From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5.nul> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:04:04 -0600 Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:20:51 -0500 Subject: Re: Apollo 16 Film - Fleming >From: James Oberg <joberg.nul> >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:56:02 -0600 >Subject: Re: Apollo 16 Film >>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5.nul> >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:05:43 -0600 >>Subject: Apollo 16 Film [was: 1956 Lunar Path Light] >>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." >By no means. Somebody who is looking at a scene and reports >there WAS no light hovering out there, is most certainly a >witness. By Fleming's definition, if in a crowd of twenty people >one points to the sky and cries, 'Look at the UFO', and the >others look up but see nothing, they don't COUNT as witnesses. >Preposterous, I'd say. What's preposterous is how Oberg struggles to equate someone claiming to see a UFO in a crowd of people who didn't see anything with a film _showing_ something that the photographer didn't happen to notice. The object (or whatever) was only visible for a little over two seconds in the version available on the net and it could have easily been missed by the photographer. >>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. >One possibility is that I was viewing the original video from >the NASA film, and the Internet UFO sites have digitized, >scanned, re-centered, and possibly contrast-enhanced the image >to appeal to their viewing audience. Another possibility is that Oberg didn't look at the Apollo 16 film very carefully. He seems to have had a similar problem with his "analysis" of the STS-48 video. The the object in the digitized version of the Apollo 16 film is near the center of the view only at the beginning of the sequence before the camera pans across the lunar horizon and at the end when it pans back in the other direction. The lunar horizon wouldn't be visible on both sides of the object if the film had been "re-centered" for digitizing, as Oberg speculates wildly.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp