UFOs or Space Junk Near the Surface of the Moon?

reply to post by tarifa37


Everyone wants to say it but doesn't so I will....

Sweet music dude

Not that I'm a die-hard ufo believer, nor a die-hard debunker,

But seriously, that "droplet distortion theory" is just ridiculous... I mean... well seriously, look at the pictures and then go see a "droplet distortion" and well... that golden gate bridge doest go on and off the droplet does it? Neither does it go in or out, it doesnt disappear and re appears... it just stays there, bended and distorted..

I'm questioning my self right now why am I even talking about this "droplet distortion theory" cause the more I think of it the more ridiculous it seems.

Plus I did ask a question, trying to get some answer based on facts, science, you know, the regular stuff, around... page 3 or something, and no one gave me a logical or scientific explanation for the things you guys claimed.

Since its fine to debunk just for the sake of debunking "oh yes thats just heat distortion like a mirage" "oh yes, that droplet theory really makes more sense"... well... for me, all this crap has as much hard evidence as UFOs...

Maybe we should gather a team to debunk the debunkers then, since not even the debunkers can come up with something even close to scientific let alone showing (or at least have the decency or respect of answering a simple question) hard evidence.

Right now... water droplets, heat distortion and aliens and UFOs stand right in the same credibility area.

And if this sounds partially like a rant, maybe its because it is... getting kinda tired of know-it alls in ATS since 2005 that challenge every damn "tin foil hat" theory and come up with theories of their own that not even themselves can back it up.

Conclusion: A water droplet distortion or heat distortion can not explain a synchronous, unknown object passing on a constant circular orbit coming in and out (or on and off) the moon.

Ppl can capture a 20m stupid comet near freakin pluto with a 18 inch telescope and the best explanation I get on an object which is moving near the closest of earth's neighbour is "water droplet / heat distortion"?...

Wow... we need new debunkers.

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni


If the only people who posted on this thread were the people with hard evidence, then there would be zero responses. The OP asked for people's opinions on what they thought they might be, and some people gave their opinions. Just because you don't agree with them is no reason for you to go on a rant.

Assuming its not CGI or droplet distortion (which doesnt sounds right), the objects viewed couldnt be just space junk, right? Size alone would make those pieces like a mile wide ......Awesome video regardless

Now there is a winner! Nothing can change its driection in space unless an outiside force is directed upon it. That being said this object moves towards the camera into the light then back away from the camera to the dark side of the moon. Unless this this some kind of moon explorer satellite then this is most definitely a UFO and most likely the evidence to ETs on the moon that we have been looking for.

Great Find OP SnF

Originally posted by Pilot
Great, so are the droplets moving or not? We have 2 hypotheses here. You say the moon is moving into the droplets on the surface of the lens, right? All the different angles the objects move in is because of, something or other, and they are refracting space as they, no they don't move. The moon moves...I think your theory has merit, but it might not carry the day. It has to also explain the odd angles the objects move in. This is what the moving droplet hypothesis has in it's favor. Sort of.

Did you try the same experiment as ADEzor? Try it and you'll probably find the same thing...they aren't moving. Hold your mouse pointer over them in the left hand view, you won't have to move the pointer to stay on top if it.

Originally posted by ADEzor
Damn, this video seemed so convincing in the beginning. I'm open for UFO's nowadays in general, but I think Arbitrageur is on the right track.

Ignore the righthand video and focus to the one on the left side. When an anomaly appears, move your mouse cursor over it. It stays stationary, they all do, you can even pinpoint their locations from the lens.

Try it. They aren't moving.

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
But seriously, that "droplet distortion theory" is just ridiculous... I mean... well seriously, look at the pictures and then go see a "droplet distortion" and well... that golden gate bridge doest go on and off the droplet does it? Neither does it go in or out, it doesnt disappear and re appears... it just stays there, bended and distorted..

Look at the droplets above the bridge. See the dark part if the image inside the droplet? That's what I wanted you to look at, not the image of the bridge. There's nothing dark surrounding those droplets, but there's a dark part in the image. That's showing you the effect of refraction.

When you see an object inside the edge of the moon, that's how it can look dark. The bridge is just incidental in the example I provided.

Originally posted by jhn7537
Assuming its not CGI or droplet distortion (which doesnt sounds right), the objects viewed couldnt be just space junk, right? Size alone would make those pieces like a mile wide

......Awesome video regardless

There's always a remote possibility that it's space junk, but it almost certainly isn't, and here's why:

www.foxnews.com...

"Very few of the U.S. and Soviet vehicles left in lunar orbit during the 1960's and 1970's are assessed to still be in lunar orbit. Any objects remaining in lunar orbit would necessarily have to be at relatively high altitudes," Johnson said.

Due to particular Lunar geomagnetic conditions, it is difficult to keep an object in close orbit around the Moon for a long time. There are options and solutions, but they are reduced, and it also means that we can calculate what orbit any possible space junk must have in order to stay up.

Add to this that in this video, we have eight or more objects appearing almost simultaneously from all different directions, and as you said yourself, they would have to be huge in order to be seen.

What more is, if these objects are in orbit around the Moon, it means that they will come around, and around and around. Thousands of telescopes are pointed at the Moon 24/24 7/7, and none of them are capable of noticing half a dozen huge objects in continuous orbit? It's as close to impossible as you get.

Space junk is therefore a very, very unlikely theory.

Nevertheless, I believe that soon a poster - who won't bother to read what has already been said - will suggest it again, so please spread the good word around when it happens.

There's no way they are water droplets, as some move north or south once above the moon. If it was wind blown water on a stationary lense it'd be a pretty uniform movement. And windy enough to shake the hell outta the lense at these distances. When filming normally with a tele lense in high wind, its rare to get more than 5-10 seconds of good footage before a gust screws it all up.

And my bad re:phage mirage, I misread it to state a mirage on the moon, not the lense. Either one though is grasping for straws I've used lots of optical gear and never ever seen something like this occur. Water droplets usually create a fuzzy blur on the screen, also at the near infinite focal length used here, we would see fuzzy blurs, not more defined white or dark blotches (which would require the camera to be focusing on the water drops and not the moon...).

edit: what im really trying to say is if those blotches were not on or around the moon, they would not be in focus.
Its really getting to the time where CGI is really the only thing left to rule out.

Originally posted by GhostR1der
what im really trying to say is if those blotches were not on or around the moon, they would not be in focus.

I concur with your reasoning. Anything that close to the sensor would be completely out of focus.

Nevertheless, they could still be high altitude objects at a distance, they don't actually have to be close to the Moon, even though I believe them to be so.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Try it with tracing (transparent) paper, it's not as detectable on the left side compared to the right but they do move.

It's just something on the lens or primary / secondary mirror.

They move with the movement of the image. You can tell when there are two on screen together they are in perfect synch, once they are against the black background they are no longer apparent.

Someone needs to clean their scope / CCD.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Try it with tracing (transparent) paper, it's not as detectable on the left side compared to the right but they do move.

Rather than debate whether these 'objects' move at the same rate as the moon by eye, can someone please download the video, process gamma/contrast and ghost frames. Or isolate each object and try to apply stabilization.

I would give this a go, but no time at the moment.

Originally posted by dsm1664

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Try it with tracing (transparent) paper, it's not as detectable on the left side compared to the right but they do move.

Rather than debate whether these 'objects' move at the same rate as the moon by eye, can someone please download the video, process gamma/contrast and ghost frames. Or isolate each object and try to apply stabilization.

I would give this a go, but no time at the moment.

I dont have the software to do it lol but I agree, if someone could do that it would be great.

I'll never understand why it is so damned hard for people to say, "I don't know."

Seriously, the universe is just chock full of unknowns.
There is no shame in saying it.
Hell, I'll say it.

Looked at the video, what do I think it is?
I Don't Know.

Debunkers and skeptics, indeed.

I always thought the first point of investigation was to determine what it is not.
Here, it seems, everyone clamors to say what it is.
It's this. No, it's obviously that.
Never a "I don't know."

*shakes head and shrugs*

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Heliocentric
Have you noticed that there is another object on the lower right side of the Moon at 0:47?

You'll have to watch the smaller picture on the left to see it.

I don't see it.

I am watching in 720 HD setting on youtube, displayed fullscreen on a 1920x1200 monitor.

Can you give a better description of the location? For example, use 90 degrees to the right and 180 degrees for straight down. How many degrees is it. Is it right at the edge of the moon? If not, how far?

Hi I was the person who posted that find. Here it is again. Thanks

Originally posted by tarifa37
I noticed that at the 47 second mark on the original moon video (on the left) that an object pops up round and then appears to move upwards across the moon. This is not on the enlarged moon video but near the bottom of the original moon video. Check it out for yourselves. First screen shot then watch video in full screen.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Thanks for testing my claim. I really don't care if people believe it or not,

That old chestnut.

Your claim has not passed the test yet. You don't care whether people believe you. Some of us are sceptics. We do care.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm just sharing my experience with photography and knowledge of optical physics (Pimander: I'm an authority so I'm right!), so if anyone wants to dismiss my explanation in favor of a fleet of Klingon Battlecruisers, that's fine with me. I know some people will do that no matter what.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Feel free to rebut as the idea of UFOs is more appealing. (Pimander: Not feel free to ask for proof because we are sceptics!)

And don't disingenuously attempt to present anyone who doesn't agree with you as a crank. Nearly everyone who is rightly sceptical of your position acknowledges that they don't know what the "objects" are.

NOTE: We aren't even sure whether they are UFOs either. The are unidentified objects but they may not be flying. Does that make them UOs?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Get your facts straight. Some of the "objects" are moving. That is why Kandinsky stretched this straw clutching session by trying to explain the motion of them.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The motion of the droplets would then be open to questions of cause. What could cause their apparent motion? From Arby's posts, this could be explained by capillary action under conditions such as a breeze and humidity.

If you were right, don't you think a few astronomers would have posted similar effects that they had captured by now?

I'd be embarrassed if I were you at this point. You call yourself a sceptic. You even act like one when discussing other peoples claims. Then you fail completely to produce any convincing footage to back up your own claim. The sceptical position would be what I quote below. It seems that does not apply to your own ideas, Arbitrageur!

One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry; one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement.

SOURCE: Oxford English Dictionary. Cited in :Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time by Michael Shermer, 1997, W. H. Freeman

Shermer goes on to explain the goal of thinking and how this relates to scepticism.

The goal is to know the universe, the world, and ourselves. Since rationality is the most reliable means of thinking, a rational skeptic may be defined as:

One who questions the validity of particular claims of knowledge by employing or calling for statements of fact to prove or disprove claims, as a tool for understanding causality.

In other words, skeptics are from Missouri — the “show me” state. When we hear a fantastic claim we say, “that’s nice, prove it.”

SOURCE: Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time by Michael Shermer, 1997, W. H. Freeman

Come on then. Prove it. Lets have some intellectual honesty out of you. If you can't prove it - admit that you don't know what the "objects are and you might just be wrong. I know it's painful for you but go on.... That is how you gain the respect of a real sceptic like me. I'm waiting....

i think it's ufos ,it's way too big to be spacejunk!!!!!!! ,chinese lanterns maybe? or swamp gas? nah ,just kidding lol

Very interesting footage K-PAX-PROT, thanks for sharing.

Probably already mentioned, but it looks to me as if it are light emitting or light reflecting orbs/objects, who are “flying” in a curved/round trajectory around the moon and did become visible when they came because of their curved/round trajectory for a short moment in that much less brighter space background and then due continuing there orbit are no longer visible due the dominant brightness of the moon.

What those orbs/objects really are is impossible to say.

reply to post by Pimander
Why so hot under the collar? By your approach, the thread should have begun and ended with a few posts exclaiming in wonder,'Wow! Strange.'

Instead, Arby's posted some useful information attempting to explain how the footage has occurred. He and others have made the effort to extend beyond the 'Wow Factor.' For my part, I've explained my thinking behind why I don't believe they are real objects flying over the Moon. I added the supporting lack of evidence from any astronomers (amateur or otherwise) of objects over the Moon on or near the date in question.

By reasonable thinking, the lack of any other witnesses, combined with the possibility of some camera artefact in play, tends to lead away from the notion of objects flying over the Moon.

It's that simple.

Now, you've tried to turn the discussion into personality issues and arguments about debunkers and the motivations of skeptics (as you see them). If you're happy to bask in the warmth of the 'Wow Factor' why continue to make posts? I wonder, why have you become so emotionally involved in this? Negative attention doesn't increase the validity of whatever position you're failing to put across here. Cheer up.