Moon UFOs (Or why would someone fake this)

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Ok so if I'm understanding you, and you think they're too fast to be in orbit, as you think they appear: Then why not just figure that they're actually flying from self-propulsion? You're still basically making up a limitation, and then saying they're too fast for the limitation that you're assuming should be on them...

I'm not making up a limitation, it's one of the most real and significant limitations for space travel based on human technology. Propulsion requires fuel and we take extreme measures to reduce the amount of fuel needed.

Even if aliens had more advanced propulsion, it would likely still take more energy to propel the craft than to just let it orbit at the normal orbital speed which doesn't require much if any fuel orbiting the moon. It's hard to think of a reason why the craft would need to waste that fuel if the UFOs were real, but if they are fake, it's pretty easy to think of why; the CGI artist knew more about CGI than about orbital mechanics and didn't make the orbital speed realistic.

So maybe it's not the most absolute proof if you want to assert that maybe the aliens don't mind wasting fuel when they could much more easily orbit the moon at natural orbital speed, but even in that case I wouldn't say it meets your statement of " It looks good to me, i.e. it looks convincing to me... ". I would say it doesn't look good at all, and is not convincing at all to expect that even aliens would waste fuel when it's completely unnecessary, and further it seems a lot more likely that it shows the CGI artist doesn't know orbital mechanics. Plus there are a lot of other clues that it's fake mentioned in this thread, but either you haven't read them or you refuse to accept them because you don't understand them. Like what about the say what appears to be an added heat distortion effect suddenly stops at 49 seconds? The turbulence in the Earth's atmosphere doesn't suddenly stop like that, it looks like an error in the CGI, and other errors have been mentioned too.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Arbitrageur,
I just now got around to analyzing the turbulence, and I agree with the conclusion that it is computer generated. It really does just stop prematurely. This is absolute proof the video is fake.

My initial analysis also came to the conclusion the "clouds" or "fog" that is constantly passing by were computer generated as well. It is an animated "noise" layer that perfectly moves left to right on the frame. The fact that this fog continues moving while the turbulence instantly stops... its damning.

This evidence suggests the back plate is not even a video, it is a still photo of the Moon. Knowing this we can probably find more proofs.

The back plate was actually well done because I was slightly convinced it was a video. I have filmed the Moon myself personally many times at similar magnification on a tripod. The speed of the Moon's orbit and the atmospheric turbulence looked spot on in this video, so I didn't focus time on it.

I would bet money that the speed the Moon is moving in the video is not accurate if we measured it. CGI artists are lazy, they will make estimations not exact calculations.

This also means some of my initial comments regarding match moving jitter and vibrations may not be accurate. If this was constructed from a still image there would be no need to match move. So the vibrations may be caused by something else like non-smooth animation key frames which would also cause the fake motion blur to kick in (if its not just caused by the generated turbulence alone). I will revisit that if required, but the turbulence is the final nail here and I don't think I need to waste more time.

Turbulence stops exactly at frame 855 in the video I've extracted from YouTube.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1
Thanks for taking a look at the turbulence, I'm glad you see the problem too.

This is absolute proof the video is fake.

I agree. There were plenty of other clues, but for me, that's the final "nail in the coffin" so to speak, proving it's fake. That just doesn't happen in a real video.

This evidence suggests the back plate is not even a video, it is a still photo of the Moon. Knowing this we can probably find more proofs.

I too was wondering if it was a still photograph of the moon that was animated and enhanced, and that CGI error does suggest that's the case. I don't see another way to explain it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You guys are tripping, there is no absolute proof that it's fake. You guys are mostly constructing these elaborate reasons, which are still just meaningless.

For the idea that the craft pass out of light too suddenly, that's not a real reason. The craft obviously would pass out of the bright lit area, at some point, and it would look sudden. Like it does.

You guys also can't definitely debunk the atmosphere distortion / turbulence, either. For god's sake, you can't assume exactly how the clouds and atmospheric distortion should look, lol. How absurd.

Myself, I'm not convinced either way, that it's real or CGI, but you guys are just making up problems that aren't really there.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Ok so if I'm understanding you, and you think they're too fast to be in orbit, as you think they appear: Then why not just figure that they're actually flying from self-propulsion? You're still basically making up a limitation, and then saying they're too fast for the limitation that you're assuming should be on them...

I'm not making up a limitation, it's one of the most real and significant limitations for space travel based on human technology. Propulsion requires fuel and we take extreme measures to reduce the amount of fuel needed.

Even if aliens had more advanced propulsion, it would likely still take more energy to propel the craft than to just let it orbit at the normal orbital speed which doesn't require much if any fuel orbiting the moon. It's hard to think of a reason why the craft would need to waste that fuel if the UFOs were real, but if they are fake, it's pretty easy to think of why; the CGI artist knew more about CGI than about orbital mechanics and didn't make the orbital speed realistic.

So maybe it's not the most absolute proof if you want to assert that maybe the aliens don't mind wasting fuel when they could much more easily orbit the moon at natural orbital speed, but even in that case I wouldn't say it meets your statement of " It looks good to me, i.e. it looks convincing to me... ". I would say it doesn't look good at all, and is not convincing at all to expect that even aliens would waste fuel when it's completely unnecessary, and further it seems a lot more likely that it shows the CGI artist doesn't know orbital mechanics. Plus there are a lot of other clues that it's fake mentioned in this thread, but either you haven't read them or you refuse to accept them because you don't understand them. Like what about the say what appears to be an added heat distortion effect suddenly stops at 49 seconds? The turbulence in the Earth's atmosphere doesn't suddenly stop like that, it looks like an error in the CGI, and other errors have been mentioned too.

Blah blah blah, making up assumptions about aliens' fuel usage, orbital speeds.

The heat distortion stops for a moment and yes it's perfectly possible in a real video. See this is making up assumptions about how things should go, and then using that as proof. Nobody can assume the continued effect of a heat distortion, it's inherently a chaotic distortion anyway, and yeah it could obviously stop like it does in the video.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
The heat distortion stops for a moment and yes it's perfectly possible in a real video.

Prove it's possible in a real video! You can't.

See this is making up assumptions about how things should go, and then using that as proof. Nobody can assume the continued effect of a heat distortion, it's inherently a chaotic distortion anyway, and yeah it could obviously stop like it does in the video.

Then show a real video where it suddenly stops like that. You can't because it never happens in a real video.

Here's a real video, tell me where the heat distortion suddenly stops, or post any other real video where it suddenly stops.

Effect of atmospheric seeing on the moon.

You say it's an an "assumption" but it's you who is making the assumption that it can suddenly stop.

We are not making assumptions, because we can post video after video where it keeps going, so it's observational evidence in videos like the one above showing that's how it behaves, not an assumption. So provide some observational evidence for your assertion, if you can, but I know you can't because it doesn't stop suddenly like in the fake UFO video.

I don't know why you so desperately need to believe that's not a fake when the heat distortion suddenly stopping proves it's fake. It doesn't just stop at any random place, it stops after most of the CGI work is done and the UFOs have disappeared, which seems unlike a random occurrence but is very much correlated with the CGI artist not paying much attention to the added effects after the UFOs disappear.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You guys are tripping, there is no absolute proof that it's fake. You guys are mostly constructing these elaborate reasons, which are still just meaningless.

There's way less proof that it's genuine.

For the idea that the craft pass out of light too suddenly, that's not a real reason. The craft obviously would pass out of the bright lit area, at some point, and it would look sudden. Like it does.

Assuming they're real. Which they aren't.

You guys also can't definitely debunk the atmosphere distortion / turbulence, either. For god's sake, you can't assume exactly how the clouds and atmospheric distortion should look, lol. How absurd.

Those of us who have used telescopes and filmed the view through them know exactly how they look. Here's one I did.



OMG the moon changes colour!! It's not grey it's what THEY want you to think, proof!! etc etc etc

Myself, I'm not convinced either way, that it's real or CGI, but you guys are just making up problems that aren't really there.

The problems with the video are there, otherwise people wouldn't be pointing them out.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
You guys also can't definitely debunk the atmosphere distortion / turbulence, either. For god's sake, you can't assume exactly how the clouds and atmospheric distortion should look, lol. How absurd.

Actually we can debunk the turbulence when it just instantly stops on a single frame.

Atmosphere turbulence doesn't just stop, that would be like stopping all the little ripples and waves of the ocean all at once.

There is the an infinitesimal chance the turbulence gets gradually smooth for a moment and becomes less visible, but that would happen over several frames on only small portions of the Moon. It will never instantly stop across the entire Moon in a single frame.

This thread belong in the hoax bin.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: JamesChessman
The heat distortion stops for a moment and yes it's perfectly possible in a real video.

Prove it's possible in a real video! You can't.

See this is making up assumptions about how things should go, and then using that as proof. Nobody can assume the continued effect of a heat distortion, it's inherently a chaotic distortion anyway, and yeah it could obviously stop like it does in the video.

Then show a real video where it suddenly stops like that. You can't because it never happens in a real video.

Here's a real video, tell me where the heat distortion suddenly stops, or post any other real video where it suddenly stops.

Effect of atmospheric seeing on the moon.

You say it's an an "assumption" but it's you who is making the assumption that it can suddenly stop.

We are not making assumptions, because we can post video after video where it keeps going, so it's observational evidence in videos like the one above showing that's how it behaves, not an assumption. So provide some observational evidence for your assertion, if you can, but I know you can't because it doesn't stop suddenly like in the fake UFO video.

I don't know why you so desperately need to believe that's not a fake when the heat distortion suddenly stopping proves it's fake. It doesn't just stop at any random place, it stops after most of the CGI work is done and the UFOs have disappeared, which seems unlike a random occurrence but is very much correlated with the CGI artist not paying much attention to the added effects after the UFOs disappear.

ffs This doesn't even mean anything. Heat distortion would stop if the heat rising suddenly stopped. Which of course it perfectly well can, in nature, because it's a chaotic process in the first place. All it would take is a possible change in wind direction, or wind temperature, etc.

There's no reason to act like heat rising is a perfectly consistent process because it obviously isn't.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Those of us who have used telescopes and filmed the view through them know exactly how they look.

Absolutely. You have to use a telescope to appreciate when there is good viewing, however, atmospheric disturbance is always there and does not go away unless computer processed. Even then, the stacked images are not real time anymore...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Heat distortion would stop if the heat rising suddenly stopped.

Which would never happen in a single frame at 25-30 frames per second.

Which of course it perfectly well can, in nature, because it's a chaotic process in the first place. All it would take is a possible change in wind direction, or wind temperature, etc.

Again, none of those will cause it to stop in a single frame. Yes it can stop eventually.

Again you're the one making assumptions. The evidence shows it never stops suddenly.
You never provided any evidence to show it would stop suddenly, and all the causes you listed for it changing or stopping would not happen in a single frame, which is why you'll never find a real video where it stops that suddenly.

Look the argument doesn't even make sense. Heat distortion would stop depending on the atmospheric conditions that the telescope and camera were viewing.

Stopping would require nothing more than a change in the wind blowing the heat effects away for a moment...

a reply to: JamesChessman

Atmospheric distortion is not limited to a layer that can be blown by the wind, it's the result of all the kilometres of air between us the our targets.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

Atmospheric distortion is not limited to a layer that can be blown by the wind, it's the result of all the kilometres of air between us the our targets.

Of course atmospheric distortion is the result of many miles / kilometers of air, between us and the target.

And of course the heat effects can change instantly, if its factors are changed instantly, which can certainly happen in nature.

Apparently I was making it seem too limited, by referring to the wind; however, there is obviously such a thing as cold fronts of wind, which travel around, and bring instant cold air to an area. That's all true and it's what I was referring to.

It's a possible reason that the vid shows heat effects stop. Why? Because cold air could have been replacing the warmer air, during the moments that we see the heat waves stop.

This holds up as a possible explanation, even regardless of mentioning the many miles / kilometers of air and distortion.

For one thing, seeing heat distortion doesn't mean that it's many miles' worth of heat distortion. It's possible that it was only a relatively small area that was getting heat distortion.

However, even if we assume that the heat distortion is showing many miles' worth of heat effects, even then, many miles of warmer air can be displaced by colder air, if the cold front is going right against it, and pushing away the warm air.

TL;DR: Referring to the many miles of distance is NOT an argument against the heat effects in the vid. Air flow obviously does change in nature, and it would be the mundane explanation for why we see the heat ripples stop, in the vid.

...

Also I'm NOT even convinced that it's a real video, it certainly could be CGI, but it's no help to basically make up nonsensical arguments about it. Which is what it is, to argue that the heat ripples aren't satisfactory.

Really the best argument AGAINST the vid being real, would be that the guy should ideally upload some of his other moon-recording vids, to establish that this is really his hobby, and we could compare his other vids to the UFO vid. The lack of such vids is maybe the biggest criticism of this case.

But the heat ripples are not a real criticism of the vid.

a reply to: JamesChessman

You are making a mistake, atmospheric distortion is not the same thing as heat distortion like what we see above on a hot road. Atmospheric distortion is the result of the air not being completely still between the observer and the target, so if a cold air occupied the volume previously occupied by hotter air we would still see the change as atmospheric distortion.

Atmospheric distortion only stops if the whole air between the observer and the target stops moving and changing temperature and density.

Hi all. To answer why someone would fake Moon ufo...my best guess would be if that person acutally seen some activity on the Moon through the scope and had tried to re create what was witnessed but not captured.

Just my two cent to answer OP.

a reply to: Encounter

In that case, unless that person states that it is a reconstruction, it would be a hoax.
There are apparently a lot of reasons people find to create hoaxes of many sorts. Youtube is loaded with them. Some more obvious than others.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

First and foremost, it was a pleasure to read a thread like this one for a change.

Second, regarding the moving of video's to the hoax bin, not all things thought to be hoaxes are meant to be moved there. This debate is an example of why that is true. Some are best debated by everyone here in this forum. When we move them, it's either because it's a proven hoax that someone of reasonable sensitivities would not question being a hoax, or it's from a source well known for passing off hoaxes as real.

You had me right up front when you pointed out the color issue with the shadow, and one thing I suspect may well be making it tough for people to get, is the monitor they happen to be on. I viewed it on a calibrated monitor where the color issue was more stark and obvious on a monitor where the color gamut is wider and colors more correct. For me the shadow color you pointed out made up my mind without all the other things pointed out. Whoever created the video made a rather obvious mistake.

I'm no expert, but have enough experience with graphics and 3D models and rendering to understand what experts point out. Seems like most of the obvious errors I see are related to shadows.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

You are making a mistake, atmospheric distortion is not the same thing as heat distortion like what we see above on a hot road. Atmospheric distortion is the result of the air not being completely still between the observer and the target, so if a cold air occupied the volume previously occupied by hotter air we would still see the change as atmospheric distortion.

Atmospheric distortion only stops if the whole air between the observer and the target stops moving and changing temperature and density.

Well I don't want to get lost in semantics of it. When I referred to heat ripples, I am referring to the atmospheric distortion, in general. Because movement and interaction of air of different temperatures, is basically the cause of the atmospheric distortion.

And AFAIK, large amounts of cold air, produce the least amount of heat distortion / atmospheric distortion.

Atmospheric distortion only stops if the whole air between the observer and the target stops moving and changing temperature and density.

^Well, there is such a thing as air that is relatively unmoving.

But also, the basic reason that we'd see the atmospheric distortion stop is just a large amount of relatively cold air, AFAIK, so this is apparently what we're seeing, when the vid stops its distortion. We're just seeing a colder section of air / atmosphere, for a moment. I don't think it would even need to be unmoving, it would just need to be cold.

So however exactly you'd like to explain it, the vid is not showing a problem in its atmospheric distortion stopping for a moment. It's a chaotic natural process that can naturally do that. Presumably because we're just seeing a moment of relatively uniform, colder air.

a reply to: JamesChessman

I don't think it would even need to be unmoving, it would just need to be cold.

If you step outside on one of those "cold, sparkling nights" you might notice the stars twinkling vibrantly. This is referred to as scintillation, and to the casual observer looking skyward, they might think of such a backdrop as the perfect night for an astronomer, but it isn't.

This is because when looking skyward, skywatchers are trying to see the sky through various layers of a turbulent atmosphere. Were we to train a telescope on a star, or a bright planet like Mars, what we would end up with is a distorted image that either seems to shake or quiver or simply "boils" to the extent that you really can't see very much in terms of any detail.

www.space.com...