The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: shootingstar on January 24, 2019, 01:22:04 PM
-
During a recent lunar imaging session I happened to come across this interesting looking feature. Visible upper centre of image. On first glance it could easily be perceived as something artificial looking. But if that was the case then it would be massive.
Image was taken using my 10" RC telescope with a high frame rate camera. This is a stacked single image from about 1500 individual frames from an original avi move. The telescope was tracking the Moon at the time.
What do you see?
-
I see a composite image just like all other composite images.
-
I see a composite image just like all other composite images.
I never understand the significance attributed to composite images.
You understand when you use the panorama feature on your phone or camera the result is actually a composite image?
It takes a series of photos and stitches them together. That doesn't mean that the image doesn't represent what you're looking at.
-
Was the object definitely on the moon or was it floating between earth hand the moon? I ask because the thing that looks like a shadow casting on the surface of the moon could just as easily be the dark/shaded part of an object in the sky
-
It takes a series of photos and stitches them together
Sounds like you mean panoramic or mosaic image where you take several images of a larger region than the camera can take in a single image and then stitch them together. This one is neither of those.
-
It takes a series of photos and stitches them together
Sounds like you mean panoramic or mosaic image where you take several images of a larger region than the camera can take in a single image and then stitch them together. This one is neither of those.
Yeah, I got that but AATW, for whatever reason, didn't.
How do you know that all of the stacked images utilized does not somehow contribute to any inaccurate final rendering?
-
Can you post a single frame?
It might help to know which region of the Moon we're looking at, so that it could be compared with the libraries from LRO and other missions...
-
The original recorded video comprises typically 2000-3000 frames of an AVI file. The camera is a high frame rate camera set to 60fps so the total recording time is less than a minute. The telescope is tracking the Moon precisely throughout this time so all individual frames are virtually identical. AVI ensures the data is uncompressed and therefore digital artifacts that arise through the compression process in other file formats is minimised. Once loaded into purpose designed software each frame is analysed separately and an average quality is measured. Some frames will fall below that level due to atmospheric turbulence and so will be discarded. Only the best frames are kept for the next stage.
The values of each pixel in the remaining frames are then measured and compared frame by frame. The frames are then stacked according to the algorithm chosen and sharpening processes in the background reduce the noise and ensure that the effective resolution of the final frame is much better than any single of the original frames. Random noise patterns in all the frames cancel each other out to make sure the final signal to noise ratio is increased significantly. That means that more detail is visible in the final image than could be seen during the recording.
Finally the stacked image is saved as a TIF or FITS file which can then be further processed in other software (e.g. Photoshop) or similar.
-
I took the image a couple of years ago but the region of the Moon covered in the image is around the mid northern hemisphere of the Moon as we look at it. If I can be more specific I will be.
-
I see a crater. It has a shadow which suggests there is a light source at roughly somewhere between 10 and 12 o’clock as you look at it (upper left in other words).
Have looked at the moon myself through binoculars. Very beautiful. What occurs to me is that it cannot possibly be a light source, or it would not have shadows across the craters. Having looked at the ‘dark side’ images that the Chinese have released, there is way more cratering. This is what you would expect to see - given that the side we see is, of course, facing toward Earth which would largely shield it from meteor strikes.
-
It takes a series of photos and stitches them together. That doesn't mean that the image doesn't represent what you're looking at.
And yet a panorama in which someone's face is oddly stretched (because they moved) or in which one person is featured twice would not be evidence of human cloning/the person's ability of appearing in two places at once/spooky aliens with long faces.
Similarly, if I stitch a bunch of photos together to make the horizon appear triangular, it's not good evidence of the horizon actually being triangular.
-
Similarly, if I stitch a bunch of photos together to make the horizon appear triangular, it's not good evidence of the horizon actually being triangular.
Sure. But I would realise that it was a glitch in the way the photos had been composited.
I wouldn't randomly claim that you were never there and the place you were photographing didn't exist.
-
Sure. But I would realise that it was a glitch in the way the photos had been composited.
Only because I picked obvious ones. Allow me to remind you of the countless idiots who think wide-angle lens photography is representative of the Earth's curve. You can only recognise the irregularities you're already familiar with.
-
Sure. But I would realise that it was a glitch in the way the photos had been composited.
Only because I picked obvious ones. Allow me to remind you of the countless idiots who think wide-angle lens photography is representative of the Earth's curve. You can only recognise the irregularities you're already familiar with.
I think that's different, it's simply a distortion. It's not like goPros add in UFOs to the image. In the OP image it could be anything from a large structure on the moon, a satellite or a spec of dust on the lense but regardless, there is something there. It's not nothing.
-
I think that's different, it's simply a distortion. It's not like goPros add in UFOs to the image.
No, but they can introduce things that an overimaginative person will interpret as UFOs.
In the OP image it could be anything from a large structure on the moon, a satellite or a spec of dust on the lense but regardless, there is something there. It's not nothing.
Or any number of anomalies on the sensor, or noise introduced during processing, or something that's been introduced to the image on purpose. Frankly, given how badly compressed the photo is (Our friend claims to have raw AVI at his disposal, but only gives us a shitty JPEG? How odd.), it could be anything, but it could very well be nothing.
-
Pete, you are basically implying that everyone is dishonest because there is the opportunity to be dishonest.
This whole thread is pointless. No one is addressing the OP. You regularly state that you assume good faith in us and that we should assume good faith in you. So lets do that. Stop casting doubt on the honesty of everyone (that isn't assuming good faith). Stop contextualizing everything into a corner, and throwing red herrings about panaroma captures on cell phones.
To me, it looks like a mountain ridge. Poor resolution of the composite image does not help my eyes. Maybe I need to go to the eye doctor.
-
I think we can all agree that compression can introduce artefacts and composite panorama photos can distort angles.
Look. Here's one I took of the Grand Canyon:
(https://i.ibb.co/PGRHt0X/Grand-Canyon.jpg)
Nice isn't it?
I don't know if there are any artefacts or distortions in that photo but that doesn't matter. The point is, in order for me to have taken that I had to be at the Grand Canyon
One of the FE arguments (not on here so much, to be fair, but I've heard it a lot) is that there are no photos of the earth from space, they're all composite.
This is wrong in 2 ways. Firstly, yes there are. There are loads of photos of the earth from space from multiple space agencies. Secondly, in order for a composite photo of the earth from space to be made the pictures which make up that composite have to be taken from space.
If the claim is that the photos are fake then why the hell would you make a load of fake pictures and then composite them? Just make one big fake one!
-
Pete, you are basically implying that everyone is dishonest because there is the opportunity to be dishonest.
I haven't called anyone dishonest. I pointed out simple facts and consequences of digital photography.
throwing red herrings about panaroma captures on cell phones.
You do realise I wasn't the one who brought panoramas into this, right?
The point is, in order for me to have taken that I had to be at the Grand Canyon
You didn't. You could have generated it through plenty of other means. I see no reason to doubt that you visited the Grand Canyon, but your ability to post a panorama here doesn't affect my belief.
And that is neither here nor there. We're not questioning the entire photograph's existence. We're questioning the significance (and possibly existence) of the supposed small unidentified object. I explained exactly why I believe it to be an artefact. If you want to verify it yourself, you could try one of these common tricks:
- Up the contrast and note that the surroundings of the "object" are uncharacteristically bright when compared to the remainder of the surface
- Increase the saturation and note that this is the only section of the photograph that's not actually monochrome.
in order for a composite photo of the earth from space to be made the pictures which make up that composite have to be taken from space.
This claim is a new low, even for you. All you need to produce a composite image of the Earth is a collection of images of the Earth. They could be taken from any distance, if you're willing to put in the effort into stitching them together.
If the claim is that the photos are fake then why the hell would you make a load of fake pictures and then composite them? Just make one big fake one!
Indeed - why the hell would you make a load of fake pictures (that we haven't seen) and composite them? You'd naturally just make one and claim that there are thousands of frames that we're not seeing because of reasons.
Note, of course, that no one claimed the photo is "fake" - we're merely trying to explain to you how digital photography actually works. The fact that you idiots are sitting here and pondering what physical object might be represented by what is most likely a compression artefact or a tiny bit of overexposure is hilarious. You know what? I bet that thing there is actually Brexit. Yep, it's on the moon. Now you just need to go and get it.
-
He asked us what we saw. I replied with an answer. To simply state, I see a composite image is... I don't know the word I am looking for...obtuse? Like turning on the radio and hearing a song and someone's says, "I hear noise" in response to "What do you hear?" Congratulations, Mr. Obvious. Maybe the OP was a bit vague, open and pointless, but still - the responses here are more like what you see in AR. Just move the post and roast him with less veiled arrogance.
So, back to the point, what is the point of your OP? Are you asking someone to professionally analyze the strange sighting? Are you playing a game with the image?
-
Pete, playing with contrast, hues, levels etc on a lossy compressed photo will present what you describe, shapes and colours are almost squared off, colours will be different, it could be a sign of manipulation but it could also just be a sign of lossy compression so I find that inconclusive.
Also just to be sure, could you provide an example of a digital photo artifact similar to the one above? When I think of digital photo artifacts I think blocks of miscolored, corrupt pixels. I work every day with digital photos, more specifically 3D Scanned data (basically where you take hundreds of images of something at various angles, then using software you can convert these things to 3D meshes for use in games, or similarly just tiling textures). I’ve probably taken thousands of photos by now and used the product of tens of thousands worth of digital photos but I’ve never come across any digital artifacts that look like an object in the image. Hence why I ask if you could give an example so I better understand your point (I’m not ruling it out completely, I’ve just not come across this myself). In the op the ‘object’ in question has somehow picked up what looks like the same lighting angle as the rest of the moon and doesn’t carry the characteristics of the typical blocky, multicoloured corruption artifacts that follow whole squared chunks of pixels.
-
Is the fact that I personally took this image using my own equipment and therefore know exactly how it was created and all the steps taken to create it relevant here?
Oh yes and just in case there is any confusion, shootingstar has now become manicminer. Fancied a change.
-
it could be a sign of manipulation but it could also just be a sign of lossy compression so I find that inconclusive
You just restated my point in its entirety. I'm not sure why you think we're disagreeing?
When I think of digital photo artifacts I think blocks of miscolored, corrupt pixels.
You're thinking of corruption in some digital formats (PNG?). I'm suggesting a minor mis-adjustment of the camera's sensor resulting in some clipped highlights.
Also just to be sure, could you provide an example of a digital photo artifact similar to the one above?
This would be extremely difficult to reproduce in a controlled fashion, so no, I can't. I can only hope that an explanation of the concepts involved will be obvious to someone who claims to have experience with photography.
Is the fact that I personally took this image using my own equipment and therefore know exactly how it was created and all the steps taken to create it relevant here?
No, because you're refusing to present any data of worth - just a low-res, blurry and heavily compressed JPEG. If you want to be relevant, try being useful to the discussion.
Oh yes and just in case there is any confusion, shootingstar has now become manicminer. Fancied a change.
You keep deleting accounts after receiving moderation warnings. I consider that an attempt at dodging the rules. Next time you "fancy a change", rename your account like everyone else.
-
I have never deliberately tried to dodge any of your rules Pete. I have contributed to many different forums (other websites) and this is the first time I have ever been accused of breaking or flaunting any rules as such. What purpose do they serve anyway apart from to keep the round Earthers 'in check'? I wonder how many FE supporters have been warned or banned?
Anyhow I am prevented from posting the original, non-compressed image of that particular feature due to the file size limitations for attachments. If you would like me to send you the original uncompressed version of the image then I will be happy to do so. I have it in several different file formats. However as the original photo taker I can definitely confirm that the image is not 'faked' in any way. Everything in the image is true to life and real. I did use an OIII (ionised oxygen filter) which actually helps to sharpen lunar features under bad or poor seeing conditions.
The original reason for posting this image is that the feature in question looked decidedly 'artificial' at first glance. I just wanted to find out if anyone shared that view. Nothing more sinister than that.
-
Well it has the features of a satellite IMO. I'm no professional on satellites but the shape has a cylinder bit attached to a cubish shaped thing, then on the right side sticking out seems to be like a solar panel type thing going on. After googling what satellites might look like you can find similar shapes. Of course I could be wrong. ^^
-
Well Chris, I can solve the dilemma by saying it is actually this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_La_Hire
It would have defeated the object it I had said what it was at the beginning because I wanted to find out what people saw in the photo on instinct only. This is an example to show how shadows can play tricks with our perception. The left side of the feature looks for all the world like a tall vertical mast of some kind. However it would have to be huge to be visible this clearly at the scale of the image. The nearby craters of Lambert and Euler are 30km and 28km wide respectively. The presence of the dark, elongated shadow to the upper left of the 'mast' reinforces that appearance.
A few nights later I checked the same area again and it looked completely different.
-
Well Chris, I can solve the dilemma by saying it is actually this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_La_Hire
It would have defeated the object it I had said what it was at the beginning because I wanted to find out what people saw in the photo on instinct only. This is an example to show how shadows can play tricks with our perception. The left side of the feature looks for all the world like a tall vertical mast of some kind. However it would have to be huge to be visible this clearly at the scale of the image. The nearby craters of Lambert and Euler are 30km and 28km wide respectively. The presence of the dark, elongated shadow to the upper left of the 'mast' reinforces that appearance.
A few nights later I checked the same area again and it looked completely different.
Ahh fair play, not a satellite then! :D At least there's a good reason the lighting is the same direction as the moons.
Such an unusual shape and structure compared to the rest of the landmass around it, I have to admit I never would have suspected it to be a mountain on the surface.
-
Anyhow I am prevented from posting the original, non-compressed image of that particular feature due to the file size limitations for attachments.
No, you're not. You're as capable of posting links and using the [img] tag as anyone else.
I have never deliberately tried to dodge any of your rules Pete.
That's odd. You delete your account precisely one day after each warning you receive.
What purpose do they serve anyway apart from to keep the round Earthers 'in check'? I wonder how many FE supporters have been warned or banned?
The rules can be found here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0), and our public ban log is here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=banlist). Stop "wondering" and start solving your own problems - it's quite rewarding.
-
That's odd. You delete your account precisely one day after each warning you receive.
Really, what is also odd then is that I never seem to have been notified about those warnings. Anyway thanks for the warning about the warnings and hopefully we can move on now.
When I find a problem Pete, trust me I make every effort to solve it myself. I am not privy to any statistics about who else has been warned or banned like you moderators are so I have no choice but to 'wonder' (or speculate should I say - that is a more appropriate word than wonder) about that sort of thing. If that information is freely available then please let me know and I will stand corrected.
-
Such an unusual shape and structure compared to the rest of the landmass around it, I have to admit I never would have suspected it to be a mountain on the surface.
Exactly what I thought. It just seemed so sharply defined compared to everything else around it. I have spent hours scanning the lunar surface and so unless it is very unusual I don't really notice it anymore. I also videoed 'something' drifting across the Moons surface recently as well. I will try and upload that to YouTube if I can. It wasn't the ISS as I saw that pass over along a different direction a few minutes later and it missed the Moon completely.
Still to this day I don't know exactly what it was but I'm pretty sure it wasn't aliens!
-
Really, what is also odd then is that I never seem to have been notified about those warnings.
You were sent a private message each time, and we tend to include a public post, too. Those can still be found with a simple search.
When I find a problem Pete, trust me I make every effort to solve it myself. I am not privy to any statistics about who else has been warned or banned like you moderators are
I literally just linked you to the ban log. Basic reading comprehension, please.
-
Well none of those private messages ever got through to me Pete. Maybe they got lost somewhere in cyberspace somewhere. I have noticed quite a few postings in among several threads recently which I thought to myself were surely deserving of a warning or a ban but apparently these were overlooked. Mostly these came from obvious flat Earth supporters so I guessed that might have been the reason why. Needless to say that discretion lies with you and your fellow moderators.
Anyway Pete its a clean slate as far as I am concerned now. I do promise I will be more mindful of the 'rules' in future.
-
Well none of those private messages ever got through to me Pete. Maybe they got lost somewhere in cyberspace somewhere.
That's not how any of this works, friend. Perhaps if you stopped deleting your account every time you get in trouble, you'd be able to access your own record. But don't worry - it's not lost on us :)
I have noticed quite a few postings in among several threads recently which I thought to myself were surely deserving of a warning or a ban but apparently these were overlooked.
Yes, if you fail to report rule breaches, you shouldn't expect for us to act on them. We're not clairvoyant.
Anyway Pete its a clean slate as far as I am concerned now.
It's not - the warnings from your past accounts were not forgotten, and deleting your account in the future will not help either.
-
This is what you would expect to see - given that the side we see is, of course, facing toward Earth which would largely shield it from meteor strikes.
Why would that happen?
-
Because the far side of the Moon is always fully exposed to the space beyond. So any space debris which approaches the Moon from behind (as wee see it) will be unchallenged before it hits the Moon. Anything which approaches from the Earth facing direction will encounter the Earth first so it acts like an enormous shield.
-
Because the far side of the Moon is always fully exposed to the space beyond. So any space debris which approaches the Moon from behind (as wee see it) will be unchallenged before it hits the Moon. Anything which approaches from the Earth facing direction will encounter the Earth first so it acts like an enormous shield.
It's not enormous enough to do that, though. Earth is a miniscule target in the way of anything approaching the Moon.
-
The Earth is not such a miniscule target as you may think. There are also other reasons, geologically based why the Moon has less craters on the Earth facing side.