Alien buildings, dinosaurs, ufos on moon, closest zooms world, Sydney

[steveru007]

facebook '' moon close zoom ''

[LewisM]

Facebook "blurry pixelated mess"

[jenchris (Jennifer)]

I'm confused ...
wotseonabart?

[MrB (Simon)]

Originally Posted by jenchris

I'm confused ...
wotseonabart?

Not worth giving it a second thought Jen.

[LewisM]

You need to see the caca images taken through his $600 rig. I think it's one too many zeroes, but...

He's seeing things on the Moon that we with many thousands times more value cannot see, let alone professional observatories... and with far less resolution and clarity of course

[big_dav_2001 (Davin)]

We've got a live one... Lol

Take a look at his personal page for a good laugh... So far, there's Men in Black cockroaches and buildings on the moon, UFO orbs buzzing ibis birds in flight, aliens on Rosetta comet, and chemtrails over Sydney...

Coocoo

Davin

[gaa_ian (Ian)]

The spate of UFO/Conspiracy shows on the "National Geographic" channel do nothing to help quell this kind of beat up. I watched some of it the other day, just so I can answer the unavoidable questions I get when I do Astronomy nights. Its disappointing to see what one would expect to be a science leaning channel, to be promoting such C#*P.

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

I do not make double postings lightly, but this thread and another related to it have created a witch hunt that should have been handled differently. Below is a copy of my post in the other thread:



I know what is being photographed here. No scam or spam or anything of the sort.

What has been photographed is the changes along the terminator of the Moon over time! Nothing more than shadow creep.

I see this all the time with my sketching. Over the two or more hours I can spend on a sketch, not only do shadows creep, but also other features, such as mountains and crater rims, also become illuminated as the sun rises over the lunar horizon.

One of the best examples of this is the illusive "Lunar X". The 'X' figure is a coincidence of four crater rims that sit right up against each other. For only a short period of time, about 30 min to an hour, the sun illuminates just the crest of the rims, giving the appearance of an 'X'. Then, as the sun rises higher, this alphanumeric figure disappears.

Shadow creep mixed in with a good deal of atmospheric turbulence and rudimentary photographic capacity.

Steve's photo's may be blurry, but I have to say I'm more disappointed with the reception he's got from you fellows than what he has posted. He thought he'd seen something curious, and he had. The only thing 'incorrect' was his interpretation. You lot could only belittle him instead of being more constructive. You crow about the pictures you take, talking about hot pixels, subs, colour curves, expensive gear, and what ever, yet when someone who can do with your assistance comes along, you just crap all over them with some type of 'high priest' attitude. And you say you know better. No explanations of what may have been actually photographed. No analysis of where he's gear may have been failing. No help at all. Just blast him out of the water.

I don't subscribe to quackery either, but I also don't just lay poo on someone for trying to bring people's attention to something different. You might actually learn something. Or have we already forgotten Galileo's words:

'I have never met a fool yet that I have not learned something from'.

Steve, I commend you on your efforts, but what you have captured image wise are not aliens, or bugs, or buildings. What you have captured is a combination of many things, including shadows moving across the lunar surface and the sun illuminating higher peaks as it rises over the Moon. The atmosphere has a lot of thermal energy, and at its worst produces waves just like a mirage on the horizon distorting the light coming from behind. These two things greatly affect my sketching of the Moon, particularly atmospheric turbulence as it reduces the amount of magnification I can use. Also, you are pushing the equipment you are using beyond its resolution capability. As a result the photos you are taking are fuzzy. There are practical limits that dictate how much magnification and resolution we can pull out of optical equipment. Ever notice how cheapie department store telescopes exclaim in large type 520X magnification for a small instrument? Thing is that even large, expensive and high quality telescopes are not capable of giving this sort of magnification without significant degradation of image quality due to size and above all the atmosphere. The most I am able to pull out of my largest instruments is only 400X, and that only happens once or twice a year due to the affects of the atmosphere. I could push things further, to over 5000X if I wanted, and even if the atmosphere allowed it (and it wouldn't allow such), I know my scopes are not capable of giving a good image at this magnification. Optics just can't. Also, there are limitations of CCD chips that need to be controlled for.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but that is the truth. No mystery, no aliens, nor any bugs. Just physics at play.

Alex.

PS: As for some of the things on that facebook page, most of it is because of the misinterpretation of the images, but a hell of a lot is conspiracy theories that I don't care for. All of my rant above is ONLY to do with my take on the images presented. If these pictures have somehow been manipulated, then it is all the worse for those people who have taken them for gospel. Like I said above, I don't subscribe to quackery. I can only help make sense of what I see.

[PCH (Paul)]

No offence but I'm pretty sure it's you who has the wrong end of the stick Alex.

This guy must be laughing his head off thinking "wow - someone actually thinks I'm being serious here".

Look at his post. Who would write "Facebook moon close zoom" and expect to be taken seriously.

He's hoping for people to ho to his fb page , and while there some might 'like' it or click on and ad' and make him half a dollar.

Whatever his motive Alex, he isn't serious buddy.

[astroron (Ron)]

Something is really odd here,
I see nothing in his post except the title and three words,no link no nothing
Cheers

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

No offence at all, Paul. I may well have the wrong end - wouldn't be the first time either... oh, man...

[Ric]

How come I never see any of this when I look at the Moon

I must be looking at the wrong Moon.

After all we do have two Moons don't we. That's the one with the CIA bases I think.

[Terry B]

Originally Posted by Ric

How come I never see any of this when I look at the Moon

I must be looking at the wrong Moon.

After all we do have two Moons don't we. That's the one with the CIA bases I think.

No. The other moon hatched and flew away as per Dr Who last week. The moon there now is the new egg.

[Ric]

LOL, good one Terry.

[PCH (Paul)]

Originally Posted by mental4astro

No offence at all, Paul. I may well have the wrong end - wouldn't be the first time either... oh, man...

I'm totally glad you're not offended Alex, cos I know you're a good hearted bloke and always willing to help peeps out

[Octane (Humayun)]

Nubiru.

H

[multiweb (Marc)]

Very vivid imagination for sure.

[iceman (Mike)]

Originally Posted by mental4astro

I do not make double postings lightly, but this thread and another related to it have created a witch hunt that should have been handled differently. Below is a copy of my post in the other thread:



I know what is being photographed here. No scam or spam or anything of the sort.

What has been photographed is the changes along the terminator of the Moon over time! Nothing more than shadow creep.

I see this all the time with my sketching. Over the two or more hours I can spend on a sketch, not only do shadows creep, but also other features, such as mountains and crater rims, also become illuminated as the sun rises over the lunar horizon.

One of the best examples of this is the illusive "Lunar X". The 'X' figure is a coincidence of four crater rims that sit right up against each other. For only a short period of time, about 30 min to an hour, the sun illuminates just the crest of the rims, giving the appearance of an 'X'. Then, as the sun rises higher, this alphanumeric figure disappears.

Shadow creep mixed in with a good deal of atmospheric turbulence and rudimentary photographic capacity.

Steve's photo's may be blurry, but I have to say I'm more disappointed with the reception he's got from you fellows than what he has posted. He thought he'd seen something curious, and he had. The only thing 'incorrect' was his interpretation. You lot could only belittle him instead of being more constructive. You crow about the pictures you take, talking about hot pixels, subs, colour curves, expensive gear, and what ever, yet when someone who can do with your assistance comes along, you just crap all over them with some type of 'high priest' attitude. And you say you know better. No explanations of what may have been actually photographed. No analysis of where he's gear may have been failing. No help at all. Just blast him out of the water.

I don't subscribe to quackery either, but I also don't just lay poo on someone for trying to bring people's attention to something different. You might actually learn something. Or have we already forgotten Galileo's words:

'I have never met a fool yet that I have not learned something from'.

Steve, I commend you on your efforts, but what you have captured image wise are not aliens, or bugs, or buildings. What you have captured is a combination of many things, including shadows moving across the lunar surface and the sun illuminating higher peaks as it rises over the Moon. The atmosphere has a lot of thermal energy, and at its worst produces waves just like a mirage on the horizon distorting the light coming from behind. These two things greatly affect my sketching of the Moon, particularly atmospheric turbulence as it reduces the amount of magnification I can use. Also, you are pushing the equipment you are using beyond its resolution capability. As a result the photos you are taking are fuzzy. There are practical limits that dictate how much magnification and resolution we can pull out of optical equipment. Ever notice how cheapie department store telescopes exclaim in large type 520X magnification for a small instrument? Thing is that even large, expensive and high quality telescopes are not capable of giving this sort of magnification without significant degradation of image quality due to size and above all the atmosphere. The most I am able to pull out of my largest instruments is only 400X, and that only happens once or twice a year due to the affects of the atmosphere. I could push things further, to over 5000X if I wanted, and even if the atmosphere allowed it (and it wouldn't allow such), I know my scopes are not capable of giving a good image at this magnification. Optics just can't. Also, there are limitations of CCD chips that need to be controlled for.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but that is the truth. No mystery, no aliens, nor any bugs. Just physics at play.

Alex.

PS: As for some of the things on that facebook page, most of it is because of the misinterpretation of the images, but a hell of a lot is conspiracy theories that I don't care for. All of my rant above is ONLY to do with my take on the images presented. If these pictures have somehow been manipulated, then it is all the worse for those people who have taken them for gospel. Like I said above, I don't subscribe to quackery. I can only help make sense of what I see.

Love your work, Alex.

[Willow127mm (Brad)]

Ignorance is bliss

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

I can't even find it.