PDA

View Full Version : Weird object in NASA video



foxd
2003-Sep-05, 08:39 PM
I figure here would be a better place to find out what this actually is.

http://shadowboxent.brinkster.net/moon/esjmoon.html

It looks kind of odd and I have no clue what it could be. It could be a real lunar mystery or a trick of perception. Any ideas? :-?

Glom
2003-Sep-05, 08:42 PM
It's hard to tell anything from such low res images.

JimTKirk
2003-Sep-05, 08:44 PM
One possibility is a booster engine sent to impact the surface(rather than orbit the earth as junk) either outgassing or just then hitting.

Any other possibilities???

mike alexander
2003-Sep-05, 09:36 PM
Could the 'puff' be a shadow on a slanted surface from a descending object? I'm trying to visualize where the sun is but my threedeecampus has quit working for the weekend.

R.A.F.
2003-Sep-05, 10:18 PM
In my video tape collection I happen to have a copy of the NOVA special, To The Moon, which this footage is supposedly taken from.

Let me review the tape and I'll get back to you all.

mike alexander
2003-Sep-05, 10:31 PM
In my video tape collection I happen to have a copy of the NOVA special, To The Moon, which this footage is supposedly taken from.

Very good point. Thank you.

I note on the site that the GIF has been 'enhanced'. Uh-huh.

R.A.F.
2003-Sep-05, 10:36 PM
Well, that didn't take long now did it?

First off, that website gives an accurate representation of what was shown on the NOVA show. A black spire appears to be belching black smoke and then the smoke dissappears. There's just one little problem...

That particular sequence is of a STILL picture which the NOVA camera zooms in on, giving the appearance of movement where there is none. In other words, it has to be an artifact from the show, because it's kinda hard to have movement in a STILL picture.

Mystery solved.

mike alexander
2003-Sep-05, 10:42 PM
Dang! They did a Ken Burns!

Classic magician's trick. Get you watching the little spot in the center, fail to notice what's going on around the edge of the frame.

foxd
2003-Sep-05, 10:48 PM
Well, that didn't take long now did it?

First off, that website gives an accurate representation of what was shown on the NOVA show. A black spire appears to be belching black smoke and then the smoke dissappears. There's just one little problem...

That particular sequence is of a STILL picture which the NOVA camera zooms in on, giving the appearance of movement where there is none. In other words, it has to be an artifact from the show, because it's kinda hard to have movement in a STILL picture.

Mystery solved.

Thank you! I love it!
=D>

mike alexander
2003-Sep-05, 10:53 PM
Added note. I grabbed the first and last Jpegs off the site and supered the last frame on the first after resizing to same earth size. Seamless fit. No shifts, which you would expect in a 70 mi orbit.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Sep-06, 06:21 AM
Ah, so you are saying they had a still picture from Apollo. The camera filming the TV program then zoomed in on that still photo.

That makes it seem as if this is a movie made on the Apollo capsule, when it was actually a still photo taken on the capsule.

To check on this, I did a web search using the words "Apollo 8 photograph earth horizon" and the first hit returned was the JSC Digital Image Collection (http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/iams/html/pao/as8.htm). In there is this image (http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/iams/images/pao/AS8/10074962.jpg). Look at it carefully. I am sure it's the exact still photograph used in the NOVA program. The bumps and wiggles on the lunar horizon are all there, and the angle and height of the Earth over the horizon are the same.

In the first frame of the LEMUR sequence, you see a black diagonal fuzzy border in the lower right corner. In the JSC image, you can see that this is the edge of the capsule window! This is not in subsequent frames, which supports the idea that the NOVA show was in fact zooming in on a still photo, and is not showing actual footage; that is, motion photography. Moreover, the text (http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/iams/images/pao/AS8/10074962.htm) for the image specifically says that the film was 70mm; this was what was used in the Haselblad still cameras.

Case closed. Nice work, R.A.F.

Incidentally, it took me literally less than one minute to find the image used. One minute. I received an email from this LEMUR group about this "footage" the other day; it was done like a press release. Obviously, with a trivial amount of effort, the LEMUR claims can be shown to be completely wrong.

I've said it before, and it's just as true today: I love this board.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Sep-06, 06:31 AM
Oh, one more thing: I posted about this on the L.E.M.U.R. bulletin board. Let's see what happens next. :o Here's the link: http://members5.boardhost.com/shadowboxent/msg/1456.html

... and here is what I posted:



I received an email from this group the other day about this new "footage". Someone on my own Bad Astronomy bulletin board posted about the images, and within a couple of hours we discovered that this "footage" is not footage at all. It was a still image taken using the handheld Haselblad cameras on board the Apollo 8 spacecraft. The people filming the NOVA TV show used their own cameras to zoom in on this still photograph, creating an illusion of motion. The "black smoke" is simply something in their own film, not on the original image, which, again, is not a motion picture.

We are discussing this here: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=7865

The original still image can be found here: http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/iams/images/pao/AS8/10074962.jpg

with accompanying text here: http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/iams/images/pao/AS8/10074962.htm

I expect that when you examine the arguments you will see that this "object" is not real, and will post an explanation on your own site here.

-Phil Plait
Webmaster, Bad Astronomy

JayUtah
2003-Sep-06, 07:00 AM
It's likely motion blur in the frame capture.

beskeptical
2003-Sep-06, 07:30 AM
I've said it before, and it's just as true today: I love this board.

Me too! =D>

frenat
2003-Sep-06, 12:05 PM
This is also being "discussed" (I use that term loosely) over onthe OSA forum here
http://kbs.msshost.com/Forum3/viewtopic.php?t=1573&start=0&postdays=0&postorder= asc&highlight=
I gave a short explanation but others may want to swing by and back me up.

CincySpaceGeek
2003-Sep-06, 12:54 PM
Just checked that out and...well at least they're keeping a good sense of humor about it. :wink:

Andrew
2003-Sep-06, 02:06 PM
This is also being "discussed" (I use that term loosely) over onthe OSA forum here

They're clearly one step ahead of the rest of us.

R.A.F.
2003-Sep-06, 04:05 PM
Case closed. Nice work, R.A.F.

Thanks, BA, happy to have helped. (My wife claims that I'm strutting around the house this morning). :D


Incidentally, it took me literally less than one minute to find the image used. One minute...Obviously, with a trivial amount of effort, the LEMUR claims can be shown to be completely wrong.

Agreed, I was quite surprised how simple this mystery was to solve. I spent perhaps 5 minutes looking for the tape, maybe another 4 or 5 to locate the scene in question, and then it took less than 10-20 seconds to figure out where they went wrong. I'm wondering if LEMUR has actually watched the NOVA show.


I've said it before, and it's just as true today: I love this board.

I'll add my "me too" here. Ya gotta love a place where knowledge is shared for the benefit of all.


Oh, one more thing: I posted about this on the L.E.M.U.R. bulletin board. Let's see what happens next.

Joshua P. Warren, president of L.E.M.U.R. has answered your post. (He calls it a "theory"...HA HA) While I won't say he's making excuses, (I'm trying to be polite here), he does seem to be having trouble wrapping his mind around the fact that he is wrong about this.

JayUtah
2003-Sep-06, 04:16 PM
Gee, it's really pretty simple. If you go to the Louvre and you shoot some shaky, hand-held video of the Mona Lisa and when you get home it looks like she's winking at you in a couple of the frames, where do you look for an answer? Do you unparsimoniously conclude that a painting just winked at you? Or do you conclude that some aspect of the motion of your camera caused the effect? Just because you have some frames captured from a Nova program doesn't automatically make them Apollo movie frames. This is why real research isn't done from secondary sources. You never know where those sources have been.

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Sep-06, 04:24 PM
This is why real research isn't done from secondary sources. You never know where those sources have been.

And judging from the state of affairs I don't think anyone of us wants to know where these particular secondary sources have been......... :D

Andrew
2003-Sep-06, 05:59 PM
Here's a pretty bizarre thread from that LEMUR forum:

http://members5.boardhost.com/shadowboxent/msg/1451.html

JayUtah
2003-Sep-06, 06:06 PM
[Shudder]

R.A.F.
2003-Sep-06, 06:40 PM
Here's a pretty bizarre thread from that LEMUR forum:

http://members5.boardhost.com/shadowboxent/msg/1451.html

Bizarre isn't even the word I'd use. I mean, really, what pyramid?
This picture doesn't even show the surface of the Moon! It's just reflections of different things on the window of the LM. The background is SPACE. Maybe it's a flying space pyramid!! :)

CincySpaceGeek
2003-Sep-06, 07:26 PM
Here's a pretty bizarre thread from that LEMUR forum:

http://members5.boardhost.com/shadowboxent/msg/1451.html

Ummm....yeah :roll:

Andrew
2003-Sep-06, 07:32 PM
On the image in the article, you can see the entire terminator on the earth's disc above the lunar horizon. In the photo from the JSC collection, the terminator appears to intersect the lunar horizon. Could the two photos be different or is the disparity likely to result from the low resolution of the JSC photo? Is it possible that another photo was taken very soon after (or before, I'm not sure what direction the CSM is orbiting w.r.t. the image) the JSC photo?

AstroMike
2003-Sep-06, 09:09 PM
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apollo/bin/catalog/magazine.html?14

Andrew
2003-Sep-06, 09:20 PM
It looks like there's a possibility that I was right for once.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Sep-07, 04:53 AM
Yeah, it looks like I had the wrong picture above. The one used in the NOVA footage was taken a short time after the one I linked (there was only that one on the JSC page, but AstroMike found the series of photographs taken). Anyway, the principle is the same. It was a still photo, and the NOVA folks zoomed on it.

I read elsewhere that the show actually zoomed out, but the L.E.M.U.R. folks reversed it. Not sure why. I may have seen the NOVA show, but if I did it was many years ago, so I don't remember. R.A.F., was it zoomed in or out?

Andrew
2003-Sep-07, 09:45 AM
What on earth is the poster Tonopah Test Range on about over at the LEMUR forum?

Andrew
2003-Sep-07, 01:04 PM
Tonopah Test Range wrote a post, that has now been deleted, wherein he said something along the lines of there being more computing power in a musical greeting card than available to Apollo spacecraft.

I replied with the following:

Tonpah Test Range,
All ridicule of Apollo's rate of progress and the computing power available to Apollo Spacecraft aside, could you demonstrate to us that the Apollo spacecraft were not actually up to the task? Can you demonstrate that the computers used on Apollo were actually insufficient?

To which he has now replied:

You are asking me to demonstrate how a computing system is deficient in accomplishing a task which I don't believe has been accomplished in the first place? Do you see the illogical conundrum here?

Am I missing something, or does this not make any sense?

The thread starts here (http://members5.boardhost.com/shadowboxent/msg/1459.html).

Peter B
2003-Sep-07, 01:59 PM
Andrew

What you ask is perfectly reasonable.

If your correspondent has a problem with it, get him/her to treat it as a hypothetical question, something like this: "Okay, just humour me then. Would a computer of [insert relevant statement about Apollo computer] be sufficient for the task?"

If your correspondent hedges any more, I think we can assume s/he doesn't have an answer to the question apart from personal disbelief.

DataCable
2003-Sep-07, 02:17 PM
If your correspondent has a problem with it, get him/her to treat it as a hypothetical question, something like this: "Okay, just humour me then. Would a computer of [insert relevant statement about Apollo computer] be sufficient for the task?"
I went one better, I just asked him what would be sufficient for the task, irrespective of whether he believes it's been done or not. Of course, as I was writing that, he had responded that he was being asked to prove a negative. He does seem to be evading the question entirely.

R.A.F.
2003-Sep-07, 02:26 PM
Yeah, it looks like I had the wrong picture above. The one used in the NOVA footage was taken a short time after the one I linked (there was only that one on the JSC page, but AstroMike found the series of photographs taken).

I went to the link that AstroMike posted, (thanks, AstroMike!), the picture that NOVA used is #2393...it's exactly the same.


I read elsewhere that the show actually zoomed out, but the L.E.M.U.R. folks reversed it...R.A.F., was it zoomed in or out?

It was definitely zoomed in.

Andrew
2003-Sep-07, 02:44 PM
That he believes that the moon landings were not accomplished is the whole point behind the question. He says he believes they didn't happen, he cites the alleged deficiency of Apollo era computers as one of the reasons. I'm asking him to show that they really are deficient. I don't understand this nonsense about him not having to answer the question because he doesn't believe in the moon landings.

Peter B
2003-Sep-07, 02:57 PM
That he believes that the moon landings were not accomplished is the whole point behind the question. He says he believes they didn't happen, he cites the alleged deficiency of Apollo era computers as one of the reasons. I'm asking him to show that they really are deficient. I don't understand this nonsense about him not having to answer the question because he doesn't believe in the moon landings.

Ha! Talk about circular reasoning:

1. He doesn't think the landings took place, because the computers weren't powerful enough;

2. He doesn't need to prove the computers weren't powerful enough, because he doesn't believe the landings took place.

#-o

Andrew
2003-Sep-07, 03:03 PM
Did you read his latest response? I don't think he and I are from the same planet.

Peter B
2003-Sep-07, 03:23 PM
I had a quick look at the thread, and had a little chuckle.

"DataCable asked the question better than you, but I won't answer him anyway."

Still, I'm curious to hear his metallurgical reason why the landings couldn't have occurred.

R.A.F.
2003-Sep-07, 06:20 PM
What on earth is the poster Tonopah Test Range on about over at the LEMUR forum?

I don't know...he answered my post with a "you are wrong" then proceeded to say all manner of strange stuff and I have no idea what he is talking about.

Does anyone here have any idea what a pseudo frame is?

Andrew
2003-Sep-07, 07:00 PM
Does anyone here have any idea what a pseudo frame is?

No, and I doubt he does either.

I expect that he's just fumbling through both photo-analysis and logic.

Rue
2003-Sep-07, 10:27 PM
That particular sequence is of a STILL picture which the NOVA camera zooms in on, giving the appearance of movement where there is none.
Mystery solved.

Good stuff. I was just going to mention that there are some types of editing software that can produce these effects(such as zooming).
Not sure if that is what NOVA used in this instance.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Sep-08, 12:22 AM
Folks-- I have written up a synopsis of this "smoking gun" (har har) episode on the main site. Read all about it (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/lunar_smokestack.html)!

Chip
2003-Sep-08, 01:26 AM
Folks-- I have written up a synopsis of this "smoking gun" (har har) episode on the main site.

Great!

I'd like to add that on PBS - Nova and other documentaries that happen to deal with space, galaxies are depicted as majestically turning, or even approaching as they turn. If they're actual galaxies and not animation, this is accomplished in the same manner as the moon zoom shot. A still picture of a real galaxy is slowly rotated and/or zoomed in on. Although galaxies rotate, we don't see them move that rapidly while viewing through telescopes (in our lifetimes). I think the filmmakers show them turning to illustrate that they do turn, and also because its visually more dramatic for a TV show. :wink:

Archer17
2003-Sep-08, 01:27 AM
Good & gracious post BA .. congrats R.A.F. - you've made it on to the Main Site! 8)

JayUtah
2003-Sep-08, 02:06 AM
It's elementary filmmaking. When you shoot a still photo with a film camera, you apply some sort of motion to it so that it fits the dynamics of its surroundings. You pan from one side to the other. You zoom in or out. You do something to create focus. If I had to put an earthrise photo in a film, I'd start on the earth and zoom out to reveal the moon. The Nova producers chose to do the opposite. But the point is that you don't just aim the camera at the picture and just leave it there for five seconds.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Sep-08, 02:28 AM
Jay, nice work at the LEMUR forum too. I didn't want to enumerate why it had to be a Haselblad image, but you, as usual, give enough detail to make it quite clear that people better take care when arguing with you. :o

JayUtah
2003-Sep-08, 02:50 AM
I'm often accused of overkill. I simply believe in a thorough, methodical approach. I'm privileged to work with people who share that approach and can appreciate its power. It's not that I don't want people to question me. It's just that I want people to appreciate how much thought goes into what I say.

Joe Durnavich
2003-Sep-08, 04:26 AM
One minor note, Jay: Apollo 8 did not carry a color camera in the CM. It was one of those junky, low resolution black-and-white ones with the streaky vidicon tubes. That NOVA image is definitely not from the TV camera.

JayUtah
2003-Sep-08, 05:09 AM
Thanks. I don't have the Apollo 8 reference handy, so I used the most capable of the Apollo television cameras as a worst-case reference.

Mellow
2003-Sep-08, 11:01 AM
Sorry for arriving at this one late, but I have to make a small point.

I have just looked at the animated GIF and something is immiedeately apparent.

As the frames progress, the Earth gets significantly bigger..... perspective means it wouldn't change aparent size during an entire orbit of the moon. Therefore after about 10 seconds of vieving, it was obvious that this was a zoom in on a still.

Sorry, just wanted to rant.

I looove this board.

Worm hunter
2003-Sep-08, 11:05 AM
I was just lookin at those pics and it brought back a memory of a UFO report a heard a few years ago about a school project which involved kids goin out into the community and vidoe taping news style reports. During the taping of one of the reports an object whized by the camera apparently behind the student on film and it was quickly concluded to be a UFO. Some of the evidence was that if it was the size of a comercial jet liner it would have to be traveling some insane speed nearing that of the space shuttle to cover the distance the camera could view at the distance the object appeard to be at, however on further inspection it turned out to be a bug that actually flew infront of the student on film. ( i would hate to think about what would be said if the bug had flew behind thus making it impossible to realize its true nature.) With that in mind i would like to see some of the people insistant that its a smoke stack try and enhance a tape of the nova program rather then put together a couple frame gif, unless that was the extent of the tootage from the program that is involved in which case i would advise against any conclusions involving conspiracies and the like. Another note i have is that the object in question isnt the only one to ( to coin a nancy leader word, wobble) in the gif provided, making me wonder why it is the only one mentioned. Is it purely sensationalism, being the bigest one of them all, even said it took me about an hour to actually find the object, i mean i dont see anything particularly special about the object in question. To rap things up i just want to add my two cents to maybe shed some light to those who asked about other possiblilities for what the object could be. Hope i was of some assistance.

On another note is there anyone out there that might know if the three cams were stationary or if they could be turned to point in any direction. The answer to that might help determine which one or ones could of taken a shot of the module moving forward.

Just wnat to say thanks for listening, im sure its not a bug but never the less the simple answers seem to be the correct ones. So with that Peace out.

JayUtah
2003-Sep-08, 01:03 PM
Therefore after about 10 seconds of vieving, it was obvious that this was a zoom in on a still.

Yes, the earth becomes bigger. The only zoom lens on board the spacecraft belonged to the black-and-white television camera. The zoom in the NOVA footage could not have been done in the spacecraft.

AstroSmurf
2003-Sep-08, 01:05 PM
Jay, I noticed on the other board that you're writing a book on the Apollo project. Can you give us some more info on this; it sounds interesting 8)

udorn
2003-Sep-08, 01:29 PM
I think I know what we are seeing.

When they videoed this clip they more than likely had a bright light on the photo of the moon. I think the smokestack is a fly or gnat (depending on how big the photo was). Half way through the shoot the fly flew away. The "smoke" is a shadow of the fly. When the fly got and inch or so from the photo the shadow dissapears.

Don A. Bailey

JayUtah
2003-Sep-08, 01:37 PM
Jay, I noticed on the other board that you're writing a book on the Apollo project. Can you give us some more info on this; it sounds interesting 8)

It's Clavius in book form. It's currently on hold pending Jim Oberg's book.

Note by The Bad Astronomer: edited to fix coding

AstroSmurf
2003-Sep-08, 02:05 PM
I thought Oberg's project had been cancelled. Shows what I know.

captain swoop
2003-Sep-08, 02:05 PM
This Test Range guy is exactly the same as several of the regular 'Creation Science' advocates on talk.origins.

never answer a question, talk in circles, misdirect the thread and insult the other posters.

it's pointless to argue with him.

JayUtah
2003-Sep-08, 02:08 PM
Jim is still writing his book. The only thing that was cancelled was NASA's funding for it. He has secured private funding and is continuing the project.

Andrew
2003-Sep-08, 02:08 PM
As the frames progress, the Earth gets significantly bigger..... perspective means it wouldn't change aparent size during an entire orbit of the moon. Therefore after about 10 seconds of vieving, it was obvious that this was a zoom in on a still.

But if it was being filmed in full motion by a camera that had a zoom lens, then the earth would appear to get larger if the camera zoomed in on it as it was filming.

AstroSmurf
2003-Sep-08, 02:15 PM
But if it was being filmed in full motion by a camera that had a zoom lens, then the earth would appear to get larger if the camera zoomed in on it as it was filming.Yes, but you would also see other effects, such as the Earth rising above the curve of the Moon, new features becoming visible on the horizon, perspective changes and so forth.

This is somewhat tricky to spot; the easiest way to tell that this is a still photo is that the zoom/pan is the ONLY motion in the picture - no shaking, no motion of the motive itself. It's a weak argument, so fortunately, we don't have to use it since the original image has been identified.

Andrew
2003-Sep-08, 02:27 PM
I know, AstroSmurf. I'm just saying that, hypothetically, if there was footage being taken of the moon rising above the lunar horizon from orbit and the camera did zoom in on the earth, then it would get larger within the picture.

But, obviously, it is in fact a still photo.

udorn
2003-Sep-08, 02:28 PM
Before I start getting some emails saying why my theory is lame let me give some more information.

When filming a flat object (especially a glossy object) you can’t light it from the front. If you do you will get a lot of glare. You have to light the object from an angle.

Watching the vid it looks like the photo was set on an easel with the floodlights on the floor to the left. The reason the shadow is so drawn out is because of the angle of the lights, it is also the reason the shadow disappears so quickly.

The fly flies away perpendicular to the photo. This is the reason it is still in the vid after its shadow is gone (the shadow, or what is left of it, is on the ceiling).

JayUtah
2003-Sep-08, 03:00 PM
When filming a flat object (especially a glossy object) you can’t light it from the front. If you do you will get a lot of glare. You have to light the object from an angle.

Actually, with Lamberian falloff, you have to light it from two opposite angles, otherwise you get very non-uniform lighting.

See, e.g.,
http://www.sci.fi/~animato/stand/stand.html

You typically don't do this with really huge photographs for the simple fact that really huge photographs are difficult and expensive to make. Lab charges alone for a 3x3 foot print enlargement would be $100-$150. So much better to do it on an animation stand with a standard sized print that only costs you $3 and can be done in-house at most production companies.

But nowadays you can do it digitally. Even entry-level video editing packages can do zooms and pans on still photos.

udorn
2003-Sep-08, 03:49 PM
OK, I may be wrong. Thats what I get for trying to put my "**" up against all you "Pilled Higher & Deepers", but I still think it looks like a fly.

JayUtah
2003-Sep-08, 04:30 PM
That's okay. Better to consider a hypothesis and ultimately reject it than not to consider it at all.

JayUtah
2003-Sep-08, 04:36 PM
This Test Range guy is exactly the same as several of the regular 'Creation Science' advocates on talk.origins.

I'll take your word for that.

never answer a question, talk in circles, misdirect the thread and insult the other posters.

That seems to be the procedure he's using.

it's pointless to argue with him.

Pointless if you goal is to change his mind. Not pointless if your goal is to get on record what a fake he is.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Sep-08, 05:59 PM
I agree that the zooming is evident in the size of the Earth getting bigger. As JayUtah pointed out, the only zoom lens was on a B&W camera, and the images used by L.E.M.U.R./ESC are in color (and converted to B&W presumably for printing in the journal).

Now, people could then theorize that perhaps the astronauts had another camera onboard. But that would mean they had one of which there is no record, no other images, etc. etc. That would itself mean that NASA was covering it up. Besides opening the door to silly conspiracy theories, why would NASA then release that video/movie footage to NOVA? Reductio ad absurdum. It doesn't make sense, therefore the most obvious conclusion is still that the original is a still photo, and NOVA zoomed in on it.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Sep-08, 06:25 PM
Yes, but you would also see other effects, such as the Earth rising above the curve of the Moon

Jay, you mention this on the other board as well. How fast did the Earth rise (in, say, degrees per second) over the lunar limb? I looked into figuring this out, but realized it will take me an hour or so to make sure I've done it right, and I don't have the time right now. The orbiter was at a height of 100 kilometers over the lunar surface, and the velocity at that height is about 1.17 km/sec.

jrkeller
2003-Sep-08, 06:34 PM
Some Apollo 8 info,

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_08a_Summary.htm

R.A.F.
2003-Sep-08, 08:38 PM
Hi everyone!!

As you can imagine, I find myself to be one happy camper today...I got a mention on the main site!!

Very heady stuff...well...until I realised what It was that I actually did to be granted this honor. I watched a video tape. Nothing more. So that keeps it in perspective for me.

I'd like to thank the Academy...No...Wait...Wrong speech...just a second...

Kidding aside, I'd like to thank those who have congratulated me...Thankyou!

I would be remiss if I didn't mention how gracious it was for the BA to include me on the page. He certainly didn't have to. He (and others) did 99.9% of the work. But I really do appreciate it. Thanks BA!!

I'm just very happy that in my small way I was able to help rid the world of a bit of Pseudo-science. That's worth a lot to me.

Funny thing, (and I've mentioned it before), It actually took me longer to find the darn tape than it did for me to solve the mystery!! :)

udorn
2003-Sep-08, 08:51 PM
For all those who question photo vs movie I suggest you go to the link below. It is a movie of the Apollo 11 command module getting ready to dock with the lunar lander.

Once the video is loaded, switch back and forth from the start of the clip to the finish. Watch the horizon and you will be able to see the change in the lunar landscape as the ships orbit the moon. (do a copy and paste, it's too long to remember)

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo11/mpg/apollo11_onbclip14.mpg

JayUtah
2003-Sep-08, 09:06 PM
Jay, you mention this on the other board as well. How fast did the Earth rise (in, say, degrees per second) over the lunar limb?

I'm not as sure now that the rise rate would be apparent over only ten frames or so. But over ten frames you should see a noticeable change in the terrain on the lunar horizon.

I think it would take me an hour to figure out too.

Andrew
2003-Sep-08, 09:19 PM
Wouldn't simply dividing the number of degrees in a circle by the CSM's orbital period give a reasonable estimate? Or not?

JayUtah
2003-Sep-08, 09:39 PM
Yes, if you assume the earth is infinitely distant. In that case you have an angular velocity of 0.053 degrees per second. Assuming that the earth subtends an arc of 1.9 degrees, that's 1/36 of an earth diameter per second. The vector, in space-fixed coordinates, from the CSM to earth varies by about half a degree across the diameter of the orbit, so spread that error over about 3,600 seconds and that gives you a rough idea of how far off the 0.053 degree estimate will be -- pretty far below the tolerances we're working with.

luvtinayothers
2003-Sep-08, 09:45 PM
Good Lord! Did anybody read this reply:

http://members5.boardhost.com/shadowboxent/msg/1475.html

to Phil's post??? I'm scared 8-[

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Sep-08, 11:06 PM
Hmmm. I was thinking of doing the full-blown calculation, but maybe you're right.

The Earth would go from the lunar horizon to the zenith in 1/4 of an orbit (actually a little more since we have some height above the lunar surface, but ignore that).

So we need the orbital period of the capsule. The velocity was 1.17 km/sec and the radius of the orbit was 3586 km.

period = circumference/velocity = 2 x pi x radius / vel = 19,260 seconds.

So in 1/4 an orbit (4814 seconds) the Earth moved 90 degrees, so it went 0.019 degrees per second.

Jay did you drop a factor of pi in there? :o

For a moment I thought there might be a factor of sin(theta) in there due to parallax, but now I see that the angular rate is contant in a circular orbit, so the angular rate of the Earth's motion in the sky is constant. Phew!

Jay, how did you get the 0.05 degree/sec number?

Either way, we need the times those pictures were taken, and I bet they don't exist. But if the Earth moves through it's own size in less than a minute, I suspect we'd see motion in those frames in the few seconds of zoom.

Andrew
2003-Sep-08, 11:25 PM
I got 0.05 too because I thought the period of the orbit that Apollo 10 was taking was approximately two hours. But you make it to be more than five.

JayUtah
2003-Sep-08, 11:47 PM
So we need the orbital period of the capsule. The velocity was 1.17 km/sec and the radius of the orbit was 3586 km.

That's a pretty big moon. I think you want a smaller figure for the radius, along the lines of 1,738.1 km. Add 100 km for the orbital altitude and you have an orbital radius of 1,838.1 km.

but now I see that the angular rate is contant in a circular orbit, so the angular rate of the Earth's motion in the sky is constant.

I made the same initial mistake but realized it when I drew it out on the white board.

Construct a right triangle from the following three points:

A - the spacecraft
B - the moon's center
C - a point on the moon's surface at which a line passing through the spacecraft is tangent to the moon.

This triangle ABC is a right triangle whose angles are invariant through the orbit. Line AC is the horizon sightline. The triangle rotates about point B. The rate at which the triangle rotates (i.e., the angular velocity of the orbit) is the rate at which the sightline AC changes. If you consider the sightline to earth to be a space-fixed vector, the angular separation is directly the angular orbital velocity of the spacecraft.

I wasn't sure how much parallax would affect the results, but it turns out the space-fixed vector to earth is within our tolerances.

Jay, how did you get the 0.05 degree/sec number?

arctan ( 1.7 km / 1,838 km)

And that's because I misread your post about the orbital speed and used 1.7 km/s instead of the 1.17 km/s you gave. As a reality check I, knew the Apollo orbital period was about two hours, so I divided 360 degrees by 7,200 seconds in two hours and got 0.05 degrees per second.

A better figure is around 0.036 degrees per second.

That means, if the earth subtends 1.9 degrees, that it takes 52 seconds to go from first appearance to fully visible.

There is no time reference for the eight frames on the LEMUR web site. A worst-case estimate would be a separation of 1/30 second (the U.S. video frame rate), meaning that the eight frames comprise approximately 1/4 second. The earth will have moved 0.009 degree, or 1/200 of its angular diameter, during those eight frames -- not enough to notice.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Sep-09, 02:22 AM
D'oh! I grabbed the diameter, not the radius! You'd think I'd catch that. It slows the velocity by sqrt(2) = 1.4 and adds to the circumference by a factor of 2.

2.8 * 0.019 = 0.053. :oops: The period did seem awfully long to me. :roll:

JayUtah
2003-Sep-09, 03:32 AM
Hey, Phil, welcome to the world of engineering. Nothing like drilling forty holes in a $20,000 piece of stock and then realizing that the docs list hole diameters and not the radii you thought. Now you see why we work in groups. You goofed; I goofed -- but eventually we got there.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Sep-09, 04:05 AM
And just think. If I were David Percy (or Tezzer, or or or), I could just edit the posts to make us look right all along! :^o

Off topic, I will say that I got into a discussion recently where the pseudoscientists were lambasting me because I said I make mistakes. How silly! It is a fool who never admits mistakes. How else would you ever learn?

JayUtah
2003-Sep-09, 04:19 AM
Going back to the off-topic topic about wall candy, one of my wall sayings is, "There are two kinds of people: those that admit their mistakes, and those that don't."

I added a new one today: "Knowledge through inductance; dementia through conductance." You had to be there.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Sep-09, 04:25 AM
That should be "Those who admit their mistakes..." 8)

RBG
2003-Sep-09, 06:52 AM
Having seen the animated GIF, I detect all kinds of strange marks popping in & out of the frames over the shot.

To me the "chimney" and "smoke" marks don't even seem connected. My guess is that the "chimney" is either a dark geographic feature or shadow on the moon or more likely a piece of yuck that landed on the photo prior to scanning or shooting.

But why focus on that mark? Doesn't anyone see the alien white vertical array in lunar orbit and appearing in successive frames in the top left side???!!

And for petie's sake, get it together you guys, has everyone missed the fact that the "chimney" fires off a "cloud" that splat's the word "END" on the window? A warning of some kind to our planet to be sure. Weren't bellbottoms big then?

Cheers,
RBG

kucharek
2003-Sep-09, 07:10 AM
D'oh! I grabbed the diameter, not the radius! You'd think I'd catch that. It slows the velocity by sqrt(2) = 1.4 and adds to the circumference by a factor of 2.

2.8 * 0.019 = 0.053. :oops: The period did seem awfully long to me. :roll:

Well, you never claimed that you're a Good Astronomer... And it just shows that professionell astronomers are pretty much uninterested in the Moon. I guess, they only recognize the Moon when it degrades the seeing... :wink:

captain swoop
2003-Sep-09, 07:44 AM
Good Lord! Did anybody read this reply:

http://members5.boardhost.com/shadowboxent/msg/1475.html

to Phil's post??? I'm scared 8-[


Gosh! it is just like the talk.origins news group.

kilopi
2003-Sep-09, 01:30 PM
I have just looked at the animated GIF and something is immiedeately apparent.

As the frames progress, the Earth gets significantly bigger..... perspective means it wouldn't change aparent size during an entire orbit of the moon. Therefore after about 10 seconds of vieving, it was obvious that this was a zoom in on a still.
Not necessarily obvious. It still (eh) could have been a zoom during a video. Of course, it has been shown not to be.

( i would hate to think about what would be said if the bug had flew behind thus making it impossible to realize its true nature.)
In that case, the bug would have been in focus, or not even visible--and the angular speed considerably smaller too.

Astronot
2003-Sep-09, 01:52 PM
The oddity that I noticed is that the smudge does not appear to move across the screen. It simply stays in the same spot as the camera zooms until it disappears. Go to LEMUR’s page and put your pointer on the smudge. While the surface features move by, the smudge will stay under your pointer. This leads two possibilities.

1. The wind on the moon was blowing such that the smoke blew in precisely this way and smoke was filmed by a secret camera.
2. There was a smudge introduced in the process of making a still into a moving image for a television show.

I find cause two to be the significantly more probable. Thanks to the RAF, the BA, JayUtah, and others for the clear insights and knowledge applied to this issue.=D>

Kebsis
2003-Sep-10, 12:26 AM
Did you read the updated LEMUR website? Got this from it;


Even if NOVA does confirm this is a still photo, we have received emails from many who will refuse to believe it since they think NOVA and NASA are in cahoots! Of course, those of that mindset would be virtually impossible to convince of a conventional explanation anyway. They think the footage was either accidentally used, or slipped in by a subversive staff member of the program.



They seem like they are sorry they opened up this can of worms in the first place.

freddo
2003-Sep-10, 12:48 AM
They seem like they are sorry they opened up this can of worms in the first place.

Not surprising - the LEMUR characters Jay, RAF and the BA were dealing with seemed level headed. Given the usual character of the grass-roots HBer, they might be a little shocked when the evidence is revised.

NASA Fan
2003-Sep-10, 02:10 AM
I looked at the link that Andrew mentioned;


Here's a pretty bizarre thread from that LEMUR forum:

http://members5.boardhost.com/shadowboxent/msg/1451.html

If you have not seen it, you should go there just for a good laugh. The guy claims that there is a flying pyramid visible in the picture. Since we do not have flying pyramids here on earth, that picture must have been taken in lunar orbit, and that seems to negate beliefs on of other lemurs.

What was even more fun to me was that it sounded like that the guy admitted to having edited his photo, and you had to do all sorts of bizare things to see it. Hey if you stand on you head, and hold your breath for 2 minutes and stare at a picture of the moon, you can probably see our favorite Bad Astronomer taking a stroll on the moon, despite that fact that we do not know what he looks like. My point with this rambling is that if you do enough strange things while staring at a photo you can see almost anything that is suggested.

To the person who briefly mentioned the computers and the Apollo program. I know only a little about the onboard computers, such as that your average pocket calculater today has more computing power than the CM did, but that is not proof that we did notgo. I know even less about the Wright brothers flight, but I am willing to bet my next paycheck that they did not have an onboard computer...since modern aircrafts have on-board computers, does that mean that the Wright brothers did not make that famous first flight almost 100 years ago--NO....or maybe that is another conspiracy---we may not be capable of flight yet, all those long trips I thought that I took were mearly halucinations, created by...by...uhm...can someone help me out, I am not good at creating conspiracies?

MCC was run on a huge main-frame computer, we went to the moon using kilobytes, and yes by todays standards that would not work, however those engineers actually knew how to use a sliderule and do math on a piece of paper, which unfortunately too many people today do not know.

OK, I will try to stop my (probably pointless) ranting. Thanks for humoring me and listening/reading.

freddo
2003-Sep-10, 04:04 AM
If you have not seen it, you should go there just for a good laugh

I thought it was familiar.

This guy is just plain clueless.

Seen this before (http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=36204;article=6679;title=Moon-lite%20talk...A%20Discussion)
And responded in kind (http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=36204;article=6697;title=Moon-lite%20talk...A%20Discussion)

Astronot
2003-Sep-10, 12:53 PM
Hey if you stand on you head, and hold your breath for 2 minutes and stare at a picture of the moon, you can probably see our favorite Bad Astronomer taking a stroll on the moon, despite that fact that we do not know what he looks like.

Here is a link to a picture of the handsome BA. (http://www.astronomy.com/content/static/misc/images/plait.jpg)

BadFan
2003-Sep-10, 02:59 PM
Here is a link to a picture of the handsome BA. (http://www.astronomy.com/content/static/misc/images/plait.jpg)[/quote]

.... clearly showing a flying pyramid from the Moon hovering above his head. Proof! Proof!

Re: computing power -- I have more computing power in my brain than a bat (or so I hope), but that doesn't mean I can fly! Where do these people get their "refutations?"

JayUtah
2003-Sep-10, 07:18 PM
I received the following e-mail today from Mr. Charles Yost. Mr. Yost is the editor of the magazine that originally published the NOVA frames and speculated upon the nature of the anomaly.

--- begin ---
> From: "Electric Spacecraft, Inc." <cay@electricspacecraft.com>
> Subject: recent NOVA Apollo 8 footage
> Date: 10 Sep 2003 13:42:34 -0400
>
> To: Jay Windley and all / www.clavius.org
>
> I want to thank Jay Windley for clearing up the "Moon Mystery"
> presented in Issue #36 of Electric Space Craft, August 5, 2003. Jay,
> you are absolutely right. I went back and looked at the NOVA VHS video
> "To the Moon", and sure enough the illusion of moving over the moon
> was produced by zoom photographing a still photo. It was perfectly
> obvious when looking for it as you suggested. It is easily noticed
> because the Earth grows larger and larger at the same rate as the
> entire lunar surface. I never noticed that before. Thanks -- mystery
> solved!
>
> The dark object could well have been lint or debris on the still
> photo; and the puff-like ejection, some lighting effect. But, this was
> certainly not a real-time event on the moon. It was immediately
> obvious by your e-mail to me that you knew what you were talking
> about.
>
> A little background to all who became exposed to this peculiar "Moon
> Mystery" presented in Electric Space Craft:
>
> I first noticed the dark object perhaps a year ago and showed it to
> many very respected and competent engineers, one of whom programs the
> Hubble telescope and is also an amateur moon enthusiast, like me. None
> of us had an explanation for this strange event on the NOVA video, all
> of us fooled by the rapidly mixed and changing scenes and the audio of
> the astronauts dubbed in presumably real time. Artistic license was
> employed well in the NOVA presentation to create the intended
> illusion. We all should have detected the use of trick photography,
> but did not! By the way, the particular scene occurs about 59 minutes
> 40 seconds into the VHS for those who want to look at it.
--- end ---

Despite his having named me and the Clavius web site as the decipherers of this puzzle, I merely built upon the significant and correct work of R.A.F., Phil, and many of the other regulars here. Mr. Yost's praise and gratitude more properly belong to all of you.

Musashi
2003-Sep-10, 09:54 PM
Wasn't Yost supposed to validate Greyhawk? (At least in Greyhawk's mind.) Good job Jay =D> . This reminds me of the email that (should have) squashed the 'missin phobos' deal in another discussion.

Wingnut Ninja
2003-Sep-11, 12:09 AM
The temperature on the face of the moon during the night is approximately -1730 degrees celsius

That was my favorite line from the whole discussion.

Approximately -1730. :p

kilopi
2003-Sep-11, 12:18 AM
That was my favorite line from the whole discussion.
Man, that's cold.

pghnative
2003-Sep-11, 01:43 AM
Kilopi wrote
Man, that's cold.

No, that's colder than cold :D

Kebsis
2003-Sep-11, 02:22 AM
Pun me, baby!!

udorn
2003-Sep-11, 11:52 PM
Sorry guys, I haven't looked in on this for a while.

I will admit that my "**" makes mistakes and/or improper assumptions from time to time, BUT who said -1730 celsius?????

Do these people have any kind of education background or do they just print what they think with no methodology or concrete facts at all?

Hypatia
2003-Sep-15, 04:38 PM
Gees, you guys missed the MOST Obvious mystery artifact in the photos........FINGERPRINTS......on the MOON!!

Apollohistorian
2003-Sep-17, 11:37 AM
The images posted at the L.E.M.U.R. website of the alleged "smokestack" acquired by the Apollo 8 circumlunar mission were most probably a series of stills taken with the Hasselblad onboard camera, which was equipped with a motordrive. The camera motordrive would produce a series of still images, which is what the L.E.M.U.R. site appears to contain, since the lunar landscape is changing position relative to the alignment of the camera. I would tend to agree with the proposition suggested by "JimTKirk" that the image is that of an impacting Saturn V booster or an impacted booster which is outgassing at the moment of photographic capture. The difficulty here is that from a nominal orbital altitude of 70 miles, the object in the photographic series would appear to be larger than the dimensions of a Saturn booster stage.

kucharek
2003-Sep-17, 11:46 AM
Welcome Apollohistorian!

You've to be good to live up to your name here...
With regards to your post: I think, the subject is already closed. You'll find out after going through through the last five pages of this thread.

kilopi
2003-Sep-17, 12:04 PM
The difficulty here is that from a nominal orbital altitude of 70 miles, the object in the photographic series would appear to be larger than the dimensions of a Saturn booster stage.
By at least an order of magnitude. The real difficulty is that, instead of "a series of still images," it's been established that it's a single still image panned and zoomed, so that the smokestack has to be some sort of flaw introduced during production.

soul8o8
2004-Mar-25, 02:11 PM
i know this thread is old, but i stil feel i have to say this because to me it is obvious. and i think that my experience as a graphic designer could bring some interesting perspective into this..


1) there are moiré patterns in the sequence

this means this footage was made by filming a TV or a monitor. ie someone took a videocamera and pointed it at a tv or computer monitor showing the image of the moon. the patterns are clearly visible in the left area of the sequence. (it looks like faint swirly lines across the image)


2) the moiré pattern's frequency is changing

this means someone is filming a monitor and zooming or moving in with the camera. if the camera would stay at a fixed distance from the monitor the patterns would also be fixed. the camera is moving relative to the monitor beeing filmed.


3) the black "thing" is in the shape of a mouse cursor

it is highly likely that someone is filming and zooming in on a computer monitor showing an image and that they forgot to move the cursor out of the image. that the cursor is black suggests that it is a macintosh computer.


4) the lower right corner edge is "bent"

if you look at the bottom right corner one can see the edge of the monitor beeing filmed. this edge is moving a little bit. this serves as a point of reference and tells us that the camera is moving relative to the monitor beeing filmed.


5) the blury "smoke" puff does not move with the monitor edge

if one simply holds one's mouse cursor over the animated gif and exactly over the blury artefact one can see that the blury thing does not move in reference to the cursor and hence it does not move in reference to the camera filming the monitor. hence it is an artefact within the camera space. because the camera is zooming in and the blury thing is fixed to the camera's frame of reference it could be some dirt coming in and out of focus on the camera lens.



hi-5
/soul8o8

jrkeller
2004-Mar-25, 06:24 PM
Welcome onboard soul8o8,

Thanks for the excellent comments. I just goes to show that one doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to debunk these know-nothing HBs.

genebujold
2005-Sep-03, 01:16 AM
I just getting sick and tired of the unbelievable gullibility of supposedly intelligent individuals on this board!

FACTS:

Source: http://shadowboxent.brinkster.net/moon/esjmoon.html

1. The "puff of smoke" remains in the exact same position within frame for all three frames of the gif cycle given. This is consistant with the appearance of a micrometeorite on the external camera lens shield. Note - there are MANY recorded micrometeorite events recorded throughout the space program. It's not even at the "prove it" stage, but rather, at the gas station windshield cleaning stage.

It just is. Physical (pitted Freedom, Orbiter, etc. windshields) and photo evidence galore.

Get over it!

2. "As Apollo 8 orbited 70 miles above the lunar surface," as claimed in the video, for the surface to emit a "puff of smoke" as it claimed, it would somehow have to explain a gross aberration of modern physics, for it's impossible for any "puff of smoke" to be emitted below in such a short period of time, yet vanish between one frame and the next, regardless of whether the Moon had an atmosphere or not (and we know it does not!).

3. Since we know the Moon does not have an atmosphere, and the orbiting altitude of the camera, the propogation rates of a "puff of smoke" of any composition or pressure in a vacuum, we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the aberration appearing on frame had absolutely nothing to do with any surface phenomena, but rather, is entirely consistant with micrometeorite activity on the protective lens cover.

Final comment: If the average, well-informed citizen of the U.S. can figure these things out, why do the incessant postings of unclutched drivel keep appearing on supposedly sound, intellectual websites like this one?

Oh, yeah - that's right - so we can debunk them with science, physics, and cool logic as above.

:wink:

genebujold
2005-Sep-03, 07:04 PM
Wow. Upon further review of this thread, it appears it was solved in 2003. Here I am refuting it from a different angle in 2005.

How many hours until the board closes? Nine?

Count Zero
2005-Sep-03, 09:32 PM
Wow. Upon further review of this thread, it appears it was solved in 2003. Here I am refuting it from a different angle in 2005.

How many hours until the board closes? Nine?

Down to five, now. You'd better get busy; you've got a lot of thread/arguments to refight between now and then! :D

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Sep-03, 11:11 PM
Final comment: If the average, well-informed citizen of the U.S. can figure these things out, why do the incessant postings of unclutched drivel keep appearing on supposedly sound, intellectual websites like this one?


I suggest you take a step back and rethink your posting method here. Your opening statement in that post was by definition ad hominem. You have posted several contentious things today. If you wish to continue to post on the new baord, I strongly urge you to cool off.

R.A.F.
2005-Sep-04, 09:56 AM
I thought it only "fitting" that my first post to the new board should be on the thread where I helped to "solve" a mystery. :)

...I'm looking forward to getting to know everyone!!!

This new board looks GREAT!!!!

Congratulations Fraser and Phil!

R.A.F.
2013-Sep-05, 10:29 PM
If board members will indulge me for just one post. :)


On this thread, 10 years ago, I helped solve a mystery. when I noticed the date, I decided to post and crow a bit about it.

Still having a hard time wrapping my mind around it being 10 years ago...it doesn't seem like that long.

Surprised this thread still exists, and that the link to BA's site concerning this still works.


Anyhow, I'm just celebrating a little today by posting this...



Carry on...