UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 20

Apollo 16 Film [was: 1956 Lunar Path Light]

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5.nul>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:05:43 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:21:26 -0500
Subject: Apollo 16 Film [was: 1956 Lunar Path Light]


>From: James Oberg <joberg.nul>
>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 07:13:49 -0600
>Subject: Re: 1956 Lunar Path Light - Oberg

>>From: Nick Balaskas <Nikolaos.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:24:37 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
>>Subject: Re: 1956 Lunar Path Light

>>If you cannot get this issue of JSE through the inter-library loan
>>system, you should be able to get a complete reprint (including
>>the amazing images of an object which looks very much like a
>>classic flying saucer) ...

<snip>

>I would like to determine whether the author interviewed any of
>the witnesses or read any of the transcripts of the air-to-
>ground and the mission debriefings, or viewed any of the other
>imagery from the mission especially during this flight phase [as
>well as imagery from other missions in similar flight phases].
>And if the author did not, I am interested in his excuse.

Perhaps the "excuse" would be that there _were_ no witnesses.
Mr. Oberg has said he interviewed the Apollo 16 astronauts and
they didn't see anything, despite the fact that their camera did
see something. As in the case of the STS-48 and STS-80 videos,
the camera is the ONLY "witness."

>I would also like to determine how the author decided my opinion
>of the photograph without - as far as I can remember - asking
>me.


Mr. Oberg has been giving out his opinion for free for quite
some time now. One place he posted it is:

http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/wwwboard/messages/2094.html#followups

What's puzzling to me is that his description of the Apollo 16
film bears little resemblance to what is shown in the version
available all over the place on the net. Here are two sources,
for those who'd like to see it for themselves:

http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestapollo16.avi

http://www.geocities.com/futureshock2000/apollo16ufo.zip
(mpeg format)

In the post at the first link I cited, Mr. Oberg stated:

"After discussion on the internet, a photo technician suggested
it is a reflection of the sunlit camera lens in the Apollo
window. Support for this view is that as the hand-held camera
'jerks' back and forth, the image seems to move twice as far as
the image of the moon itself, indicated the image is not of
something bright outside the window. ..."

Running the mpeg movie slower than real time, I saw no movement
of the "image" relative to the Moon whatsoever. I couldn't find
any relative motion after measuring distances on frames grabbed
from the movie, either. Perhaps there's a version of the film
showing this relative motion, but it's not in the6-second movie
I've seen.

Oberg continues:

"...Also, the portion of the illuminated arc changes during the
sequence, as if the sunlit round object moved in and out
relative to the shadow of the window's edge. "

What the mpeg shows is that the camera pans to the right and
then back to the "object" about 5 seconds later. The illuminated
arc was considerably narrower than it was before the the camera
was jerked away. And the object (or image, if you like) was at
almost precisely the same position relative to the Moon that it
was when it first appeared.

Finally, Oberg states:

"Note also that the image is always off to the side of the
camera's main pointing, which is towards the receding moon. This
is further indication that the photographer saw nothing unusual
in his viewfinder, if he even noticed the image at all."


Unless the version I've seen is incomplete, the object is almost
dead-center in the frame when it first appears (the very first
frame of the mpeg). It's about 1/4 the way from the left edge in
the last frame when the camera pans back to it.

The lack of motion relative to the Moon indicates that the
object was not the camera lens (again, with the caveat that the
6-second version of the movie I've seen may not be incomplete).
However, I wouldn't reject the possibility that it might be a
reflection caused by some other light source other than the
camera lens in the small space of the Apollo command module
without more information. I'd be interested to read the JSE
paper to see if the author considered the reflection
possibility.


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com