UFOs Or Stars Or a Glitch In Apollo 16 Image?

[Mikesingh]

Here's an image from Apollo16. Notice anything strange? I bet you can't (Except for the astronaut who seems to be a cut and paste job anyway!!! Jeeeez!)



Now let's turn up the contrast and brightness....and bingo! Three shining orbs in the sky!! (Scroll right) Stars? If so, then where are the others? Also notice something on top middle of the image. Another strange something!



WTF are those things? Yeah, Ok, just stars or perhaps that ubiquitous glitch in film processing!!


Cheers!
Mike. 

[Pimander]

Spot lights in a studio...  In my opinion.

[The Seeker]

Here's an image from Apollo16. Notice anything strange? I bet you can't (Except for the astronaut who seems to be a cut and paste job anyway!!! Jeeeez!)



Now let's turn up the contrast and brightness....and bingo! Three shining orbs in the sky!! (Scroll right) Stars? If so, then where are the others? Also notice something on top middle of the image. Another strange something!



WTF are those things? Yeah, Ok, just stars or perhaps that ubiquitous glitch in film processing!!


Cheers!
Mike. 

Mikey, considering the deep black shadows cast by the LM and the small rock in the foreground, where is the one for the astronaut? Those blobs of light could be anything, but it does make one wonder if they are something other than what we were led to believe;

after all, we are lied to about everything, anyway, especially by Never A Straight Answer.




seeker

[Mikesingh]

Mikey, considering the deep black shadows cast by the LM and the small rock in the foreground, where is the one for the astronaut?

That guy is jumping and it seems he's about a couple of feet high. Now the next question is, how come there's no Moon dust kicked up during his impacts? And no footprints? His shadow is probably on the right some distance away as he's not on the ground.

But he sure looks pasted on!! 

Cheers!

[ArMaP]

Here's an image from Apollo16. Notice anything strange? I bet you can't (Except for the astronaut who seems to be a cut and paste job anyway!!! Jeeeez!)

How can I notice anything strange if you only posted the altered image and not the original?

The photo ID would also be a good idea, as far as we know it could be done by you.

[RUSSO]

How can I notice anything strange if you only posted the altered image and not the original?

The photo ID would also be a good idea, as far as we know it could be done by you.

Hy ArMaP. I Think this is the original image:



Nasa ID: as16-113-18339

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/html/as16-113-18339.html

Spot lights in a studio...  In my opinion.

Pimander, we share the same opinion.

[Mikesingh]

How can I notice anything strange if you only posted the altered image and not the original?
The photo ID would also be a good idea, as far as we know it could be done by you.

WTF? I had posted the original at the top! But it disappeared! Here was the link but it doesn't seem to work now! 

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1046/apollo16.jpg

Anyway RUSSO posted an image above., but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the right one. Will get back with the original Apollo 16 image.

Ah! Here it is....



Cheers! 

[ArMaP]

Hy ArMaP. I Think this is the original image:

Nasa ID: as16-113-18339

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/html/as16-113-18339.html

Thanks for that.

[ArMaP]

Anyway RUSSO posted an image above., but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the right one. Will get back with the original Apollo 16 image.

Why, because it doesn't have the 3 "orbs"?

Where did you find that image?

From what I have seen, most "anomalous" NASA photos are from private sites, while NASA sites have better versions.

PS: and those "orbs" look more pasted on the image than the astronaut. 

[Pimander]

From what I have seen, most "anomalous" NASA photos are from private sites, while NASA sites have better versions.

So why are the foreground and the background both in focus on most of the Apollo pictures if the Hasselblad had a narrow depth of field? Or where some of them taken in a studio? Or is that BS?

[starwarp2000]

So why are the foreground and the background both in focus on most of the Apollo pictures if the Hasselblad had a narrow depth of field? Or where some of them taken in a studio? Or is that BS?

The only way for a camera to take pictures with both the foreground and background in focus, is for it to be 'focused to infinity'.
As an example, have you seen the HUD videos from say the F/A-18?? They are taken with a CCD camera (focused to infinity) looking through the HUD and show the Reticles and distant objects all in focus.

You can get the same effect with a 'pinhole' camera.

Will have to look into the Hasselblad, but I am sure I can see a focus reticle ring and therefore that camera couldn't take those pictures!

[Pimander]

That's what I thought.  I also remember seeing the Hasselblad spec and just can't remember for sure but the analysis by a photographer was that it could not have taken all of the pictures.  They might have been a hoaxer so I'm interested to see what you find.

[Ocker]

Hi guys
Mike that was a quick debunk LMAO great work RUSSO, ArMap or was it ?

Glad to see you around again Mike you too ArMap

[Amaterasu]

My clue that something is wrong with that astronaut is the position of His feet...  When someOne jumps, the toes tend downward, yet the foot on Our right (His left)) looks like it's standing on something.  I just can't imagine why He would jump and pull His foot up like that.

EDIT to add:  Here (if I get the pic in - first time trying) I have drawn a line from His foot to where His shadow begins, defining the angle of the sun.  I copied the angle from the base of the flag to the ground and find it points to a place on the flagpole shadow.  The bulge from the flag starts where the arrow is, further to the right.

If I failed picture insertion...  You'll either have to take My word for it or do it Yourself.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Pimander]

I think you could move that pink line a bit higher and it would more or less reach the shadow.  If the ground isn't perfectly flat that will effect where the shadow appears too.

I like the type of approach but that example is not convincing.  Sorry.