Moon UFOs (Or why would someone fake this)

a reply to: JamesChessman

so I didn't really consider him "anonymous" but yeah ok.

Who is he? Where is his channel?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

so I didn't really consider him "anonymous" but yeah ok.

Who is he? Where is his channel?

Well OK I'll answer but then you need to tell me why in the world you're asking me to post it.

Here is the original video, from the guy who captured it himself, apparently:
www.youtube.com...

OK? This is the guy you guys are bantering about how he's "anonymous." There is his public YouTube channel, with that vid receiving a million and a half views.

He also has 3.7K subscribers, which is a small channel, relatively speaking, but still, it's hardly "anonymous."

Unless you're pointing out that he hasn't posted his birth name, if that's what you're getting at, but that really isn't the point, either way.

Now I had already said clearly that the original vid was posted in the description of OP's video. So Phage why in the world would you ask me to post the guy's YT channel that I already said where the link was?

a reply to: JamesChessman

Here is the original video, from the guy who captured it himself, apparently:

No. Tenac says the video is not his. Did you not see this from the version in the OP? It's right there in the beginning.

"Thanks to: Jean-Michel Tenac
He writes: This video is not mine..."

Is Tenac lying? Is it really his video?

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

a reply to: JamesChessman

Well OK I'll answer but then you need to tell me why in the world you're asking me to post it.

Here is the original video, from the guy who captured it himself, apparently:
www.youtube.com...

OK? This is the guy you guys are bantering about how he's "anonymous." There is his public YouTube channel, with that vid receiving a million and a half views.

Re-read my posts where I already showed you three times that he says "The video is not mine", and that makes four times.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman
No. Tenac says the video is not his. Did you not see this from the version in the OP? It's right there in the beginning.

"Thanks to: Jean-Michel Tenac
He writes: This video is not mine..."

That makes five times explaining "This video is not mine"(6), but it's a pretty simple statement that shouldn't even have to be repeated at all for a normal person.

Is Tenac lying? Is it really his video?

That's a good question. I took the statement in the OP video at face value when he said "This video is not mine"(7) according to that. But, he didn't post any disclaimer about it not being his video when he posted it himself, and I could see how someone might think it was his video if I hadn't already pointed out three times to JamesChessman that he said the video wasn't his.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Well OK I'll answer but then you need to tell me why in the world you're asking me to post it.

Here is the original video, from the guy who captured it himself, apparently:
www.youtube.com...

OK? This is the guy you guys are bantering about how he's "anonymous."

That's what Jean-Michel says after he says "The video is not mine"(8), he says the source wishes to remain anonymous, and now the screenshot again, explaining all this which you still don't get and I wonder why not.


Again now for the 9th time, do you see where he says "The video is not mine"? Can you stop saying it's his video now?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well I may have taken things wrong, from the wording in OP's featured vid, and the wording in Tenac's vid. And it probably doesn't help that French seems to be the native language of Tenac and maybe Zeal too, translated into English. Anyway:

This is OP's vid, posted by "Zeal:"

And its description features the "original link" which is Jean-Michel Tenac's vid, posted to his own channel:


And here is Zeal's full description under his video:

Thanks to: Jean-Michel Tenac
description: This video is not mine. A friend passed it on to me. “I regularly film the moon by day, at time of the first and last crescent. I think hidden activity has to be visible on the Moon, it is at that moment the population does not observe it because the first and last crescent makes it more discreet”
-Filmer wishes to remain anonymous

original link: youtu.be...

So I thought Zeal was saying that the video is not "mine" meaning it's not Zeal's video. And that it was passed on to him by his friend, Jean-Michel Tenac, who films regularly, and who wishes to remain "anonymous" other than sending the vid, and posting it to his own channel.

So if there is another layer of a third person being involved, who gave it to Tenac, who then gave it to Zeal, then yeah ok, that wasn't what I thought they were saying, at first.

But I'm also not sure if that's exactly what they were saying, or if things are getting lost in translation. Zeal does link Tenac's vid as the "original link," after all, which sounds like it's the original vid.

Tenac also reports the date, location, and time of day that the recording was made, which sounds suggestive that he took it himself, but ok maybe he's referring to this unknown 3rd person.

Also, if you look at Tenac's channel, that's all he says, on his own channel.

The additional text is only in Zeal's video, not Tenac's video, stating that the vid is not "mine," that it was passed along by a friend who wishes to remain anon.

Tenac's "original" vid does not contain any statements or any text at all, just the notes mentioned in its description.

So anyways maybe I misunderstood the various notes but I'm also not sure if things might just be getting lost in translation from French to English, maybe.

Like I already said, Tenac posted the vid with no notes inside the vid, and his channel doesn't have the same notes as Zeal's channel. Tenac's channel (which Zeal called "original") only posted the vid with notes about its date, place, and time, only.

So yeah I'm not really sure if there's a 3rd secret person involved or if meanings are getting confused in translations...

Also the screenshot from Zeal's vid does make it sound like there's another person involved, so you're right about that.

However this is not the same impression as the written description, which is worded slightly differently. But it's almost the same phrasing.

So really, right there it's already getting confusing between the phrasing of two very similar bits of text.

...

The bottom line is that it's disappointing that there's nobody to reach out to, and ask more questions of.

Tenac's channel doesn't seem to have contact info, but I also don't know really where to look for contact info on a YouTube channel anyway. It's not something that usually comes up.

But it would be most ideal if we could actually ask Tenac to clarify if there was another anon who filmed it... or if Tenac was the filmer himself, and if he is the anonymous person himself, who then posted it to his YouTube channel, as its only video.

Also I'd really wish we could see more vids from whoever it was, who made the moon UFO vid. So that's disappointing that we can't do that.

a reply to: JamesChessman

If you have an Youtube account you can send him a message.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

If you have an Youtube account you can send him a message.

Well I've Google'd this a bit, and it seems that YouTube doesn't work the same way as it used to...?

I keep seeing advice to click the channel's "About" tab, and then click on "Send Messages." However, I tried a few channels and I have not seen the choice to Send Messages to any channel.

This is also not a matter of right-clicking "About" because that does not do anything.

Clicking "About" only offers up the channel info that the creator chooses to put there. Some channels include contact info, like email etc., but other channels have an absolutely empty section under "About." And that's the case for Tenac, the channel who posted the vid originally.

So unless there's some other way, then I don't see how to contact Tenac, unfortunately.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Sorry for my mistake, it looks like the idiots in Google decided that messages were not important for Youtube and removed them, deleting the ones people had on their accounts.

Apparently, they did this last year, but I think I sent a message a couple of months ago. As the messages were deleted I cannot confirm it now.

Now, unless people posted their contact information on their "About" page the only way to contact someone on Youtube it through comments on their videos.

Edited to add that I didn't send a message, it was a comment on a video that is private, so without other comments. Another mistake. I need a vacation.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1

You're supposed to write some comments about the relevance of a posted video to the thread when you post a video, but I'll be glad to do it. It's a good video, thanks for posting it.

It makes the same observation we made in this thread about the "atmospheric seeing" heat distortion suddenly stopping in a single frame as evidence of an added effect that wasn't properly applied, as we've discussed extensively in this thread. It also mentions many other clues suggestive of fakery, some of which we discussed, like the unrealistic orbital speed, and some other details which we didn't discuss. The other details seem to support that it's not even a video, but that the apparent motion and effects such as clouds are not that realistic when compared to real moon videos, for example in the real moon videos, clouds don't change as much as in the fake video, so the cloud effect doesn't look realistic.

Astronomer Phil Plaitt comments that the moon is watched by many people so if enormous objects were circling the moon like that, he thinks some of the thousands of other observers of the moon would have seen it, so the sole source with nobody else noticing the same thing might be the biggest problem. I think he has a point and I've made similar comments when UFO videos were faked over major cities like Moscow for example, without anybody else seeing the UFO that showed up in the fake video, which is completely implausible. If a UFO is filmed over some unpopulated part of Alaska it's another matter and maybe there could be only one witness, but I suspect Plaitt is right about lots of observations of the moon.

I don't know if they still are, but at one point NASA was watching and recording the moon constantly to look for little flashes of light indicative of lunar impacts of small meteorites, to gather data on how often that happens to make safety calculations for future manned lunar missions. The moon doesn't have an atmosphere to burn up small impactors like Earth does, so they could be a safety issue for astronauts on the surface, especially on extended stays or they could be a hazard to a future moon base.

In addition to NASA, other folks like ALPO and even independent amateur astronomers observe the moon frequently.

By the way, I don't think trying to contact the person who made the fake video to ask them if their fake is a fake (or ask them anything else) would be a fruitful exercise. It would be more fruitful to do what this video did, look at real videos of the moon, and see how many ways this UFO video doesn't stack up against real moon videos (UFOs aside) when looking at things like clouds. Now we have some suggestions on things we can look for when making comparisons.

I mentioned the clouds being fake here briefly.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
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.

I also mentioned evidence of fake motion blur as well, but I mostly focused on the UFOs not the entire Moon.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
It seems the fabricators of this fake had motion blur enabled, and they had the default number of look ahead frames selected in the motion blur settings.

Captain Disillusion was spot on. His measurement of the lack of distortion of the Moon which would be present on a rolling shutter digital camera was another nail in the coffin.

Regarding your point of asking the creator... there is no point. UFO hoaxers are notorious for "remaining anonymous" when releasing their hoax so that when its found to be fake they don't ruin their reputation. The second you see a video that is too good to be true, and its from an anonymous source, its 99.9% likely to be fake. Go back and look at all proven hoax UFO videos and its the same pattern, an anonymous source. You will also see them claim "I dont want to be visited by the government" or something similar as an excuse. Video like that would be worth millions of dollars if it were real, you don't just give it away anonymously.

There is 24/7 surveillance on the Moon for multiple reasons. That is also a good point and should have stopped this hoax from the beginning. An event like this would be witnessed by hundreds of people if not more.

This hoax is dead.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
Captain Disillusion was spot on. His measurement of the lack of distortion of the Moon which would be present on a rolling shutter digital camera was another nail in the coffin.

Do we know if a camera with a rolling shutter was used?

a reply to: ArMaP

Based on the video evidence, we know that a camera without a rolling shutter was used.

So they either used:
1: A very old, rare, extinct, expensive camera with global shutter.
2: A virtual camera in software (CGI)

I am not certain if the hoaxer mentioned what camera they are using, but it would be interesting to know.

originally posted by: ArMaP
Do we know if a camera with a rolling shutter was used?

The Captain Disillusion video suggests that we aren't sure if any camera was used, at all (unless you count CGI as a type of "camera"). As pointed out before, the way the atmospheric distortion suddenly stops suggests that the photography probably isn't even from a video camera, which makes the rolling shutter question unimportant. I think it would be easier to start with a still photo and animate that, but Captain Disillusion suggests the whole thing could be faked without even that, he shows how the video might be constructed without the use of any camera at all. The "artist" or hoaxer can use imagery available online to create everything.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: ArMaP

Based on the video evidence, we know that a camera without a rolling shutter was used.

Couldn't they have taken a still image of the moon with a still camera that used a rolling shutter, and then added all the animations to that still image? It seems to me like the question of rolling shutter is not an important point, since the hoax video doesn't appear to be made using any kind of real video camera, based on the added heat distortion effect suddenly stopping in one frame, which IS an important point.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
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.
...
Turbulence stops exactly at frame 855 in the video I've extracted from YouTube.

I agree the evidence suggests it's not even a video, but likely a still photo of the moon that's been tampered with. I don't see why it matters what kind of shutter the still camera had.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Captain Ds take on it, with in depth look at problems with the video, enjoy or not as it seems to suggest its....fake



edit

I hit reply before checking out latest update to thread, apologies to More1ThanAny1 who posted first

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
1: A very old, rare, extinct, expensive camera with global shutter.

I think that sentence could be rewritten to show that modern cameras can have global shutters but they are usually expensive models.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
1: A very old, rare, extinct, expensive camera with global shutter.

I think that sentence could be rewritten to show that modern cameras can have global shutters but they are usually expensive models.

I don't know why you're off on this camera tangent. There's no way the atmospheric distortion would suddenly and completely stop in a single frame if a real camera was used, despite the objections of James Chessman, who could spend the rest of his life looking for a real video which does that and never find one. But that's exactly what can happen if the effect is computer-generated, and the timing isn't set right for the processing, so I don't really get why you're still on cameras when it's obvious we are looking at something generated by a computer, and not by a movie camera.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I don't know why you're off on this camera tangent.

Because, apparently, that guy in the video (that I din't see), said this video couldn't be done with a camera with a rolling shutter, so that created this "tangent".
As I like things to be clear I just posted my opinion about More1ThanAny1's comment, as it appeared (to me) to imply that only "old, expensive cameras" have global shutters, while I think "old or expensive cameras".

I have no objections to the possibility of this being computer generated, I was just trying to make things more accurate about cameras.

PS: why wouldn't a rolling shutter be able to film something like that?

originally posted by: ArMaP
PS: why wouldn't a rolling shutter be able to film something like that?

For most of the video, perhaps it could.
See the CaptainD video at 4:18 for his explanation with visual demonstration of the problem near the beginning of the video of a fast motion "bump" which would leave a "signature" skew with a typical rolling shutter. But that skew is usually only apparent with fast motion of the camera or the subject, and for most of the video the motion is slow so it might not be apparent, but it should be apparent in the fast motion part.

This isn't exactly the same effect you'd see with motion on the moon since it's a rotating propeller, but this is a rolling shutter artifact which can give you some idea of how rolling shutters can distort imagery when there's a lot of motion:

The Math Behind the Rolling Shutter Phenomenon


So, we expect to see some distortion in the high motion segment if it's a rolling shutter, not exactly like that, but more like what CaptainD shows at 4:18, and we don't see it.