Solved: "Alien" with "shadow" on the Moon [Debris in Camera]

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
On Google Moon at 27°34'26.35" -19°36'4.75"

20140813-174459-bu2zu.jpg


UPDATE: Thanks to @Trailblazer, who discovered this is just some debris on the lens (or inside the camera) which appears at regular intervals on the series of images that Google Moon uses.



And comparing the same locations on two sequential original photos reveals both this bit of dirt, and another one over to the right:
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_name=AS15-M-1151&popup=true


There are lots of other bits of dirt, like this giant jellyfish.



Nasa was aware of the blemishes. They were analysed by Arizona State University when the film was digitally scanned.

http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/ABOUT_SCANS/


This video shows the "jellyfish" bit of dirt moving across the frame. It almost gives the illusion that it's moving across the Moon.

 
Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
At on the moon 27°34'26.35" -19°36'4.75"

View attachment 8436

Zooming in there's a sharp discontinuity cutting though the shape.


This makes me think it's an artifact from two images being stitched together, images that were taken at different times.

It's also possible that the pixels near the join were stretched a little.
Is the "alien" or artifact still there, or was this a precise time reference? If it were an artifact from 2 images shouldn't they line up. Could it be as simple as the surface getting disturbed by a meteorite hitting the surface or rolling acros the surface?
 

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member.
Take a look at the crators and wich parts of them are dark and wich are ligthened.

Light comes from the buttom of the image, so the buttom part of the "alien" cant be the shadow of it.
 

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member.
The suggestion is the bottom half is the alien, the top half is the shadow.
Oooops! My suggestion at first sight was completly different. Moon has no atmosphere, so there is no refraction wich could make the shadow wider than the object making the shadow. For me, it's obvios that that the upper part must be the"alien" and the buttom could be a shadow. And this just doesnt fit to pictures from am emviroment with no air causing refraction.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
For me, it's obvios that that the upper part must be the"alien" and the buttom could be a shadow.
To my eye (and looking at the direction the craters....concave depressions....are shadowed)....also keeping in mind this is an almost straight-down view of the Lunar surface....

....the "alien" would thus be seen standing erect (unless it was sunbathing!) and the shadow would fall approximately in line with the other shadows. In that OP image, the light source (Sun) would be oriented at the bottom of the picture....this I base on the crater shadows.

It's fairly low in resolution, and should be noted that would have been taken from quite a very high altitude above the surface...IOW, those distinct craters are many, many meters in diameter from that distance. As compared to a few meters or less. This is a common conceptual problem with Lunar imagery...there are no familiar and fixed "size references" available (unless a scale of distance is added to the pic).
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
You would think a 150 foot tall Alien would be clearly seen.

"After millennia of battle the surviving G'Gugvuntt and Vl'hurg realised what had actually happened, and joined forces to attack the Milky Way in retaliation. They crossed vast reaches of space in a journey lasting thousands of years before reaching their target where they attacked the first planet they encountered, Earth. Due to a terrible miscalculation of scale the entire battle fleet was swallowed by a small dog. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy states that this sort of thing happens all the time."
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
This makes me think it's an artifact from two images being stitched together, images that were taken at different times.

It's also possible that the pixels near the join were stretched a little.
The moon is something of a pet subject of mine, so I can give chapter and verse on this one.

Google Moon images are taken from a number of sources, most of which are old analogue photographs.

This particular frame is from the mapping camera on Apollo 15, back in 1971. This camera was part of the Scientific Instrument Module mounted on the Service Module which remained in orbit around the moon while the Lunar Module landed on the moon. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_15/experiments/

The mapping camera took around 2000 images of the lunar surface, and every single one of them (as far as I can see) features this object in the same area of the frame. It is a piece of debris (hair/fluff) in the optics of the camera, likely held close to the film plane as it is fairly sharp and appears to cast a shadow.

Here is an animated GIF of just four of those frames showing the "object" appearing in different places on the moon.

output_qFrMQz.gif

The exact frame used on Google Moon appears to be this one, captured from an altitude of 100.89km above the surface: http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_name=AS15-M-1151&popup=true

You can zoom in on the image and see the bit of fluff. This screenshot shows you the area to zoom in on (blue square). Note that the image in the OP is rotated through 90 degrees.

Capture.PNG
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It is a piece of debris (hair/fluff) in the optics of the camera, likely held close to the film plane as it is fairly sharp and appears to cast a shadow.
Excellent, thank you! I've updated the OP. There's also another bit of dirt on the shot. Probably there are many.


Edit: like:
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Yes, there is all manner of fluff and dirt all over those images.

If you look just above the centre of the image, roughly a third of the way from the top, there's a giant "jellyfish"!
Capture.PNG

And, strictly, the dirt probably wasn't on the lens but in the innards of the camera. If it was on the lens itself then it wouldn't cast a sharp image on the film.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
If it was on the lens itself then it wouldn't cast a sharp image on the film.
Yes, I had that experience with my very old (circa 1974) Minolta SRT-101 film camera. It eventually got a bit dirty inside, and needed to be professionally cleaned. Debris on the mirror, or other places (depending on the exact design of the camera) can be defined sharply on the film emulsion when exposed.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, there is all manner of fluff and dirt all over those images.

If you look just above the centre of the image, roughly a third of the way from the top, there's a giant "jellyfish"!
View attachment 8443

By the way I just edited an error in the bit of my post that you quoted. I meant to write "close to the plane of the film". And, strictly, the dirt probably wasn't on the lens but in the innards of the camera. If it was on the lens itself then it wouldn't cast a sharp image on the film.
And on the next frame.


I wonder if this might actually be dirt on the scanner, on Earth? Not part of the original image at all?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I wonder if this might actually be dirt on the scanner, on Earth? Not part of the original image at all?
And yes, this also must be considered, because there are certainly many instances of this, during that era (pre-digital photography technology).
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
And on the next frame.
I wonder if this might actually be dirt on the scanner, on Earth? Not part of the original image at all?
It is possible. I have seen it discussed on other forums and the consensus was that it was in the camera. You would think that if it was on the scanner it wouldn't appear on every single frame in the same place, for over 2,000 frames, but I suppose it can't be ruled out.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It is possible. I have seen it discussed on other forums and the consensus was that it was in the camera. You would think that if it was on the scanner it wouldn't appear on every single frame in the same place, for over 2,000 frames, but I suppose it can't be ruled out.
True, unless they scanned all the film at the same time on an automated scanner.
 

Jason

Senior Member
The mapping camera took around 2000 images of the lunar surface, and every single one of them (as far as I can see) features this object in the same area of the frame. It is a piece of debris (hair/fluff) in the optics of the camera, likely held close to the film plane as it is fairly sharp and appears to cast a shadow.
It is possible. I have seen it discussed on other forums and the consensus was that it was in the camera. You would think that if it was on the scanner it wouldn't appear on every single frame in the same place, for over 2,000 frames, but I suppose it can't be ruled out.
Don't mean to sound like a layman here, but how does "dirt" get on the lens of an object in space? If it was dirt or something else, wouldn't or shouldn't we be able to see the same artificat in images taken immediately prior and after this image.
 

Jason

Senior Member
It floats onto it.

"BEEP BEEP Richie! They ALL float down here. When you're down here with us, you'll float too!"
So it's floating dirt, and it doesn't "stay" on the lens it only bounces off the lens causing disruption only to a few photos?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
So it's floating dirt, and it doesn't "stay" on the lens it only bounces off the lens causing disruption only to a few photos?
The mass of the satellite keeps it stuck to the lens? Static charge keeps it stuck?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So it's floating dirt, and it doesn't "stay" on the lens it only bounces off the lens causing disruption only to a few photos?
No. It's on all the photos in the same spot. So it's likely inside the camera (or possibly the scanner). It's very small - a microscopic speck of dust.
 

Jason

Senior Member
The mass of the satellite keeps it stuck to the lens? Static charge keeps it stuck?
So how do they "edit" the dust out of future photos, if the dust never leaves the satellite. Windshied wipers, anyone? Joking aside, what happens when the lens builds up too much dust and debri. Do they sit there editing photos all day long to take out the artifacts?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
So how do they "edit" the dust out of future photos, if the dust never leaves the satellite. Windshied wipers, anyone? Joking aside, what happens when the lens builds up too much dust and debri. Do they sit there editing photos all day long to take out the artifacts?
Homeless Alien cleaned the screen for three-fidy.
 

Jason

Senior Member
No. It's on all the photos in the same spot. So it's likely inside the camera (or possibly the scanner). It's very small - a microscopic speck of dust.
I'd imagine there must be a great deal of "WTF" when images come back from a multimillion dollar camera in space with artifacts in the image because of a peice of dust or dirt from earth. Someone is probably out of a job!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So how do they "edit" the dust out of future photos, if the dust never leaves the satellite. Windshied wipers, anyone? Joking aside, what happens when the lens builds up too much dust and debri. Do they sit there editing photos all day long to take out the artifacts?
There's no dust gently floating around in space. More of a concern is micrometeorites. The dirt in the camera was likely there when it took off from Earth.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
So how do they "edit" the dust out of future photos, if the dust never leaves the satellite. Windshied wipers, anyone? Joking aside, what happens when the lens builds up too much dust and debri. Do they sit there editing photos all day long to take out the artifacts?
The photos in question were taken from a camera on board Apollo 15, which was technically a satellite of the moon, but not what most people would think of as a satellite! The dirt, if it was in the camera, was presumably in the camera before it left Earth.

The dirt was never removed, as it appeared on every single one of the frames taken from that camera.

As for other satellites outside the atmosphere, I wouldn't expect dirt to gather on the lens. I do know that dust is a problem on the Mars rovers, as it can cover solar panels and reduce power.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The dirt in the camera was likely there when it took off from Earth.
Yes. But, perhaps not on the optics of the camera initially. (These would have been fastidiously cleaned).

During the launch there is a great deal of vibration. Any lapse of "clean-room" protocols could have allowed tiny dust particles into the camera, and then they could have dislodged from whatever crevice they were in during the vibration, then deposited on the optic elements of the camera.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
There's no dust gently floating around in space. More of a concern is micrometeorites. The dirt in the camera was likely there when it took off from Earth.
It's not a micrometeorite until it lands on Earth. In space they are called micrometeoroids and are as small as dust particles.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/micrometeoroid

On Earth as small as 50 microns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometeorite
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It was in the camera:
http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/ABOUT_SCANS/


 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Interesting video:

(added to the end of the OP, looks like you can't play a video twice on a page).
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Solved: Portsmouth UK, "Alien Flight Path" UFO Contrail [Private Jet + Perspective] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
Christophe Isbert The Mississippi Triangle Mystery (status: solved or probably solved) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
M Solved: MH17: is this part of a missile? [Concrete Grinding Pads] Flight MH17 13
Mick West Solved: U-Shaped Contrail near San Francisco [NASA502 Survey, again] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
MikeC Solved: Tube in MH 17 wreckage?? [9m111 anti-tank rocket from old Il-76 footage] Flight MH17 22
Ezswo [Solved] MH-17 was 9M-MRD, so Why are there photos of 9M-MRC? ['D' partially obscured] Flight MH17 204
Mick West Solved: Strange Beam of Light over Mayan Temple and Florida [Lightning + Rolling Shutter Artifact] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 81
P Needs Debunking: "Alien interview" from the documentary Area 51: Alien interview UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
RevenTexX 2006 Zdany Mazovia, Poland UFO Sighting. UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 23
Mick West Explained: RARE Video Footage of "Alien Space Craft" WATCHING ISS Astronaut! UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West TFTRH #23: Ian/TheoryQED: UFOs, Government Cover-ups, and Alien Visitors. Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 32
Laurdhavemercy UFO.. drone maybe? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
P Bizarre alien ship spotted by ISS! Or, you know, maybe not UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
P Debunked: NASA Nukes Alien Moonbase UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 15
RFMarine stereotypical alien "grey", due to alien sightings or not? UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Mark Barrington Claim: Rock with "appendages" on Mars is an alien or fossil UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 24
Tony_Sigel Debunked: Chang'e-2 photos of Alien Base on Moon [Hoax] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 14
N Debunked: Nuclear cloud on Indian Mars Orbiter image Conspiracy Theories 29
RFMarine Rosetta: Alien structures UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 42
Mick West Identified: 'Alien' sea creature with 100 arms UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Jason Debunked: Planet sized object (ALIENS) caught by SOHO UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 10
Mick West Debunked: Alien Skeleton [Rodent, probably Squirrel] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Mick West Debunked: Alien Pilot The Extraordinary Plane, UFO In Transformation Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Hevach Debunked: UFO with alien head sticking out in Google Map [Lensflare & JPEG artifacts] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
Rroval A UFO/Alien video I found from FB UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
Eden Debunked: Mysterious/Alien Pyramid inside Area 51/NTS/NNSS Conspiracy Theories 20
Emeline "Alien Creature Caught in Russia" [Slender Man Hoax] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Mick West Debunked: Alien Base on the Moon, Triangle of Dots [photo artifact] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 56
nanotchi Debunked: Iran claims Snowden Documents Proving “US-Alien-Hitler” Link Stun Russia [Sorcha Faal] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
Rroval Video: "BREAKING!!! UFO ALIEN DISCLOSURE by Canadian Minister of Defense May 2013 " UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 13
Mat Ripe for Debunking: Alien Contact - The Message UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 7
Mick West Debunked: Alien Base on Mars: "Bio-Station Alpha" UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
Patrick Gonzalez Need help explaining: NASA images of Earth from 2017 eclipse show different shadow sizes Flat Earth 2
Cassi O Explain the DOWNWARDS mountain peak shadow at Sunrise Flat Earth 4
Mick West Shockwave Shadow and Refraction Spikes Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 16
Bunkmeister Need help with calculating vertical speed of ascending shadow at sunset Flat Earth 13
Mick West Illusion of Contrail Asymmetry from Flying perpendicular to the Sun Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
Z.W. Wolf Claim: The Moon's Shadow During The Solar Eclipse Disproves Sphere Earth Flat Earth 97
Mick West Explained: Moon Terminator/Shadow UFOs UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Mick West Double "Black Beam" Contrail Edge Shadow over Mt Shasta Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 2
JFDee Exemplary contrail shadow over Montreal Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Mick West Contrail Shadowing another Contrail Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
TEEJ Aerodynamic Contrail/Shadow Peoria, Arizona, 25 November 2015 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Mick West Dark Beam in front of a Contrail, Massa, Italy [Edge Shadow] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
S Persistent Spreading Contrail Contrails and Chemtrails 4
S Contrail shadow Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Mick West Dark Line in Sky over Vancouver Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 18
Mick West NASA Orion Mission Contrail Shadow Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Stephanie Cloud Shadow? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West Calgary Sunset Contrail with Shadow Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 12
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top