Amaterur Astronomer Detect a UFO Exiting from a Lunar Crater...

And no, this is not "Secureteam's" first hoax. Here's just one previous example. "Secureteam" claims to have "leaked images" from a "Russian probe" at Saturn showing a UFO. Oh, and don't forget to buy their t shirts.

A couple of problems with this claim though. First off, they start by showing a wide angle photo of Saturn with a date of "2014" stamped on the image (I think that's an abbreviated January 2014, to be specific). That is not what Saturn's shadow looks like on its rings this year though, not even close. The shadow currently runs off the edge of the rings completely:
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...
And it will continue to do so for some time. The last time it looked like that was about 2004 (it changes over the course of the Saturnian year which is nearly 30 earth years long). More to the point, the shadow angle and perspective of the photo show that it was taken from Cassini in May 2004. Specifically, it's this picture, just with some edits and then a "UFO" was added to it (wait for the gif to fully load):
h.dropcanvas.com...
Here's the original Cassini photo prior to their edits, straight from the source:
www.nasa.gov...
So now you know, "secureteam" is a hoax making channel.

a reply to: Annee

How do you know this person is a known hoaxer?

secureteam10 is a well known hoax channel , many of their videos have been debunked here and across the web.
Search and you will find.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ngchunter
Stop defending a proven hoaxer who tries to silence his critics.

I'm not defending anyone.

I have personally seen a saucer shaped UFO, in the daytime, clear blue skies.

Resolution online is too low to determine Photoshop. The average person who jumps in ranting Photoshopped, is not qualified to determine that. Especially without the original photo.

That has nothing to do with what you are claiming.

How do you know this person is a known hoaxer?

Try watching the video for a start...

You can CLEARLY see it is to separate videos..
The moon video frame rate is much slower then the "UFO" layer footage that moves smoothly
Even a alien craft cant add in more frame rates to a video

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Annee

How do you know this person is a known hoaxer?

secureteam10 is a well known hoax channel , many of their videos have been debunked here and across the web.
Search and you will find.

Thank you.

Honestly, I personally did see a saucer shaped UFO -- in broad daylight. It was self illuminated and had kind of yellowish/white iridescent glow.

I saw it move silently across the sky, then rise vertically until it was no longer visible.

It is my reason for not automatically ranting HOAXER every time someone presents something.

I mean, there is no way I could prove what I saw. Even if I videotaped it.

a reply to: Spacespider

I have worked with graphics and some videos.

They do weird things. Distortions do happen.

I'm not claiming Hoax or no Hoax. So I'm done here.

Just thought I'd drop this in here for yalls consideration.

www.youtube.com...

The gentleman talks about video compression, video over your network, and the errors that are introduced...you need to understand that your ISP is barely better than CAT5e, and that the compression used by YouTube / Adobe isn't anywhere near as good as h.264. This are the kinds of errors you are seeing in the video you are trying to critique, and it is these errors that make your analysis, and conclusion incorrect.

Now, if yall want to talk about other features...

It's a good thing he just so happened to be focusing on the exact point in which this UFO launched from. What are the odds!!?

originally posted by: tanka418
This are the kinds of errors you are seeing in the video you are trying to critique, and it is these errors that make your analysis, and conclusion incorrect.

Wrong. The whole moon is constantly moving, even if the compression became glitched it would not cause the moon to completely freeze and look completely normal except for just the motion of the UFO. The moon around the UFO within the same raster would at the very least continue to move if it were a compression issue (not to mention there is no way the area underneath the UFO would correctly and magically appear as the UFO continued to move away from that area while the moon remained frozen even immediately around the UFO!!!!). It is not a compression issue, I've been webcasting the moon live for years.

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: tanka418
This are the kinds of errors you are seeing in the video you are trying to critique, and it is these errors that make your analysis, and conclusion incorrect.

Wrong. The whole moon is constantly moving, even if the compression became glitched it would not cause the moon to completely freeze and look completely normal except for just the motion of the UFO. The moon around the UFO within the same raster would at the very least continue to move if it were a compression issue (not to mention there is no way the area underneath the UFO would correctly and magically appear as the UFO continued to move away from that area while the moon remained frozen even immediately around the UFO!!!!). It is not a compression issue, I've been webcasting the moon live for years.

That's nice...so I take it your a professional at this...

I'm just a semi-retired software engineer who has implemented h.264 video systems for a number of different applications. I've also been involved with video over the Internet for about 15 years...so I guess I wouldn't know much.

By-the-way...this "freezing" of background elements in a video used to be very common, especially in the compression methods used in Flash. Adobe has improved it over the years, but it's not prefect yet...so...I would expect to see some of this kind of behavior. The other, objects "jumping" distances is also a common. These errors are introduced when "movement", or "changes" are below some artificial threshold in the compression software. As these "differences" add up we see video elements "freezing" and "jumping"...if we were able to see all of the original frames these things will probably disappear.

But, basing any kind of conclusion on data like this is almost necessarily wrong since the confidence level f the data is far too low...in other words; what you think you are "seeing" is probably not real and is the result of infrastructure errors, combined with errors introduced by the compression method.

originally posted by: Thiaoouba Prophecy

originally posted by: Arken
An amateur astronomer, William Durand, has captured, with his 12,5 inch telescope from his backyard in North Carolina, an amazing footage: a close up of a UFO coming up out from a crater and flying over the lunar surface heading on the dark side. During this footage you can see clearly the different light/shadow on the object when it is still in the dark side of the crater and when it come out at incredible speed.

According to William Cooper we have had lunar bases built by The Secret Space program for a long time now. They are of course on the dark side of the moon.

According to the Thiaoouba Prophecy humankind first built bases on the moon when the Maya Atlantean race from the planet Aremo X3 migrated here 60,000 years ago due to the loss of a breathable atmosphere, cooling of the molten core on their home planet.

If you Google Michel Desmarquet he shows pictures of the bases on the moon that I think we're given to him by a former CIA agent in his 2.5 hour lecture on his abduction to the 9th planet.

The dark side of the moon bases built by ancient humans are doko shaped. Like giant eggs. You can also personally verify them if you have the ability to astral travel.

What a complete and utter load of crap. Yeah, they flew here from another planet so that they could sacrifice to the snake god and live in stone houses. Riiiiiiiight....because, logic.

It's lunar swamp gas

Is that really the most polite way you could have communicated?

a reply to: wmd_2008

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: tanka418
This are the kinds of errors you are seeing in the video you are trying to critique, and it is these errors that make your analysis, and conclusion incorrect.

Wrong. The whole moon is constantly moving, even if the compression became glitched it would not cause the moon to completely freeze and look completely normal except for just the motion of the UFO. The moon around the UFO within the same raster would at the very least continue to move if it were a compression issue (not to mention there is no way the area underneath the UFO would correctly and magically appear as the UFO continued to move away from that area while the moon remained frozen even immediately around the UFO!!!!). It is not a compression issue, I've been webcasting the moon live for years.

That's nice...so I take it your a professional at this...

I'm just a semi-retired software engineer who has implemented h.264 video systems for a number of different applications. I've also been involved with video over the Internet for about 15 years...so I guess I wouldn't know much.

I guess my more than 15 years of experience doing astronomy don't count for anything with you. I don't care what experience you claim to have, you're wrong.

By-the-way...this "freezing" of background elements in a video used to be very common, especially in the compression methods used in Flash.

This isn't about "freezing of background elements," the UFO is moving at a different framerate than the moon. I'm going to ask you one more time; if this were a "compression issue" causing the moon to freeze but not the UFO then how did it manage to perfectly reveal the part of the image the moon had left from in previous frames which was previously underneath, and hidden by, the UFO and why was that previously-hidden part of the image now not affected by constantly changing atmospheric seeing which should have at best caused it to look disjointed from the rest of the image? Your claimed excuse does not stand up to any level of critical analysis. I have seen compression artifacts including those that cause freezing of background elements while there is a moving element, yes, even with astronomical video, yes even with the moon, yes even with flash video. Yes, I have that much experience at this. When that happens you get a "trailing" effect on the moving object because the area of the moon it had been on top of in previous frames cannot magically suddenly show the detail that was previously hidden by the moving object. At best it can only show the detail that is there now and is differently distorted by the atmosphere than in previous frames, and usually it looks far worse than that with bits of the object or just black pixels left behind in the "trail."

But, basing any kind of conclusion on data like this is almost necessarily wrong since the confidence level f the data is far too low...in other words; what you think you are "seeing" is probably not real and is the result of infrastructure errors, combined with errors introduced by the compression method.

Wrong. Compression errors cannot magically reveal detail previously hidden by the UFO. You are not experienced in video astronomy and how the moon is constantly changing in appearance due to atmospheric turbulence.

originally posted by: SyxPak
a reply to: ChehystPewpur

While I appreciate your reply, I have seen 'normal' junk in the middle of craters, from impact, said by those posting such pics, but does that really look like 'normal' impact ejecta to You? It seems to be too constructed and mechanical, like our buildings, to be just natural matter from an impact. Thanx for the image too! Syx.

I will agree with you there are some pretty odd shapes on the moon its what got me into astrophotography in the first place I got sick of the doctored images being released and just having to look at badly done Microsoft paint. But shadows and atmospheric conditions dont help trying to distinguish what is there and what's not. I was mostly just giving a better resolution image to show what is in some of them. If I get a chance through the weather im going to continue watching it in hopes that i can catch some moon bugs or birds. If I'm really lucky ill catch some swamp gas floating around.

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: tanka418
This are the kinds of errors you are seeing in the video you are trying to critique, and it is these errors that make your analysis, and conclusion incorrect.

Wrong. The whole moon is constantly moving, even if the compression became glitched it would not cause the moon to completely freeze and look completely normal except for just the motion of the UFO. The moon around the UFO within the same raster would at the very least continue to move if it were a compression issue (not to mention there is no way the area underneath the UFO would correctly and magically appear as the UFO continued to move away from that area while the moon remained frozen even immediately around the UFO!!!!). It is not a compression issue, I've been webcasting the moon live for years.

That's nice...so I take it your a professional at this...

I'm just a semi-retired software engineer who has implemented h.264 video systems for a number of different applications. I've also been involved with video over the Internet for about 15 years...so I guess I wouldn't know much.

I guess my more than 15 years of experience doing astronomy don't count for anything with you. I don't care what experience you claim to have, you're wrong.

By-the-way...this "freezing" of background elements in a video used to be very common, especially in the compression methods used in Flash.

This isn't about "freezing of background elements," the UFO is moving at a different framerate than the moon. I'm going to ask you one more time; if this were a "compression issue" causing the moon to freeze but not the UFO then how did it manage to perfectly reveal the part of the image the moon had left from in previous frames which was previously underneath, and hidden by, the UFO and why was that previously-hidden part of the image now not affected by constantly changing atmospheric seeing which should have at best caused it to look disjointed from the rest of the image?

You are talking abut the areas of change in the image...these are the areas that have a data transfer associated with them. The compression consists of mainly the small areas of change; video element disappears from one lace , that location is written with current frame data, the element moves to another place, and that location is written with appropriate data. What you are "seeing" is the operation of essentially that of a "graphic sprite", where a picture element is animated and moving from place to place.

Anyway...in a world of, and at a site of, "debunkers" sir; you have been debunked. All of your "issues" can be easily explained by the operation of the media and technology that is used to distribute the video.

ETA:

I guess my more than 15 years of experience doing astronomy don't count for anything with you. I don't care what experience you claim to have, you're wrong.

In this instance, sorry, it doesn't count for much. But, we aren't talking abut astrophotography, we are talking about how this technology buggers the images and data we are trying to work with, sometime to the point of making that data almost useless.

I've looked at your photos; impressive!

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: tanka418
This are the kinds of errors you are seeing in the video you are trying to critique, and it is these errors that make your analysis, and conclusion incorrect.

Wrong. The whole moon is constantly moving, even if the compression became glitched it would not cause the moon to completely freeze and look completely normal except for just the motion of the UFO. The moon around the UFO within the same raster would at the very least continue to move if it were a compression issue (not to mention there is no way the area underneath the UFO would correctly and magically appear as the UFO continued to move away from that area while the moon remained frozen even immediately around the UFO!!!!). It is not a compression issue, I've been webcasting the moon live for years.

That's nice...so I take it your a professional at this...

I'm just a semi-retired software engineer who has implemented h.264 video systems for a number of different applications. I've also been involved with video over the Internet for about 15 years...so I guess I wouldn't know much.

I guess my more than 15 years of experience doing astronomy don't count for anything with you. I don't care what experience you claim to have, you're wrong.

By-the-way...this "freezing" of background elements in a video used to be very common, especially in the compression methods used in Flash.

This isn't about "freezing of background elements," the UFO is moving at a different framerate than the moon. I'm going to ask you one more time; if this were a "compression issue" causing the moon to freeze but not the UFO then how did it manage to perfectly reveal the part of the image the moon had left from in previous frames which was previously underneath, and hidden by, the UFO and why was that previously-hidden part of the image now not affected by constantly changing atmospheric seeing which should have at best caused it to look disjointed from the rest of the image?

You are talking abut the areas of change in the image...

The entire image of the moon is constantly changing due to atmospheric turbulence, that is what you are not understanding. The area where the UFO is is also changing, but a compression error cannot magically reveal detail that was hidden by the UFO in previous frames. The detail in the "current" frame with the UFO's current position would not match up perfectly with the rest of the moon's image due to that fact.

The compression consists of mainly the small areas of change; video element disappears from one lace , that location is written with current frame data, the element moves to another place, and that location is written with appropriate data.

You have utterly failed to answer my question.

originally posted by: ngchunter
I'm going to ask you one more time; if this were a "compression issue" causing the moon to freeze but not the UFO then how did it manage to perfectly reveal the part of the image the moon had left from in previous frames which was previously underneath, and hidden by, the UFO and why was that previously-hidden part of the image now not affected by constantly changing atmospheric seeing which should have at best caused it to look disjointed from the rest of the image?

You are dodging the pertinent question. Let me lay it out clearly so that you cannot mislead others. The "element" of the UFO is moving. If a compression error caused the rest of the moon to stop updating its elements as well, then the UFO should be forming a trail behind it where it had previously been. This would either consist of the old images of the UFO from the previous frames, or the image of the moon in the new frames. But because the moon is constantly distorted and changing under the effects of the atmosphere (turbulence, or as we call it in astronomy, atmospheric seeing) the "new" view of the moon in the spots the UFO had been would not match up with the rest of the image, it would look disjointed and broken in a visible trail behind the UFO. You sir, are debunked. Yes, the astrophotography aspect matters here deeply and it is an aspect you are pathologically avoiding. Whether deliberately trolling or willfully avoiding the point I leave for the reader to decide.

originally posted by: Attentionwandered
a reply to: ngchunter

Sorry, I do agree with tanka here. There is no way to verify this footage is real or CGI from a youtube video. We need the uncompressed original from the telescope (and astronomer) himself.

No, we do not. Compression errors can't recreate the detail that was previously hidden underneath the UFO. This isn't a question of whether you agree nor is it an opinion, it is a simple fact. It can try to fill it in, but then we would see the compression artifact, but we do not.

3. Is this a known hoaxer with cash incentive? (definitely seems like it ngchunter... agreed on the saturn thing)

YES!!!!!!!!!! For god's sake try actually watching my video!

originally posted by: muse7
Clearly fake CGI effects

The objects movement gives it away, it's very choppy and moves in weird patterns.

Also where's the shadow of the object?

Looking at it closer, it certainly looks as if they tried to make the object move in a pattern that was consistent with the camera movement but they failed and got an object that appeared to move in a zig-zagging pattern, that was totally inconsistent with the movement of the camera.

My thoughts exactly. The "shakiness" of the video does not match the "shakiness" of the object. I'm no camera expert but it didn't add up to me. (And I want this to be some sort of evidence.)

originally posted by: ngchunter
The entire image of the moon is constantly changing due to atmospheric turbulence, that is what you are not understanding. The area where the UFO is is also changing, but a compression error cannot magically reveal detail that was hidden by the UFO in previous frames. The detail in the "current" frame with the UFO's current position would not match up perfectly with the rest of the moon's image due to that fact.

You are thinking in terms of your world; you need to think in terms of your computer's world...they can be vastly different.

In this case you are confusing the "current frae"...to you it is what ever the current frame actually is...to your computer it is whatever it has been told...in this case; the last full frame received from the stream. Bits of that frame will be altered as required to portray the changes in the video...these changes will happen only in the "current frame" or the frame that was last received by your machine. The changes are written to your screen as small blocks of image, when something is altered, the "background" to that "cell" is saved so that it may be rewritten later if necessary.

And again, we are not talking about astrophotography, we are talking about how your computer handles video...plain and simple.

By the way; yes I know there are atmospheric changes in the video...so does the software you are using...and again; IF those changes are not above some artificial threshold, they will be ignored.

I'm not trying to disregard your skill as a photographer; but, as soon as you picked up a digital camera; you left your universe and entered mine...that camera is only a special purpose computer! In the computer world we have specifications, protocols, and other crap that serves to standardize the processing of data and generally make everyone's life easer...well except for software types...