Apollo out of isolation

[tofu]

piper said:

Note also that radiation effects would appear as streaks, and not as blobs of varying brightness.

I don't think so. A particle hits the negative at exactly one point. I can't think of any way that it would create a streak.

It's possible that venus (or any planet for that matter) appears in some apollo photo some where. I wouldn't rule out a bright star like sirus appearing either, although I defer to the judgement of those with more photographic experience than me.

[Count Zero]

piper said:

The same 'stars' with similar brightnesses are sometimes repeated on different photos, and all of them appear at similar heights from the surface.

I'm having trouble finding an example of this. Can you point me towards the correct images? Thanks.

[piper]

tofu said:

piper said:

Note also that radiation effects would appear as streaks, and not as blobs of varying brightness.

I don't think so. A particle hits the negative at exactly one point. I can't think of any way that it would create a streak.

Turns out we were both incorrect, as the effect of radiation on photographic film is more of a fogging effect (source: clavius.org). The film gets darker as it absorbs the radiation, not lighter. So that pretty much rules out radiation as the source of the "stars" in the photos above.

[piper]

countzero said:

piper said:

The same 'stars' with similar brightnesses are sometimes repeated on different photos, and all of them appear at similar heights from the surface.

I'm having trouble finding an example of this. Can you point me towards the correct images? Thanks.

See the two brightest spots on the following photos:

AS15-90-12250
AS15-90-12251

I find it very unlikely that a second or two after the initial photo, another double burst of radiation would hit the aperture with very similar locations and strengths.

[Data Cable]

It's probably dust on the prints or, more likely, the glass when they were scanned, since the white spots don't appear in either of those frames linked on this page, specifically:

AS15-90-12250
AS15-90-12250 (high-res)
AS15-90-12251
AS15-90-12251 (high-res)

[twinstead]

margamatix said:

Holes in the roof of the hangar.

LOL of course.

[piper]

Thanks for that link, Data Cable. Someone did a nice cleanup job on those photos though they do show many more anomalies as well, like the horizontal lines across the first image.

I guess there are no such things as good Apollo images to be found on the Internet.

[twinstead]

piper said:

Thanks for that link, Data Cable. Someone did a nice cleanup job on those photos though they do show many more anomalies as well, like the horizontal lines across the first image.

I guess there are no such things as good Apollo images to be found on the Internet.

Are you suggesting that any photo that contradicts what you believe is a product of a 'nice cleanup job'?

Don't you think that is a bit lazy?

[Count Zero]

piper said:

Thanks for that link, Data Cable. Someone did a nice cleanup job on those photos

<snip>

...or the low res image was dirtied-down.

though they do show many more anomalies as well, like the horizontal lines across the first image.

Actually that dark crud running horizontally is visible (and nearly identical) in both pictures, and is also detectable in the low-res version. I think it's crud in the camera or film magazine. I remember a roll from Apollo 16 at North Ray Crater that had shot after shot of similar blotches on what otherwise would have been great pix.

The two images that you referenced that show the white spots do not show them in the same place in the sky. Note the position relative to the dark rock in the foreground.

[piper]

I never said they had the exact same places, and the rock moves in the shots so they are not taken from the same position. I don't believe they're stars or planets, or radiation. A bad roll is possible, as the only "true" anomalous object in the first photo is at the far left edge of the shot.

As for saying the photos contradict what I believe, I never even stated what I believe so that makes no sense. I also don't accept just any photos on some anonymous untitled university webpage as being true unedited NASA photos, either. No one is that gullible.

[Data Cable]

piper said:

...they do show many more anomalies as well, like the horizontal lines across the first image.

Which are anomalous because...?

[Data Cable]

piper said:

I also don't accept just any photos on some anonymous untitled university webpage as being true unedited NASA photos, either.

Then how about the Apollo Project Image Gallery, Apollo 15 page 2.

[Count Zero]

piper said:

I never said they had the exact same places, and the rock moves in the shots so they are not taken from the same position. I don't believe they're stars or planets, or radiation.

Right, so your first question still remains, and it's a good one: What are those white dots? By comparing different scans we can rule-out possibilities. If they are on some low-res scans, but not on the higher ones (which, btw, were taken from the originals), we can safely say that these are artifacts in reproduction.

A bad roll is possible, as the only "true" anomalous object in the first photo is at the far left edge of the shot.

Look at the high-res versions of the same images (linked in DataCable's post). The artifacts show up much more clearly, and you can trace them intermittantly all the way across both images.

Here is the roll from Apollo 16 that I was talking about (Magazine E/116, high-res version here). The dark blobs look very similar, and are repeated from frame to frame.

As for saying the photos contradict what I believe, I never even stated what I believe so that makes no sense.

Forgive the knee-jerk reaction some of the more enthusiastic members, here. At the mention of the word "anomally" some peoples' heads explode. This is a Pavlovian response to the repeated misuse of this word by Hoax Believers. It wears on us, after a while.

The white dots and dark blobs are anomalous. They are unexpected features, but not without plausible explanations.

I also don't accept just any photos on some anonymous untitled university webpage as being true unedited NASA photos, either. No one is that gullible.

It's not a matter of gullibility. Actually, it's quite common for universities to serve as archives/repositories of data. It sure beats having the stuff sitting in a government warehouse somewhere next to the lost Ark of the Covenant and a sled named "Rosebud". It keeps the stuff where researchers can get at it easily. When I was at the University of Arizona in the early '80s, I spent a lot of time at the Planetary Imagery Center, looking through file cabinet after file cabinet of unpublished photos. That I was doing this when I should have been studying explains a lot about why I never graduated...

[sts60]

At the mention of the word "anomally" some peoples' heads explode.

Well, I twitched violently when I saw "Piper" had joined the board. At first, I thought you might have been the Piper of long ago from the Bad Astronomy BB. But since every post wasn't showing a closeup of a boot print and insisting it was really a long-range telephoto of spaceships, bridges, etc., you are obviously not that Piper.

[gwiz]

Sigh. Another good thread hi-jacked.