Video analysis needed:: Space Orb Jan 31 2009

reply to post by ThInGS Ar3 NoT WHaT Th3y


The phase of the Moon on a particular day of the month is the same no matter where on the planet you may be. On January 27th the Moon was new and set about an hour before Venus.

About the OP: The witness uses a tripod, so camera is fixed, and from time to time he all of a sudden moves a little the camera, to maintain the object in the frame. But most of the time the camera just stays still.


Look, i cannot demonstrate it is exactly Venus. But are many clues to this.

I know to recognise defocused phenomen, actually i've posted just before in this topic some examples (youtube movies), as arguments to my words. (or look in my signature for the videos)

What we see in OP is a defocused point of light. The disc shape, the horizontal line, all the details on the disc, does NOT exist, it is CAMERA ARTIFACT (as in one of my youtube movie www.youtube.com... ). That light in OP IS NOT A DISC (pulsating). It is just a bright point of light. Look at 9:14....9:30 time mark. Now, the witness moves a bit the camera, disturbing the continous auto-focus procedure, and the orb became..focused! (and he wonders as "UFO" changing shape ). WHAT A CONFUSION!

FACT: in reality what he is filming is a BRIGHT POINT OF LIGHT. Nothing more. What he or we see on the movie is nothing real, is wrong, is camera artifact, is a confusion. We must think that it is only a bright point of light. Actually , he says in the begining, that he films something like a star, but seeing in the frame the orb, wonders that stars are not always stars. He just didn't have not one clue in his superficiality to understand defocused images, or, if he knows, he tries to mislead us.

About direction. He says south west..then going to west, then think and change to south east going to west (because he beeing to the north). He just is confused. As ussualy, witnesses are very subjective and prone to mistakes. I don't trust his opinion. He says object moving to West. No, we see in the movie that it is going from up-right to down-left of the frame. This means is going down, but to the south in regard to horizontal references. He speaking about west, is a clue that acctualy object itself is more to the west. He just is confused.

Now look in high speed a part of his movie, and notice the linear up-right to down-left moving, and the angle of this trajectory.




Now with Stellarium:

Now, for Sidney town in Australia, look the trajectory and angle of Venus:


note: forget those coordinates, it was a mistake, because clicking involuntary to another star )


The same for Darwin town, which is much closer to the equator:



We can see that beeing closer to equator, the angle is more vertical than in Sidney. (feel like a sailor with sextant instrument ). So, the witness is not to the south of Australia, but more to the north part of Australia, given the angle of Venus (if venus)

So, a star/planet going to set, in southern emisphere, is ussualy going to west as principal direction, but deviating to south as minor movement.

If not Venus, maybe another bright star. But Venus is hypnotic!

By the way, he was set the zoom to the maximum. Only here the defocus system is very given to big errors, and...if he just see something like a star but wishing to see details, why the hell to not use zoom? Furthermore, like in this thread ( www.abovetopsecret.com... ) i can do the same calculations starting of maximum zoom of this canon model camera, and measuring the angle movement in the OP movie), and i'm sure the results will be pretty closer, in relation to Earth rotation (stars motions).

What we have here?
A defocused orb (image artifact), a description of a star, scintillation like a star, a movement like any star in that Australian zone, a confused witness not knowing about defocusing and groping to orientate himself in cardinals.
And two dead pixels, fixed in the frame ALL THE TIME of the movie (derulate yourself the whole youtube OP movie, or look at my high speed GIF above extracted from OP), don't matter that witness move the camera arround, the "stars" are fixed. Because they are dead pixels.

We have nothing. A guy filming stars.
In fact we have a LOT OF CONFUSION.

(And personaly i think the witness tries somehow to mislead us...i mean, what the hell, going outside, put the tripod and filmimg stars, not knowing to recognise a star? What activity is this? And look, he has another youtube movie, with the same, taken in the morning 2 AM, this time with a rising bright star. I think he just drinked too much coffee and cannot sleep - or maybe it is too hot there)

[edit on 1/2/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 1/2/09 by depthoffield]

Detpth of Field Thank You for your examples given ,the more I have looked at the video the more I see you are most likely CORRECT, like I said in an above post I have no problem being wrong... I only held up the argument until I was given an plausible explanation for the observations I pointed out earlier in the post. Thank You for making me see the light