The Moon Is Upsidedown Tonight ! Las Vegas, Nevada

page: 16
24
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Have not read all the posts in this thread.. but the topic caught my eye. I was just telling a very close friend of mine (who is in a different country) that the moon looked "odd" last night. The only way i could describe it.. was simply a crescent moon facing up (normal) but towards the bottom part of the full part.. it almost looked like a "partial eclipse" - like something was in front of it.
Odd to me - not sure if this was a normal phenomenon.. am rather new at looking at the skies, but seems to be drawing my attention a lot lately.




posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
What model Finepix? If you can't adjust the ISO, then exposure compensation would probably be the best bet.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nekbet
Have not read all the posts in this thread.. but the topic caught my eye. I was just telling a very close friend of mine (who is in a different country) that the moon looked "odd" last night. The only way i could describe it.. was simply a crescent moon facing up (normal) but towards the bottom part of the full part.. it almost looked like a "partial eclipse" - like something was in front of it.
Odd to me - not sure if this was a normal phenomenon.. am rather new at looking at the skies, but seems to be drawing my attention a lot lately.


Can you link to one of these images that looks most like what you saw?

www.google.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Looking through them now

ETA

www.flickr.com...

use this picture .. but with a larger crescent ... and then move the circle blocking object towards the lower right corner moving up over the moon :/
edit on 6-11-2011 by Nekbet because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


I see a few images that match the crescent moon that I saw.. and then a few images that are similar to what I was calling a "partial eclipse" .. but the ones that resemble the "partial eclipse" that I saw give the result of the crescent moon (uggh I hope I am making sense
) maybe a better analogy would be "looked like someone took two bites out of the moon .. a big one on top (making a crescent) then a little one on the bottom (like a round object moving in front of it)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Nekbet
 


That sounds like something was in front of the moon. I'd go back to the exact spot where you saw it in daytime, and see if there's anything that might have got in the way, like a tree.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


I was at the local festival last night... so maybe it was just the festival lights causing an optical illusion ... Have just never experienced that before. I know I looked at it many times during the evening... because of the fact that it looked so strange ... but you saying go back to where I was during the day - made me realize that it could have just been an odd illusion from the festival lights.
Thank you



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


If the clouds will clear out some this evening... I will however be outside to take one more look so I can feel better LOL



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Also some things that look like the moon are not:



www.bbc.co.uk...
edit on 6-11-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


I could see that as being very plausible as something that could have been in front of the crescent moon from last night... Thank you !



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 

If like you said, exposure 1/60 and boost your iso to 800 with smallest f-number( i think you mean biggest aperture, wide open?)then take a shot of the moon with those settings, you will definitely get an overexposed shot.
At night the moon is bright enough to take shots at 1/500 to 1/1000 depending on your aperture.
Leave your iso at 100-200(reduces noise) set the aperture at around f/4-f/8 and your shutterspeed 1/500.
You will get more detail using these setting.
Also a tripod isn't necessary cause you use a fast shutter(but if you just had five cups of coffee you may need one

You don;t need a dslr to take a descent moonshot.
These days many compact cams have manual settings.
I don't know how it will look if you use a full auto cam or settings, i always use manual settings.

@Aestheteka
What was it that you wanted to prove me wrong? Sorry for asking.
If you say that the moon has rotated, we will have the proof in a couple of days, full moon, no?

Yesterday i went out and the moon looked the same as those shots i took earlier.
Only it was 30min-1h later. What is normal.

edit:
Of course if you want to take a shot like Nekbet posted you will need more exposure time to reveal the shadow on the moon. But that's only with a waxing or waning crescent moon, the first days,otherwise you get an overexposed moon.

This is one i took in January 2009 at 50 degrees North.
You can't see much detail, but it's also 'boat shaped', no?





edit on 6-11-2011 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Nekbet
 


That would be a good idea since that is the only way, only way to be sure. More will be revealed .. thx for the post btw



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Aestheteka
 


Don't forget to put in the exif data, or they might say it's a fake



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by intergalactic fire
 


In the context your using to describe the crescent moon then all crescent moons are boat moons ( shaped ) ???



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


No, this has to do with the time of the year, the moon's orbit around the earth and the earth's orbit around the sun, and from what latitude you are looking at specific times.
It also depends on how the moon is setting on the horizon, at an angle or straight down.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


Pictures with a point of reference? I also saw the death star next to it in alaska, hehehe.

In all seriousness, do you have evidence?

All the cameras n LV and all those people who saw but so busy looking at it forgot to start snaping,
Please, support this cause I really do believe I've seen the moon having strange behaviors but??



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
reply to post by Uncinus
 

If like you said, exposure 1/60 and boost your iso to 800 with smallest f-number( i think you mean biggest aperture, wide open?)then take a shot of the moon with those settings, you will definitely get an overexposed shot.
At night the moon is bright enough to take shots at 1/500 to 1/1000 depending on your aperture.
Leave your iso at 100-200(reduces noise) set the aperture at around f/4-f/8 and your shutterspeed 1/500.
You will get more detail using these setting.
Also a tripod isn't necessary cause you use a fast shutter(but if you just had five cups of coffee you may need one

You don;t need a dslr to take a descent moonshot.
These days many compact cams have manual settings.
I don't know how it will look if you use a full auto cam or settings, i always use manual settings.

@Aestheteka
What was it that you wanted to prove me wrong? Sorry for asking.
If you say that the moon has rotated, we will have the proof in a couple of days, full moon, no?

Yesterday i went out and the moon looked the same as those shots i took earlier.
Only it was 30min-1h later. What is normal.

edit:
Of course if you want to take a shot like Nekbet posted you will need more exposure time to reveal the shadow on the moon. But that's only with a waxing or waning crescent moon, the first days,otherwise you get an overexposed moon.

This is one i took in January 2009 at 50 degrees North.
You can't see much detail, but it's also 'boat shaped', no?







edit on 6-11-2011 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)


Then if this is what you mean




No, this has to do with the time of the year, the moon's orbit around the earth and the earth's orbit around the sun, and from what latitude you are looking at specific times.


Why did you say this?




This is one i took in January 2009 at 50 degrees North. You can't see much detail, but it's also 'boat shaped', no?


Is a dog a cat and a cat an elephant? How many desciptions of a boat are there?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


Because it's the same shot as yours.
The bright side is at the same angle only smaller.
Maybe a bit more tilted yes.
What exactly do you mean by boat?
Call it U-shape or C-shape or in between.
Boats can rock a lot you know.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by intergalactic fire
 


The term "Boat" is used to describe the crescent being perfectly aligned to the horizon , NOT ROCKING LIKE A BOAT AT SEA.. Otherwise the crescent moon standing 12 oclock to 6 oclock could then be called a boat in a tempest!!!!! You know exactly what I mean ....



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
reply to post by Uncinus
 

If like you said, exposure 1/60 and boost your iso to 800 with smallest f-number( i think you mean biggest aperture, wide open?)then take a shot of the moon with those settings, you will definitely get an overexposed shot.


True, but here we just want to see the orientation of the crescent, so you need enough exposure to get something of the horizon.
edit on 6-11-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join