Some 50 years after man walked on the Moon, we still can't wait on a line to take a rocket ride into the sky. We can't even board NASA's mythic Vomit Comet for a ride. Only the elite and chosen few get to visit those Hollywood special effects sets.
This is the first part in a series that will attempt to explain why there is no reason to buy into International nonsense,
How to build a fake station in "space":
No problem at all. It's as easy as using an erector set. Think about how long real engineering projects take to accomplish here on Earth's surface and then imagine trying to put together a football field sized structure while magically falling in 17,000 mph circles around the Earth. Are you worried about getting stuck to the side of the ISS that faces away from the Earth? Fear not. Centrifugal type effects can be magically ignored. Don't ask too many questions, this is official rocket science so you need a peer reviewed doctorate to understand any of this. It might seem like fantasy to you, but that's because you are too stupid to understand this complex subject. Just because you can prove that centripetal effects are real with a kitchen mixing bowl does not mean NASA's cartoons are fake. Cartoons are real, in a way. They are as real as you want them to be. Just believe and NASA will dot the "i's" and will cross the "t's" and do the rest. Did you know that the ISS can experience Zero-G while being still subjected to 90% of Earth's gravitational pull? Don't think too hard about it. NASA scientists have it all figured out so you don't have to think at all. All you need to do is learn the NASA list of commandments and cleverly repeat them back. Free fall would mean everything was falling towards the center of the Earth; NASA claims otherwise. Sir Isaac Newton made it a law, objects can free fall around each other, gravity can do whatever the enlightened mind orders it to. Gravity is not just the seeming push towards Earth's center, it is the magical God of the Newtonian Universe. The Big "G" Gravity replaces The Big "G" of God. Newtonian mechanics is just another Sun centered cult religion; and that's ok, RA RA RA we all internationally cheer the same way!
Fantastic Claims Require Fantastic Explanations
ISS Assembly Time-Lapse Animation source: yourjudgeandjury
ISS you is or ISS you ain't?
It is supposed to be the size of a football field. This Hollywood special effects cartoon is thought to orbit the Earth like the Moon. This so-called satellite is supposed to travel at some 17,000 mph and can supposedly be photographed in superb detail at night! The station is imagined to be 249 miles away from the Earth. Can you take a telescope and expect to see a stadium in the next state? Even if the Earth were flat, would you expect to be able to see a stadium sized object from 249 miles away? Passenger jets at some 8 miles up, become near invisible dots. The ISS is thought to be some 30x further away.
"100 billion: Estimated cost of the ISS in U.S. dollars. This gives the space station the grandiose title of being the world's most expensive single object.
816,000: How much the ISS currently weighs in pounds (370,131 kilograms). Once completed, the ISS will have a mass that on Earth would weigh almost 925,000 lb. (419,600 kg), the equivalent of more than 330 cars.
248: The average distance in miles above Earth's surface the ISS orbits (400 kilometers). On a clear day, the ISS is easily visible to the naked eye from the ground."
"On a clear day, the ISS is easily visible to the naked eye from the ground."
Real dust and water vapor and layers of real atmosphere make this claim seem quite impossible.
This statement is illogical and ignores demonstrable aerial perspective a phenomena familiar to landscape painters who have replicated the effect of the atmosphere on distant mountains for centuries with oil painted precision. Consider the fact that a high flying passenger jet flies at a maximum height of around 8 to 10 miles at best. Consider how small such aircraft appear and how the size of a passenger jet is compared to a football field. Consider how many times further away the space station is imagined to be and consider how one would not expect to see such a small object with the naked eye at all. In fact one would not logically expect a telescope to be able to visualize such a tiny spec either.
Where was this guy on 9/11?
Oh yea, Krypton.
Superman Returns (1/5) Movie CLIP - Plane Heroic (2006) HD source: Movieclips
Superman For 9/11 Truth, Justice & The American Way
There's a fragile fiberglass and aluminum truth to works of fiction that flies in the face of official government report and so-called media promoted scientific consensus driven "common core sense".
NASA Blinded The World With The Word "Science"!
At 249 miles away even a stadium would be an invisible microscopic spec. High flying passenger jets are barely visible thanks to atmospheric and perspective effect. Can anyone demonstrate such a telescopic feat with objects here on Earth as the control group?
The atmosphere overhead is blue. Distant mountains appear bluer and blurrier the further away they are. The camera lens can focus the image but it cannot do anything about all the intervening atmosphere, dust and water vapor which act to block visual information. This real noise means that even a high powered telescope is limited. One cannot magically see such objects through the intervening layers of very real atmosphere. Look up at the high flying passenger jets and you will notice that they look bluer and blurrier. The real high flying jets look like a tiny dot and they are no where near the distance the space station is thought to be. One would not expect to see a football field sized object from a distance of 249 miles It is not logical to conclude that this is possible.
Has anyone ever used a high powered telescope to photograph an Earth bound object 80 miles away? How about 50 miles? How about 100 miles? 249 miles? Do you think you could make out a football field from 249 miles away, if we lived on a flat plane world? Does that make sense to you based on your real world experience of how objects look smaller the further away they are from your eyes?
WHAT ARE THE ODDS? TWO COMPUTER GUYS GO ONLINE TO FIGHT FOR & AGAINST FLAT EARTH IN OVERTIME!
The Flat Earth Canard: A Low Hanging Banana Based Cartoon Video Game Thought Balloon
Podcasts, Alex Jones rants, Joe Rogan in his comedic underpants and Flat Earth Hot Potato Clothes are all part of the 21st Century Tabliod News Noise Show. This is what the yellow journal tabloid based media is about. Flat Earth, UFOs, Big Foots and the rest of the celebrity worship have transcended the print and older television media and now thrive like cancerous cells, online. The National Enquirer has grown into a true multimedia beast, spewing forth endless imitators and now digital PT Barnum side show salespeople of all sorts of "genders".
Debunk the Bunk Or Get Sputnik on The Bunk: Either Way The Dichotomy is As False and Contrived As Can Be
FLAT EARTH SEEMS TO BE ABOUT SOCIAL MANIPULATION FUN & MONEY
"My name is Mick West. I’m a science writer and debunker."
Mr. Mick West has appeared on Joe Rogan in order to debunk Flat Earth. He also has claimed to have photographed the International Space Station from here on Earth. He has posted his visual evidence online for all to see. Mr. West is presented to us as an external authority we should respect. We are supposed to ignore the fact Joe Rogan is clearly a Hollywood style, empty headed, parroting, propagandist and that photographing such an object from the surface of the Earth would seem to be impossible.
"My name is Mick West. I’m a science writer and debunker. I used to be a video games programmer."
- Metabunk.org – all about bunk and how to debunk it. A polite forum of and about debunking.
- ContrailScience.com – About contrails and the “chemtrail” conspiracy theory
- CowboyProgramming.com,– where I write about games programming, and post some of the experimental code I have written."
"My articles on Gamasutra. These are a mix of Game Developer Articles, and some stuff from Cowboy Programming
My gameography on Mobygames. All the games I worked on. This was mostly programming and design up to Tony Hawk’s Underground. Then consulting on some games. The last programming I did there was the AI for World Series of Poker.
My old blog. Which I have not updated in years
Flying Lessons Journal – Back in 2004 I took flying lessons, up to long distance solo"
Metabunk Looks A Lot Like An Official Adobe Photoshop Hot Spot
Mick West comes across like a National Enquirer kind of guy. It's nice to see that Hollywood gossip style, yellow journal, tabloid nonsense is alive and well online. This is an old marketplace. People eat up UFOs and Bigfeet and all sorts of mythical nonsense. People prefer fairytale fiction to "boring" natural fact. The "Debunker" preys on (or makes use of ) the same audience in many ways as the Snake Oil Sales Man does. The age old snake oil, stage magic Platonic puppet show, requires a left and a right hand act. Mr. West acts as the "voice of reason" to lead the flock back into the official government approved and peer reviewed NASA fold.
Mick, Mark, Mark, Mick: Birds of A Feather Fleece The Flock Together
Computer Programming Parrots: A Professional Computer Gaming Guru Guy Sells Flat Earth Follies
"Growing up on South Whidbey Island, Washington, Mark K. Sargent started his career playing computer games professionally in Boulder Colorado. From there he spent the next 20 years training people in proprietary software. In 2014, he looked into what is no doubt the most ridiculous conspiracy ever, called "Flat Earth Theory", and through extensive research, discovered that it wasn't so laughable after all.
Early in 2015, he released a series of YouTube videos titled "Flat Earth Clues", which delves into the possibility of our human civilization actually being inside a "Truman show"-like enclosed system, and how it's been hidden from the public since 1956."
Video Games & Flat Earth Seem To Have A Lot In Common
"IT2010 was a competition I entered and won in early 1988. At that time I was 20 years old and a student at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (more commonly known as UMIST). The competition was a join promotion on the part of EDS (a large IT company, previously part of GM), and the Sunday Times (a venerable British Newspaper).
The competition was only open to students currently in higher education, and basically involved predicting what “Information
Technology” would look like in the year 2010, which would be 22 years in the future back then. The prize was £2010, which would be the equivalent of around $8000 in today’s money, a staggeringly large amount of money for a poor student back then, greater than all the money I had spent in my entire life up to that point. So I resolved to enter.
I gave the matter much though, but little actual work, and a week before the deadline I had practically nothing written. I steeled myself, and basically skipped class for the rest of the week, staying up late each night to get the thing done. I was using rather archaic equipment. An Atari ST (a 16Mhz Atari 520STFM, with 1MB of RAM, and no hard drive), and a copy of “Fleet Street Publisher” (a “Desktop Publishing” program), and an Epson printer (a 9-Pin Dot Matrix printer, maybe the Star LC-10).
To give you some more perspective, in early 1988 the World Wide Web had not even been invented. There were NO web servers on the internet. Hard drives were being sold with 20MB of space for $500. (Now you can get 200000MB for $200). CD-ROM was invented in 1985, although I’d never heard of it. All software was distributed on floppy disks. Only academic types had email. I did not have e-mail at university."
Flat Earth = Guerrilla Marketing In The 21st Century
This couldn't be about money, could it? If one wants to star gaze and do it right, to say prove NASA is a scam, they need to spend the $$$.
"That's an ~$8000 telescope mounted on an ~$10000 mount and several thousand more dollars in eyepieces, stable tripods, and cameras. Your $500 P900 isn't even in the same league - you have purchased a toy. You do not have elite equipment.
Your P900 gives between 1-2 MP of useful image data when pushed to it's maximum focal length of 357mm -- yeah, they CALL IT 2000mm but it's actually 357mm -- it only APPEARS to be 2000mm because what they did was give you a TINY little sensor instead of a full frame sensor. You put a 500mm lens on any prosumer grade camera with a Full Frame sensor and it will outperform your P900. Uneducated consumers buy this thing because they think 83x sounds cool but don't realize that what really happened is Nikon pre-cropped their image WAY down.
See this period >> . <<
"That's my 16000mm lens equivalent! Isn't it great!? That's 4000x baby! Let's see the Hubble do that!" That nonsense is EXACTLY what P900 owners are doing - getting dog shit and calling it caviar.
Your P900 has a 1/2.3" sensor -- that's the TINY little blue box, one up from the smallest shown here. Phone sensors are in the 1/4" - 1/3" range. Your $500 camera has a sensor only slightly larger than my phone."
To Do a Good Job Proving Or Disproving "Flat Earth" A Mainstream Promoted Meme, One Needs To Spend $$$
Boston From 50 Miles Away
No Flat Earth needed, by the way. The tall skyscrapers are huge; height matters, but some people do not understand this. In any case would we really expect to see a 400 foot wide space station from a distance of 5x greater than this? Please notice how the skyscrapers are both bluer and blurrier. Real dust and water vapor and real layers of atmosphere reduce the amount of visual information we would be able to receive. A telescope lens is like a bigger eye. It can take in more "lines of force" than the smaller lens of an eye can. What it cannot do is magically eliminate the dust and water and laters of atmosphere which act to block light rays. I hope that is "clear". Optics is demonstrable science.
The Curved Earth: The Tops of The SkyScrapers Support The Globe Earth Model With No Other Explanation Needed
If the Earth were flat and we pushed those towers 200 miles further back towards the imagined perspective vanishing point, would we really expect to still be able to see them? Does that really make sense when we consider all the intervening atmosphere, dust and water vapor that would block the light rays from reaching our eyes in the first place? The towers would fade into the mists of the atmosphere and would be undetectable. By the way from this distance, you would be hard pressed to point out flying passenger jets; these would be too small to detect. The noise of the atmosphere would drown out that visual information. Please notice how the effect of atmosphere really does result in blurry objects. I know the atmosphere above our heads is supposed to be thinner. The point is, it is still there and would still effect the resulting visual information we would be able to receive. The atmosphere means that not all of the light can reach our eyes or telescope lens. If one could see the ISS through a telescope, it should look blurry and should lack contrast. We would not expect to see what looks like a perfect model of the ISS. We'd expect to see what would perhaps best be described as a magnified blob. Click the link below and begin to look into it for yourself if you are interested. It seems to me that the more reasonable explanation for online photographs and videos of the legendary ISS is simple fakery which is easily accomplished with today's ubiquitous virtual reality generating computer software.
It's not like the ISS is aerodynamically designed. It is unlikely the ISS is some kind of UFO aircraft that flies overhead at a lower altitude.
Modern science is riddled with comic book super hero type thinking. There's a reason why birds and bees can fly and there is a reason why passenger jets have wings. Optics matter. The intervening atmosphere would pose a problem for imaging distant objects. These same problems apply to all of the heavenly bodies. This is why I am suspicious of the clear photographs of the planet Saturn and other such YouTube based claims. Some of the YouTube based work seems to be guerrilla marketing advertisements for expensive telescopes.
Size and Proportion Matter: Even At 50 Miles We Are To Small To Appreciate The Earth's Curvature
Yet we can notice how objects disappear at sea. This famous explanation and stories of historical global circumnavigation, are all most people need in order to accept the globe Earth model as the more valid one. The curious few who believe otherwise do not seem to bother to actually learn why they should think that wise. The further away a real world object is, the more it appears to be a silhouette with very little detail. Any detail gets physically blocked just as if there were a series of layers of wire screens between the distant object and the lens.
If a city looks this blurry from 50 miles away, how can the Moon looks so sharp and crystal like?
How can photos and video show a sharp ISS?
We would logically expect to see no such detail. Photos and videos of ISS would have to be fake. This also means we cannot so easily conclude that it makes sense to assume the Moon is a round rock in the sky, based upon visual evidence. There is no reason to think the lights in the sky are physical bodies. There is no experiment anyone can do to show that apples can orbits planets. This is mythical reasoning based with illogically premised mathematics and nothing more.
Learn About Optics
Objects that are lit by light sources and are not light sources themselves, will definitely fade into the mists of atmosphere. Distant objects becomes bluer, lighter in color, blurrier and more out of focus as less visual information reaches the viewer.
"Chemtrails" are more than likely just water vapor. Look up how a jet turbine works and how oxygen gets supplied to the pressurized cabin.
High flying jets are specks in the sky. One would not expect to be able to spy ISS even with a telescope.
Chemtrails: Are Planes Spraying Chemicals Into The Sky? source: Alltime Conspiracies
The CIA's Magical & Mythical U2 Spy Plane Was Supposed To Fly Really High
The U2 spy plane is thought to be a fantastically capable eye in the sky that is hard to detect with radar; do you think it would be beyond sight as well? Logically it would have to be invisible to the naked eye, no? If a telescope or the human eye could detect this high flying aircraft, wouldn't that render it useless for spying? Can you see how this seems to contradict the claims of NASA? We would not expect to be able to see the space station at all, or so it seems to me, maybe you can demonstrate how this works in your part of the multiverse. The internet puts a library that would make Dewey himself envious at out fingertips. The hyperlinked interconnected resource that is the internet is a great tool for education that most use to publish selfies.
Considering the long demonstrable history that clearly shows us that Hollywood, the Government and the Military Industrial Complex are one and the same at the highest levels, the most reasonable explanation for all of the claims of NASA and CIA super spy planes is that they are all fake. Consider too that nation states are more illusion than most realize and that the world is run as one global enterprise from the top down by an elite caste that belong to a club the rest of us do not. If you have any questions, explore this website and the sites this site links to and make up your own mind for yourself or choose to withhold judgment and to not pick a "side". I'm not trying to tell anyone what to believe; I am stating what seems reasonable to me. It's also not like I am stating that any other explanation is invalid as much as the other explanations require more qualifications and are in my opinion, far less likely to be true.
"It was thought that an aircraft that could fly at 70,000 feet (21,300 m) would be beyond the reach of Soviet fighters, missiles, and radar."
Objects Cannot Magically Orbit Other Objects: Conduct The Experiment Here On Earth!
The ISS is imagined to be a football field size (400 feet wide) metal contraption that orbits the Earth at the fantastic speed of 17,000+ mph. Despite the fact that Sir Isaac Newton's alchemically induced equations are illogically premised, and the fact that he could conduct no real experiment to prove an apple was like the Moon and the Moon like an apple, people seem to really believe a bunch of metal junk can fly in the sky like Superman. Sir Isaac Newton's use of the equal sign as magical holy symbol does not erase his error in logic. Gravity is demonstrably an accelerated velocity and the imaged fixed velocity of the space station is just that, fixed. One cannot balance the other despite the illogical us of gravitational constants. What most do not understand is Sir Isaac Newton was an officially Royally sanctioned con man.
Gravity cannot explain orbits.
There is a reason why modern cosmology is a house of cards built on ad hoc assumptions. Every single time any experiment confirmed what our senses tell us, that the Earth is motionless, the officially sanctioned, University trained social thought police would redefine down as up and would go on to create a rainbow spectrum of fantastic and somewhat contradictory ideas. We have to ignore the fact that modern space science is speculative metaphysics. We have to ignore demonstrable ballistic physics and embrace the ridiculous notion that objects can magically fall around each other. There is no experiment anyone could ever do to "prove" this, but we must ignore that too. We must believe the evidence of NASA which is in the form of highly edited Hollywood film and video product. There is a lot of this filmed propaganda and much of it has authoritative narration and "everyone" believes it is true so it must be so. Reality is based on consensus and "peer review" or peer pressure and not on demonstrable natural principle. Modern science can seem as meaningless and nonsensical as modern art. "Everyone" claims meaningless paint splatters art, so it must be. Everyone believes in a place they can never visit, so that place must be real, even if we can't ever wait on a line to go there.
Flat Earth = YouTube Advertising/Internet Marketing
Pay attention to the overt advertising. Go out and buy expensive cameras and telescopes. Join in the Flat Earth fun and go out and look up at the sky. Plato would be proud of the modern use of the sky as the ultimate cave wall. Why bother learning about the various cosmological models before getting the expensive telescope or camera? That requires more work. The internet makes such education easy, giving everyone a Harvard University level library at their fingertips, but really why bother with any of that? One can watch a video and then learn exactly how to use the internet to buy stuff one probably does not really need, instead.
Flat Earth Photography
Google and YouTube have to prove they need to exist. These enterprises need to be regarded as commercially successful in order to justify their existence in our overly monetized world. This is a very real pressure and even state run monopolies can have shelf lives. Corporate endeavors fail and the fear of failure is impetus for new ideas for new ways of selling the same old snot.
$$$ Post Your Expensive Photography To YouTube Like Everyone Else! $$$
We are going to take down NASA right after we hit the virtual shopping mall.
Nikon coolpix P900 Tutorial for Flat Earthers with fake plane source: FlatEarth Photography
Ever notice the ads?
This seems like an intellectual marketing, bait and switch.
Come in for metaphysical curiosity and leave with a Nikon camera and telescope set up.
$ is the One True Holy Symbol of Our World
PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A (JET.COM/NIKON) SPONSORED CHANNEL
YOUTUBE IS HOME TO THE MODERN VERSION OF NEWSREEL THEATRE
The News has long been more fictionalized than most think, but most do not like using the internet to actually learn anything for themselves. I could have said the same thing about the public's use of the public library system, a hundred years ago. The mythical historical character Plato claimed the same lack of real curiosity with allegorical shadows and cave. The system has little to fear, human nature seems to be eternal; most seem content to let others define the boundaries of their imaginations and reason, for them. Trying to fight against that might be like trying to fight against any other Natural principle.
The Sharp Lunar Landscape
Would we really be able to see such shape detail with the Moon being some 238,000 miles away? The only evidence is circularly reasoned and basically the result of photo filtering.
Measuring The Sky
"Many new stargazers have trouble understanding our reference to “degrees”, “arc minutes”, and “arc seconds” when talking about the separation of celestial objects. So here’s a primer on measuring angular distances.
Astronomers measure angular separation of objects in degrees. There are 360 degrees in a circle. And the angular separation of any point on the horizon and the point directly overhead (the zenith) is 90 degrees. Halfway from the zenith to the horizon is 45 degrees.
Smaller angles are a little trickier. But your hands and fingers are a remarkably accurate (and convenient) measuring tool. When you hold your hand at arm’s length, you can estimate angles like this:
- Stretch your thumb and little finger as far from each other as you can. The span from tip to tip is about 25 degrees
- Do the same with your index finger and little finger. The span is 15 degrees
- Clench your fist at arms length, and hold it with the back of your hand facing you. The width is 10 degrees
- Hold your three middle fingers together; they span about 5 degrees
- The width of your little finger at arm’s length is 1 degree.
Now let’s go smaller. When you look through a telescope, you see a field of view of 1 degree or less… a very small slice of sky.
Astronomers measure angles smaller than 1 degree in arcminutes, or “minutes of arc”. There are 60 arcminutes in one degree, so 1 arcminute is 1/60 degree. The symbol for arcminutes is ‘. So the full Moon, for example, is about 30′ (thirty arcminutes) across. Coincidentally, so is the Sun.
Each arcminute is divided into 60 arcseconds, or “seconds of arc”. So 1 arcsecond is 1/60 arcminute and 1/3600 degree. The symbol for arcseconds is “. The face of Jupiter, which you can see this summer, is about 50″ across. A good optical telescope in steady skies can resolve down to about 1″ (one arcsecond)."
WHEN ONE FACTORS IN THE REAL ATMOSPHERE, ONE CAN "SEE" THAT ISS WOULD SEEM TO BE TOO SMALL TO EVER REALLY SEE
With no atmosphere such a small moving object would be hard to see. With all the atmosphere in the way, the small space station would be expected to fade away. Objects far away appear to be less distinct. We would not expect to be able to look at a photograph of the ISS that resembles a small model. If one does see a light in the sky moving along the lines of the ISS claimed orbit, it might just be a passenger jet with an unblinking white light source. It might be natural celestial phenomena, it might be Superman or it might be Santa Claus. It could be some kind of human technology that allows a bunch of radar and radio stations to mimc the moving stars; or it might be the archangel Michael for all I know.
"if this circle is 10 cm wide on your monitor, view it from 10.3 m away."
10 cm = 3.93701 inches & 10.3 meters = 33.79265 feet
"Comparison of angular diameter of the Sun, Moon, planets and the International Space Station. To get a true representation of the sizes, view the image at a distance of 103 times the width of the "Moon: max." circle. For example, if this circle is 10 cm wide on your monitor, view it from 10.3 m away."
The Moon is Smaller Than Your Thumb: Go Outside and Look Up At The Moon.
Close one eye and use your thumb to cover the Moon. You can see how small it really appears to be. Videos that show sharp little back dot UFOs are very suspect. This dot cannot be some kind of craft up in the sky. This dot would be invisible to the human eye. It would also be so small that it would get washed out by the bright light of the Moon itself. Layers of atmosphere and dust and water vapor would seem to make photographing of what would be such a minuscule and microscopic phenomena impossible, even with the best telescopic lens. The atmosphere would act like very real layers of screening that would physically block the light waves from reaching the lens in the first place.
What could the tiny UFO dot be? Simple computer effect? Some kind of lens and filtering and or a digital artifact? An insect flying very close to the lens? Consider how small that dot would actually be and how it would be impossible to see. Consider too, how the Moon glows when viewed at night in real life and how many of the photos and videos of the Moon are filtered or otherwise do not represent what the eye would see in actuality. Consider too that Google owns YouTube and both are clearly modern governmental propaganda media outlets. Please note, I am not accusing anyone of being purposefully deceptive or not. I am simply pointing out what I think are problems with these videos and photos and the questions that I have. The Moon is a bright light source, between lens artifacts and the analog to digital conversion, is it not possible that some of the UFO like video, film and photographic phenomena are nothing but artifacts introduced during the filming process? People seem to like to jump to scientifically fantastic explanations over the mundane, which most find boring. People seem to be more interested in believing the Moon to be a hologram based upon what appear to be run of the mill digital scan line like conversion artifacts, then in learning about why the mainstream cosmological model is flawed. Is it not possible this UFO is nothing but the same kind of effect?
The Moon Does Look Like This in Real Life: It Looks More Like A Light Source
Satellites Do Not Exist As Described source: Crrow777
The Black Dot UFO, a conscious construct, an optical artifact or real phenomena?
Such a minute object should not be as focused as this dot seems to be. How can the camera lens be focused on the Moon and the UFO at the same time? This seems like it has to be either an example of video manipulation, or a simple digital video type of artifact. I mean no offense; these just seem to me to be the most likely explanations for what we are seeing in the video. This type of special effect is easy to create today with a computer and could have always been done in darkroom. The other possibility that comes to my mind is that perhaps it is an insect that is out of focus and that ends up looking like a (somewhat) sharp dot after digital video processing. Keep in mind the Moon is relatively smaller than your thumbnail, meaning this dot would be that much more minuscule and impossible to see. What do you think?
Let's Hop Over To Photoshop To "Fix" The Moon
It's unlikely this is a distant object. Urban pollution also makes seeing such relatively small distant objects a lot less likely.
"Pollution in big cities can sometimes get in the way of a crisp clear shot, so consider driving out to somewhere where the air will be cleaner to photograph the moon."
"When you're ready to go, make sure your camera is set up so you'll be shooting in raw format. This will give you the picture quality you need in order to be able to crop your final image to get closer to the moon, as well as edit the exposure, contrast and clarity to bring out the detail on the moon's surface more clearly.
As well as being beautiful in itself, a big, bright moon shot can be useful. Once you've followed our steps and come away with a clear image, we'll walk you through how to add your lunar masterpiece to night landscapes in Photoshop.
While it's a big challenge to shoot a well-exposed nightscape that also includes a well-defined moon, it's a cinch to add the moon in Photoshop, and we'll walk you through how to create a dramatic composite in five easy steps"
"Once you’ve decided on a suitable time to shoot the moon, the technique is pretty straightforward. You’ll need a lens of 300mm or longer to get it at a reasonable size in the frame. A tripod will keep your camera still, and a remote shutter release will reduce shaking further - if you don't have one, set the camera's self timer to a few seconds in the Setup menu."
"Once you’ve decided on a suitable time to shoot the moon, the technique is pretty straightforward. You’ll need a lens of 300mm or longer to get it at a reasonable size in the frame. A tripod will keep your camera still, and a remote shutter release will reduce shaking further - if you don't have one, set the camera's self timer to a few seconds in the Setup menu."
"Switch your camera to Manual mode and your lens to manual focus. Your exact exposure will vary according to the conditions, but in manual exposure mode start with ISO800, a shutter speed of 1/250 sec and an aperture of f/5.6. Adjust the ISO or aperture until you can see detail clearly in the surface. Avoid using a slower shutter speed as you tweak the settings. This will result in the moon blurring. It’s easy to forget about these hidden dangers."
"The moon won't fill the frame, so judging focus can be an issue. The best way to focus is to use Live View mode, then zoom in and carefully manually focus on the moon’s surface."
The Layers of Atmosphere Contain Dust & Water Vapor Which Would Make Photographing Tiny Moon UFOs Impossible
"As the temperature drops during the night, you’ll often find that any moisture in the air will condense on any gear you have out in the open.
On your tripod, bag or even the outside of the camera, this can be unpleasant, but not disastrous.
It’s when it forms on the lens, viewfinder and rear screen that it becomes a real problem.
You can minimize the probability of condensation by giving your gear some time to gradually acclimatize, rather than taking it straight out of a warm car or house into the cold air.
But on many evenings you’ll still find condensation will form, so take along plenty of cloths and cleaning kit."
At Night The Moon Glows Like A Light Source
What is the mysterious Moon? Human beings may never be able to really say. There might be very real limits to what we can do and demonstrate. Obviously we can't simply fly to the Moon because we wish we can, despite NASA's cartoon fare.
Videotaping the moon from my porch source: vickielou Meckle
The Moon Is Very Bright
"Most pictures of the moon fail to capture the tiny details that we see when we look at it. Why is this? Put simply, the moon is a very bright on a very dark background. If you use the camera's automatic settings, it's likely to get confused and the shutter will stay open too long. The moon’s brightness will then wash out the details.
So use Spot metering on your camera so it will choose the appropriate exposure for the moon. Spot metering tells the camera to correctly expose what's in the center of the image, the moon in this case. It ignores the black around the edge of the photo that would otherwise fool the light sensor."
"Try to catch the moon close to the horizon, or place it between some trees. It will add a point of reference and some interest to your photo. You'll usually see a silhouette of the object beside the moon, like the trees here. However, it is possible to show some detail by using two photos.
First, take a photo with the moon properly exposed. You'll likely just see the moon with the rest of the image black, like the first image below. Next, slow down the shutter speed so the rest of the scene is correctly exposed. This time the moon will be a white blob in the sky."
The Full Moon Is So Bright It Causes Objects To Cast Shadows
This Makes No Sense:
"Today, it’s possible for skilled astro-imagers to produce detailed shots of the Moon that rival spacecraft images. How? They use highly sensitive, digital video cameras or webcams, recording at 30 frames per second or faster. This rapid frame rate allows astro- imagers to “beat the seeing” and avoid the worst effects of atmospheric blurring. The nuts-and-bolts details of the technique are beyond the scope of this article, but if you’re determined to capture detailed close-up pictures of individual lunar features, video imaging is how it’s done."
30 frames a second (or even faster) can't magically make visual information appear when it would be physically blocked by actual bits of dust, layers of atmosphere that act like a screen and water vapor. This acts to block a portion of the light rays from reaching the lens, resulting in less detail. The frame rate is irrelevant. The visual information is incomplete as some of the light waves are physically blocked from reaching the lens. I hope that is "clear". This explanation is nothing but apologetic BS.
What is the Moon really?
It seems to be some kind of electrical related, optical phenomena more than it is an physical body.
But we may never be able to solve what seems to be a Metaphysical mystery.
AN AGE OF DIGITAL ARTIFACTS:
Lens Flare Constructs
"Lens flare occurs when a point of light source such as the sun is much brighter than the rest of the scene, and it either happens to be in the image (within lens angle of view), or simply hits the front element of a lens without being present in the image. Depending on the position of this bright light source, it can result in a lot of haze / lack of contrast, orbs and polygon artifacts scattered throughout the image, semi-round shapes with rainbow colors, or a combination of all of the above. This happens due to internal reflections that take place inside the lens and even between the imaging sensor and the lens (more on that below). Take a look at the below illustration:"
Questionable Digitally Compressed Images & Digital Artifacts of Social Media Culture
"Things are even trickier with videos, because video images go through much more complicated processing. Some of this involves lossy data compression, which throws away some of the details of the actual scene. But in addition to that, the data are separated into brightness and color (for reasons historically connected with making color TV compatible with the black-and-white system that preceded it); and the color information (called “chroma” in the video world) is separated into two opponent channels, red-green and blue-yellow, even though the image capture is usually done in terms of RGB."
"This opens up further possibilities for mischief, if anything goes wrong in the electronics or the recording apparatus. And of course most video cameras also have the automatic color adjustment (known as “white balance” to the video people) that digital cameras have. So there are more ways for things to go wrong."
The next part in this series will get into how one can fake the ISS telescope videos and photos. The article after that will focus on the history of this mythic orbiting Tower of Modern Babel.