quote from: deuem on February 02, 2014, 03:17:52 PM

Hey Willease and I did this one years ago back on that other place. I hate to say it but I think it is a 2 legged spider playing golf. This one got the nickname Alien miner, probably works for Z now.

Deuem

ha ha that's funny mate."FOUR" ;D