Yet More Apollo UFOs Revealed.

Strange. I keep subscribing to LunaCognita’s YouTube channel, but it just doesn’t stick for some reason.

In any event, the nearly year-old second video in this thread caught my eye in a thread about it at my hangout, ATS, started by Arken. Being, as many of you know, a fan of LC’s work, I needed to share it with you and wound up including the first video shown here, which is a very recent one.

On this first one, Luna uses the frame stacking technique to bring out the details. For the doubters let me just say that this method is 100% legitimate, is used daily by photographers the world over and works really well. It is very handy and I have used it myself with great results. It is not destructive in the slightest, quite the opposite, actually, it does not add anything that is not already there. Luna adds a touch of contrast is added later here to bring the thingies out just a bit more and that is quite alright considering the condition of the initial frames.

One wonders if the objects are what was intended to be filmed.

I would imagine so, as film stock was a finite commodity.

There are some who might say that these are detritus within the camera or the command module. I’ll just say they certainly don’t seem that way to me.

Uploaded by LunaCognita on Jan 18, 2012

Hi again everyone. This presentation focuses on taking a closer look at a 23.5-second segment of 16mm DAC motion picture footage from the NASA archives that was originally exposed over 40 years ago during the Apollo 12 mission (November 1969). This footage was shot with the DAC camera mounted near a window in the Command/Service Module while the spacecraft was in lunar orbit above the Moon.

Unfortunately, this raw footage, as it is officially archived by NASA, appears to have been over-exposed and accidentally ruined when the lens on the 16mm DAC camera aboard the spacecraft somehow became unintentionally fogged over shortly before filming began. Because of this, this film sequence only affords us a blurry, obfuscated view out the spacecraft window, showing an oblique look at the sunlit (and overexposed) lunar surface with a portion of the lunar limb also visible.

While the raw footage is of poor quality, it does however still contain some viable image data that can be recovered and revealed thru enhancement. The application of various frame-stacking and averaging enhancement techniques can allow us to extract significantly more detail from the scene than the raw archive frames of footage alone appear to surrender. These stack enhancements will allow you to see what appears to be at least three unidentified objects transiting in front of the lunar disc that were actually caught on film here.

Unfortunately, the lack of viable image data and over-exposed nature of the raw footage provides does not allow for a high-detail look at these three distinct contrast targets, so that raises the possibility that one of these moving contrast targets is actually a shadow from one of the unidentified objects above being dropped onto the lurain. The high sun angle that we know was illuminating this scene at the time could certainly allow for that possibility, but would require us to make the unsupported assumption that these unidentified objects are very close to the Moon and are scooting just above the lunar surface.

The reality is that there is simply no way to accurately determine or even estimate any range or size data for these unidentified objects shown. What we can say is that multiple objects can be seen transiting the lunar disc here and can be determined to at the time have been located somewhere in 3-D object space between the camera aboard the CSM spacecraft and the surface of the Moon.

Cheers everyone, and thanks for watching!
LunaCognita

Pretty neat, eh?

I think so.

On to the next one.

The description below pretty much says it all as usual. And as usual the production values are to a very high standard which I appreciate being trained as a filmmaker and all. Wish I could find my old After Effects CD in the rubble of my local environs. Had to put in a new C drive array, needs to go back in. Luna’s films always stoke that urge in me and I do actually have a very interesting sequence of still images that are just itching to be a joined together as a movie. The depression always gets in the way, though. Always. Oh, man, I hope they’re not on the dead Glyph, as I can’t afford to send it out for repair and naturally it’s a stripe so the data on it is in cosmic hands. Sigh.

Good gracious, how did that off topic rant get in here? Didn’t derail things too badly, methinks.

Respected realist Phage, who I like a lot, was saying, among others, that some of the irregularly shaped objects you will see are the aforementioned detritus and anomalies with the film or processing or scanning. Maybe some are. Maybe not. I have seen such flaws on many images. Many are quite obvious and some scanner dust artifacts can look pretty strange. Some of them here at the least I would say are surely not flaws.

Man, I haven‘t pored over “originals” in so long and now don’t have much time to do it anyway, but, I finally got a nice big tiff of the image with the notorious Shard on it yesterday. As is so typical, however, I’ve not even opened it yet. But at least I have it. Always wanted it. Go me.

Anyway, I could go on and on like that for ages, so to spare you from further horror I will say here you go…

Uploaded by LunaCognita on Mar 11, 2011

This presentation is a simple compilation of some more anomalous photographs and 16mm DAC film footage that I have archived during my years of research and investigation looking into the activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The images and footage shown here were taken during the Apollo program, filmed by the astronaut flight crews during their journeys to and from the Moon.

Most of what I show here involves “lunar transients” – unidentified objects in space that were captured on film as they transited in front of (or passed near) a celestial body such as the Moon or Earth. I believe many of these objects are not on the lunar surface, but rather were above the lunar surface when captured on film.

I also include several examples of NASA image obfuscation as well, just to help highlight the fact that the space agency also removes anomalous objects from frame in order to “sanitize” scenes prior to official archive release so as to ensure they do not reveal too much of the truth about what is really up there.

Hope you enjoy!
Cheers,
LC

Here are a few links to the last set of images I show, dealing with the detection of cropping obfuscation being employed to sanitize the scenes.
NASA “Gateway” archive link to frame#AS11-36-5319 – shows object off the Earth’s limb.
http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=AS11&roll=36&f…

NASA “LPI” archive version of #AS11-36-5319 that does not show the object (residue of the cropping is detectable under enhancement)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/36/5319.jpg

Cropping proof – second last image shown (AS16-118-18873).
ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/miscellaneous/planetary/apollo/a16_h_118_18873.tiff

Cropping proof – Last image shown (AS13-60-8588).
ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/miscellaneous/planetary/apollo/a13_h_60_8588.tiff

Thanks, Cary, well done, man, well done.

Peace.

NASA’s Apollo 17 “Hand Job” – More evidence of the Apollo lies

Now this is fascinating… something I had not thought about, except very briefly a good many years ago.

Cary Martynuik, as LunaCognita, comes through once again with another well researched forensic video disclosing yet another of NASA’s obfuscations. The matter in this instance being exceptional and seriously annoying damage and lasting trauma to the astronaut’s hands resulting from the design of their spacesuit gloves, which they complained about. A lot.

Just how many of these little cover ups are there? And will we ever learn about them all? I hope so. It’s even more fascinating than the story as presented to us all in my opinion…

You’re likely questioning the sincerity of my statement regarding having had thoughts about this rather obscure matter long ago. That’s good! You should do that a lot in your life.

If life had progressed “normally” I have no problem stating that never would I have even thought about this matter for a second. But, being a Fortean life didn’t progress in a mainstream fashion and in the year 2000 I found myself at a conference in Maryland hosted by the International Fortean Organization. A conference where the late moon hoax proponent Ralph René, author of the then new book entitled NASA Mooned America, was to speak on the Sunday.

As you know I am decidedly not a fan of the whole moon hoax scene, so while I was interested to actually hear a presentation by one of these guys, I would be a very difficult sell. I sat next to him at dinner, but I now regret just being polite and not really asking him anything at all. Yeah, I missed a great opportunity. Do that a lot, it seems. Anyway, I just could not get past thinking of him as a complete wingnut, you see. The experience I will get into in a minute did not help the situation. Things haven’t changed much since then on that score, but Cary now has me thinking about this seemingly significant matter. I just find the source of where I heard the one and only other mention of this issue in my life rather interesting.

OK, here it comes… At his presentation, René had brought along a prop, a prop which he displayed on a small table at the front and center of the room. He invited all of us to try it out. This prop consisted of a pair of period NASA spacesuit gloves mounted on a stand, at about waist high given the table, the open ends facing us! Where he got this pair of gloves was not explained. Neither was their authenticity explained, other than his verbal claim that these were in fact the real deal.

So, naturally, I tried them out as did a few others, well, I tried the right hand one at least. It was stiff and I mean really stiff, almost like he had made them himself out of some sort of papier-mâché type material. They were quite a large size and the insides were hard and very rough. There were no liners, just the “shells.” It was weird. My mind recoiled. I tried to flex them and don’t remember being too successful at it. I think they did a little bit, but really… no one could use such gloves to do much of anything, let alone operate a Hasselblad, so, not being able in the moment to get my mind around the dilemma, I thought they were fake… and at any rate, how in the heck could he, a sworn enemy of the agency, acquire a pair of NASA spacesuit gloves?

I left it at that… hasn’t entered my mind in eleven years… until now…

Uploaded by LunaCognita on Sep 4, 2011

In this presentation, we will be taking a comprehensive look at an evidence contradiction from the Apollo 17 mission. Specifically, the discrepancies in NASA’s Apollo 17 mission archives highlighted here are related to the hand and finger injuries that astronauts Cernan and Schmitt suffered during their 22 hours and 4 minutes of EVAs outside on the lunar surface.

We begin here by first examining the official NASA archive evidence from Apollo 17 (evidence recorded both during and after the mission) to conclusively demonstrate that the idea of “significant hand trauma” suffered by the Apollo moonwalkers due to the design limitations of their EV pressure gloves was most definitely a very serious and recognized problem that could not be avoided. That evidence is important to appreciate because it clearly establishes both the legitimacy and severity of the declared hand and finger trauma that Apollo 17 astronauts Cernan and Schmitt both extensively admit to suffering from.

The presentation then moves on to more closely examining the discrepancies between what the official historical record tells us happened to Cernan and Schmitt’s hands during the mission versus what we see (or rather, do not see) in the available mission archive image evidence. As this examination will show you, the descriptive testimony from Cernan and Schmitt regarding their hand and finger trauma simply does not appear to match the official NASA photographic public archive evidence from their mission.

This evidence does not mean that Apollo 17 astronauts Cernan, Schmitt and Evans did not journey to the Moon. I personally do not doubt at all that Cernan and Schmitt landed on the lunar surface and walked around up there, and I am also quite sure that the hand and finger trauma they so vividly describe suffering was real and most definitely did occur.

What really happened during the Apollo Program was a multi-faceted series of lies that were designed to protect the “greater truths” about those missions by hiding them from the public behind a well-built cover-story veil – the implementation of which was covertly justified by the Powers That Be under the auspices of “maintaining global security and stability.”

This evidence shown here in this presentation is highlighting just one discrepancy of many that exist in the public Apollo archives, and it helps to further demonstrate that the official historical record claims of what happened (and when) during the Apollo Program is not necessarily the “complete and uncensored” truth that so many still believe it to be.

For anyone interested in checking the accuracy of the claims I make in this video, here below is a link to the official Apollo 17 Photographic Index from the NASA archives. In this document, you can see that all the 35mm imagery I show in this presentation was indeed exposed during “TEC” (Trans-Earth Coast), which was during the return journey to Earth after the moonwalks had already taken place.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.photidx.pdf

Cheers everyone,
LunaCognita

###

Two Heaping Helpings Of Apollo Image Anomalies!

Due to new and debilitating circumstances which will prevail for a while, my escalating despondency precludes writing much of anything, but I’m dealing with it. Today wasn’t so bad after all. It’s just so hard. If you only knew. I do surely want to post stuff, as WATT is one of the few things I’ve got to hold on to. So in light of that, here is something for you to enjoy in the interim that I find rather exciting. As usual, Luna has compiled some truly fascinating material:

Uploaded by LunaCognita on Mar 11, 2011

This presentation is a simple compilation of some more anomalous photographs and 16mm DAC film footage that I have archived during my years of research and investigation looking into the activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The images and footage shown here were taken during the Apollo program, filmed by the astronaut flight crews during their journeys to and from the Moon.
Most of what I show here involves “lunar transients” – unidentified objects in space that were captured on film as they transited in front of (or passed near) a celestrial body such as the Moon or Earth. I believe many of these objects are not on the lunar surface, but rather were above the lunar surface when captured on film.

I also include several examples of NASA image obfuscation as well, just to help highlight the fact that the space agency also removes anomalous objects from frame in order to “sanitize” scenes prior to official archive release so as to ensure they do not reveal too much of the truth about what is really up there.

Hope you enjoy!
Cheers,
LC

Here is a link to an ongoing forum discussion regarding some of what is shown in this video.
http://magic-ufo.forum-phpbb.in/t1122-nasa-s-anomalies-above-the-moon-ufos-ca… (Ed. Note: Defunct.)

Here are a few links to the last set of images I show, dealing with the detection of cropping obfuscation being employed to sanitize the scenes
.
NASA “Gateway” archive link to frame#AS11-36-5319 – shows object off the Earth’s limb.
http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=AS11&roll=36&f…

NASA “LPI” archive version of #AS11-36-5319 that does not show the object (residue of the cropping is detectable under enhancement)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/36/5319.jpg

Cropping proof – second last image shown (AS16-118-18873).
ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/miscellaneous/planetary/apollo/a16_h_118_18873.tiff

Cropping proof – Last image shown (AS13-60-8588).
ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/miscellaneous/planetary/apollo/a13_h_60_8588.tiff

My favorite bit in that collection are the two objects shown landing (as opposed to crashing) between 1:10 and 1:30. I note with excitement that they both land in the very same crater / depression. And that, my friends is why I refer to them as landing. Additionally, they are way too slow to be meteoritic objects impinging on the lunar surface. Absolutely my favorite scene. To date, anyway.

I like, a lot, the rectangular thingie that starts at 3:58, too, as I’ve always had a soft spot for rectangular UFOs; I mean, it’s just so aerodynamically wrong… and also the “pole” that follows. Nice.

And now for part 2:

Uploaded by LunaCognita on Mar 28, 2011

Hello everyone. Since I received such a positive reaction to my last video –http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FI_ZFYCIR0 – (Ed. Note: Shown above.) – I decided to continue the compilation theme here with this new production, highlighting a few more Apollo image anomalies that I have cataloged over my years of researching this incredible subject matter.
Hope you enjoy!

REGARDING FRAME 20680 – the “PYRAMID” frame from Apollo 17 (the very last image I show in this presentation) –
here below is a link where you can read my direct rebuttal to the skeptic claims that the “Pyramid” frame from Apollo 17 (20680) is actually just showing a part of the LRV during EVA2 @ Nansen. That debunker claim is entirely inaccurate, and the fully verifiable evidence I provide you at this link PROVES that you have been grossly and deliberately misled by NASA and the ALSJ online archive website as to the true “where and when” that frame 20680 was actually exposed.

EDIT – Sorry gang, the entire MagicUFOForum where this evidence was posted has for some reason that I am unaware of been removed from the web entirely, without even the Google cache links working any longer. All the evidence I and others had posted to that forum over the past year and a half (including the evidence regarding this Pyramid frame) has been removed from the Web entirely!

I will post a new link to that evidence as soon as I find a new forum or blog where I can re-post it to. I just want you to be aware I am trying to hide any evidence here by deliberately sending you to a dead link, and in the meantime anyone who wants a copy of my rebuttal can feel free to email me at lunacognita@gmail.com and I will be happy to send it to you directly that way.

After you understand the facts and see with your own eyes the provable, verifiable cataloging games NASA played with that Pyramid frame in order to bury it in the archives for decades, it might make you wonder why a site like the MagicUFOForum, where this kind of evidence and explanation was originally posted, no longer exists to be viewed by anyone. Sometimes telling the truth can have consequences!

Cheers everyone, and I apologize again that the link to that evidence I posted on the MagicUFOforum is now dead.

LunaCognita

Ah… great! At 2:23 we have my little moon buddy, the seriously mysterious “thing on the boulder” … another fave… and the sky enhancements at 6:43 and again at 7:09 just blow me away.

The Apollo crew members have stated officially that the comment about “visitors” was in reference to some shenanigans played on them by the technical folks back home involving placing some annoying reminders (in the form of patches) of plans that went awry for them in every nook and cranny, which is okay with me and I can even believe it, but, I still get the feeling, deep down inside, even though I know all that and they themselves said it, that, well, you know… I believe my memory has recalled that story right as an overview.

I hope you enjoyed these as much as I have. Major props to Luna for work well above and way beyond the call of duty.

Peace.

LunaCognita on An Eagle’s Ascent From Tranquility Base.

Will try to write more and sidestep the depression a bit, but until then… this quickie post will have to do. It presents WATT friend and reader (!) LunaCognita’s latest film, an unprecedented proper look at the footage of the lift off of the Lunar Module from the end of the Apollo 11 mission. He pretty much explains what’s what with it below, but, do note that near to and again at the end of this clip there are two unidentified objects seen landing…

and they both land…

in the very same spot!

LunaCognita | December 31, 2010

This presentation shows the 16mm Data Acquisition Camera (DAC) footage that was shot during the Apollo 11 ascent from Tranquility Base. In this ascent footage, the DAC motion picture camera was mounted in the right side forward-facing (LMP) window of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module “Eagle”, providing us a view looking down at the Moon’s surface as the LM ascent stage fires and sends the spacecraft on its way back up to lunar orbit for rendezvous and docking with the CSM “Columbia”.

Rather than just showing the raw footage here as it is cataloged in the NASA film archives, I instead show the footage in a rotation-corrected format in order to always keep the scene in it’s proper “horizon up” viewing orientation throughout the duration of the clip. This proper “horizon up” perspective can be established based on some simple visual criteria, with the goal being to ensure we are viewing the footage with the lunar surface being shown so that the Moon’s horizon that is closest to the camera’s current principle point always remains aligned and level towards the top of the field-of-view (even if the horizon itself is not actually visible at the time). This ensures that the surface scene you are viewing can be accurately interpreted.

As you can see in this footage, the rotation correction to align the scene to the “horizon up” viewing perspective is an absolutely vital adjustment that must be applied first in order to be able to even begin attempting to analyze and interpret scenes such as this one accurately. Because the DAC camera was hard-mounted in the window of the LM during liftoff from the lunar surface, this meant that the standard locked display perspective that NASA provides in their archive clips showing the Apollo ascent footage is ALWAYS displaying the lunar surface scene below in an inaccurate perspective. For over 40 years, the public has actually been watching ascent footage like this from the various Apollo missions where the lunar surface after liftoff is being shown essentially upside down (between 135 to 180 degrees off of the “horizon up” viewing perspective).

The point to this simple presentation is to merely serve as a reminder to everyone who is interested in doing their own analysis of ANY of the Apollo DAC footage or still frames of the lunar surface to always consider the question of “what is the proper viewing perspective for each scene?” The ugly fact is that the vast majority of the Apollo DAC footage and still frames, as they are archived by NASA, are not presenting their lunar surface scenes to you in anything close to the proper “horizon up” viewing orientation that our eyes expect to see. Obviously, unless this improper viewing perspective is corrected for first, you have very little chance of being able to analyze the scenes you are looking at with any degree of accuracy at all.

In addition to the rotation-correction, I also was forced to make several frame-rate adjustments to this Apollo 11 DAC footage, and the reason for that is because just before the four-minute mark after liftoff, the 16mm DAC camera suddenly alters it frame exposure rate, switching from 12 frames-per-second (the proper declared setting for filming the liftoff and ascent) down to 6 fps. I have no idea how or why this sudden frame-rate setting change occurs, because adjusting the DAC camera’s fps setting “on the fly” was certainly not one of LMP Buzz Aldrin’s checklisted duties during ascent, and I see no mention in the Apollo 11 mission and post-mission reports to account for this anomalous occurrence. The Apollo 11 ascent footage, as it is archived by NASA, makes no attempt to correct for (or even draw attention to) this sudden step-down in frame-rate, which results in the raw archive footage appearing to suddenly show a doubling of the playback speed. In addition to this, NASA typically renders their HD digital DAC archive at 29.97 NSTC, resulting in further interpolation stretching being introduced in the digital footage. I have attempted to correct for this effect here in order to ensure that the playback rate of the DAC footage accurately matches the accurate timeframe that I was able to establish using the accompanying raw mission audio track and flown liftoff&ascent charts – essentially using the accurate audio timeline to re-synchronize the inaccurate video playback rate so they match up correctly for the duration of the nearly 10-minute complete sequence of footage showing the Apollo 11 ascent from Tranquility Base.
http://magic-ufo.forum-phpbb.in/t871-…
Cheers everyone,
LC

If you’d like to check it out, there is a nice discussion of this work going on over at ATS. Short so far and very well reasoned.

LunaCognita Gets Forensic On Apollo

Ah, great, here’s the new vid from LunaCognita that looks into more of the footage shot during the Apollo missions. I posted a bit about the trailer for it a little while ago on this blog.

Actually, I’m holding out hope that this is only a part of a bigger picture… there’s some cool anomaly shots in it to be sure… including a truly inexplicable boomerang shaped thing… you’ll see… but my thirst for more and more weirdness is strong; and the second half presents a visual representation of the results of frame stacking, as explained more below.

Frame stacking is an old technique that can produce some seriously spectacular results unachievable by any other method… it is very commonly used by the astronomical community and professional photographers and photographic printers alike in a process called HDR, or High Dynamic Range photography. That’s printers as in people, not machines, by the way.

A very handy link was found at NASA’s History site in a section on Apollo 12’s approach and landing by Easynow over at ATS… it goes into some detail, with pics, about the DAC camera and its mountings, view angles and other good stuff… please do check it out, it’s pretty cool.

NASA’s Apollo Coverup – A Forensic Look At The 16mm DAC Film Footage

Subscribe

LunaCognita
March 16, 2010

In this presentation, we will focus on taking a closer look at several interesting segments of film footage from the NASA archives. All the footage shown and analyzed here was originally shot by NASA astronauts during the Apollo missions (1968-1972) on 16mm film, using what was known as the “Data Acquisition Camera” – the “DAC”.

The Maurer “DAC” cameras were modified variable frame rate 16mm motion picture film cameras used by the various Apollo crews throughout their missions to film scenes of interest through the windows of the spacecraft, interior spacecraft activities, as well as to shoot exterior footage during lunar surface “moonwalk” operations and Low-Earth Orbit or Trans-Earth-Coast EVA ops in cis-lunar space.

I included a bit more information on the Apollo DAC camera in the brief writeup I did attached to the earlier teaser/trailer video for this presentation – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo81LM…

FRAME-STACKING
In the last half of this presentation (starting at 4:30), I show various examples where I employ an enhancement technique known as “frame-stacking” against the raw DAC archive footage. In certain cases, frame-stacking can be employed to forensically attack the raw frames of film and produce an enhanced composite still-frame of a stable (or motion-stabilized) scene. It should be noted that “stacking” is by no means a new method of enhancing video or motion picture film footage. It is a digital enhancement technique that has been around a lot longer than most people would probably believe, and in many cases it can provide us an improved look at some of the deeper image detail that is actually buried beneath the random “noise” in the raw footage.

Frame-stacking exploits the fact that the DAC footage, like any motion picture camera or digital video footage, is comprised of many sequential still images shown in rapid succession to simulate the appearance of motion to the viewer’s eye. If the raw footage is providing us with a stable (or motion-stabilized) scene that has no or little movement in the field-of-view, it might appear that the scene is comprised of many individual photographs that all seem to capture the identical view. However, appearances can be deceiving, and the truth is that each of those individual frames making up the raw film footage have slight variances between them, with each one suffering from its own unique random noise artifacts. “Stacking” works by analyzing and comparing all the raw frames that make up a segment of footage, allowing for the detection and subtraction of random noise artifacting from each individual raw frame. Those individual cleaned frames are then stacked together in order to construct a high-resolution composite image of the captured scene.

The first two examples I show in the frame-stacking segment were included merely to demonstrate the effectiveness of this enhancement technique when employed against raw archive footage of a known object – in this case, an Apollo Lunar Module. The first example is film footage from Apollo 9 taken in low-Earth orbit with an automatic 16mm DAC camera mounted to the open hatch of the CSM aiming “up” towards the Lunar Module (which was docked to the nose of the CSM at the time). Astronaut Rusty Schweickhart (LMP) can be seen standing on the porch of the LM, where he was conducting an EVA to test and verify the performance of the Apollo A7-L spacesuit and PLSS life support pack. A magnified split-screen closeup of the LM’s Rendevzous Radar Antenna allows for a direct comparative analysis of the raw footage versus the “stacked” enhancement as an example to demonstrate the improvements in clarity that can be gained.

The second demonstration example is not actually DAC footage, but rather is television footage from the Apollo 15 mission showing the LM “Falcon” sitting on the lunar surface, taken with the tripod-mounted GCTA-TV camera. I chose this example of raw GCTA-TV footage because it clearly suffers from rather severe noise issues, providing another good demonstration of the enhancement potential that frame-stacking can offer. As you can plainly see in both the DAC and GCTA-TV examples showing the LM, the stack enhancements offer considerable improvement in image clarity, allowing us to extract detail that in some cases may appear to not even be detectable when viewing the raw footage.

This presentation here is just the first part of a multi-part series focusing on the truth (and the lies) in the Apollo DAC footage. Hope you enjoy, and stay tuned for more to come!

Cheers,
LunaCognita

Keep them coming, LC, we be diggin’ it…

Apollo. LunaCognita looks at 16mm Film Anomalies.

Madonne! Oh, man, is this good, folks… wicked good, even. Yes, dear readers, once again LunaCognita has managed to knock my socks right off with this video. Needless to say, I can hardly wait for the full version… because there are objects filmed here that I’ve not seen before, and they are spectacular. Where in the heck does LC find this stuff?

I imagine they’ve been ordered from the NASA archives, but how does one know which ones to buy? Connections within the Pegasus Research crew certainly help in that regard, but still… Oh, and, we mustn’t forget that most of the film that was shot hasn’t been released, still, as far as I am aware… oh how we’d all love to see those.

There is so much material at NASA that is classified… one wonders, if there’s nothing of interest up there besides a bunch of cool minerals… then why is there a need for assigning classified status to images, film and research documents at all? Hmmm?

This film can give some insight into that conundrum.

Amusing it is how the trolls and troglodytes commenting at YouTube call this ice and junk falling off the command and LEM modules. Too funny. Junk? Right, we build such fragile craft… Ice? Umm, this is the Moon, dude… Jeez!

Enjoy the mystery…

Hi everyone,
This brief presentation you will see here is just a bit of a teaser/trailer, showing a short segment from a larger video project I am currently in the process of working on. While the full presentation is still awhile away from being complete, I have received more than a few emails asking me about when my next video was going to come out, so I thought that in the interim, I would release this short segment just as a teaser to show a taste of some of the interesting visuals I plan to include in upcoming presentations where I will provide my own analysis of some of the Apollo-era films. All of the footage you will see here was captured on film during the Apollo missions to the Moon, shot by NASA astronauts. Originally exposed on 16mm film, this footage was taken using what was known as the “DAC” – the “Data Acquisition Camera”.Hope you enjoy,
Cheers!
LunaCognita

THE “DAC”
The Maurer “DAC” cameras used to shoot this footage were modified variable frame rate 16mm motion picture film cameras that were used by the various Apollo crews throughout their missions to the Moon to film scenes of interest through the windows of the spacecraft, as well as to shoot exterior footage during lunar surface “moonwalk” operations and Trans-Earth-Coast EVA ops in cis-lunar space during that return-to-Earth phase of the missions.

When it was being used in “automatic” mode, the DAC camera could be set by the astronaut to expose the film within it’s magazine at one of three set frame-rates – 1, 6 or 12 frames-per-second. In the 1 fps mode, the DAC also could be (and occasionally was) used as a still picture camera to shoot single frames of film.

When placed in “semi-automatic” mode, the DAC camera also offered a 24 fps filming capability, although that mode was used somewhat sparingly during the Apollo program as it only allowed for a maximum 3.7 minutes of run time before a film magazine change was required. More typically, one of the three different “auto” modes were used in order to take advantage of the frame-rate control capability to optimize film usage. These slower frame rate settings of course means that when filming in one of those modes, the DAC was functioning more as a sequential still camera rather than a true 24fps motion picture camera (I realize all motion picture film cameras are essentially stop-motion sequential still cameras, so I am referring to the frame-rate playback issues here). The DAC camera could be used as a hand-held movie camera or it could be hard-mounted to various points inside or outside the spacecraft (or to the LRV or the MET during lunar surface ops) in order to provide a stable platform and hands-free filming capability.

LunaCognita
January 20, 2010

YouTube commenter VideoGearHead said… (I thought this was nice…)

1:38 WTF?!!
1:48 busted-up glass dome?
2:21 fractured moon?
Wowa!

5 million stars!

One more thing…and this frosts my jaw the most…I watched the missions to the moon. I remember when I was in the Boy Scouts spending two bucks to have my name put on the Voyager craft. I remember waiting in anticipation to see really cool pictures of our own solar system – Saturn etc. – and remembering them not being what I expected and having to wait YEARS to see them.

Thank YOU for your vision!