unique method filming

[steveru007]

ive begun to get close zooms 4000x moon surface clear, Olympus, facebook group'' moon close zooms '' analysing alien buildings, huge dinosaur insects, ufos above crater, repeat no joke, serious researcher here, bit worried findings, posting all websites, based Sydney

[KenGee]

err Nurse he's out of his bed again! Not going to face this but by all means post your pics here we could all have a

[LewisM]

You MUST go to his Facebook page for a good old laugh: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1490567461227525/

$600 equipment (1 too many zeroes I think)

Images SO blurry and distorted and pixelated as to completely befuddle you (like looking at the Moon whilst trippin' on LSD)

I guess we gonna need a spacebomb full of Mortein...

[Exfso]

Pretty sure this is spam:screwy:

[LewisM]

No, there is a real Facebook page full of cr...errr...blurry, pixelated "art" purporting to be Moon bases, UFO's, insects and dinosaurs on the Moon...:ship2::screwy:

:camera::rover2::anaut::astron::lol 2::ship1:

[mental4astro]

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.

[Exfso]

Not saying that the content is spam, just that the poser is a tad suspect, I suspect he is a spammer.

[RB]

Everything's under control guys.

:)

[Ric]

4000x magnification, wow :eyepop:

I'd reckon I'd see dinosaurs on Pluto with that eyepiece. :D

[el_draco]

Obviously a recent escapee.....

[LewisM]

Alex,

Whilst that is very noble of you, I assure you none of my comments were made without prior perusal of the original poster's images and commentary on Facebook - and I suggested people also look at them in my opening comments. If you had done so, perhaps you would not have come down so hard on those dissenting to this individual, and nor maybe would you yourself taken a sleight at astro-imagers in general.

The OP was not asking for help - he seems quite content and delighted in what he is presenting. Again, a perusal of his Facebook page would have easily and succinctly garnered you with this information. Not only are his own pictures MANIPULATED and altered (besides being of questionable integrity in the first place), the images from NASA have also been shown in such a way as to extol the virtues of the assertions and wild claims he is making - dinosaurs and insects on Rosetta, as well as UFO's and the like.

Please, feel free to educate this person, but I fear you are fighting a lost battle and will only be wasting your time and effort.

[Willow127mm]

If we don't understand something lets criticise it.
some things never change

[el_draco]

The issue is not a lack of understanding; quite the opposite. I looked carefully at this persons "images" and the assertions are plain twaddle...

[bojan]

Exactly right.

Couple of years ago I was corresponding with an old friend of mine, who claimed he discovered the "huge statue on Mars", he named it "The Mars warrior".
The method of this "discovery" was like this:
He took the the image of Mars during the last opposition on Ectachome film..
Then he digitized this image with superfine resolution on his home scanner, in jpg format of course..
Then he enhanced the contrast and edges in PS.. enlarged this image image 10x or so, increased resolution by interpolation, then applied the rotation again, enhanced, interpolated, enlarged, rotated.. and so on.
After this process was finished (he reached the "resolution" of 10 metres or so) he spend hours and hours looking at the screen.. with a help of beer and possibly something much stronger to keep him alert.. and suddenly noticed on particular coordinates a strange arrangement of pixels, that looked like a 100 metres high statue with eyes, nose, teeth, helmet.. and he was scared of all this.

I spent hours in polite attempts to get him back to the reality, pointing couple of times that he was "seeing" the ganulation of film for the start.. and that first he should have tested his own enhancement "method" by comparing his results with NASA's imagery (in hope he would realised his mistake).. all was in wain of course ("because NASA is hiding things from us, so what''s the point" was his usual answer).
Then I gave up.. feelin sorry for him and thinking about how some people sometimes just snap, and hoping it would never happen to me..
Well, if it ever happens, I will never know anyway :P

[mental4astro]

I totally agree that the assertions in the images are incorrect. But one should take a new member's intentions as well intentioned along with a big pinch of scepticism. To see have them make a post as they did in a forum like this one, they are either just misinformed or they are being provokative.

Do you know which?

I certainly don't. His words on the facebook page are tainted with their misinterpretation of the pictures. And the other people contributing to it don't help. How many people here identified what is actually being shown in Steve's pictures? How many people brought this up first? If Steve is a nutter, how he was first received here shows we are no less nutty and just as fundamentalist. And that is what we want to be here?

I would have thought a reasoned response making sense of the pictures first was the correct approach. How would you feel if at school you asked a teacher a question, and their response to you was "you are a phucking idiot, piss off!", and in front of everyone. Yeah, real smart.

Address their assertion first with reason. Then it is upto them to make what they want of it. If they then insist on quackery, then by all means they are fair game.

[mental4astro]

Bojan, I admire your attempts to reason with that fellow, and I can understand you finally giving up. That is what should have happened here to Steve. Give him the benefit of the doubt first. Why change from that? We don't get a reasoned response from the first character we come across, so we blast every other one?

[bojan]

Alex, I totally agree with you

[Poita]

At the very least, an explanation of what is really in the images might help someone else who stumbles on conspiracy stuff get a balanced view of what is actually going on

[xelasnave]

One would think that if he is genuine, in so far as his post seeks comment upon curious matters, we would have had another post from him.
He could thank Alex for example and engage at some level.
Alex you are a gentleman and your approach is wonderful.

[el_draco]

I've already made a mental point to tell you!!:lol:

[Willow127mm]

My comments refer to all the people who dismiss UFO St as twaddle I'm not defending anyone.
But nothing bugs me more than people who run down others for believing in something other than the mainstream dribble we are force fed.
The only pictures of Pluto are blurry yet we all just take its existence as gospel.
The sheer weight of UFO evidence would suggest there is at the very least something to this.
Yet one eyed ignorance seems to follow the unexplained in our universe throughout the ages.
Remember when people were ridiculed for saying the earth was round?
Please keep an open mind but not to the point were your brain falls out.
Cheers Brad

[PCH]

Hey Brad,

I doubt if anyone here 'remembers' people being ridiculed for thinking the world was flat! How old do you think we are - lol

Anyway, for the record it's actually a big myth that people of yesteryear thought the world was flat.

It's actually never been mainstream thinking, even though most people alive today do seem to think that folks hundreds of years ago thought the world was flat.

More here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

[Willow127mm]

Yeah thanks mate it was probably a poor example though it was the point that was important.
But thanks for the history lesson and I mean that sincerely it is true that you learn something every day.
My intention wasn't to offend anyone but to give all a fair go as I think we all benafit that way.
geeze I wish the cloud would clear in Perth
Cheers Brad

[el_draco]

Generally, thinking that is not mainstream gets a hearing in this forum..., and often some exciting debate. However, the assertions made by the owner of the facebook page are so far off "mainstream" as to be in an entirely different catchment, on another planet. Ludicrous does not even come close to it. Its this kind of twaddle that brings out the nutters and it should be named up as such...