Amaterur Astronomer Detect a UFO Exiting from a Lunar Crater...

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Annee

If it was glowing enough so that it did not cast a shadow, then it would have instead been lighting up the dark parts of the crater and indeed parts of the dark side of the moon it entered.

Although, a logical assumption, I'm not sure that is the case --- as I don't know what made it glow.

The unknown, is the unknown. Science is the known of what can be repeat tested.

originally posted by: ngchunter


Both speak to the hoaxed nature of the video. Amazing on the one hand that you admit it's CGI, but you deny that it was done for deceptive purposes. Any reasonable honest person would see the automatic link there. But then, I'm not talking to an honest person.

I am denying nothing, I'm simply stating tat it is not proven t be a hoax. For all you know dude might believe it is real.

You know nothing of my honesty, and quite frankly sir; this seems to be an issue you have...thinking everyone else is dishonest, without any call, reason, or evidence.

Awfully insecure there. Quote where I said he committed fraud. I sure don't recall ever saying that.

from your post above:

He is making money off of people by posting hoaxed videos like this one,

By calling his video a hoax you have said that he is a fraud...but you prolly don't understand that...

And you keep calling it a hoax despite the fact that you have zero evidence that it is in fact a hoax. Your opinion of "fair use" is also rather irrelevant...in my opinion you used all of the truly original, and debatable content he published, making it something other than "fair use". Especially when you only needed a handful of frames...that's as opposed to something on the order of 800 frames

Your assessment of the video was incorrect, which kind of blows your assertion of being correct out of the water...Sir; you were not correct! Even IF you arrived at the correct conclusion; it becomes rather like that math problem...you know the one...the one where the teacher wants to "see" your work? Except in this case your work is wholly incorrect, as can be seen by the very technology used to view these videos.

You have accused me of committing a crime for which I should face criminal charges, you have lied about how much of his video I have used, and you have denied that what I am engaging in is free speech. You are attempting to silence me by means of intimidation. The only question left is why, and I think it's finally becoming clear to me why.

Absolutely wrong on every count! Although, yes, I have stated that you may have committed a criminal offence, and I personally don't care IF you face the charges or not. I have not lied, though it would seem that you need to bone up on your communications theory, and practice (maybe me too). And I am in no way shape or form attempting to deny you any rights. Actually I am trying to get you to see the errors you have committed, and learn from them. But, alas, at every turn your interpretation of my words is incorrect.

Your issues could have been avoided if you had simply thought through what you were doing. If you had used different language, and a different graphical approach, but again, you didn't think, like so many here, you jerk your knee, and then get upset when someone calls you on it.

So again, I'm sorry you are burning yourself...can we drop this off topic crap now?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: tanka418
All that we can establish is the video is very probably CGI, and this based on the shadow, not the video protocol, and compression errors.

So, I have a question. I saw a UFO once (I am not going to debate what I saw).

The entire UFO was sort of glowing, like self illuminated. It had a whitish/yellowish glow.

I, of course, do not know what made it glow. Could something like this interfere with shadowing?

Again, I am not taking sides, just questioning because of my own experience.

Sure, sort of...

Certainly if it is light source it won't cast a shadow like we might think it should, but then again, it will also illuminate where its shadow is.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: ngchunter


Both speak to the hoaxed nature of the video. Amazing on the one hand that you admit it's CGI, but you deny that it was done for deceptive purposes. Any reasonable honest person would see the automatic link there. But then, I'm not talking to an honest person.

I am denying nothing, I'm simply stating tat it is not proven t be a hoax. For all you know dude might believe it is real.

So you're claiming he made a CG video of a UFO going over the moon, but he believes it's real? No sane person would think that. Slothful induction fallacy, especially given all the previous hoaxes this particular youtube channel has posted.

You know nothing of my honesty,

Sure I do, you've lied about me to my face twice now.

and quite frankly sir; this seems to be an issue you have...thinking everyone else is dishonest, without any call, reason, or evidence.

Meanwhile you hilariously defend this as "not a proven hoax" even though you admit it's proven CG, even though it was presented as a real "alien UFO."

from your post above: He is making money off of people by posting hoaxed videos like this one,

Well he is. That isn't illegal though nor did I say it was nor did I say "he is criminally guilty of fraud." I'm sure the t-shirts he sells actually do get to the people who buy them, even if they don't realize he's posting hoax videos. Likewise, there is nothing illegal about making ad money off of faked and hoaxed footage. I did not call him a criminal. You tried (and failed miserably) to put those words in my mouth.

By calling his video a hoax you have said that he is a fraud...but you prolly don't understand that...

Calling someone a fraud and accusing them of criminally defrauding people are two very different things. Why are you so dishonest?

And you keep calling it a hoax despite the fact that you have zero evidence that it is in fact a hoax.

Says the person who already admitted it was CG.

Your opinion of "fair use" is also rather irrelevant...in my opinion you used all of the truly original, and debatable content he published,

I used 27 seconds of a 5 minute 27 second video. You lied about how much I used, you set a goalpost of 10%, I used less than the goalpost you yourself set. Now you are attempting to move the goalposts and cover up what you said. The portion I used was explicitly so that I could comment and criticize it and your little coward buddy who initially flagged it as a copyright violation went into full retreat when after I filed my counter-claim one of my friends informed him he could lose his channel if his DMCA requests on the various copies of the video were judged by youtube to be false requests. He has since retracted his claim that I violated his copyright.

Hi Astronomy Live,

Good news! secureteam10 has just released their copyright claim on your YouTube video.

Video title: Another fake "UFO" is spotted leaving the moon

This means your copyright strike has been resolved

Email from youtube this morning.

making it something other than "fair use". Especially when you only needed a handful of frames...that's as opposed to something on the order of 800 frames

HAHAHAHAHAHA! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! No sir, I needed at least a few seconds of footage to demonstrate what he had claimed and what he showed in his video. My use WAS fair use and now even the hoaxer himself has admitted it. But you are so dishonest you can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong. Hilarious.

originally posted by: tanka418
So again, I'm sorry you are burning yourself...can we drop this off topic crap now?

Tell you what, if you retract your claim that he has a case against me to press criminal charges if he decides to (which you did say, despite your lies), and if you retract your claim that I stole his intellectual property and violated his copyright with my video, I will be glad to drop it. It's that simple.

Tanka418 - without taking away from your considerable experience or acumen, your explanation of compression/resolution limitations does not satisfactorily explain away ngchunter's solid debunk. It seems that there are numerous issues with the moon ufo video - ngchunter concentrated on just one aspect, but it's pretty damning.

Unfortunately, your lack of empathy for someone that has actually gone out of their way to highlight a hoax is disheartening. The source has complained to youtube, butt-hurt because their video was debunked so soon - crying 'copyright, copyright'. A very small part the video was reproduced - surely well within the fair use guide lines - for education, criticism etc. Your stance with ngchunter was basically antagonistic, stating that they had used almost all the original video and that had it been you, you'd have attempted to take them on legally. What a shame. Probably the last thing that ngchunter wanted to hear having had a bad day already.

If anyone could explain to me how this ngchunter video was in breach of copyright, I'd like to hear it.

The moon ufo video was interesting, but it just doesn't hold up.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Annee

If it was glowing enough so that it did not cast a shadow, then it would have instead been lighting up the dark parts of the crater and indeed parts of the dark side of the moon it entered.

Although, a logical assumption, I'm not sure that is the case --- as I don't know what made it glow.

The unknown, is the unknown. Science is the known of what can be repeat tested.

Light is light.

I do not care WHAT the source is. Star, lightbulb, LED, fire, glow-in-the-dark-stick, or a UFO.

Light is electromagnetic energy. Visible light for humans is: 390 nm to 700 nm.
Other things that can "see" or "sense" light can see outside of that spectrum (below it, infrared, or above it, utraviolet).

Does not mater WHAT emits the light. The electromagnetic energy that is light, will still be electromagnetic energy that is light.

Color and brightness (intensity) can depend on the source, yes. How it is emitted can effect where it is seen, yes.

If something is emitting light that is strong enough to travel 250,000 miles, and 100 miles of Earth's atmosphere, then it WILL be bright enough to light up craters or the dark areas of the moon.

Science is asking questions. Especially of the "unknown".

An alien ship may have technology that we do not understand, or can not reproduce. Sure.

However, that still does NOT change the fact that if you can see something and capture it on camera, it means it is either reflecting light, or emitting light.

How light behaves is something that has been pretty well understood now for a very, very long time. So while there maybe ways and different technology to produce light, how that light behaves is not going to change: If you can see it, then light is being reflected off of it and/or it is emitting light.

A nomadic hunter/gatherer from 10,000 BCE has a torch of fire in his hand. Next to him is me with a Laser pointer. Both emit light. One is natural or low tech, the other is much higher tech. Yet the light from both still have to obey the same laws of physics.

An firefly makes a flashing light chemically through it's biology. A nuclear reactor can produce Cherenkov radiation, a glowing bluish light. One is from nature, the other from advanced technology. However, the light when it is emitted from either one will still obey the same laws of physics.

If it is reflecting/absorbing light, then it is blocking light, and this causes a shadow.
It it is letting all light through, or bending light around it, then it will not cause a shadow, but if that happens, then it will ALSO be invisible to your eyes and/or a camera.

Sorry I'm pushing this, but I'm being reminded of Arthur C. Clarke here "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

And that's what waving one's hands about and saying "UFO" is the reason for something. "Their tech is too advanced for us!", etc, etc.

While some alien species might be 2 million years ahead of us with technology, being ahead with it does not change the basic parts of it.

In other words: we might be infants compared to them. However, it does not mater if you are a infant race, or a very, very advanced one:

2 + 2 = 4