APOLLO 12 - Unidentified Objects in Lunar Orbit - STACK-ENHANCED (FOGGED FOOTAGE)

[Jogeta5]

@LunaCognita

You should try enhancing one of Jonathon reed's 1996 encounter videos to see what you could get.

[midkiffjd]

Can you turn up your mic a little?

[spottydog4477]

little green men my ass buddy.................

Another UFO crank who wants to 'believe'...

shoulda spent more time in science class buddy...

[bjm351]

cool vid but 1 question, what exactly am i lookin at? to me it seems as though theres 2 objects flying but only 1 is casting a shadow??

[LouSoufier]

Nice find!

Keep these videos coming!

[PC160]

Great job. Have you been in contact with moon views.com people?

[syk4ryo]

Sorry, but this is not a UFO. It's just some dirt on the glass of the Apollo 12.

[ericsbraun]

@syk4ryo The possibility that focal lenght and distance would make them much blurrier or not visible at all holds some water.

Speaking of water, what substance in space or during launch would allow something to stick to glass under such conditions? --massive vibration and windspeed during travel through the atmosphere and then, um, no rain or mudflaps on the UFO's in space?!?--

[syk4ryo]

@ericsbraun There is no shortage in our atmosphere is rubbish. U.S. waste in particular

[ericsbraun]

@syk4ryo there was no space rubbish issue when this was shot, space rubbish doesn't spontaneously start following to path of our vessels and there isn't any space rubbish of note orbiting the moon which is where this was shot.

[syk4ryo]

@ericsbraun The astronaut may have taken a snot nose and past the glass. :)

[Bdongler]

Brilliant work as always my friend!

[1959flynn]

Continued kudos...Thank You!!

[signalinthenoise]

Thanks for the work you put into your videos, LC.

[iJul1609]

Could it just be a speck of dust on the window?

[nerophyte]

...despite everything the volume could use a little boost.

[nerophyte]

@LunaCognita Very nice enhancement. Btw, when are you planning on releasing the documentary you're doing along with Escamilla? Are you still working on it?

[Khepramancer]

@nerophyte I'm glad you brought this up, I've been wondering how the documentary was going too.  Excellent work as usual Luna, and of course, immensely interesting ; )

[ericsbraun]

@nerophyte PLEASE!!!! You consider Escamilla to be 100% credible and truthful?!?

You are either sick or a disinfo agent!

[nerophyte]

@ericsbraun Go fuck yourself! How's that for an answer?!

[ericsbraun]

@nerophyte

It's fine as an answer.

It reveals you as a pimpled, bloated, virgin, monkey-spanking, twerp who, still living in his mother's basement, prays to be permanently abducted aliens (extraterrestrial or illegal) so he won't have to try to get his job back at Walmart.

So, you go probe thyself, too.

[thebannedgreenman]

It would be great LunaCognita you could do an analysis of the 'Kumburgaz' aerial events filmed over the sea of marmara in recentyears

[AstroClownBuster]

@thebannedgreenman

Why do you want a guy who can't even see the head of an astronaut in his spacesuit and pretend the suit is empty, all in a lengthy video, to analyse anything ?

[AstroClownBuster]

FUCKING CROOK !

[Humppatunkki]

@AstroClownBuster

That has to be the most polite and thoroughly considered comment ever sent to anyone on YouTube. You, sir/m'am/silly sausage, should feel ashamed of yourself. Then again, you are probably a reptilian humanoid, so let's forget it, shall we... After all, you guys DO want us to believe in those OTHER conspiracy theories. ;o)

[AstroClownBuster]

@Humppatunkki

And now, how did you guessed my reptilianity? You know what this mean, warm blood? next time you see the pink orbs followed by 3 blue orb, they'll come for YOU!

[Humppatunkki]

@AstroClownBuster

Actually, it was just your breath... You do smell of elderberries.

[AstroClownBuster]

3 black dots on the camera lens or on the window, they don't move at all, the only reason they appear to move, is because you track them as the 'lunar surface' (projected film of it, or plaster of paris model that they had back then) is going the other way around as it rotate, so by this you give the impression that they move, but in reality they don't, as anyone can verify at 03:20 point your mouse cursor on the dots and play the video, no movement at all. You are a crook !

[SirMildred76]

@mattghtpa "you're stating that 3 spots on the window of the orbiter foreground, inches from the camera, would have come into focus just as clear as the lunar surface background 50 to 75miles away?"

No I think they would look blurrier, and that is what we see, three blurry dots over a less blurry moon.

"Even with my limited photographic experience I've never seen something like that"

Grab your camera and play around with it, how small does the aperture have to get to see spots on a window?

[MaskMarvl]

Awesome work! 

[nuggz503]

U need to make more videos

[linkleisure]

if i "Stacked all the videos over in the suggestion box, i can say that this infers BS

[SirMildred76]

I'm actually not sure why it would be out of the question that the schmutz might be on the inside of the window. I've heard it claimed that it would have been cleaned up immediately, less they jeopardise the mission by obscuring their view! But frankly the spots could have been small enough that they simply didn't notice them. They did have far more important things to worry about that a few spots on the window. Look at your car, how many spots are on that window you don't even pay attention to?

[ericsbraun]

@SirMildred76 I thought the thing about spots, too. The possibility that focal lenght and distance would make them much blurrier or not visible at all holds some water.

Speaking of water, what substance in space or during launch would allow something to stick to glass under such conditions? --massive vibration and windspeed during travel through the atmosphere and then, um, no rain or mudflaps on the UFO's in space?!?--

[paquitolon]

UUUAAAAUUUU!!!!!

Thanks!!!



[kamikazeman]

Maybe NASA blurred it on purpose, i don't know...

[loxibannij]

@kamikazeman

no shit cap.

[etereal2]

GREAT JOB!!!! Thanks!!

[mattghtpa]

@LunaCognita To un-debunk your critics as to whether this is "schmutz", whatever that is, and "dirt" you need to do a analysis of the speed of the objects in relation to the orbiter to determine difference in trajectory and speed to resolve the "schmutz" and "dirt" theories.

Otherwise I have come to respect your thorough analysis of Lunar missions. Great investigative work!

[MagisterTempli]

Top work mate - keep it up please

[SirMildred76]

That the distance between the "objects" and the edge of the window frame never changes, I would hazard a guess and say this is a bit of schmutz on the window, and nothing more. I have seen similar footage taken through car windows passed off as both "UFO's" and a ghost when all they really need to do is stock up on some windshield wiper fluid.

[mitttube]

LunaCognita when is your movie released ? 

[THEslowBUILDS]

Fantastic stuff!

[GeorgeAlexanderOz]

Wow, great work.

Did you notice these strange pulsating horizontal lines forming for a short time at about the end of the enhanced animation, e.g. at about 03:01? The lines appear above the objects and go from the left shadow bulge to the right edge of the picture.

[ASFALT21]

Someone like you should be more recognized. It is indeed a very fascinating work with well analyzed clips.

[KohviKruus]

They sure did look like shadows, look how it moved over craters

[sh3lbot]

We all love you my friend. Cheers.

[bosb33r]

Awesome work my friend thanks for the upload!! ;0)

[questionsleadtotruth]

This is a wonderful investigation and kudos to the person who did this. However as much as I want to believe this footage for what it is claiming to say in the video, I have to admit with myself that from a scientific perspective I believe there is nothing there at all. If you pay close attention to the surrounding area around the three moving objects you can see that this is nothing more than dirt on the window itself which is moving (since the ship is moving). It's an illusion.It is dirt.

[mattghtpa]

@questionsleadtotruth Dirt? That doesn't even make sense. How would "dirt" have happen to be in orbit and just happen to stick to the orbiter window being that if "dirt" was in space it would have been frozen and unable to stick to anything. And where would "dirt" have come from inside the orbiter? From the potted plants that always accompany lunar missions? That explanation is completely absurd.

The possibility it is something on the window is plausible, but not "dirt".

[rustyglock212]

@mattghtpa LOL @ desperate, fearful and impulsive "dirt" suggestion.

[questionsleadtotruth]

@rustyglock212 How is it fearful? I'm actually wanting to believe this, but I've learned to question these kinds of videos and try and find other explanations before completely believing the stating explanation. Then it just becomes a new religion does it not?

[rustyglock212]

@questionsleadtotruth You're right. It can. It struck me funny. I shouldn't have assigned "fear" though.

[SirMildred76]

@questionsleadtotruth Seriously, anyone dismissing other suggestions as "desperate" and "fearful" without participating in exploring other suggestions, or pointing out why the theory is wrong, those people sound far more fearful and desperate to hang on to a pet theory that has literally ZERO evidence to support it. The ONLY thing they have is a spot on a video. At least with the "schmutz" theory, there are actual events leading up to it that could plausibly contribute cause it to happen.

[mattghtpa]

@SirMildred76 The "schmutz" theory is ridiculous. It's easily rejected. Whatever the objects are, they are not on the window. When the images are stacked and focused the objects are not close to the orbiter. If this was "schmutz" or "dirt" it would not have focused with the Lunar surfaced, there would have been discrepancy in the image. If anything it's some type of particulate far from the orbiter, but then this questions the size of the particulate which has to large.

[SirMildred76]

@mattghtpa "Whatever the objects are, they are not on the window."

Then you are left explaining to us why the distance and angle of the objects never very in relation to the window frame.

"When the images are stacked & focused the objects are not close to the orbiter."

Its not going to matter where the objects are. The averaging process can work on close things just as well as far. We would only expect the close objects to be blurrier, and as such they are about as blurry as the window frame.

[mattghtpa]

@SirMildred76 "Then you are left explaining to us why the distance and angle of the objects never very in relation to the window frame."

We are shown a very short clip of the objects, so if they were moving in the same direction at a distance there would be no discernible vector change e.g. if you were in a jet and were looking at a another jet in the distance with a similar vector for just moment it would appear to be moving at the same speed and direction.

[SirMildred76]

@mattghtpa "...for just moment it would appear to be moving at the same speed and direction."

And if I were using a HANDHELD camera to capture the scene, and I happened to capture the window frame with it, we would expect the subtle movements in the hand to introduce lateral movements in the POV which would cause the distance between the window frame and the objects in the window the change, we see no such changes in this footage even though such lateral movements are obvious.

[mattghtpa]

@SirMildred76 I watched the video several times and I don't see what you're describing, but appear to be assuming and reaching now.

If you want to see and think there are globs of "dirt" or "schmutz" on the orbiter window that is your right to an opinion, but from what I see the objects appear to be a distance from the orbiter which could either be material that did accompany Apollo mission i.e. frozen out-gas or some other space junk or some unknown objects, that's my opinion.

[SirMildred76]

@mattghtpa Of course it will always come down to opinion\.

It would be difficult to say for sure either way, the whole point of doing the framestacking is to pull stuff out of the blur, so it will always be difficult to say how blurry the object was originally, after the processing.

I don't know what the objects are, I am only claiming that the mundane circumstances of getting something on the window could result in the scene we are seeing and there's nothing to contradict that.

[mattghtpa]

@SirMildred76 "It’s not going to matter where the objects are. The averaging process can work on close things just as well as far. We would only expect the close objects to be blurrier, and as such they are about as blurry as the window frame."

Are you a photographic expert with credentials and know without doubt that this is fact regarding the equipment used on the lunar orbiter? I'm not either, but that explanation makes no sense.

[SirMildred76]

@mattghtpa "Are you a photographic expert with credentials and know without doubt that this is fact regarding the equipment used on the lunar orbiter? I'm not either, but that explanation makes no sense."

I have been a photographer for thirty years, worked at three newspapers in that capacities. You don't need be an expert to know that with a smaller aperture objects that are in the foreground would appear blurrier.

[mattghtpa]

@SirMildred76 So with your newspaper photographic experience you're stating that 3 spots on the window of the orbiter foreground, inches from the camera, would have come into focus just as clear as the lunar surface background 50 to 75miles away?

Even with my limited photographic experience I've never seen something like that, but I will have to take your word on it since you are stating that this is unequivocally what can happen.

[mattghtpa]

@SirMildred76 Firstly, what’s going to be able to stick to the orbiter window outside or in? To me that would have raised alarms to a possible dangerous liquid or some material leak. Secondly, I watched the vid several times and 3:36 you can see a particle flare from the window which rules out the objects being "dirt" or "schmutz".

However, I'm skeptical and I'm not ruling out the objects being some frozen material or out-gas from the orbiter pacing the orbiter from a distance.

[SirMildred76]

@mattghtpa "Firstly, what’s going to be able to stick to the orbiter window outside or in? To me that would have raised alarms to a possible dangerous liquid or some material leak."

Since it is ubiquitious around spacecraft, I would suspect if it were on the outside the most likely candidate is ice.

Inside, you have to remember there are three people in close quarters for several days, it's impossible to keep it pristine, a drop of sweat, urine, a particle of food or drink, many possabilities.

[ericsbraun]

@SirMildred76 Then again, a question based on the point you make, why don't the object "bounce and dance across the moon" which they would due to the movement of the hand holding the camera. They would appear to juggle about over the moon quite a bit unless the camera is affixed or the shot is only a half second of film and the movement actually is the hand moving sideways with the camera.

[SirMildred76]

@mattghtpa The orbiter carries ice and other material with it in to orbit, it's actually very well understood and documented phenomenon. (And a phenomenon that has led to more than one UFO "sighting" on NASA footage) When each stage disconnects it throws all sorts of stuff off (such as fuel) (only the last one would really matter though) . I'm not so sure why it would be difficult to believe that a bit of ice could get stuck to the window. Is it really *less* plausible than the UFO theory?

[mattghtpa]

@SirMildred76 I'm always a skeptic, but a skeptic based on facts and realistic theories. However, most claiming to be skeptics are in fact knee-jerk de-bunkers, which has nothing to do with reaching a factual answer and conclusion, but rooted in fear and cognitive dissonance.

I'm well aware that ice and other particulates follow orbiters, but I've never heard of any material sticking to a window and in this situation the objects appear to far from the orbiter and cast shadows.

[Frostmanej]

Very interesting, enjoyable video.

[kroning2008]

sujeira na lente,passa um pano ai

[russocollection]

Thank you for taking the time to do this,

[nikovich]

Nicely done ! The narration that you are now doing really adds to these excellent videos. I don't know if there's anyone out there doing as much detailed analysis as you on Lunar phenomena, hidden footage and anomolies as you. Keep up the great work !

[cramtoro]

wow nice analysis

[misticismoNATURAL]

I love your work... thank you... I keep myself waiting for your next clip... hugs

[Negotiatorr]

Did we ever went to the Moon ??

[Reen1411]

Thank you for your awesome work!

[Gugamixxx]

No person hás ever set foot on the Moon!!!

Let that be clear!

If man on the moon was possible, today we would have citys full of people there, instead of a much more expensive space station!

It's funny though to see people that consider themselves intelligent, and highly educated to believe in a cold war lye!!!!!!

That you present is a test film made in studio, like many, many others in a gigantic film set. What you see is consistent with the 2 spotlights found in many photos and films!!!!!

[SkemeKOS]

@Gugamixxx

I seen bigfoot on the moon the other day.

[YaMumYaNanYaGran]

@Gugamixxx

We went to the moon. The evidence is irrefutable. You complete cretin!

[laikros]

@Gugamixxx Dude calm down,cold war lye???Is someone that stupid to not belive it??? But 1st of all If there was no moon landing BELIVE 1st one who would proof that would be RUSSIA!They would not miss that occasion! 2nd There are People ,"scientist" who say Piraminds didnt built humans cause was2difficult for us.And how many People have an ilussion?Almost 90% World Population beliving in some kind of high beings.So maybe they didnt but u cant be 100% like u are now/

[YaMumYaNanYaGran]

0ne of the object dips into the crater at the end. Leads me to believe that it was indeed a shadow.

[SkemeKOS]

@YaMumYaNanYaGran

They BOTH "dip" into the shadow.

[sparkypogo]

good work  i look forward to the next one..

[def44]

Always appreciate your solid analytical approach to this!

[zambot3]

dirty window buddy, they move with the frame edge of the window.ufos are real but this film shows none.

[PWITcom]

@zambot3 exactly my thought about the dirty window.

[UltimateDawn]

@zambot3 what kind of dirt are you talking about? Spacebird droppings?

[SkemeKOS]

@zambot3

I thought the same thing but they "dip" into the crater so maybe we are wrong?

[SkemeKOS]

@SkemeKOS

And I just watched it again more closely and the 3 objects are travelling faster than the edge of the frame.

[LookAmongTheHeavens]

fog lol i think they up the brightness on this 1 lol but nice work

[DavidMarx1337]

You do an awesome and important job, thank you!