UFO Appears to be Flying Behind the Moon

reply to post by waveguide3

Your comments were not as insulting as cyberian's but apology accepted. I am back to "tough it out" as you say.

Just a reminder people, please abide by the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use

Courtesy Is Mandatory

Our forums are here for people to be able to share opinions they cannot share with anyone else.

Confiding in people you've never met and trusting them with information you would otherwise never discuss is a step which takes courage.

When members are rude, they not only discourage those whom they intend to hurt, but offend everyone who reads their rude posts, and make the discussion environment less pleasant for everyone.

To engage in stimulating, topical discussion we must minimize the disruption caused by off-topic digressions, and insults or other forms of personal commentary are always off-topic.

Thanks,
Sauron ATS Moderator

[edit on 24/2/2008 by Sauron]

reply to post by theyareoutthere


Thanks, theyareoutthere, for posting those vids and sticking with this. The object does appear to change course slightly several times, could be my eyes playing tricks so I'll have to watch it a few more times.

Internos, have you had a chance to look at those?

reply to post by sty


several mach indeed. If the moon is 2,160 miles in diameter, and given that this object passed it in less than a second.... thats off the chart. Only a meteor can make that kind of speed...at least that we know of

Originally posted by TrailGator
several mach indeed. If the moon is 2,160 miles in diameter, and given that this object passed it in less than a second.... thats off the chart. Only a meteor can make that kind of speed...at least that we know of

That's only true if the object is at the same distance as the Moon. Halve the distance and the speed halves, etc.

The ISS crosses the Moon's disc in less than half a second. It's travelling at 12,000mph at a distance of around 200 miles. If it was at the Moon's distance it would have to travel at 15 million mph to cross it in the same time.

WG3

[edit on 25-2-2008 by waveguide3]

[edit on 25-2-2008 by waveguide3]

excellent video, a rare capture of one of them hard to get rare events. Personally it looks like a meteor or a passing satelitte which fluked out and passed by at that time. Non the less no matter what it was it was impressive, we may never know what it exactly was but could filming.

Originally posted by theyareoutthere
reply to post by waveguide3

 

Your comments were not as insulting as cyberian's but apology accepted. I am back to "tough it out" as you say.

Yep, stick with it bro! Actually most of the technical skepticism should be acceptable. Not the personal insults ofcourse; I have not seen any on this thread but then I may may have skipped a few posts.

To be honest I have not been able to make out features of the moon either since the hi-res video wont play on my machine. Am looking forward to your other more distinct shots.

I have asked jritzman to take a look at the videos when he can.

one extra line

reply to post by 2believeor0


Thanks. go to www.ebesarehere.com... there is a shortened version of the hi-res with the moon clearly seen at the end. Also there are pics,etc.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by theyareoutthere]

Originally posted by hsur2112
I have asked jritzman to take a look at the videos when he can.

one extra line

That is great hsur2112. I hope jritzman can get more details out of the vid. My son-in-law who is a video production guy said perhaps Final Cut Pro or some other software he uses, I forget the name, will allow editing frame by frame and can produce a better result than my poor video skills. I really regret not using my ir filter that night. It would have made a world of difference as I found a night or two ago when I tried it on the moon. Much sharper, no glare. Someone suggested, I forget who in this post.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by theyareoutthere]

[edit on 25-2-2008 by theyareoutthere]

reply to post by hsur2112


hsur2112, i'm trying to download them right now: darn, i didn't notice the web address provided by theyareoutthere.
www.ebesarehere.com...

reply to post by internos


Thanks internos for looking at those. Please post if you have any new insight. We may never really know about this...what it is exactly and what it's relationship to the moon was.

Originally posted by theyareoutthere
I really regret not using my ir filter that night. It would have made a world of difference as I found a night or two ago when I tried it on the moon. Much sharper, no glare. Someone suggested, I forget who in this post.

That was me. As you see, I really am trying to help resolve your questions.
Did you upload the Feb 20 eclipse shots which you mentioned following the attempt on Feb 18?

EDIT: Oops, found 'em, thanks.

WG3

[edit on 26-2-2008 by waveguide3]

Originally posted by waveguide3

Originally posted by theyareoutthere
I really regret not using my ir filter that night. It would have made a world of difference as I found a night or two ago when I tried it on the moon. Much sharper, no glare. Someone suggested, I forget who in this post.

That was me. As you see, I really am trying to help resolve your questions.

Yes you have...and I may have been out of line earlier when I responded to the comments from yourself and cyberbian because you have had far more technical input than I in this thread. Yes, we all just want to get to the truth.

Hopefully i can be reviewing the other clips of this incident tomorrow.
Been having computer problems for two days now and the graphic card is the main problem.

Are the other clips in higher resolution than the first 'high' res 900mb video?
If not, there are not much to be done.
The more you try and enhance the video, the more you change the original pixelation of it, which will however not satisfy anything more than that we will only get a smoother/rougher/blended picture.

Ofcourse, could use other filters to try and high light the seccond object to see if it a close camera object or not, just that i am not sure that i have any filters that can do that.

I really would like IBM's supercomputer for this

Originally posted by hsur2112
- - - I may have been out of line earlier when I responded to the comments from yourself and cyberbian because you have had far more technical input than I in this thread.

No problem. I'm a scientist, so can hopefully make some observations I will support either by the laws of physics or by demonstration. To be proven, any theory must stand practical testing and be repeatable. If we can't do that, it remains just a theory.

There have been assertions by several contributers that the UFO clearly travels behind the Moon. This seems to be supported by the edge detection/inversion filters applied to the video. Others have commented that it's an illusion caused by light saturation of the CCD chip. I support the latter view based on some simple calculations and practical experiments.

If the UFO passes just behind the Moon, it's speed is around 15,000,000 mph simply based on the transit time. Its angular size would suggest a body at least 1% the size of the Moon. That's over 20 miles long. I think my 1% estimate is on the low side, so multiply 20 miles by your guess. If the UFO is some greater distance behind the Moon, its speed (and its size) increases in direct proportion. At twice lunar distance, its speed would be at least 30,000,000 mph. My senses tell me these scenarios are unlikely. So where is it located?

I've been running some video tests to illustrate the effect of small objects passing in front of a bright light source. I believe these demonstrate the objects apparent motion past the rear of the source. Will link to these when I'm done.

WG3

[edit on 27-2-2008 by waveguide3]

Regarding the stills taken from the eclipse video, I have compared these with a low resolution, computer

generated image of this event using the Stellarium software package. I selected one of the stills and

adjusted its gamma value and enhanced the color balance. This gives us a better view of the Moon's surface,

so a rough assessment of the camera resolution can be made.




The video image has low resolution and may be out of focus, so surface detail is poor. The burnt-out portion

of the Moon is caused by saturation of the CCD chip and contains no useful information that my (basic)

software can manipulate. The peculiar outline is due to 'bloat'. This is a common problem in

astrophotography and can be treated to some extent using Photoshop. I'm not a Photoshop expert but I don't

think it's useful in this case. The results would have been better using a filter of some kind (IR?) and/or

reducing the exposure settings of the camera. Astroimaging using CCD systems demands IR filtering at least.

Comparison of the two images confirms that the Moon's inclination is the same as in the computed image. The

umbral shadow indicates the still was captured around 8.45pm CST (GMT-6) from Hurst, Tx on February 20 2008.

The image resolution is dictated exclusively by the camera lens diameter and cannot be enhanced by

magnification using the zoom system. You simply get a larger blurred image. In my opinion, the object seen

to transit the disc will be impossible to resolve beyond a blur of pixels. It will certainly not be possible

to elicit any surface detail or whether it's rotating.

WG3