A huge object is filmed impacting and bouncing off the Moon - no one bats an eyelid

reply to post by hounddoghowlie

don't you think that if david a thought it was something he would have responded sooner and had something to say about what it was.

No, David tossed that information to another department. He is not the person who will determinate that.

ngchunter
DSW74 is a habitual liar; he stole a photo of Saturn I took on December 21, 2012 (back then he went by Tree0fmight), claimed it was his, claimed it was evidence that Saturn was tilting back and forth (my photo was the "forth" part of that equation), blocked me from sending him any messages so I couldn't ask him to take it down, then when I finally had youtube remove it for violating my copyright he threatened to sue me. He also stole another photo of Saturn from an observatory in Singapore at about the same time. Here's a video covering some of these lies (mine was the image on the right in the "before/after" comparison):
...
Now he's trying to milk his video of a bird or bat crossing the moon, but that is not what lunar impacts look like at all. This is what they look like:

Beware, Darkskywatcher is a liar. David Aguilar, Public Affairs officer, was contacted for confirmation of this claimed endorsement of DSW's video as a "real impact." Turns out DSW was lying again.

DSW74 lying to milk money from his videos through theft and fraud is reprehensible, and it's unfortunate if threads like this bring any more viewers to someone so deceitful. I'm amazed that the "Vortex" guy has time to track all this down for such a thorough exposure of DSW74's fraud, since as you pointed out the brush-off reply from Aguilar is more in line with what I'd expect from professionals that don't have time to deal with birds or bats presented as moon impactors.

stirling
The jury is out.......so im sure ernest debunkulators will arrive soon with their slide rules and shirt pockets stuffed with pens....

Either you didn't read the thread, or you don't recognize a thorough debunking when you see one. If you think there are flaws in the debunking, at least you could point out what they are instead of such a posting such useless comment which fails to acknowledge it's already been debunked.

Isn't that just the moon doing it's job?

It is covered in impact craters of all sizes, shapes and ages.

Thank-you Moon, for taking another one for the team. And by "Team", I mean Earth.

Leonidas
Isn't that just the moon doing it's job?

As already explained, no, it's not. Doesn't anybody read the thread before posting?

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by Trueman

 

He didn't say that, you said that. Misleading post.

ok you go on and believe that

Believe what ????...., I didn't say I believe or not anything. Push reset.

For the love of all things sacred...make this video one minute long haha.... but with that....great find...very interesting...I would have thought of a few ideas but you do see the crater "impacts" or whatever they are which really just adds to it all. Very cool

Trueman
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

don't you think that if david a thought it was something he would have responded sooner and had something to say about what it was.

No, David tossed that information to another department. He is not the person who will determinate that.

Sky & Telescope isn't another department. It's an amateur astronomy magazine. If it was something worthy of serious investigation he would have passed it up his chain instead. It was a polite brush-off. I know one of the contributing editors at S&T and I guarantee you he wouldn't have been so gentle about it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Doesn't anybody read the thread before posting?

That would involve Denying Ignorance to do so.

ngchunter

Trueman
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

don't you think that if david a thought it was something he would have responded sooner and had something to say about what it was.

No, David tossed that information to another department. He is not the person who will determinate that.

Sky & Telescope isn't another department. It's an amateur astronomy magazine. If it was something worthy of serious investigation he would have passed it up his chain instead. It was a polite brush-off. I know one of the contributing editors at S&T and I guarantee you he wouldn't have been so gentle about it.

Yes, you are right. I pushed this one the best I could and the result seems to be like you just said. I consider this closed. Good job.

reply to post by Trueman


bs. he sent it to a magazine, this one, Sky & Telescope Magazine not a research departmant at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. READTHE EMAIL IN THE VIDEO.

and then if you look here at the response that Aguilar reguarding the so called confrimation.



do you not see where he says

I gave no such evaluation or assurances. I replied that i would pass it on to Sky & telescope folks

man your dense. use your reading and comprehension skills if you have any.

Leonidas
Isn't that just the moon doing it's job?

It is covered in impact craters of all sizes, shapes and ages.

Thank-you Moon, for taking another one for the team. And by "Team", I mean Earth.

The Moon doesn't really protect the earth from impacts as much as some people think. The Moon is pretty small and far away relative to the Earth, and it does not really act as a shield.



The Earth is hit by asteroids and other objects at least as much as the moon. In fact, given the Earth's size, it is hit MORE than the moon -- both today and in the past.

The reason we don't see as many craters on Earth as we do on the moon is blocking (or has blocked) objects from getting trough to the Earth. The real reason is twofold. (1) Earth's atmosphere causes most objects that hit the Earth to burn up before striking the ground, and (2) Craters made by objects that DO get through the atmosphere over the eons have been "erased" by geological processes and erosion.

If Earth had not atmosphere and was geologically dead for the past 4 billion years, it would look just as cratered as the Moon -- even with the Moon being there to take a few hits itself.

But even all of that is not relevant to the video in the OP, because it seems the OP's video almost certainly does NOT show an impact, for all of the reasons already pointed out in this thread.

Interesting video

Although the footage is extremely poor IMO I struggled to see the object and the impact creators are inconclusive IMO need to be verified by others with A/B of before and after shots

Although if this object turns out to be proven as real then there should as he says be clouds and dust ejections

reply to post by TritonTaranis

And not only extremely poor but exceedingly long. 20 minutes to do what could be done easily in two. Pointless long intro text that lasts 20 seconds even before the lengthy introductory rambling begins! Do the people who make this rubbish really think we need 20 seconds to read 45 words? Or that we need to read those 45 words of claptrap in the first place? "Everything I have ever learned" indeed...

You know if ATS members all entered his raffle he could spend the money on a better telescope..... Of course based on his riveting video we would all be absolute fools to not contribute.

BTW I saw a UFO last night. If I just had a few extra dollars I could better describe it to you or afford a high speed camera!

Thanks for your comments so far. Yep, the video is rather long, so here's the original footage at Ustream: www.ustream.tv...

I'd also go with the bat/bird/satellite theory, but very interested in those dark spots that appear in its wake.

Here's the screenie from the blink comparison in the Youtube video:

reply to post by wildespace

Maybe if he comes up with a video that hasn't been compressed using a bench vice we might be able to see something

Pharyax
In the OP video, it took nearly EIGHT minutes to get to the dang 'impact' part... I hate when people babble on for mins and then when the 'evidence' is shown, its 'meh'.....


Hey, could be real, just not that impressed... not blinking an eye, indeed.

I agree. And the yellow circle and little rotating spheres were making it difficult for me to see and focus on the objects. I don't know if this is real or a hoax, but couldn't this still be a meteor impact? If the meteor contains a large percentage of strong metal, instead of being just a rock or conglomerate, and if it comes in at a shallow enough angle, I think it could potentially skip in such a way.

If it is not a meteor, then what is it? If it is an alleged "alien craft," then I could say it would have broken apart on impact as well. So obviously anything that is strong enough will skip in this way, otherwise what we're seeing is not real. So if it is real, then something skipped across the surface, which means something is strong enough to do it, and I think a piece of space debris is the most likely explanation...A large hunk of a strong metal at a shallow angle. Obviously if it was not a shallow angle, it would have embedded itself into the lunar surface.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus

Space debris does not travel at 2 million miles per hour. Neither do meteors.

Common sense says that if it was a real object, it was much closer to the camera than the moon - that is to say, not anywhere near the moon, just coincidentally passing in front of it.

Bouncy...crater... bouncy...crater and so on, Eh! I don't think so.

JiggyPotamus
If it is not a meteor, then what is it? If it is an alleged "alien craft," then I could say it would have broken apart on impact as well. So obviously anything that is strong enough will skip in this way, otherwise what we're seeing is not real. So if it is real, then something skipped across the surface, which means something is strong enough to do it, and I think a piece of space debris is the most likely explanation...A large hunk of a strong metal at a shallow angle. Obviously if it was not a shallow angle, it would have embedded itself into the lunar surface.

You seem to be assuming that something really did skip across the surface.

The fact that this video is such low resolution and has such a high compression leads me to believe that the "spots" could have just been video compression artifacts. I can;t prove that they were, but it is certainly a very plausible explanation -- especially considering the Moon is there for everyone to see, and nobody has yet noticed a line of new craters on the moon (if there really were new craters there to be noticed).