Moon UFOs (Or why would someone fake this)

originally posted by: Phage
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...

Alright, so there's always some distortion; I was saying that cold air causes the least amount of atmospheric distortion, AFAIK, and you didn't even refute that.

This doesn't mean that absolutely every video would always show visible distortion at every single moment. If the distortion is minimal enough then it wouldn't show up in a video.

Like, if a bunch of cold air prevailed over an area, and had minimal atmospheric distortion.

a reply to: JamesChessman

I was saying that cold air causes the least amount of atmospheric distortion, AFAIK, and you didn't even refute that.

Yes. I did. Read it again.

Like, if a bunch of cold air prevailed over an area, and had minimal atmospheric distortion.

Nowhere is the atmosphere homogenous. It is the interface of various temperatures and densities of the atmosphere (horizontal and vertical) which produce the optical distortions. The technical term is refraction.

This doesn't mean that absolutely every video would always show visible distortion at every single moment.

Show me a telescopic video of the Moon which displays no distortion at all. While the amount of distortion may be lesser or greater, it will not change dramatically between video frames.

a reply to: Phage

Yes. I did. Read it again.

No you didn't. Read it again yourself.

My statement is that the coldest air produces the least amount of atmospheric distortion, afaik. You didn't refute that, you just quoted a statement that there's always some distortion. Ok, so there's always some. But I said that cold air has the least amount of distortion, doesn't it?

And that if the distortion is minimal enough, then it wouldn't show up in a video. And that's it. For the vid itself, I believe that the momentary lack of distortion... suggests a moment of colder, more uniform air...

Also did the guy ever post more vids to his YouTube channel? Because that would be the best context to judge this one video...

a reply to: JamesChessman

If you step outside on one of those "cold, sparkling nights" you might notice the stars twinkling vibrantly.

For the vid itself, I believe that the momentary lack of distortion... suggests a moment of colder, more uniform air...

The atmosphere is nowhere homogeneous.

The depth of your confirmation is quite impressive. I will grant you that. Your previous insistence in the other thread, that the image was taken from outside the car is a good example.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

If you step outside on one of those "cold, sparkling nights" you might notice the stars twinkling vibrantly.

For the vid itself, I believe that the momentary lack of distortion... suggests a moment of colder, more uniform air...

The atmosphere is nowhere homogeneous.

The depth of your confirmation is quite impressive. I will grant you that. Your previous insistence in the other thread, that the image was taken from outside the car is a good example.

The atmosphere is nowhere homogeneous. But if distortion were minimal enough, then it wouldn't show up in a video, right? You don't really answer the most pointed statements like that.

And then you're just being obnoxious about "confirmation," well your obnoxiousness is "quite impressive. I will grant you that."

And referring to the other thread, you don't even have a point. I had never said that I knew exactly the circumstances, because I obviously didn't, but I did say that I was convinced it was taken outside. As per the image itself giving that impression.

Then I contacted the gentleman and confirmed the exact circumstances, and I posted it, despite being contrary to my first impressions.

Which shows I respect truth, even if contrary to my first impressions, I'm still trying to get at the actual truth. As I did in that thread, that you don't really even have a point in criticizing.

How hard are you trying to find / fabricate criticisms when your big insult is that my first impressions of a photo were not exactly perfect, meanwhile no one know the exact circumstances either.

I asked you before: Did you personally know EXACTLY how the photo was taken, while driving, through a windshield? No, you obviously didn't know that either, yet you're criticizing me for not knowing it.

What a mentality, some people have, insulting others for the same things that they share themselves. In this case, you didn't know the exact situation either, but you're insulting me for not knowing, the same thing that you didn't know? ffs

a reply to: JamesChessman

I asked you before: Did you personally know EXACTLY how the photo was taken, while driving, through a windshield? No, you obviously didn't know that either, yet you're criticizing me for not knowing it.

There are obvious reflections in the image. You, in attempting to rationalize them, came up with a plethora of absurd claims about them. Still are doing so, as a matter of fact. Shadows in the sky. Contrails.

You seem to be very new to some of the very basics of visual imagery. Ignorance can only be a fault if you refuse to learn anything. In lieu of that, it can be considered an opportunity. You seem to prefer the former to the latter. Hence, I'm done.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

I asked you before: Did you personally know EXACTLY how the photo was taken, while driving, through a windshield? No, you obviously didn't know that either, yet you're criticizing me for not knowing it.

There are obvious reflections in the image. You, in attempting to rationalize them, came up with a plethora of absurd claims about them. Still are doing so, as a matter of fact. Shadows in the sky. Contrails.

You seem to be very new to the basics some of the very basics of visual imagery. Ignorance can only be a fault if you refuse to learn anything. In lieu of that, it can be considered an opportunity. You seem to prefer the former to the latter. Hence, I'm done.

I think what's absurd is that you're calling my possible explanations as absurd.

When I considered the UFO as possible craft, that's because of the seeming structure which is plainly visible. So the idea did make sense.

And now I've just about settled on it being lens flare, as the UFO structure seems to match the turbine structure, so that's also a sensible explanation.

There's nothing absurd about any of that.

Nor was anything absurd in the lines, I thought they were sunlight effects. Not absurd.

See, at some point people are just obnoxious more than really saying anything.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

I asked you before: Did you personally know EXACTLY how the photo was taken, while driving, through a windshield? No, you obviously didn't know that either, yet you're criticizing me for not knowing it.

There are obvious reflections in the image. You, in attempting to rationalize them, came up with a plethora of absurd claims about them. Still are doing so, as a matter of fact. Shadows in the sky. Contrails.

You seem to be very new to the basics some of the very basics of visual imagery. Ignorance can only be a fault if you refuse to learn anything. In lieu of that, it can be considered an opportunity. You seem to prefer the former to the latter. Hence, I'm done.

Also you changed your wording, after I responded before. Yes, I thought that the lines in the photo were airplane exhaust trails, catching sunlight in such a way that it was making shadows.

There's still nothing absurd about that.

The obnoxiousness does not have substantial criticisms behind it, in the first place.

I can't even imagine what kind of personality / mentality thinks he is being cleverly insulting... about someone interpreting a photo as showing airplane exhaust trails.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well I don't want to get lost in semantics of it.

It's called "definitions", and it's important to know that two people are talking about the same thing.

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.

It would have to be a huge volume of air, from the telescope to the top of the higher regions of the atmosphere, a few dozens of kilometres in height, completely uniform and affected by nothing for those seconds.

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 is, it is showing something that never happens.

It's a chaotic natural process that can naturally do that. Presumably because we're just seeing a moment of relatively uniform, colder air.

I don't think you are considering the volume of air that would need to be completely still and uniform.

a reply to: ArMaP

Thanks, well I won't keep banging on about how I think it looks natural and possible, and others don't. We're all kind of playing armchair-meteorologists here, assuming that none of us actually work for the weather channel, or spend our time making telescopic videos of the moon, etc.

I haven't checked the guy's YouTube channel recently (who posted the moon ufo vid) but I hope he posts some of his other moon recordings, and then we could compare his vids, and their atmospheric distortion. That would probably be the best answer to all the speculations about the one vid's atmospheric distortion.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: ArMaP

Thanks, well I won't keep banging on about how I think it looks natural and possible, and others don't. We're all kind of playing armchair-meteorologists here...

Evidence, evidence, evidence. We can post more videos showing the "atmospheric seeing" distortion never stops in a single frame.

You have denied all of us a learning experience because you haven't posted a single real video where the "atmospheric seeing" distortion stops suddenly.

I was listening to Neil DeGrasse Tyson tell a story which made me think of you. Tyson ordered a hot chocolate with whipped cream on top at a restaurant. The waiter brought him the hot chocolate, and Tyson nicely reminded him that it was supposed to have whipped cream on top. The waiter said they added the whipped cream but it already sunk to the bottom.

Tyson said that's not possible.
The waiter said yes it is possible.

So the waiter set out to prove his claim. He went to the kitchen, got some whipped cream, brought it to Tyson's table, and added it to the hot chocolate. Then they both waited to see who was right, based on actual evidence. That settled the argument because one of them was right, and a learning experience took place.

I've attempted to do my part to supply evidence showing it doesn't stop, by posting a real video showing that. Another ATSer has also posted a real video showing it doesn't suddenly stop.

What's lacking is any evidence from you that the distortion can suddenly stop in a real video of the moon.

So unfortunately, unlike the great story of the learning experience that took place to view evidence to settle the Tyson hot chocolate whipped cream dispute, no such learning experience has taken place here because unlike the waiter, you're not willing to prove your argument with evidence, by posting a real video of the moon where the atmospheric distortion suddenly stops in a single frame.

So let's clarify it's not just "We're all kind of playing armchair-meteorologists here...", but rather one side has posted evidence and the other side has not. Or, after you look at many, many real videos of the moon, and see for yourself the distortion never stops suddenly like in this fake video, you might re-evaluate your claim.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Mostly importantly, did the whipped cream sank or not?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well I agree with you that we need more videos to compare it with.

I was hoping that the guy who posted the ufo vid, would post some of his other moon-recordings vids.

That would be the best thing to compare it to.

Maybe someone should reach out and contact him, to ask about the atmospheric anomaly that you guys think is there. And to ask if he can post some of his other vids.

Also I just want to point out that while the dominant debunker argument right now is about the atmospheric distortion:

It's worth noting that others have argued about practically every aspect of the vid. The shadows are not lined up perfectly; the craft leave the sunlight too suddenly; the objects are moving too fast; speculation about alien fuel consumption etc.

So basically no matter what, there's always a group who's criticizing every aspect of the vid, and it would be impossible for the vid to ever be validated, because there's always another 5 or 6 criticisms that groups of people are swearing are true.

And so even if we did somehow manage to validate the atmospheric distortion, let's be real, the vid would be no better accepted, anyway. People would just move on to swearing that the shadows are wrong, the speeds are wrong, etc.

And these such criticisms are always basically impossible to prove either way, for most people.

...

I just checked homeboy's YouTube page and he never did upload any more of his moon recording vids, as I was hoping he would.

Disappointing...

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Mostly importantly, did the whipped cream sank or not?

If you can watch his story on youtube, it starts at 30 minutes and only lasts a few minutes, and his explanation is so much more eloquent than "yes it did" or "no it didn't", because he talks about the underlying physics and some things I never really thought about before. For example, he talks about "skimmed milk", and what does that mean? What exactly was skimmed and what does it mean to skim it and does that have any relationship to cream? What I did think about was what does the "whipped" mean in "whipped cream" and what are the physics governing that? 2 days before I watched this video, I made some whipped cream for the first time in my life (I had always used cool whip before and decided to try something different), which seemed like some synchronicity to hear Tyson talk about whipped cream in a video I thought would be about the Cosmos. So I had some recent personal experience in what the "whipped" in "whipped cream" meant, and once you know what that means in detail, the physics implications should be obvious.

A mind-expanding tour of the cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson and Robert Krulwich

If you can't watch the video, I'll type up a simple reply but if you can watch it, the explanation from Tyson will be much better.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I was hoping that the guy who posted the ufo vid, would post some of his other moon-recordings vids.

It was a "friend of a friend" thing. The OP video is on the Zeal channel, and their "friend" who uploaded it is Jean-Michel Tenac who says he got it from "a friend" who wishes to remain anonymous.

Jean-Michel Tenac, the uploader...

"states that this video was filmed somewhere in Montréal, France NOT Canada. This footage was given to him by his friend who wishes to remain anonymous."

The anonymous source is confirmed at 14 seconds in the OP video text, did you watch the video?

originally posted by: iknowyou
Since there is a claim, that the person who recorded the footage is watching and recording the moon regularly, feels natural to ask for all the other footage he recorded to compare with this one. At least a couple of minutes. Should be no problem to provide it and give him some credibility. Would at least prove the moon is not CGI and the wobble effect is not post production. Could also prove it fake if he fails to provide, without any unnecessary and over the top breaking down of the original footage. All the responses similar to 'he doesn't care to prove anything', or 'he's so mysterious he is nowhere to be found' would also immediately debunk everything.

ATS member iknowyou suggests an anonymous source is enough to debunk the video. I can't go quite that far since it doesn't really prove anything, but I would go so far as to say it casts suspicion on the source and makes it impossible to do the things you suggest like

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Maybe someone should reach out and contact him, to ask about the atmospheric anomaly that you guys think is there. And to ask if he can post some of his other vids.

The "anonymous source" makes that impossible. I think it's not even a real video. The distortion effect suddenly stopping infers stoppage of a CGI effect added to a photograph, suggesting the whole thing is an animated photograph and not a video. So if this isn't even a video but is instead an animated still photo as the evidence suggests, it doesn't make sense to talk about "other vids".

originally posted by: Phage
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.

May be because witness wanted us to believe what he saw? Lets look at it as entertainment. Re creation would be my resort to tell the truth and entertain at the same time creating this video.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

lol at your response. Whether the source is “anonymous” or not, he does have his own YouTube channel that he uploaded the ufo video onto. It’s linked in the description of OP’s video.

So I’m guessing that you didn’t realize that or else why would you be talking about how he is “anonymous” lol.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

And regarding contacting the video’s creator, we do know his YouTube channel but I was just looking and I didn’t see any way to actually contact him via email or anything.

Though I’m not sure if it might be there somewhere that I’m missing it? I don’t think so though.

Anyone see any contact info on his channel?

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: Arbitrageur

lol at your response. Whether the source is “anonymous” or not, he does have his own YouTube channel that he uploaded the ufo video onto. It’s linked in the description of OP’s video.

So I’m guessing that you didn’t realize that or else why would you be talking about how he is “anonymous” lol.

Are you talking about the channel named at the top of the screenshot I posted?
The one that says "This video is not mine. A friend passed it on to me...The filmer wishes to remain anonymous". Here's a duplicate posting of the same screenshot since you either didn't read it or didn't understand, or else you need to give me the name of the channel of Jean-Michel Tenac's anonymous friend. I have Jean-Michel Tenac's channel but he says it's not his video.:



You've shown zero comprehension of my statement that

The OP video is on the Zeal channel, and their "friend" who uploaded it is Jean-Michel Tenac who says he got it from "a friend" who wishes to remain anonymous.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

well the "anonymous" guy has his own YouTube channel, so I didn't really consider him "anonymous" but yeah ok.