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

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: tanka418
Already covered and explained. It is an illusion created by data and compression errors. Adobe Flash is famous for them.

Adobe Flash has nothing to do with it. Flash is not used to compress video.

We have no idea what was used to compress the original version, how subsequent child versions were obtained, and the final compression of this video (probably H.264) before uploaded.

Exactly.

It's an obvious fake by the lack of replicated shake being observed in the craft. A very common mistake in this type of hoax. It's only exasperated by the distance of the moon and the recorders inability to hold the camera still.

To all the people saying no shadow... I say BS. I saw a definate shadow...

Besides the fact that this is authentic, or not.. Many people here commenting on what close up moon video should look like, even with a 16" reflector or Schmidt, obviously have never used an instrument like this and tried to photograph the moon.

The only mount that can stay absolutely still is a cement pedestal mount, which was not the case here. Any other type of mount produces micro-shake, caused by simple things as something mechanical in the area running like a fan, motor or anything that produces low frequency noise. The spread out legs of the best portable tripod are not immune to this.

The instability of the atmosphere is the most obvious distortion producing effect. Even with huge telescopes, there is a severe limit of clarity that you can get from Earth using magnifications over 50x, due to atmospheric thermal mixing which produces a lensing effect. You can see the effect readily, as it is akin to photographing something underwater through a rippling surface. The distortion is uneven, and different parts of the image move or shimmer and go in and out of focus, where other parts are more stable.

Real expensive software processing video from cooled eyepiece CCD's can stabilize the image by stacking multiple frames and using edge alignment, to average out individual frames, and this means you need a very high frame capture rate to provide content for this process. Photographs or videos of the moon that use these techniques, will be the best you can get recorded through the atmosphere.

In a nutshell, without the best equipment, the amateur astronomer will get about the same clarity from an 8" objective that they can with a 16" observing the moon, because atmospheric distortion is the real limiting factor here.

So in this video, the moon looks about as expected with the equipment the OP says they have, but we all know that it is totally possible to overlay a moving object over a background like this with the CGI available today. That is why it cannot be proven authentic.

originally posted by: Stuship
a reply to: eriktheawful

"By definition, we can't break the actual laws of physics. We can be extremely mistaken about what the actual laws of physics are." - Joseph Wang, Ph.D. Astrophysics

Again you are applying what we know, and you have no idea what we don't know. I'm assuming an "Alien Tech" would be far beyond our understanding.

Stop and think: Why would something need to not cast a shadow? How would you not cast a shadow?

In order to not cast a shadow, light must either be able to pass through something, or be bent around it.
If light passes through something (completely) or is bent around it, it means no light is being reflected off of it.
If no light is being reflected off of it: it's not visible.

Having advanced technology does not change certain fundamental parts of science.

For example: Heat can be transferred through Conduction, Convection and Radiation. The physics of thermal dynamics shows this quite well.

Doesn't mater if you are using a burning log or a nuclear reactor (very low to very high tech), the physics of how heat transfers is the same.

Ngchunter - I've used Above Top Secret as my go-to site whenever I've wanted to read discussions on things that I find interesting or unusual. I've done this for years, but never taken the time to join the discussions, merely read as a guest. Lately, there's been a fair few interesting things to read about, and ATS (in general) is quite rich with good posts. I try to ignore the nonsensical ones as a general rule.

Having read yours in relation to this moon ufo video, I feel I have to speak up and say: don't be disheartened by the recent challenges you are facing - especially regarding youtube/copyright infringement accusations. Whilst certain responses from ATS members here on the thread are far from supportive, for what it's worth, I see exactly where you are coming from and feel what you did is entirely justified. It would have been fair use - even if your hypothesis was wrong. For the record, I actually happen to think that you are bang on with what you said.

So, whilst you're waiting for your account status to be re-instated, as I'm sure it will in due course, don't for a moment conclude that all ATS folk from here on in are going to be cast from the same mould. I liked your video and it's quite telling that they should play the 'copyright card' even though it's black and white fair use. As in - totally.

Optical refraction/atmospheric distortions as concisely explained by charlyv are clearly not evident on the slow-down frames and it does seem quite strange that the UFO and the moon are playing at differing fps. As others have pointed out, the X,Y of the UFO doesn't seem consistent with any apparent motion of the moon within any given frame. Compression is far from a satisfactory explanation of what you're highlighting.

Your frustration was palpable through your posts and antagonistic responses from people who really should have known better did nothing to ease the situation. Had I not read this thread, I'd still have been viewing as a guest. As a result of your endeavours, I felt the need to comment. Thank you and those like you who take the time to explain things. Not everybody has the capacity to do that.

I like your ISS avatar too - I once 'videoed' the ISS during broad daylight using an Electro Optical Tracker, slaved to radar for acquisition, then tracked manually by my own fair hand.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: tanka418
Already covered and explained. It is an illusion created by data and compression errors. Adobe Flash is famous for them.

Adobe Flash has nothing to do with it. Flash is not used to compress video.

We have no idea what was used to compress the original version, how subsequent child versions were obtained, and the final compression of this video (probably H.264) before uploaded.

In as much as Adobe Flash has t's very own compression technique; I'd say, from a technology stand point, it has quite a lot to do with it. So, while Flash doesn't compress, it requires compressed / processed video data...

After taking a closer look at the compression methods used by Adobe Flash, it appears to be h.264 And, that may even be part of the problem, in that it is also the compression method and technology that is helping to create some of the illusion here.

In order to help reduce data requirements, h.264 will only encode changes to the "scene", and thus only updates small parts of the resultant image as required. That is as opposed to sending actual "frames" over the network, this reduces data, improves apparent frame rate, and results n an image (video) that is acceptable to most viewers.

Back in the day, this method wasn't very good, and resulted in some strange, and while it has been improved, as I said; "it isn't perfect".

As for what compression? We know what compression was used. For instance; when I upload a video to YouTube, it is always an "mp4", which is probably the single most used video protocol. YouTube has always used Adobe Flash for their player (even though that's kind of obsolete now that we have HTML/5), so we can make a very good guess as to how the video was encoded, ad compressed.

It is perhaps unfortunate that YouTube uses what is now outdated technology, it would have been better, for us anyway, to have had the original "mp4" or "mov" file, but alas, that's YouTube....Actually their old ways still have an advantage...they only need to save one copy of a compressed video, as opposed to the 3 that would be required if we tried to play the videos directly in our browsers

My point is that it is the video compression techniques and protocols that are introducing visible errors into these videos. Making them seem like all sort of "other" thing, and serving as a distraction to the reality of the presentation.

In any case; that was a good call on the shadows.

originally posted by: charlyv
Besides the fact that this is authentic, or not.. Many people here commenting on what close up moon video should look like, even with a 16" reflector or Schmidt, obviously have never used an instrument like this and tried to photograph the moon.

The only mount that can stay absolutely still is a cement pedestal mount, which was not the case here. Any other type of mount produces micro-shake, caused by simple things as something mechanical in the area running like a fan, motor or anything that produces low frequency noise. The spread out legs of the best portable tripod are not immune to this.

The instability of the atmosphere is the most obvious distortion producing effect. Even with huge telescopes, there is a severe limit of clarity that you can get from Earth using magnifications over 50x, due to atmospheric thermal mixing which produces a lensing effect. You can see the effect readily, as it is akin to photographing something underwater through a rippling surface. The distortion is uneven, and different parts of the image move or shimmer and go in and out of focus, where other parts are more stable.

Real expensive software processing video from cooled eyepiece CCD's can stabilize the image by stacking multiple frames and using edge alignment, to average out individual frames, and this means you need a very high frame capture rate to provide content for this process. Photographs or videos of the moon that use these techniques, will be the best you can get recorded through the atmosphere.

In a nutshell, without the best equipment, the amateur astronomer will get about the same clarity from an 8" objective that they can with a 16" observing the moon, because atmospheric distortion is the real limiting factor here.

So in this video, the moon looks about as expected with the equipment the OP says they have, but we all know that it is totally possible to overlay a moving object over a background like this with the CGI available today. That is why it cannot be proven authentic.

That's the point though, it's hard to stay focused and the jitter of the telescope would cause the moon to shake in unison with the object. But the moon shakes and the object just glides slowly despite the frames shaking. It was added after the video. It's a very common mistake when fabricating videos

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: ngchunter
He's lying. But you would know what that's like, wouldn't you?

Excuse me?!!!?

Perhaps you need a "time out?"

Personal attacks are not necessary...

It's a fact, you lied about how much of his video I used in my debunking. I need a time out for pointing out facts? Well I guess that will go nicely alongside my "criminal charges" for posting said debunking video.

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: ngchunter
He's lying. But you would know what that's like, wouldn't you?

Excuse me?!!!?

Perhaps you need a "time out?"

Personal attacks are not necessary...

It's a fact, you lied about how much of his video I used in my debunking. I need a time out for pointing out facts? Well I guess that will go nicely alongside my "criminal charges" for posting said debunking video.

Look man...

While I may have mischaracterized how much of a video you used, that is far from a "lie"...

Here is where this is truly at: you need no more than a few frames, but, you used ALL of the original content, and some of the additional content from dudes video...way more than can be justified by "fair use". To further complicate the issues , you accused him of a crime. In short you tried to use his property to slander, and defame him and his property.

While this may have started as a "good thing" the extreme you took it to constitutes a greater crime. The reality is that you stepped out into the unknown completely unprepared, committed a not very serious error, and now are completely unwilling to step up and take responsibility for you actions.

I should also say, that when you violate peoples rights to advance your agenda, you become no better than those who would pretend to govern us. I'm sorry that you reduced yourself to the level of a common criminal; perhaps, if allowed, you should simply learn from the experience, and go forward with purpose.

originally posted by: tanka418
Look man...

While I may have mischaracterized how much of a video you used, that is far from a "lie"...

Wow, way to mince words. "Mischaracterized." Let's see what you said.

that doesn't change the fact that you used almost the whole video, even though you didn't need to. And as I said before; you should consider yourself lucky IF he doesn't press criminal charges. He clearly has the case to do so...I would have.

My entire video was 2 minutes 10 seconds long, I used a section of his video that was only 27 seconds long. His video was 5 minutes 27 seconds long. You lied, sir. You then doubled down on your lie and set a goalpost that I used too much because I used "more than 10%."

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: ngchunter
Way back in the day (1970's) we used to think that "fair use" meant les than 10% of the original...but then we didn't have videos to contend with, mostly printed material...but, "less than half" is way more than 10%, and, the restrictions on that are stricter now..

27 seconds of his video is all that I used. That works out to 8.3%. I used only what I needed to make my point to establish what he claimed and what he actually showed. You had the gall to lie about how much I used and suggest that I should be criminally charged for my actions. These are the facts.

originally posted by: tanka418
To further complicate the issues , you accused him of a crime.

You are a liar, I did not accuse him of any crime. You have claimed that I should face criminal charges, however. So by your own standard of evidence, you are slandering me. He is making money off of people by posting hoaxed videos like this one, that is the fact that I exposed and it is true, therefore not slanderous. It's not criminal for him to do this, and I did not accuse him of any crime.

Where is the man who took the video? To claim it's true of false. He probably isn't concerned with some internet want-a-bes
hacking up the video, which would tend to say it's false.

HOAX

That only took 7 pages to realize...

Back in the days it would have taken two...
must be those new guys

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: ngchunter
You should probably consider yourself lucky if he doesn't press criminal charges.

Funny, the hoaxer himself used almost the exact same phrase last night in an email to a friend of mine...
"He is lucky I have not yet pressed criminal charges."
Things that make you go hmmm....

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: tanka418
To further complicate the issues , you accused him of a crime.

You are a liar, I did not accuse him of any crime. You have claimed that I should face criminal charges, however. So by your own standard of evidence, you are slandering me. He is making money off of people by posting hoaxed videos like this one, that is the fact that I exposed and it is true, therefore not slanderous. It's not criminal for him to do this, and I did not accuse him of any crime.

You haven't established, by your evidence, that it is in fact a hoax. Hell, we with better evidence still can't establish that it is a hoax. "Hoax" implies intent to deceive, no where has it been established that there is any intent to deceive. All that we can establish is the video is very probably CGI, and this based on the shadow, not the video protocol, and compression errors.

Now...what you are accusing this person of most certainly is a crime, it is called; fraud. Fraud can have serious consequences, as can theft. And trust me, intellectual property theft is just as serious as fraud.

Which is also to say; that while I salute you for your attempt at supporting truth, I cannot, will not condone your ethos. I find it as deplorable as the possibilities of the video. You are both wrong, equally.

originally posted by: Spacespider
HOAX

That only took 7 pages to realize...

Back in the days it would have taken two...
must be those new guys

Yep,,,but back in the day this would have been "declared" a hoax, not proven.

Now, we have proven the video is not real...the hoax part we still can't address as we do not know the creators intent. But, with the proven knowledge we can place it in the "hoax bin"...which has the same effect.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: tanka418
To further complicate the issues , you accused him of a crime.

You are a liar, I did not accuse him of any crime. You have claimed that I should face criminal charges, however. So by your own standard of evidence, you are slandering me. He is making money off of people by posting hoaxed videos like this one, that is the fact that I exposed and it is true, therefore not slanderous. It's not criminal for him to do this, and I did not accuse him of any crime.

You haven't established, by your evidence, that it is in fact a hoax. Hell, we with better evidence still can't establish that it is a hoax.

Yes, actually it has been deemed a hoax by the ATS leadership which is why this thread now sits in the hoax bin. Their judgement of the situation is far more valuable and trustworthy than yours.

All that we can establish is the video is very probably CGI, and this based on the shadow, not the video protocol,

Both speak to the hoaxed nature of the video. Amazing on the one hand that you admit it's CGI, but you deny that it was done for deceptive purposes. Any reasonable honest person would see the automatic link there. But then, I'm not talking to an honest person.

Now...what you are accusing this person of most certainly is a crime, it is called; fraud. Fraud can have serious consequences, as can theft. And trust me, intellectual property theft is just as serious as fraud.

Awfully insecure there. Quote where I said he committed fraud. I sure don't recall ever saying that. Methinks you doth protest too much. I have not committed "intellectual property theft." I have created a video which comments on and criticizes the UFO hoax video. That is protected fair use and is a far, far cry from "intellectual property theft." You have accused me of committing a crime for which I should face criminal charges, you have lied about how much of his video I have used, and you have denied that what I am engaging in is free speech. You are attempting to silence me by means of intimidation. The only question left is why, and I think it's finally becoming clear to me why.

a reply to: tanka418

So this video is obviously fake. Very obviously fake. If there is no intent to deceive the poster will remove it from his YouTube channel and apologize right?

Or they will reply to messages like this, showing they are indeed hoaxers:

If you continue to message me concerning this video I will have no choice to but report you to YouTube for harassment.

originally posted by: tanka418
All that we can establish is the video is very probably CGI, and this based on the shadow, not the video protocol, and compression errors.

So, I have a question. I saw a UFO once (I am not going to debate what I saw).

The entire UFO was sort of glowing, like self illuminated. It had a whitish/yellowish glow.

I, of course, do not know what made it glow. Could something like this interfere with shadowing?

Again, I am not taking sides, just questioning because of my own experience.

a reply to: Annee

If it was glowing enough so that it did not cast a shadow, then it would have instead been lighting up the dark parts of the crater and indeed parts of the dark side of the moon it entered.