A reflection from the moon outside would leave the face of the object we see in shadow and there would be a dark spot on the pixels where we see a bright spot in the actual film. That is the shading pattern we see would have been precisely the opposite.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
Was it the same camera? Yes it was! What about a camera leak? And what is the dark “shape” down the right side of the video? Was the camera faulty in some way?
Astrophotographer. One only has to look at the whole video (both of them) to note that the “patches” of light (especially noted) in the upper and lower right corners of the frame do not change at all, no matter the camera angle (and it rotates through at least 90 degrees and back over the duration of the “UFO” video), no matter what the subject (including some completely blank frames where either a lens cap was left on or something else occurred to render the frames completely black), or the focal length changes (including close-ups of the external scene where no LM window frame is visible to where the LM window frame actually fills ¾ of the image)… through ALL these transformations the “light patches” remain precisely (exactly, specifically) the SAME throughout. You can conduct all the handwaving rationalisations you want, but this FACT will always remain.
Further, given all the camera variation mentioned above, if it were an internal light source, it would have varied over the time of the “UFO” video (Magazine K). It does not. It is that simple Astrophotographer. NO internal light source affecting the video. They are all artefacts Astrophotographer, nothing more, nothing less.
Therefore one CAN assume it has something to do with a fault with the specific camera used, as it seems to have occurred precisely in the same fashion at different times and on different films (as you have pointed out) with that specific camera and even on the test frame at the beginning. Perhaps there was some light leakage in that specific camera – I don’t know – I am not the expert here (as you also point out) but I DO know that your image (from Magazine L) DOES confirm my assessment here.
You keep making the claim but you also keep failing to produce the results. I already explained the angle of the sun can be determined by the fact that the shadow of the sun falls precisely vertically on the CSM. On the left of the CSM we see the shadow running down the prefect midpoint of the CSM “barrel” and on the right the shadow slices perfectly vertically down the S-band antenna array. This means that the sun is directly above (neither to the left or right of the scene). However, it could be slightly behind or in front (in the other plane). The glare on the CSM indicates that it is slightly behind our POV (but not too far behind because there are no shadows in the craters on the moon). This is also evidenced by the light patterns on the object itself.
But this demanding of calculations of the sun’s position by you is also a red herring. Please address the issue here. That is, I stated in relation to your claim of a small object rising vertically close to the camera:
“If the sun is above the scene (as you admit), (and especially) when the object is near the top of the frame, the brightest spot on the object should be at the top of the object and the lower part should be in relative shadow (as we see with the CSM). However, we simply do not see this on the object.
However, if the object is further away and we are looking down on the object from relatively far away and it is travelling (relatively) horizontally (away from us), then the brightest spot on the object will remain facing toward us – and this is precisely what we DO see.”
However, if the object is further away and we are looking down on the object from relatively far away and it is travelling (relatively) horizontally (away from us), then the brightest spot on the object will remain facing toward us – and this is precisely what we DO see.”
THAT is the issue you must address Astrophotographer – yet I see no evidence that you might have done so.
The “optical problem”? What does that mean? And “3-4 blocks/pixels across”? So perhaps you have not even looked at my series of snapshots of the object. Please do so now before making any further erroneous comments in this regard.
…and now that you mention it, it actually does seem to get smaller as the video progresses…
However, the resolution of the object is not good enough to determine such a small change as would be apparent - PLUS we do NOT know how far away the object is – OR in what precise plane it is travelling. All we can say is it is not close to the LM moving vertically (otherwise the top would be brighter than the lower portion) and so it is then probably further away, moving (at some unknown inclination) generally away from us (as evidenced by the pattern of light we DO see on it).I have shown you the snapshot sequence taken from the video (every tenth frame, etc…) have I not ([qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=501&pictureid=3135[/qimg])? It is obviously more than a “dot”. Your claim that it is “simply a dot” is obviously erroneous (see also the images of Vesta in my previous reply to Jocce).
No “MUST” about it. I merely utilise the powers of observation coupled with a certain knowledge of how light behaves when reflected from various surfaces (you know, angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all that…) to consider what shapes could possibly produce the pattern of shading we see on the object.
I have demonstrated the object’s sphericity by presenting evidence of sphericity in the images of the object ([qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=501&pictureid=3135[/qimg]) - and no amount of handwaving away of that evidence by you (or completely ignoring it) will alter the fact. My evidence is on the record. You have simply failed to observe or note it. If you can demonstrate my methodology to be incorrect or in error or “unscientific” in any way, then please do so.
Moreover, you ”guess” at the resolution while I show snapshots from the film that directly evidence the resolution - and yet you state that I rely on “gut feel” and mere “say so”? You are simply accusing me of the very sins you commit here Astrophotographer.
A “few pixels across” yet cannot be “resolved beyond the 1 pixel”? Do you actually read over what you have written Astrophotographer?
Besides I have done so…Jocce has independently done so… the evidence is on the record for all to see. I estimate a 5x5 grid of pixels, Jocce has it at 4x4 – it makes little difference in the scheme of things. What are you missing here Astrophotographer?
What “ Compression artifacts and irregularities in the image”? Further, if you see image #3 as a “perfect square”, then I wonder at your powers of observation. On the evidence it is obviously NOT a “perfect square”… in all seriousness Astrophotographer, anyone who sees image #3 ([qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=501&pictureid=3135[/qimg]) “perfect square” legitimately needs to have their eyesight called into question (and similarly with your characterisations of the other images – they are all erroneous…). But perhaps that is the whole problem here - because it seems pretty obvious you are not seeing what others see in these images (and the video).
But, nothing can “be resolved beyond 1 pixel” – even the highest resolution image you can get… So have you looked at the images I produced? ([qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=501&pictureid=3135[/qimg]) The image is resolved within 5x5 pixels, Jocce has independently done so – and according to him it is 4x4 pixels.
I have done so simply by “zooming in” on (enlarging) the image. Whatever was contained in the image at the beginning results in what you see in my posted images. I did not “manufacture” the pixels. I did not alter the resolution…I simply zoomed in to show the limits of the resolution. No sleight of hand, no trickery, just the use of the zoom button… just an enlargement Astrophotographer, just an enlargement.
Surely you realise that one can downsample (lose data), but one cannot “upsample”. Whatever the compression used to produce the video (and it IS 25Mb in size…) has resulted in the images we see. I have done nothing to alter the image on the film whatsoever.
Again this is a generalised, unfounded assertion. Please demonstrate that the images I have shown could have been the result of “compression artefacts” (whatever they are). You cannot of course. So PLEASE stop making unfounded assertions. merely stating unfounded assertions does NOT make them true.
Wrong. I have merely zoomed into the image (enlarged it) and then cut it out and pasted them all in a row. No manipulation, no external process that would alter the film in any way, nothing…
I use the “snapshot” feature on the VLC media player… it produces perfect copies. This is also evidence by the clarity of my images (compare them with what Jocce produced for example…)
If you have such problems with Roxio, then may I suggest you switch to VLC mediaplayer – it is a free, open source software package - so you can check its parameters for yourself (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/).
But you made that point above… And again it is merely a generalised, unfounded assertion. Just once I would like to see you back such a claim with actual evidence. Or perhaps you simply cannot? Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.
Of course there is variation. One would expect variation as an artefact produced by a combination of poor resolution, the video frame rate and the movement of the object. This is evidenced by the fact that the object “smears” across frames. Disappears entirely in some of them, etc AND ALSO, when a comparison of pixels on the CSM is done they also vary (where ideally they should be stable). All this I have explained before… what did you not understand in my previous explanation?
I say sphere because of the consistency of the shading patterns across the whole video. A “flat plate” would not produce the differential shading patterns seen, even if it was a supposed that the “plate” maintained a single facet toward the observer at all times during the video (a scenario highly unlikely for any loose object in space of any shape – let alone a “plate”)
Diamonds floating about free in space – that’s a nice thought…sign me up! What shaped diamond (how many facets)?
The closer one comes to a sphere, the closer one gets to the shade patterns observed. An octagon might come close, a square definitely not.
- Status