UFOs or Space Junk Near the Surface of the Moon?

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Heliocentric
it doesn't quite apply to the Moon, as you can see in this text by NASA:
science.nasa.gov...

You misunderstand. That nasa article is referring to *inclination* of the orbit. The degree to which it is tilted from an equatorial orbit. Those orbits still cross the equator. An object in orbit around the moon with those "safe" inclinations still spend half the time above the equator, and half the time below.
What I was referring to is the quite different behaviour of the objects in the video. ALL of those objects are crossing in a direction that will not take them around the center of the moon. Its like trying to put a satellite around the 50 degree latitude mark on earth. Cant be physically done.

I've done orbital trajectories since 1965, and in my view Alfa's comment is precisely on target and correct factually and in its implications for the nature of the dots. Alfa, you know your orbital dynamics! Kudos.

Originally posted by Heliocentric
reply to post by alfa1

 

If what you say is true, then I stand corrected.

Could not the mascons cause an exotic orbit, even on objects not really in orbit, but simply pulled in by the Moon's gravity?

Interesting speculation. But mascons cause only subtle variations that need months of tracking to differentiate from non-mascon 'pure' orbital motion. So any deflection is far too small to account for this trajectory problem.

But kudos for suggesting it -- shows the depth of basic background reading needed to avoid so many other silly diversions on these threads. Please stick around.

reply to post by virraszto


Thats crazy the ones in this video appear at the top left and seem to be going round to the back of the moon after finishing their trip across the front. Not sure what these are very interesting. Fantastic job jut wish I hadn't sold my scope will defiantly be looking with my binoculars when we get a clear night.Object appears at 11 seconds at about 10 oclock on the moon.

reply to post by virraszto


The BIG question is did you see them with out the web cam attached in real time through the eyepiece yourself. Because if you did then that would strengthen the claim that theses are indeed objects orbiting the moon and not specks of dust etc on the lens. I know when I had my first scope with the dirt inside the lens it was obvious when looking through the lens that the specks were on the lens and not out in space . Of course once captured on video the depth perspective is lost so specks on a lens can seem like they are way out in space. Please everybody with a telescope look at the moon to see if you can spot anything.

May I jump in? Are we still talking about water droplets on the lens? I lost interest after that. As an award winning photographer and cameraman, I just wanted to add that if it was water on the lens it would not show up surely? If a lens is zoomed in that far how can it focus on both distances? Like standing behind a chain fence, shoot it in wide and the fence gets in your shot, shoot it with a telephoto lens and "behold" the fence disappears! These "water droplets" seem to have the same focal range as the Lunar surface yes? I'm sorry but I don't buy that for one second. Its all good and well to google stuff but unless you've had a career behind the lens I'd hesitate to speculate on a topic I have no experience on. Just my two cents worth!

P.s. Good find. I'm thinking of showing my friends at the Bureau of Meteorology to study this further.

Originally posted by ATSAUSTRALIA
P.s. Good find. I'm thinking of showing my friends at the Bureau of Meteorology to study this further.

That would be great if you could do that

reply to post by Kali74


Give me a few days (due to work commitments) and I'll send it off to them. Right now I'm flat out.

Originally posted by ATSAUSTRALIA
May I jump in? Are we still talking about water droplets on the lens? I lost interest after that. As an award winning photographer and cameraman, I just wanted to add that if it was water on the lens it would not show up surely? If a lens is zoomed in that far how can it focus on both distances? Like standing behind a chain fence, shoot it in wide and the fence gets in your shot, shoot it with a telephoto lens and "behold" the fence disappears! These "water droplets" seem to have the same focal range as the Lunar surface yes? I'm sorry but I don't buy that for one second. Its all good and well to google stuff but unless you've had a career behind the lens I'd hesitate to speculate on a topic I have no experience on. Just my two cents worth!

Then can you explain why this "moon bug" is in focus when it's nowhere near the moon?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d84fa289706e.gif[/atsimg]
I can explain it, but according to the flawed logic in your post, it couldn't possibly be in focus. But it is.

Edit to add:

Originally posted by JimOberg
I've done orbital trajectories since 1965, and in my view Alfa's comment is precisely on target and correct factually and in its implications for the nature of the dots. Alfa, you know your orbital dynamics! Kudos.

I was pretty sure Alfa was right, but it's nice to see you confirm it.

I wouldn't argue with you about orbital dynamics!

Originally posted by ATSAUSTRALIA
May I jump in? Are we still talking about water droplets on the lens? I lost interest after that. As an award winning photographer and cameraman, I just wanted to add that if it was water on the lens it would not show up surely? If a lens is zoomed in that far how can it focus on both distances? Like standing behind a chain fence, shoot it in wide and the fence gets in your shot, shoot it with a telephoto lens and "behold" the fence disappears! These "water droplets" seem to have the same focal range as the Lunar surface yes? I'm sorry but I don't buy that for one second. Its all good and well to google stuff but unless you've had a career behind the lens I'd hesitate to speculate on a topic I have no experience on. Just my two cents worth!

edit on 13-7-2011 by ATSAUSTRALIA because: Spelling mistake!

There is a large difference between a CCD / webcam attached to a scope and a single lens SLR. If the object was on a primary / secondar mirror or a primary lens / meniscus lens then there is a good chance it can be in focus. The F range of a scope is very different to that of an SLR. This is why you can have a huge moon, with trees and foreground in focus too. Because the final focusser is a long way from the actual primary and secondary lenses.

So now we are jumping topics? Just explain how two objects can be in focus both far and near. And, an answer that isn't related to water droplets would be good. Just do one thing before posting again, grab your camera and set it on a tripod, spray the lens with a fine mist, zoom in on the moon and then tell me if the water droplets are still there! Please???

reply to post by SirCoxone


I'm well aware of how a camera works. It pays the bills.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Explain away Mister! And please don't use google...

Originally posted by ATSAUSTRALIA
reply to post by SirCoxone

 

I'm well aware of how a camera works. It pays the bills.

I understand that, the point I am making is that you are basing it on how a camera works, but this is about how a telescope works. You are of course completely correct that in a single lens reflex device you cannot focus on something far away and have something on the lens in focus but here it is not on the cameras lens it is on a lens a distance away from the camera on a device with a very slow F stop.

Sorry to respond directly again but I just thought that a good analogy would be taking a photo of some trees through a window with water on and an unbelievably narrow aperture. The water could be in focus then no?

Originally posted by ATSAUSTRALIA
Explain away Mister! And please don't use google...

It's near the image sensor or in that case, film.

And I did say it could be condensation near the image sensor, or water droplets on a window.

Also if you know photography you should also know about depth of field. The greater the depth of field, the closer an object will be within hyperfocal distance at the same time as infinity as shown in this photo:

www.dofmaster.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/afffe2911c14.jpg[/atsimg]
With that particular lens, with an aperture setting of F16, at that focus setting everything within a little less than 3 meters to infinity will be reasonably in focus, meaning if you used that lens to shoot the moon through a window 3 meters away, both the moon and the drops on the window would be in reasonably good focus.

And I don't think the objects are in such good focus.

We don't know what lens or camera the photographer used, or if they used a telescope. If they used a telescope, that can complicate matters further.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What I do know is this:
It's not in orbit around the moon, as someone else pointed out, an orbit wouldn't demonstrate such a trajectory.

Take a look at this cartoon GIF of some satellites orbiting. Notice how the ones that cross the plane of the Earth in the image do not appear to pass through the centre of the moon. However, the trajectory of any of those satellites are entirely possible in an orbital path. In fact the satellites could appear to cross over any part of the moons edge. Remember that we can only see them for a brief period. They could easily cross through the centre where they are not visible.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d34913f4823e.gif[/atsimg]

Furthermore, it is not logical to assume that if the objects were not in orbit that they aren't there at all.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
See how sharp they are when they are in focus? I'm not seeing that kind of sharpness in the OP video. In fact, I suspect that what we are seeing is somewhat blurry, out of focus images of much smaller droplets than what appears. In other words, if they were in focus, they would be much smaller, and sharper.

The above sounds right to me. But compare it to what depthoffield says.

Originally posted by depthoffield
There where NOT any real objects there...

because we see the droplets are focused in the image, it means that the dropets are placed where the image itself is obtained in telescope, in the focal plane, onto the surface of the senzor in my opinion..meaning that the senzor is an opened one, like a web camera with it's stock lens removed, and placed in the focal plane of the telescope

So depthoffield is saying that the objects aren't near the moon because the are in focus and arbitrageur is saying the objects aren't near the moon because they are out of focus. Does anyone else see where this leaves the argument?

So the objects are not near the moon whether they are in focus or not?!?!?!

The opposite argument to that above would be as follows: If the objects are out of focus they are near the moon and if the objects in focus they are near the moon too. If I argued that you would tear me to shreds and mock me like I was some kind of idiot!

Could it be that whether the objects are in focus is actually irrelevant and does not support your argument at all?

I'm not saying I know where or what they are. I am happy to admit that I don't know. However, surely any fair minded person can see that you can't use both arguments to support your position.

Originally posted by ATSAUSTRALIA
So now we are jumping topics? Just explain how two objects can be in focus both far and near. And, an answer that isn't related to water droplets would be good. Just do one thing before posting again, grab your camera and set it on a tripod, spray the lens with a fine mist, zoom in on the moon and then tell me if the water droplets are still there! Please???

This is the acid test. That is what I have been asking for all along. If it so obvious what is happening then there would be loads of examples of the effect and it would be commonly known. It's amazing how long it is taking these expert photographers to reproduce the footage.

You have to say that if they can't reproduce the effect quickly and easily then the explanation is contrived. It may be possible after all to mimic the effect with lots of trouble and time. However, if it is just mist or dust it should be reproducible first night. Interestingly no footage appeared quickly.

It would be funny if they reproduce it and then we give a standard debunkers explanation. It's photoshopped or CGI.

Originally posted by Pimander
So depthoffield is saying that the objects aren't near the moon because the are in focus and arbitrageur is saying the objects aren't near the moon because they are out of focus. Does anyone else see where this leaves the argument?

I posted the water droplets picture with the golden gate bridge to show what in focus water droplets would look like.

My point was, the objects in the video don't look as well focused as in that example photo. I didn't intend to take a position opposite to Depthoffield as you are trying to portray.

I also think Depthoffield's idea that it could be inside the camera near the image sensor has merit. But I already admitted I don't know where in the optical system the contamination is. It could also be on a window, or if the photographer is using a telescope, it could be somewhere in the telescope optics.

This must be a good video

Page 12 and all the artifact experts are still going... this thread may end up as long as the tether thread