Sterling,Thanks!..It seems to be the most Plausible explanation yet..And I've seen a few in a Forum I posted it in.And thanks to the other list members as well!..I was wondering about the blue light..your explanation makes the most sense.Are the Fiducials a part of the Film?..or lense? In other pics in the magazine there are other strange things..some look like comets,some like a dot..etc...I started thinking film degradation.,,anyways thanks!..And Happy Holidays Everyone!!!...Best.Kevin W.Decker.
From: "Sterling K. Webb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "kevin decker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Weird pic...Apollo 14
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:11:06 -0600
>Hi,
>
> If you take a look at the thumbnails page for
>magazine 67:
>http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/Ap14_Mag67.jpg
>you will see everything is blue-lit. These guys
>are not professional photographers and the
>Moon is a hard place to shoot pictures of. In
>photo 9384, the Sun is just outside the frame.
>Look at 9382, it's all sun flare (also 9367, 9368,
>9387, 9388, equally wasted). They tried shooting
>into the Sun (with lousy results); they tried
>shooting with the Sun behind them and got
>black shadows that stretched for yards and
>yards (low Sun angle).
>
> I now disagree with the "official" film defect
>explanation; the blue streaks in the sky are an
>internal reflection from the Sun which is just
>above and to the right of camera. The "blue
>light" (not a glow or halo) you note is nothing
>but the "blue sunlight" to be seen in every
>frame of that magazine.
>
> Remember, this is just an Earthly (and
>expensive) film camera of the 1960's, and the
>film used is just high grade 120 film just like
>you could buy for your camera, no CCD's,
>no narrowband filters, no software -- it's just
>a case of "We're going to the Moon; grab
>the camera!"
>
> The color temperature of the film used is
>not high enough for the raw sunlight of the
>Moon. I would suggest a Wratten 81 series
>filter is needed. I would recommend a strong
>81 series filter, 81D or even the 81EF, the
>so-called "mountain filter." Ever gone up high
>in the mountains, shot film, and when you got
>the photos back, everything was too blue? It's
>the film recording the UV light that you can't
>see; an 81EF will fix that. Imagine there's
>much more UV light on the Moon than on
>the Earth? (Well, yeah...)
>
> In photo 67-9384, they got a decent shot by
>shooting a scene that was mostly in shadow
>with increased exposure time (notice how
>dark the regolith is compared to the other
>shots). The longer exposure time is likely
>what allowed that faint internal reflection to
>be recorded. This sort of thing happens with
>film cameras all the time.
>
> You'll notice that it isn't "a" streak; it's two
>sets of multiple streaks, one brighter and one
>fainter. The fainter one is identical to the brighter
>one (at least in the parts we can make out) and
>at a slightly different angle. This is characteristic
>of internal reflections in a multi-element lens,
>with each element showing the reflection, although
>each element (because of differing refractivity)
>positions it differently.
>
> And lastly, the streaks are exactly one hue
>of blue, in varying intensity but all the same
>color, formed out of one narrow refracted
>hue, an optical defect, not an object. And it's
>exactly where a reflection would be cast by
>the low Sun.
>
> If we take the other tack, and say the blue
>streaks are real, we have the problem that they
>are diffuse. The camera is in focus out to infinity,
>so they would have to be diffuse object, more
>like a vapor or gasses, not a sharply defined
>dense physical object.
>
> If they were vapor reflecting sunlight
>they would have a bright spot or area since
>sunlight in a vacuum is not dispersed in all
>directions like it is inside an atmosphere; they
>don't have a specular refection, in other words.
>
> If it is a vapor, even one emitted by a moving
>object, it would have expanded in every direction
>instantly in a vacuum, regardless of motion or the
>lack of it. No way to form a "streak" or to hold
>it together.
>
> You may recall seeing the video of the ascent
>stage of the LM taking off, engines blazing. On
>Earth, in an atmosphere, the firing of a hypergolic
>fuel rocket would produce huge bright billowing
>clouds of exhaust. In the video, there is nothing
>to be seen, no light, no smoke, just an invisible
>rush of gas in every direction, like a unseen wind.
>Nothing is visible, except small objects on the
>ground blowing away.
>
> At any rate, I really don't think you got a hot
>interplanetary mystery here. Keep looking, though,
>and let me know if you discover signs of a town of
>cryoarthropods on the banks of a methane river
>on Titan.
>
> Just kidding about those cryoarthropods... mostly.
>
>
>Sterling K. Webb
>---------------------------------------------------------
>----- Original Message ----- From: kevin decker
>To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:03 PM
>Subject: [meteorite-list] Weird pic...Apollo 14
>
>
>Hello,Anybody here care to help me figure out what's in this Photo
>in the Apollo 14 Archives?..I'm stumped..:
>http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-67-9384HR.jpg
>Thanks..Kevin...:)
>
>
>
>
Experience the magic of the holidays. Talk to Santa on Messenger.
______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
