UFOs or Space Junk Near the Surface of the Moon?

Damn they are unidentified. Thats definately makes it a UFO because it's also flying and an object.

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT


Someone remembering to keep an eye on the things we see day in..and day out...star and flag! for you

Originally posted by wutz4tom
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

 

Someone remembering to keep an eye on the things we see day in..and day out...star and flag! for you

I second the motion -- whatever turns out to be the explanation, it's important to keep watching the skies and reporting results for discussion. And the discussion here as been first rate -- ATS at its best. Kudos to the OP and all subsequent posters.

How much is it going to take to convince you people?

I'm interested to hear what experienced astronomers think of this video.

The only thing that left me a little skeptical was how the clip abruptly ended, even as a 6th anomaly is spotted.

Why not keep the clip running?

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by ThinkingCap

In the short time that I have been on ATS, I have seen the term 'swamp gas' quite a few times. I have not once, seen it stated by anyone who was giving any effort to actually debunk. The only people who ever use that term, are those who are making a very weak attempt to discredit debunkers, or those who are trying to be funny. Regardless of which reason, it fails every time.

The term 'swamp gas' used to be a quite common term used by Government Officials back in the 50's/60's to try to explain away UFO's. The Idea is that Methane or other gasses that can sometimes be released by swamps, and other natural phenomenon might luminesce under the right conditions....and that a cloud of it, may look like a UFO. The reason it is humorous is because it shows the lengths of which some Government Officials will resort to, in order to try to explain away UFO sightings.....and also for the fact that you hardly ever hear it used anymore as a serious explanation...simply because I imagine the Government Officials have realized just how ridiculous it sounds.....It always brings a smile to face when someone uses the term....as it did here.

Originally posted by Davian
How much is it going to take to convince you people?

I'm convinced the photographer either needs to clean his lens or if he's shooting through a window, the window. Is that what you mean?

Originally posted by Mark_Frost
I'm interested to hear what experienced astronomers think of this video.

Didn't you read the thread? It's not astronomical in nature. It's very earthly, something on the lens (or possibly a window).

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by ThinkingCap

In the short time that I have been on ATS, I have seen the term 'swamp gas' quite a few times. I have not once, seen it stated by anyone who was giving any effort to actually debunk. The only people who ever use that term, are those who are making a very weak attempt to discredit debunkers, or those who are trying to be funny. Regardless of which reason, it fails every time.

The term 'swamp gas' used to be a quite common term used by Government Officials back in the 50's/60's to try to explain away UFO's. The Idea is that Methane or other gasses that can sometimes be released by swamps, and other natural phenomenon might luminesce under the right conditions....and that a cloud of it, may look like a UFO. The reason it is humorous is because it shows the lengths of which some Government Officials will resort to, in order to try to explain away UFO sightings.....and also for the fact that you hardly ever hear it used anymore as a serious explanation...simply because I imagine the Government Officials have realized just how ridiculous it sounds.....It always brings a smile to face when someone uses the term....as it did here.

As with most of what UFO believers are certain of, to make themselves feel smarter than non-believers, this is howlingly funny -- and proves just the opposite.

The explanation of 'swamp gas' -- I think the mocking term actually originated with newspapers -- for a sighting in 1966 was from Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who was on contract with Blue Book as a scientific consultant -- never a 'government official'. It was specifically addressed to some glows seen in a nearby woods by students at a local university. Hynek told me some years later that while feeling thoroughly humiliated by the avalanche of mockery over the phrase, he still felt it was a reasonable explanation for the specific case he suggested it for.

But what pro-UFO propagandists do, as seen here, is to take particular reasonable explanations for particular UFO reports and mock them [and ALL efforts at explaining ANY report] by whining that they are obviously bogus for OTHER reports. This is an obvious trick of deception and is a good indicator that the person using such a trick is unworthy of credibility.

I'd be curious if anybody can provide ANY examples of 'government officials' using the 'swamp gas' explanations for ANY report in that period. Even once. It's certainly possible -- human carelessness and ignorance is fairly evenly distributed among all professions. But it's not merely a historical question -- it deals with assertions being made right here in front of us, right now. Let's see if they are true or false.

If my interpretation is wrong I'd like to be taught better so I can retract, revise, and get smarter. Please help me.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I have read the thread, as I always do before commenting.

I still have the right to reserve judgement, what ever the mystery may be. I cant say what it is but I am sure there is a valid explanation.

But seeing your 67% percent sure, I guess we can put it right to bed.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I'm not sure I buy that, as the "objects" pass over the horizon of the moon they show up as darker specks until the glare of the moon totally outshines them. Seems to me we are looking at solid objects in low lunar orbit to me. To speculate further would just be reaching for straws.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Didn't you read the thread? It's not astronomical in nature. It's very earthly, something on the lens (or possibly a
window).

I have read the whole thread and you have not convinced me. All you have done is proclaimed that it is droplets of moisture. Who made you the arbiter of what conclusions we can draw? Arbitrageur says something so it's true? You need to do better than that.

Do you have some examples of this effect in lunar shots? It must be common considering how many times cameras have been pointed art the moon. Or can't you find any?

Originally posted by rcanem
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I'm not sure I buy that, as the "objects" pass over the horizon of the moon they show up as darker specks until the glare of the moon totally outshines them. Seems to me we are looking at solid objects in low lunar orbit to me. To speculate further would just be reaching for straws.

We have by no means reached an impasse of helplessness, there are clear avenues of further investigation, and one of them is to contact the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers -- a worldwide group of highly-devoted 'amateur' observers who are watching other worlds -- and see what they have to say.

Originally posted by JimOberg
We have by no means reached an impasse of helplessness, there are clear avenues of further investigation, and one of them is to contact the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers -- a worldwide group of highly-devoted 'amateur' observers who are watching other worlds -- and see what they have to say.

Makes sense to me, Jim. If Arbitrageur is correct then they will clearly have lots of similar footage.

I have sent you a U2U if you have time to reply.

I'd say it could be atmospheric distortion, much like we can sometimes see at a sunset:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9f866ad7e93e.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7153e571aa06.jpg[/atsimg]

The distortion may be more subtle in that video, but being the close-up that it is probably makes it more noticeable.

Originally posted by Pimander
Makes sense to me, Jim. If Arbitrageur is correct then they will clearly have lots of similar footage.

I have sent you a U2U if you have time to reply.

Not necessarily. If they don't have water droplets on the lens or window then they wouldn't have the appearance of water droplets in their photography. In fact, photographers usually try to avoid any kind of contamination on the lens, including water droplets, if possible.

You'd be more likely to find that they have observed an absence of "city-sized objects" which appear just outside the moons edge, cross the moons edge, and then disappear just inside the moon's edge, just like a water droplet would do, if they are keeping their optical systems free of water droplets.

Additionally, if they are using equatorial mounts, that cause the camera to track the sky, then they wouldn't see this same relative motion of the moon and the contamination on the lens as seen in the OP video which is not on an equatorial mount.

I'm not sure you're point exactly, as you seem to be reiterating what I just said....though to be fair, perhaps I should have used the term "Government Experts" rather than "Officials"....still I was simply trying to explain the nature of the term, rather than going into a detailed history of it. Dr. J. Allen Hynek was most certainly a Government Expert who was employed as a scientific consultant for Blue Book. Also his explanation of 'Swamp Gas' as being the likely culprit was used for at least two sightings in Michigan. I believe the particlar case involving the college students was actually explained away as "....youths playing pranks with flares. The remains of several flares were found near the college shortly after the sightings." as quoted from Fort Scott Tribute (Kansas): March 26, 1966 LINK Though, I suppose he could be suggesting that this AND swamp gas as being the culprit in this particular case (the article may have been a bit unclear about that).

Also I find it a bit odd that you seem to be suggesting that I'm a "pro-UFO propagandist".....My only intention was to clarify the meaning behind the term "swamp gas" in a rather basic way to someone who seemed to be completely unfamiliar with it, and also to explain why some people (including myself) find it amusing. I may have miss stated some minor aspects of it's history, but I think I accurately explained the general Idea: That it was a term used by Government 'Experts' (I stand by your correction of that) to explain away UFO sightings (at least two cases in Michigan according to the article I referenced) and that it was not used anymore because most people think it a silly Idea. I was not trying to be a "propagandist" for either side, my friend.....In fact I'd venture the guess that at least 90% or more of my comments to UFO threads on here, are to debunk them. At the very least I don't believe in an Alien Origin for any of the UFO reports I have ever read about or seen images of.

It's those damned Nazi's on the dark side of the moon.
Ammirite?

Thanks for your rapid clarifying -- and more polite than I probably deserved -- response. Probably combining our two separate but clearly equally valid angles on the term, may help us all put the semantics of 'swamp gas' into better perspective.

Thank you!

Dig out your old 35mm photo negatives. On those negatives take the black portion (usually found on the end of one of the negatives) and cut it off. Get some cardboard and tape and make a "cap" for your telescope with 1 or 2 layers of that black film on the end for light to pass thru.

With that on your telescope you will only see Ulra-violet....the moons brightness will disappear since you are blocking out everything except Ultra-violet and you will EASILY see objects circling the moon.

Looks like the moon picked up some hitch hikers and they are HUGE!

Originally posted by Phage
They seem to move at the same rate and opposite the Moon across the field of view.

I get the impression they are the result of thermal distortion within the telescope, sort of a mirage effect.

edit on 7/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

You might be on to something except that those "mirage effects" occur randomly and not at the same interval. There should be a pattern if that is just a distortion within the telescope.

You are a well known debunker of UFOs in this site. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe in UFOs?