GLP'er with ghetto camera: HUGE object imaged near Moon

just looks like something flew in front of your lens... why is this garbage pinned?

That's good enough for me. DOOOOOOOOOOOM!

not terrible for a point and shoot

speaking of ghetto, there's lots better image posting sites out there that don't take forever to load and fill your screen with useless nonsense.

good photo catch, though.

Not that I care or believe but I must defend it in the fact that if it was something flying in front of his lens it wouldn't have cast a shadow on the moon. Come on man think.

and so it begins...

Good question. I want to know why Path decided to run away from the thread where he first brought these images up. Here was my latest response:
"The telling feature in this most unlikely image is without a doubt THE SHADOW.
Quoting: Path_No_Logical_Ire

There's no shadow being cast on the moon in your images.

Astronut, can you post any links that show the ISS CASTING A SHADOW on the lunar surface?
Quoting: Path

There's a giant strawman argument if I ever saw one! No one is claiming ISS casts a shadow on the lunar surface, just the opposite in fact; the ISS passes in front of the moon from the earth's point of view, blocking a bit of the moon's light and forming a dark image in a telescope. Images of dark objects in front of the moon are caused by this all the time, whether it's an airplane, bird, or random satellite.

(Psst The ISS was nowhere near that location in the sky, but we can pretend)
Quoting: path

Idiot, ISS can be very near and even AT that location in the sky without being physically close to the moon. The net result is that you'll still see a dark "shadow" crossing the moon.

Rogue dust particles that can disappear, shapeshift, and cast shadows on the moon.
Quoting: Path

Which specific dust particles, if any, that you see in a shot will be determined by the angle and position of the camera over the eyepiece, and since you described using the afocal method, the exact position WILL change shot to shot, causing the dust particles to "change." Furthermore, your first image sans particles shows a much sharper moon than the other two images. That tells me the camera was refocused towards the dust closer to the lens causing those particles to appear whereas before they were too out of focus to be seen. They're not casting shadows on the moon either, they're blocking bits of the moon's light from reaching your camera. That's how the ISS image I posted above happened, just that the object doing the blocking was in space rather than on the lens. Duh.

The shadow is clearly being cast from the object passing over the lunar surface.
Quoting: Path

No, it's not. You cannot make that conclusion based on your images. It could be (and is) just as easily caused by something blocking the moonlight from reaching your camera close to the camera itself. There's NO indication that these are shadows on the lunar surface itself.

The moon is also out of focus, but that does not change the relative size of the shadow.
Quoting: Path

Since these are dust particles, they're even more out of focus than the moon, causing them to appear to be larger than they really are. You can even tell they're at two different focus points based on how they suddenly appear only when the moon is defocused compared to when they didn't appear.

I stated that the size is a conservative estimate and also how simple this is to discern.
Quoting: Path

It's not a conservative estimate at all, you took the most unreasonably exaggerated and unlikely estimate based on a false premise; that these are objects physically near the moon despite the fact that there isn't any evidence at all that this is the case.

Any image can be debunked, and you have chosen the classical template and the usual explanations.
Quoting: Path

Ok then, debunk the image of ISS I showed above. What's more likely, that that image is actually dust despite showing a clear shape as sharply resolved as the moon itself, or that it really is ISS?

Don't sweat it, friend. I know I won't, and niether will the SHADOW.
Quoting: path

LOL, you can go on being an idiot as much as you want, and I will go on stating the case for what it actually is as much as I want every time I see this claim presented.

I can stand proudly and say with honesty.... that I am awake, aware, and seeking knowledge of what IS....
Quoting: path

If that were the case you would have conceded that this is clearly dust on or around the eyepiece."

It's a bird.

Hey! Lets take turns guessing what it is!

I'm guessing it's a chunk of Russian that got launched into orbit when the train got blown up.


NEXT!

Thanks for my first pinjob mods. Some of our members need to stop hating and start participating.

The camera was touching the eye piece moorhons. The shadow on the lunar surface is quite large for an insect. Put on your thinking caps and spit out your gum.

I can easily replicate Path's result (dust "moving" across the moon, appearing and disappearing) just by using the afocal method Path here used, something I used to use but haven't needed in years since I started doing things the right way. I'll do that tomorrow night (I'd do it tonight but we're supposed to be getting heavy rains tonight as part of a cold front moving through my place here in Florida).

WHAT SHADOW? There's NO shadow on the lunar surface. Point it out and what you think is projecting the "shadow." Putting the camera right up to touch the eyepiece will not prevent dust in and on the eyepiece from appearing!

Moon Shadow

So it begins ...

zetas right again!

[link to pictures.ed-morana.com]

ISS casting shadow on the moon.

Farce moon. :D

Some people do not want this image to be seen in a positive light.. just a hunch. The AC making the accusations seems upset. They misquoted me and protested because they feel that my posting actvity should come under their scrutiny.

I usually test the waters before I jump in, so if I splashed water on you tell the lifeguard. This thread is getting more attention than a queer in a peter patch.

****WARNING: Sensors indicate that this thread is getting dangerously close to the truth!****

Dispatch a black helicopter to my house please. I have batteries in my camera this time pricks. I could always use the extra credibility.

Fail.

You are capable of much better work.

I'm not an AC, just forgot to log in, forgive me. I did not misquote you, I copied everything directly from the old thread in which I quoted you directly.

Yeah, I posted the truth, you just keep ignoring it. It'll be kinda hard to ignore when I replicate your results though and prove once and for all that it was just dust.

VORLONS!

If its in focus and you can see all the detail... FUCK. Its just a bird. Not worth posting at GLP.

If its all out of focus, blurry, and you can't figure what the fuck it is... [and it could be one of a million things] OMG YOU HAVE A UFO! Posting GOLD!

Actually it was dead-on and thank you AC for re-linking that site. It even provides the tools to run your own predictions for when you can personally see ISS cross the moon at a location near you.

Is the shadow in the correct position relative to the object based on the direction the light is coming from? From the second photo, it seems the light must be coming fron the lower left (as the shadow is cast to the upper right of the object). Unfortunately, that second photo does not show the whole moon, so it's tough to determine the moon's orientation (and hence, the direction to the Sun, the source of the light). If it doesn't line up correctly, it's not a shadow.

Your jedi mind tricks are not as powerful as they once were. Those are EXACTLY the bots we're looking for. Duplicate the effect and post your results. Use the force if you must.

So they really DO fly to the Moon.

Explicitly label what you think is a "shadow" in your picture and what "object" is casting said shadow. Another poster is already onto to the truth; the moon's terminator is to the upper left in your image whereas the false "shadow" is being "project" up and to the right of the "object" - the "shadow" doesn't match the lighting. That means it's not really a shadow on the moon at all, it's just another smudgy bit of grime or out of focus dust speck on your eyepiece. You left out the good bit though, the image showing enough of the moon for anyone to determine the true orientation of the sun's light to rule out a shadow:
[link to s483.photobucket.com]
No doubt this was an intentional omission after I challenged you on the previous thread.

Don't worry though, I'll duplicate your results soon enough. I wonder what your excuse will be then. "Paid disinfo agent" perhaps?

Last Edited by Astromut on 12/02/2009 02:45 PM

maybe the Moon has a moon?

Thats the Batman signal from Gotham.