• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Space Center ghost?

It looks like one of the water-cooled undersuits from a space suit hung up on a line.

If she just took a quick snap of the room affter glancing through the door she may not have noticed the details.

Or someone's just having a laugh........
 
Space Ghost rules!

I see a fine line above the left arm of the ... space skivvies.
 
You'd think no one had ever seen the 'ectoplasm' photos from years ago - Amazing, even in the space age, what a little cotton or tissue and bad photography can make people believe.
 
It appears to be the figure of a partially decomposed / skeletal figure, kneeling, back to the camera.
 
Lucianarchy said:
It appears to be the figure of a partially decomposed / skeletal figure, kneeling, back to the camera.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea how anyone can interpret that figure to be anything other than paste and tissue.
 
ghost.jpg


The arms are pointing to beams - they are held up by wires.

What's the whiteish line at the arrow?

The bended leg is clearly paper - making the whole construction very light.

I've seen better hoaxes from grade schoolers.

Lucianarchy said:
It appears to be the figure of a partially decomposed / skeletal figure, kneeling, back to the camera.
Click to expand...

Fool.
 
Whatever it is, it appears to be making a rude
gesture with it’s finger!!!
:)

JPK
ghost.jpg
 
From the link:
This photo was taken in 1988, while his Aunt and her husband were visiting the old Mission Control Center Bldg. at Cape Canaveral at Kennedy. She was on a tour, and this was basically a storage room of old equipment that she took a quick shot of.
Click to expand...

Why would they show an old storage room?

"Here, we have a Saturn V rocket."

"Here, we have a space simulation pod."

"Here, we have an old storage room."

Rrrrrrrrrrrrright.
 
Lucianarchy said:
It appears to be the figure of a partially decomposed / skeletal figure, kneeling, back to the camera.
Click to expand...
It certainly does not. Whatever it is it has a clear and material structure, and you can just see one of the lines holding up one arm.

Hans
 
Lucianarchy said:
It appears to be the figure of a partially decomposed / skeletal figure, kneeling, back to the camera.
Click to expand...

It is comments like these that make me doubt Lucianarchy's sanity.

No, I don't think that he is joking with us. I really don't. Given his histrionics, I do think that Lucianarchy really believes what he says.
 
Lucianarchy said:
It appears to be the figure of a partially decomposed / skeletal figure, kneeling, back to the camera.
Click to expand...
That's the problem with a 2-dimensional photo. I look and see what you must think is the lower part of the leg, and I am not at all sure it is in the same plane of the photo as the rest of the figure. Maybe it is the resolution on my screen, but it looks to be a different shade of white, perhaps a paper closer to the camera than the figure. The figure itself seems to me to be, as was suggested, an undergarment hung up to dry (or air out, or whatever). My guess is that anyone associated with NASA at this time would look at the photo and laugh, and have the proper explanation.

I, of course, do not have that expertise, and my opinion could be completely wrong--but I gotta think an undergarment requires a lot fewer assumptions than ectoplasm does.
 
Mercutio said:
That's the problem with a 2-dimensional photo. I look and see what you must think is the lower part of the leg, and I am not at all sure it is in the same plane of the photo as the rest of the figure. Maybe it is the resolution on my screen, but it looks to be a different shade of white, perhaps a paper closer to the camera than the figure. The figure itself seems to me to be, as was suggested, an undergarment hung up to dry (or air out, or whatever). My guess is that anyone associated with NASA at this time would look at the photo and laugh, and have the proper explanation.

I, of course, do not have that expertise, and my opinion could be completely wrong--but I gotta think an undergarment requires a lot fewer assumptions than ectoplasm does.
Click to expand...

I agree. NASA don't seem to know though. and it's an interesting picture even in terms of simulcura.

"[...] she was surprised at the figure that developed, as it wasn't there when she took the photo. She sent the picture to NASA and...(read more to see large photo)


...they replied that they had no explanation as to what it was, meaning, it was not any kind of equipment or gear they use or have used in the past, so whatever it is, it's not an intended part of the scenery."
 
Lucianarchy said:

"[...] she was surprised at the figure that developed, as it wasn't there when she took the photo. She sent the picture to NASA and...(read more to see large photo)
Click to expand...
Yes, I read the report. I know enough about eyewitness testimony to believe that she does not remember that thing being there...but that is not evidence that it was not there. Again, in 3 dimensions it could have looked so perfectly normal that it would not have even drawn attention, but in 2-D it looks freaky. So, this discrepancy between what she recalls seeing and what is on the photo does not concern me.

...they replied that they had no explanation as to what it was, meaning, it was not any kind of equipment or gear they use or have used in the past, so whatever it is, it's not an intended part of the scenery."
Click to expand...
This is interesting, though. On the other hand, we do only have this person's word for it. Has anyone thought to check up on this claim? I'm not close enough, nor have I any connections...but with something that should be so easy to verify, I don't think it unreasonable to want verification of this claim. One person claiming that NASA has no explanation, particularly when that person is not connected to NASA, is not particularly convincing.
 
OK, Merc, good suggestion of course! I've sent off for some more info from NASA. Let's see what they say. I don't think they'll say it's a ghost though. lol! Escaped alien?... maybe...
 
Lucianarchy said:
OK, Merc, good suggestion of course! I've sent off for some more info from NASA. Let's see what they say. I don't think they'll say it's a ghost though. lol! Escaped alien?... maybe...
Click to expand...

Let's say it is what it gives every appearance of being: the thermal undergarment from a spacesuit. Is there some reason they should say "it's a ghost"? If they write back and tell you that this is what it is, will you scoff and say that proves it's a ghost?

LOOK at it, man! It has a collar. It is clearly tied to points on the ceiling. It has pouches on the side such as are used in suits to store liquid.

www.tsgc.utexas.edu/spaceexplorers/ activities/Spacesuits.pdf
 
The second post was most likely correct.
(a nod to last post too -k)
This rooms looks like a collection or display of spacesuit items.

A breakout of what a spacesuit actually consists of can be found here: Space Wardrobe

The white item is probably the Gore-Tex and Dacron "Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment". Both materials are very white and are difficult to photograph under normal lighting.

The cooling garment is worn like underwear inside the suit, so it makes sense it would be included in the display. There may be more of these tightly folded like books on a rack on the right side of the photo(?). Not sure how they are normally stored, but the garment is probably light and compact.

Here is one being worn, instead of being displayed 'open' for display with hanging wires: Cooling Garment

As to why NASA could not respond what it might have been, they seem to have a historic and sometimes tragic inability to communicate interdepartmentally. Probably just the wrong person was asked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom