It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Extra Moon In Photo's ? Picture Weirdness

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
To clear up a couple of issues

first ....the photo was not edited in anyway.

www.rejectz.com... is the direct link to the full original version.

Secondly the photos are called sun as they are taken of the clouds at sunset and hence are in a folder named sunset.

there is a screen shot somewhere on page 1 or 2 that shows the folder and the pics. I have been quite happy to supply pics on request to examine. I have not touched them up and if you ever saw my patheic attempts at photoshopping heads onto bodies you would laugh at the notion of me masterminding a brilliant hoax.

thirdly I am 38 years old. I am a woman to clarify that and I have six children and a loving family and lots of things to do. I am not a bored sad person that perpetrates hoaxes to fool the masses.

It was there, its not a fake, its not an april fools joke.

[edit on 22-10-2005 by Mayet]




posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Ok, don't get all persnickedy now..


We can't find any answers if we don't ask any questions. I notice there's a small lens flare from the moon in the first shot you posted, and the house lights appear very bright in the other photo's. Is there any other bright light source in your yard?



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   
No you would be lucky to read a book in the light. I was in the backyard no streetlights, no outside lights and no neighbours lights.

Oh and I am not getting up tight, I would like answers to because at first I thought oh well it's a bit strange but now the more I think about it and the more stuff discounted from the equation I think its really strange. and I wonder... I wonder WTH.

So I am just clarifying. Its a bit hard to get the idea from text and not talking face to face but yeah I want answers so I don't mind the questions.

[edit on 23-10-2005 by Mayet]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   
i heard on qi, the show for all my lack of knowledge, that even more moons had been descovered and now there were 5 including the ones youve already talked about, is it true, does anyone now the web site about it?
heres a site with earths satilites, including what they are made of and some that are just debris, but its still missing the other 2 on qi www.hohmanntransfer.com...

[edit on 26/10/05 by mik0001000]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Ok can someone help me with a problem.

This thread was started on the 16 of October my time and the pictures taken were taken Saturday the 15th of October... The full moon. The night I took the pics was the full of the full, not by calender estimations but from visual.

Now heres my issue. Its the next full moon tonight. Which is the 16th of November.

Huh? thats a 32 day cycle of the moon... how so?

it was the full of the full on the 15th of oct.. moon rose at sunset
it is the full of the full tonight 16th of Nov... moon rose at sunset and was same full as the 15th, even if its one day out its still a 31 day cycle then

since when did the moon cycle do this?

Why is the moon now taking this month 31 to 32 days between a full to full.

It says on official sites that last months full was on the 17th, but as you see in the pics from first page the full was on the 15th, even if it was on the 17th it still doesn't make the cycle right.. whats going wrong or where the heck have I stuffed up?

It certainly seems longer than the 29.5 cycle I was always taught. Anyone have ideas of where I stuffed up or is the moon going slower?


[edit on 16-11-2005 by Mayet]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Mayet;

I cannot understand the full moon question, but I wish to tell ALL who are here that you are a good, honest person and for folks to knock anything you wish to say, I have to defend..



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   
The Old Farmers Almanac site has a daily calendar showing the moon phases. The link above will show the current month, and I believe you can access similar pages for past months.

The full moon is given as one date, but the moon will be nearly full for several other days....the 16th is the date given in Nov.as the full.....


but the 13th, is very nearly the same....


and so is the 18th


.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
thanks siriusly its appreciated

Frayed I do understand there is more than one full but it seemed the same full, the moon rises at a different time each day of full and i usually take the full as the fullest moon without the corners clipped off (or curves) and when it rises at sunset. I am still wndering about this. Common sense tells me I have the moon wrong but meh it looks odd..not as odd as the extra moon though, that still has me well and trully beat.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Sorry, didn't mean I thought you didn't understand, I was just sort of thinking out loud........

I see what you mean about the 30+ day cycle........makes one wonder if the moon's orbit has done something funky, and they've not bothered to tell us.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Tahts ok I was just 'splaining too


I don't know, it does sound odd and it was odd to me.. I am certainly going to keep at least one eye out watching over the nxt few months..



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Perhaps it was Venus at her brightest, although Venus is in the WSW part of the sky.

Who knows? Id be pretty excited too.

Where do you live?



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   
It was the moon, well as much of the moon as I know after those pics on page 1.

I live in Cairns Queensland Australia.

I went out and watched the moon before, which is something I do everynight that I can. It was as it always is, more northern than last months passage which is normal too. What wasn't noraml is the same full was on the 15th of Oct as the 15th Nov, that part doesn't make sense even giving for one day error. The moon rose much later tonight.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Ok Mayet, you've sparked my interest with your "trick moon" conspiracy here. So after a long study session with jezebel we've come up with a couple theories followed by a couple more questions and requests should there be further investigation required.

BTW, it's been assumed that your credibility and honesty aren't in question here. We've taken you at your word and assume the evidence has been unaltered.

First, let's deal with initial pics of the moon that you posted. I've created a step by step animation to help illustrate what we came up with.



So this leaves us with a couple possibilities.
1.) Image 1 and 2 are NOT of the moon, however from your perspective it still looks exactly like the moon. It's positioned in the sky blocking the real moon from view. Then in Pic 3 it has moved or vanished without you noticing and revealed the real moon.

or

2.) Image 1-3 are actually the moon, but for some reason the moon remained static only in pics 1-2 then in the time between pic 2 and 3, it "moved down, and to the left" and either shrank to 1/3 it's original size or shot off into space at an incredible speed making it appear to have shrunk in size. .

Now, keep those in mind and let's go to your 2nd "trick moon" located in the NW picture that appears for just one shot.

If theory 1 is correct then the object might have moved unnoticed from the East toward the NW, after you took pic 2, but before Pic 3 (of the real moon). At the same time as you were preparing to take your second picture of the clouds in the NW sky, the object passed in front of your lens from the East overhead. That's when you took your lucky second shot and caught the prodigal moon just before it disappeared from view. This would explain why it was in only one frame, and no others.

If theory 2 is correct then I don't really have any good answers for what happened. Unless the "flying space moon" teleported to the other side of the sky for a quick photo op. Or perhaps it momentarily fell out of its orbit, and you captured the confused satellite on film before it could get back where it belonged.


Let me know if there is some info that I've confused or am lacking which would change my understanding of the situation. If you have the unedited images, in the order they were taken in, we'd like to see them. We were unsure about when each of the pics were taken and a few other specifics.

Hope this helps. Or at least entertains!



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
craig732: The rectangle around the light source is probably just an artifact of jpeg compression; you can see similar ones in the moon shots, although not as definite, since those appear more out of focus.

Mayet: It looks like you caught something legitimate, probably a fielball/meteor. Whatever it was, it was much bluer than the moon.

At first I suspected a reflection from your flash, as the light source is so much sharper than the moon in sun1/2/3. However, in sun5.jpg the camera is focused on the background (compare to sun4.jpg, where the camera focused on the edge of the house's roof; also look closely at the clouds and the phone wires), whereas in sun1/2/3/4 the camera focussed on the foreground. That means that whatever it was, it was probably at least as far away as the utility poles, and possibly as distant -- or farther -- than the clouds.

Your camera exhibits a slight bit of astigmatism, about few degrees off the long axis, which makes it fairly easy to determine that lens flare appears consistant, frame to frame. I mention that because the sun5 spot is elongated vertically, but not in the direction I would expect if it were caused by lens aberations. That indicates the light source may have been in motion.

There are almost invisible clouds in sun4, which look backlit in sun5. As the two frames were shot only 2 seconds apart (that's what the jpeg headers say, anyway ) and at the same exposure (5.8mm fl, ISO 250, .5 sec @ f2.8), I'd say something further than the clouds was glowing VERY brightly.

Finally, if you examine untouchedsun closely, the bright spot is saturated in the center, fades a bit, then flares back out to saturated around the circumference before fading out completely. The only mechanism I know of to produce that effect is the diffraction rings around star images in telescopes, but this is an inexpensive Fuji A350 -- no offense, I'm thinking of getting one for somebody for Christmas. An object seen by reflected light may have a peculiar "edge-effect", but a digital camera should be immune to that. An object which glows from within (like the sun) exhibits a distinctive appearance where the edge is much dimmer than the center, but it doesn't get brighter beyond that. But you can see the same effect in a flame (or flaming object).

October was a good month for fireballs up this way:
www.namnmeteors.org...
and just about everywhere else:
www.imo.net...

Congratulations, Mayet, it seems you got a picture of an exploding fireball -- that's a rare occurance, indeed.


by mOjOm: Let me know if there is some info that I've confused or am lacking...

-- Your Pic1 is sun1.jpg (11:03:03), Pic2 is sun3.jpg (11:10:05), Pic 3 is sun2.jpg (11:04:02). You're comparing them out of sequence over a seven-minute span.
-- Exposures differ by around 400%. That alone would would explain the differences in the "rays".
--They were shot from different locations -- check the trees and utility poles in the distance.
-- Focus varies considerably between shots -- would also effect size of spot and appearance of "rays".



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
now no one beat me with their torch or pitchfork
but it could be of the supernatural kind a fabled angel perhaps.......
or mabey something....else.....



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
well nearly nine years on and revisiting this topic. Nothing has changed I still shake my head in amazement . That night still ranks as one of the weirdest non explained phenomena I have ever experienced.

The same camera was used for quite a few years after the event and nothing ever turned up weird in any other photos taken.

Over the years the links have gone though. Here they are for preservation



First two pics are facing the east at sunset capturing the moon rising one with flash one without





Then I turned to get some pics of the northwestern sky I took a series straight after each other. The first is fine but then on the second I get a moon where no moon is supposed to be






No other pic in the series had this "moon" in it .. and it was not reflection/camera issue or any other easily explained thing. One member got the original and blew it up .. shame that pic is not here in the thread now.

Things that still make you go hmmmmm. Years later



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 04:36 AM
link   
It could simply be a small particle or a water droplet lit by the camera flash:



Lots of "extra moon" with various sizes:




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Wait, did you only see this other light in the photos you took, or could you see it with the naked eye? There was a thread a few years ago in which someone was describing these other planets or moons that were visible when they would photograph near the sun, and some said that extra lights can appear on camera when one does this. So I took two different cameras and went outside and verified this. The lights would sometimes appear in different spots, if I moved to a different location to take the picture, and I concluded that they were in fact just normal appearances due to photographing near a light source like that.

I am not saying this is what occurred in your case, but it is something to consider. If you could see it with your naked eye, then obviously something was there. But if it only showed up in the picture, then my guess would be that it is likely a natural occurrence due to the camera. All you have to do is go out and try to reproduce it on another night, and see what happens.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


Never been able to recreate this..I'm a photographer now and take thousands of shots..never had anything like this..

The full moon that month was weird.. The dates...



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I read through this entire post and what floored me was... You have six kids!!! I believe you, you are way too busy to fabricate a hoax..

I find this of particular interest due to the earth, mars, sun alignment followed by the tetrad.

Truly the heavens were created for the telling of time, times, seasons, signs and wonders.. You have captured a wonder..

I truly feel something of significance is about to take place within the year..

Nice catch OP, SF




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join