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.

 

Moon UFOs (Or why would someone fake this)

page: 9
62
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2020 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Rancidmilk2go

Tgis all could be explainable.

Thats why I want to look myself for a 8 hour shift and will report back



posted on Apr, 11 2020 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rancidmilk2go
This isnt fake

There are 2 other videos showing the same formation on the same day.

Whats going on or what the motivations are who knows. Maybe they are asteroids



originally posted by: Rancidmilk2go
a reply to: ArMaP

youtu.be...

Here is one. 4th video ive seen in the last 2 weeks. Same sort of size..same sort of formations and speed.

I'm pulling my telescope out tonight. I wanna debunk this cause its been on my mind..with all this pandemic crap going on
That's not the same formation, not even close. And it's not from the same day as you said.

The video in the opening post of this thread says "UFOs on the Moon. March 26, 2020"
The video you posted says "Occurred on May 18, 2019 / Moscow, Russia"

How do you figure that's the same day?

Those objects in your May 18, 2019 video are not casting any shadows on the moon, and they don't appear to be in an insanely fast orbit around the moon like the fakes in the OP video claiming March 26, 2020.

I have no way to prove this claim false from the May 18, 2019 video link page:

" They are helium filled party balloons. I've been tracking and visually observing satellites for over 30 years and know the difference. I've observed this very type of thing many times. You can even see diverging paths between several balloons as they are carried along variations in the wind. Not possible with satellites."

There are also real videos of things like birds, bats, bugs, satellites, Chinese lanterns, etc crossing in front of the moon, but they are all closer to the Earth than to the moon, and none of them cast shadows on the moon's surface like the fakes in the opening post of this thread.

Satellites can be seen in the sky too but if they cross the moon it happens pretty fast usually. This is an interesting video of the ISS crossing the moon, but of course it's nowhere near the moon. Like the (apparent) balloons it's much closer to the Earth than the moon:

Nikon P900 Captures ISS Lunar Transit



posted on Apr, 11 2020 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Rancidmilk2go

Thanks for the video, but it looks nothing like the video in the opening post.



posted on Apr, 14 2020 @ 04:44 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 20 2020 @ 04:48 AM
link   
All looks fine to me. At that resolution, the pixels will be jumping around and changing positions so you cannot find any detail sufficient for much. If it was faked it would have to be done in high resolution, effects pre-planned then reduced by a codec that would be consistent with the cameras. Only NSA or similar have such tools. Then another generation to obscure any other leftover clues, but the compound pixelization would show artifacts by then.

The various altitudes of the Moon topography would define shadow displacement from the object and the variability would account for shadow behavior.

From what I see you can get very approximate size, altitude, speed of the large objects by fuzzy analytics. But why do so much math? The probability of this being faked is so low for what it is, and it's being like so many other such similar footage that it is probably exactly what it seems to be. Not worth splitting hairs and waste of effort.

CGI, Modeling, lighting, animation photography, video on top of being an illustrator and astronomical artist, amateur astronomer and other technical background sets my view and discernments as fairly reliable for my own needs.

Zeroghost



posted on Apr, 20 2020 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZeroGhost
If it was faked it would have to be done in high resolution, effects pre-planned then reduced by a codec that would be consistent with the cameras.

Could you explain what you mean by "a codec that would be consistent with the cameras"?



posted on Apr, 20 2020 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
3: The UFOs vibrate and jump around due to motion tracking issues. This is likely do to the fact that they use a real Moon video for the back plate, and the Moon is moving, and the turbulence in Earth's atmosphere causes the Moon to look wavy due to refraction of light, as if it was viewed through water.
Regarding whether the turbulence in the earth's atmosphere causing "waviness" in moon images at high magnification was there in a pre-existing video of the moon, the creator of the following CGI (mendezmendez) who studied the original carefully explained why he thought it looked like an added effect because he saw a point where it looks like the effect accidentally got turned off.

www.youtube.com...


mendezmendez: Check the original video at the 49 second mark. The atmospheric distortion completely stops for a few seconds (the camera jitter, clouds and panning keep going tho). It looks like the effect got turned off by accident


Here's a tutorial on how that heat wave effect can be added with something like "After Effects" software:

Heat Wave Distortion Effect - After Effects Tutorial


In the "original" video in the OP, I see exactly what mendezmendez is referring to, the heat wave distortion just stops which does look like an added processing effect that got accidentally turned off in the CGI because it looks completely unnatural. I've watched numerous videos of the moon at high magnification and I've never seen atmospheric distortion just completely and suddenly stop like that

Another thing I noticed is after that happens, the video re-plays the area of interest in a "cropped, zoomed" mode, where the atmospheric distortion or "heat wave effect" becomes even more pronounced because it's magnified by the zoom, but that zoomed replay cuts off before the "heat wave" effect suddenly stops. If it kept going it would look even more like a fake because the effect getting turned off would also be magnified.

So maybe the CGI experts here can look around the 49 second mark to see if they can see what looks like the "heat wave" effect accidentally getting turned off as mendezmendez suggested. I can see it and it does look wrong. Not quite as wrong as the UFOs not obeying the orbital laws of physics by orbiting the moon in a number of minutes instead of 2 hours or so, but still wrong.



posted on Apr, 28 2020 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
Fake, the shadows of the "UFOs" are being projected in the wrong direction.


Wrong. The shadows are being projected correctly, as they match up with the angle of light, and the shadows of the moon itself. That is, the light and shadows are coming down diagonally, from the top right side.

How do you find something wrong in that?

Also I'm not convinced about the clip being real or CGI.

I'm just saying that the shadows and light are all consistent, and I can't see anything wrong with that aspect of it.



posted on Apr, 28 2020 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck
You can get an idea of where the sun is by the shadow and lighted parts of the moon. The craft doesn't share this same angle of shadows. The shadows, once it peaked over the further side, would have already been on the surface and wouldn't have just poofed there all of a sudden. The height of the craft could be why they didn't go into shadow with the moon but that shadow being so large and so dark from the craft... I'm going to say it's too dark and too perfect a shadow. I would expect the shadow to fade inward, I can't imagine it being so defined.


ETA:

watched it on highest rez on my big screen and slowest settings YouTube has to offer other than custom.

- The time between shadow and craft for each of the 3 crafts do not coincide. It takes less time for the second craft, where the shadow shows up immediately after the first craft's shadow appears but the first crafts shadow takes a bit to appear after the craft comes into view. Not so with the second or the third. Hope this makes sense. Timing is wrong between each craft and each shadow when compared.

= The 3rd UFO is key. They try to give the impression that the atmosphere is affecting the craft in the same way that the moon's clarity is affected. They messed up on the 3rd craft's shadow. You can literally see it move upward for a frame then back down as though the shadow moved without the craft. It's not due to the shadow going over any terrain. Shadows will fall over the surface in the same direction as the craft. It will not jump up out of the way for a whole second and then back down without the UFO doing the same. I'm not referring to the forward motion. The only way that shadow could be made possible is if that craft also jumped up at the same time but it didn't. The shadow distorts over the terrain as you would expect it to but this was nowhere near that. It was very, very obvious that it was created by someone and not real.

= Timing was too perfect. I would have given the video more credit had it been already fixed on the moon a good time prior. This was almost anticipated.

- The bright bit of a crater right at the shadow line blinks dark then back to bright for a split second. Shadows wouldn't move like that unless the moon had a hiccup and reversed it's spin immediately then back. We all know that the moon doesn't spin that quickly and it certainly doesn't spin backwards and finally, the sun doesn't move around the moon either. So this is impossible.

ETA ETA

- Also noticed that the atmosphere affects the moon and the craft separate and not together as it should. The craft moves up and down and so does the moon but not together and the terrain isn't affected when the craft is affected.

- Why is the shadow behind the craft and not in front? The sun is behind the craft and the moon. This would make the shadow forward and not behind thus the shadow wouldn't appear seconds after the craft appears.


Too much wrong with this when you play it on .25% speed.


With all respect, I think you're assuming way too much about all these small details. Everything you mentioned would be affected by many factors that we can't account for exactly. Size of craft, & height over the surface, would affect the shadows, including if the craft were changing altitude over the moon, then it would change the appearance of the shadows, their size & movement. The terrain also has uncertain geography that would change the shadows, and we can't know exactly the landscape's details.

What I can say is that the angle of the shadows and light, looks correct to me: Everything is coming from the top-right side, so it seems consistent to me.

Also the vid says that he films the moon regularly so that's not really a criticism that he happened to be filming in the right spot...



posted on Apr, 28 2020 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

originally posted by: ArMaP
Fake, the shadows of the "UFOs" are being projected in the wrong direction.

Although I tend to trust your judgement AM, a little more than a one-liner would not go unappreciated. You are usually more elaborate than that.


I was making lunch.


OK, although not as I thought at first, the shadows are really wrong.

I used the original video (this one), as it doesn't have any text over the images at the beginning.

First, I used the start of the video to get a reference for the direction of the light, and made this crude image.


Then I marked the direction of the three shadows of the "UFOs", marked in red in the image below, and compared them with the light's direction (in yellow). As the camera doesn't rotate between frames we can use the same reference in different frames.


We can see that the shadows (red lines) are not parallel to each other, with the central one pointing in a slightly different direction. Considering the different positions of the "UFOs" over the curved surface of the Moon, the shadows should be pointing more to the top of the frame the closer the "UFOs" were to the top. In the same way, an UFO over the equator should have its shadow perfectly perpendicular to the surface of the Moon.

I'm sorry for the slightly confusing explanation (as usual, I'm not that good at explaining things, not even in Portuguese), I hope everyone understands what I am trying to say.


Besides that, the shadows should not move around, like the one from the topmost "UFO" does.


Sorry but I think you're mistaken here. Your lines are actually very similar and consistent, when your main point is arguing that they're not.

I can barely see what you think is inconsistent with the lines you put there, but I think you need to also take into account all the many unknown factors that could change the shadows' appearance, and we can't know the exact details of: The craft size, altitude variations, terrain variations, etc. would all change the shadows' appearance, size, exact location on the moon. And I think that easily can explain the very slight inconsistency of the shadows that you think you see.



posted on Apr, 28 2020 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain
The direction from which the Sun is lighting the Moon is not consistent with the direction from which the objects are lit:





Now I'm skipping around the thread but sorry, you're mistaken here too. The images you posted... ARE, in fact, consistent.

And dependent on many small factors, the exact shape of the craft, the exact angle of the craft in relation to the sunlight angle, etc.

No, the craft would not need to be mostly dark, or lit exactly the same way as the moon is (mostly dark).

The craft would obviously have a different sunlight effect because they are different objects, separate from the moon, with their own factors of height, shape, angle in relation to sunlight, etc.

Also, what IS consistent in the vid, is that the sunlight and shadow effects are all streaming down in the same direction, so that aspect seems fine...
edit on 28-4-2020 by JamesChessman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2020 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: JamesChessman

My idea of how the shadows should look was wrong, as explained in a later post.



posted on Apr, 28 2020 @ 11:49 PM
link   
The shadows are absolutely perfect, perfect

So has the actual raw footage from the owner been analysed yet? professionally etc?



posted on Apr, 29 2020 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
This is embarrassing
No the lighting on the UFOs should not move or fade...they’re above the Luna surface illuminated by the sun right they’re not self illuminated
They should remain solid bright in the sunlight, and blink of instantly entering the shadow


You're right this is embarrassing. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you are the creator of this video since your logic is just as flawed as the video?

I know the objects are not self illuminated, they are lit by the Sun and reflecting sunlight. That means as they curve around the Moon, the angle between them and the Sun should change, and so should their reflection of the Sun. It doesn't change, therefor its fake...

No, they should not "blink off instantly entering the shadow". You are forgetting how large the Sun is. It is NOT a point source of light.



Do you even know what a penumbra is? You and the hoaxer obvious don't...



The UFOs have to pass through the penumbra before it reaches the umbra....



Above is easier to understand. It is a sunset from the International Space Station. It is a time lapse and would normally be much slower. The point is, because the Sun is so large, and the Earth is round, the Sun doesn't just "blink off". More and more of the Sun is blocked by the Earth, and so the light from the Sun gets smaller and smaller. This causes the ISS and other orbiting bodies to fade into the shadow of Earth. It doesn't blink off.



Why didn't they pass through the penumbra???

Judging by your response that the UFOs should just "blink off" you seem to agree with me that the UFOs in the video do "blink off". Now that I have proven the UFOs should NOT have just "blinked off" and they should have FADED OFF (like real orbiting bodies do) I would take this as a victory over ignorance and hoaxes.



originally posted by: TritonTaranis
3) the UFOs do not vibrate move around and jump because as you state motion tracking, the “shadows” appear to move around due to passing over rough terrain and are further wobble & distorted because of viewing through earths atmosphere, this is pretty obvious but still you’re pulling mental gymnastics 🤸🏼‍♂️

4) same as above, it’s not mistakenly added motion blue lol, it’s the atmosphere and terrain

5) please bring on the rest of these ridiculous explanations they’re absolutely staggering


Since you don't have even a basic grasp of physics and or an understanding of light, I don't know if I should venture into the more advance computer graphics and animation topics such as 3 and 4.

I have already debunked this UFO video now TWO TIMES. I will wait to hear you reply before moving on to 3 and 4.


You’re literally THE WORST try hard I’ve ever encountered

No1
You’re saying objects moving well over 50,000mph into a shadow should dim like the sunset ? And because the correctly just blink off GOTCHA?

So the sun which goes down very very slowly, which is a light source, is the same as a sun lite object?, not self illuminated like the sun, going into a shadow at 50,000 + MPH you really don’t have a clue how desperate or clutching at straw your logic is do you? what on Earth are you talking about? this is mind boggling that you think sun lite object Traveling crazy velocities into a shadow should behave like a sunset

No2
You’re suggesting the objects blink out a different positions?

Different altitudes

WORST AMATEUR DEBUNKING EVAR, must have taken you a full week to dream up this reply

I feel like you’re holding out a turd, saying have an Apple, after several times of me laughing and asking are you joking, you’re still offering me a turd as an apple with a strait face


edit on 29-4-2020 by TritonTaranis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2020 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
No1
You’re saying objects moving well over 50,000mph into a shadow should dim like the sunset ? And because the correctly just blink off GOTCHA?


It seems you don't understand the argument. The objects don't exactly blink off in the video, they pass through a solid line of shadow.



See how thin those red lines are? Solid line shadows would only happen with a single point source. The Sun is not a single point source, it is hundreds of thousands of point sources spanned over an area of millions of square miles.

The Sun is so large that the Moon can only partially block the Sun for some distance (penumbra) until the objects move to a point where the Moon blocks the entire Sun (umbra). It doesn't matter how fast they are moving, they need to pass through the penumbra.

See this animation I made just for you:



Objects dim slowly in the penumbra before disappearing completely in the umbra. This is because the amount of sunlight hitting the object decreases slowly in the penumbra, and is blocked completely in the umbra.


originally posted by: TritonTaranis
No2
You’re suggesting the objects blink out a different positions?


No, I've never made any comment about that.


originally posted by: TritonTaranis
WORST AMATEUR DEBUNKING EVAR, must have taken you a full week to dream up this reply

I feel like you’re holding out a turd, saying have an Apple, after several times of me laughing and asking are you joking, you’re still offering me a turd as an apple with a strait face


No, am not am amateur. I am contracted for my image and video forensic services professionally. This service includes access to software I developed for detecting image and video manipulation, reverse engineering camera paths and lighting, analyzing pixel data for inconsistencies and anomalies, and detail enhancement through multi-frame pixel averaging with injected bias via filtering.

No, it takes me only a few minutes to see all the flaws. I have decades of practice and natural ability.

I have shown this video is fake using 2 different mathematical and scientific proofs, and I have a few more I can discuss. However, judging by your toxic replies I don't think any amount of evidence will suffice, nor does it seem will you be able to understand it.
edit on 29-4-2020 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2020 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

My idea of how the shadows should look was wrong, as explained in a later post.


Oh Ok, lol. Sorry well I did say that I was skipping around the thread unfortunately. I didn't sit down and try to power through the thread.

Besides, the OP is really the guy's moon-recording vid itself: that is the essential topic, and I watched the vid in high definition. It looks good to me, i.e. it looks convincing to me...

...But I don't think there's definitive proof either way, that it's real or CGI...



posted on Apr, 29 2020 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I didn't sit down and try to power through the thread.

...But I don't think there's definitive proof either way, that it's real or CGI...
Not reading the thread is a good way to remain ignorant about whether there's proof either way, if that's your desire.


It looks good to me, i.e. it looks convincing to me...
So the UFOs following what appears to be an orbital trajectory around the moon at velocities way too fast to be orbital trajectories looks good to you? We know how long it takes to orbit the moon, since we've sent numerous spacecraft there into orbital trajectories, and have recorded how long the orbits took.



posted on Apr, 29 2020 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I didn't sit down and try to power through the thread.

...But I don't think there's definitive proof either way, that it's real or CGI...
Not reading the thread is a good way to remain ignorant about whether there's proof either way, if that's your desire.


It looks good to me, i.e. it looks convincing to me...
So the UFOs following what appears to be an orbital trajectory around the moon at velocities way too fast to be orbital trajectories looks good to you? We know how long it takes to orbit the moon, since we've sent numerous spacecraft there into orbital trajectories, and have recorded how long the orbits took.


Wow, what a reply.

Honestly I don't think I need to read all 9 pages of the thread, when the first 3, and the last couple, give a pretty good idea of people's general responses.

There's obviously no definitive proof either way. I have gathered that much. The main topic (like I said) is watching the guy's moon-recording vid, in high definition, and I have. It looks convincing to me, and impossible to prove that it's real or just really good CGI.

Your last point is basically saying that they're flying too fast to be real, which is nonsense. We have no place to assume how fast alien craft can fly. lol.



posted on Apr, 29 2020 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Your last point is basically saying that they're flying too fast to be real,
No, I'm saying they appear to be in orbit but they are moving too fast to be in orbit. I am not saying they are too fast to be real. We have spacecraft that can move faster than the speed of spacecraft orbiting the moon, but the faster spacecraft won't orbit the moon at those higher speeds. We understand orbital mechanics pretty well and the mathematical equations have been well-verified by many orbits.


edit on 2020429 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 29 2020 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Your last point is basically saying that they're flying too fast to be real,
No, I'm saying they appear to be in orbit but they are moving too fast to be in orbit. I am not saying they are too fast to be real. We have spacecraft that can move faster than the speed of spacecraft orbiting the moon, but the faster spacecraft won't orbit the moon at those higher speeds. We understand orbital mechanics pretty well and the mathematical equations have been well-verified by many orbits.



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...







 
62
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join