The Shadow Object/Anti-Moon Revealed?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/10/25/ghost-moon/

Quite mysterious.

Maybe the Death star, just repositioning?

Anyway, some form of anti-moon. I like it. Fits nice with sub-moon FE theory. More investigation required.

This should be in general. This is just speculation, that will fuel more stupid theories.

I'll stake it up on a lens artifact.

Berny
Watching Judge Judy

I'll stake it up on a lens artifact.

Berny
Watching Judge Judy

I remember having to drive my grandfather back to where he saw this triangularly shaped UFO on the next day, just to show him that it was the Sun's reflection off his car's gull-wing window. People are so quick to assume the mysterious, like Euclid.

Quote from: berny_74 on October 25, 2010, 01:42:23 PM

I'll stake it up on a lens artifact.

Berny
Watching Judge Judy

I remember having to drive my grandfather back to where he saw this triangularly shaped UFO on the next day, just to show him that it was the Sun's reflection off his car's gull-wing window. People are so quick to assume the mysterious, like Euclid.

The fact is there is no certain explanation, hence the mystery.  Probably a trivial explanation, but it could be something more interesting.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 01:52:55 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on October 25, 2010, 01:42:23 PM

I'll stake it up on a lens artifact.

Berny
Watching Judge Judy

I remember having to drive my grandfather back to where he saw this triangularly shaped UFO on the next day, just to show him that it was the Sun's reflection off his car's gull-wing window. People are so quick to assume the mysterious, like Euclid.

The fact is there is no certain explanation, hence the mystery.  Probably a trivial explanation, but it could be something more interesting.

Nope.

Quote from: Euclid on October 25, 2010, 01:58:13 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 01:52:55 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on October 25, 2010, 01:42:23 PM

I'll stake it up on a lens artifact.

Berny
Watching Judge Judy

I remember having to drive my grandfather back to where he saw this triangularly shaped UFO on the next day, just to show him that it was the Sun's reflection off his car's gull-wing window. People are so quick to assume the mysterious, like Euclid.

The fact is there is no certain explanation, hence the mystery.  Probably a trivial explanation, but it could be something more interesting.

Nope.

Justify this claim. You must know the answer if you are denying that its either a trivial explanation or a mystery.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 02:00:23 PM

Quote from: Euclid on October 25, 2010, 01:58:13 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 01:52:55 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on October 25, 2010, 01:42:23 PM

I'll stake it up on a lens artifact.

Berny
Watching Judge Judy

I remember having to drive my grandfather back to where he saw this triangularly shaped UFO on the next day, just to show him that it was the Sun's reflection off his car's gull-wing window. People are so quick to assume the mysterious, like Euclid.

The fact is there is no certain explanation, hence the mystery.  Probably a trivial explanation, but it could be something more interesting.

Nope.

Justify this claim. You must know the answer if you are denying that its either a trivial explanation or a mystery.

Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy! Let the hate flow through you.

Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

- Yoda.

Did you even read the whole thing?

Actually there is only one sensible explanation: some sort of lensing/reflection phenomenon that is giving rise to multiple images. The two obvious culprits would be the camera lens itself, or the atmosphere. But Henry took the picture in the first place because he saw the ghost image with his naked eyes, so the camera lens is out. Atmosphere it is! This is somewhat corroborated by the fact that different exposures show different separations between the images — something that could be explained by changing atmospheric conditions.

Did you even read the whole thing?

Quote

Actually there is only one sensible explanation: some sort of lensing/reflection phenomenon that is giving rise to multiple images. The two obvious culprits would be the camera lens itself, or the atmosphere. But Henry took the picture in the first place because he saw the ghost image with his naked eyes, so the camera lens is out. Atmosphere it is! This is somewhat corroborated by the fact that different exposures show different separations between the images — something that could be explained by changing atmospheric conditions.

The fact that the ghost image changed positions is not only explainable by an atmospheric effect.  Even if it really is an atmospheric effect, there is still much left to be explained.

So explain it. Design a repeatable experiment and attempt to verify for yourself that it is indeed the Anti-moon before you jump to conclusions.

So explain it. Design a repeatable experiment and attempt to verify for yourself that it is indeed the Anti-moon before you jump to conclusions.

I don't claim it is until there is further evidence.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 02:00:23 PM

Quote from: Euclid on October 25, 2010, 01:58:13 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 01:52:55 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on October 25, 2010, 01:42:23 PM

I'll stake it up on a lens artifact.

Berny
Watching Judge Judy

I remember having to drive my grandfather back to where he saw this triangularly shaped UFO on the next day, just to show him that it was the Sun's reflection off his car's gull-wing window. People are so quick to assume the mysterious, like Euclid.

The fact is there is no certain explanation, hence the mystery.  Probably a trivial explanation, but it could be something more interesting.

Nope.

Justify this claim. You must know the answer if you are denying that its either a trivial explanation or a mystery.

I refer you to the referenced article and its comments.

Quote from: Danukenator123 on October 25, 2010, 03:06:46 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 02:00:23 PM

Quote from: Euclid on October 25, 2010, 01:58:13 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 01:52:55 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on October 25, 2010, 01:42:23 PM

I'll stake it up on a lens artifact.

Berny
Watching Judge Judy

I remember having to drive my grandfather back to where he saw this triangularly shaped UFO on the next day, just to show him that it was the Sun's reflection off his car's gull-wing window. People are so quick to assume the mysterious, like Euclid.

The fact is there is no certain explanation, hence the mystery.  Probably a trivial explanation, but it could be something more interesting.

Nope.

Justify this claim. You must know the answer if you are denying that its either a trivial explanation or a mystery.

I refer you to the referenced article and its comments.

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

On October 25th, 2010 at 12:03 pm, Jonathan Lubin asked for some information about the details of the camera. Here they are:

The camera is a Canon PowerShot SX 10 IS superzoom.
The focal length was zoomed to 100mm. This is the 35mm equivalent of a zoom to 589mm. It was hand held so clearly the image stabilization kicked in.
The photos were taken on Oct 21st, 2010. The weather was severe clear.

The first one registered at 9:07:03pm. The shutter speed was 1/20th of a second and the aperture was f/5.7. This first shot was the one where the ghost image is touching the real image.

The second image registered at 9:07:04pm and the third, the one I cropped, registered at 9:07:05pm. Although I thought I had the camera set to record a regular image, a darker image, and a lighter image, all three images, now that I look at the metadata, had the same shutter speed and aperture as the first image.

I have to reiterate, there was no glass of any kind between me and the moon when I saw the ghost image. There is one detail that I should mention. Cameras don’t see as well as eyes do. To my eyes, the ghost image did look like it was exactly the same size as the actual moon. It was just not anywhere near as bright as the actual moon. You have to remember that my camera isn’t all that high quality. It’s a point and shoot with a zoom lens.

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

There are no experts posting.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

Blatant ad hominem.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

There are no experts posting.

I'd like you to prove that.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

Blatant ad hominem.

Are you saying that all ad hominem attacks are fallacies?

Quote from: Euclid on October 25, 2010, 04:30:28 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

There are no experts posting.

I'd like you to prove that.

The point is you can't.

Did you even read the whole thing?

Quote

Actually there is only one sensible explanation: some sort of lensing/reflection phenomenon that is giving rise to multiple images. The two obvious culprits would be the camera lens itself, or the atmosphere. But Henry took the picture in the first place because he saw the ghost image with his naked eyes, so the camera lens is out. Atmosphere it is! This is somewhat corroborated by the fact that different exposures show different separations between the images — something that could be explained by changing atmospheric conditions.

Okay guess I was wrong.  Wouldn't be the first time.

Berny
Sent out a whack or resumes

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:33:55 PM

Quote from: Euclid on October 25, 2010, 04:30:28 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

There are no experts posting.

I'd like you to prove that.

The point is you can't.

NOU? Really? Well, I can:

16.   Dan Fischer Says:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
...
Just some thoughts from a seasoned amateur astronomer who has seen lots of visual as well as photographic artefacts over 30 years ?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:32:03 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

Blatant ad hominem.

Are you saying that all ad hominem attacks are fallacies?

Says ClockTower with his Wiki link ready.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious.

Setting semantics traps to win an earth shape argument is very cheap.

Quote from: Euclid on October 25, 2010, 04:40:00 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:33:55 PM

Quote from: Euclid on October 25, 2010, 04:30:28 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

There are no experts posting.

I'd like you to prove that.

The point is you can't.

NOU? Really? Well, I can:

Quote

16.   Dan Fischer Says:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
...
Just some thoughts from a seasoned amateur astronomer who has seen lots of visual as well as photographic artefacts over 30 years ?

I could say the same thing.  You would doubt my expertise.  Not proof.

This is all besides the point.  A convincing explanation has yet to be given.  People can holler atmospheric effect all they want, but it's not convincing without an explanation of the detailed physics.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:36:24 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:32:03 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

Blatant ad hominem.

Are you saying that all ad hominem attacks are fallacies?

Says ClockTower with his Wiki link ready.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Quote

The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious.

Setting semantics traps to win an earth shape argument is very cheap.

Thanks Thork! It's nice that you took care of EG for me.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:47:14 PM

Quote from: Euclid on October 25, 2010, 04:40:00 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:33:55 PM

Quote from: Euclid on October 25, 2010, 04:30:28 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

There are no experts posting.

I'd like you to prove that.

The point is you can't.

NOU? Really? Well, I can:

Quote

16.   Dan Fischer Says:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
...
Just some thoughts from a seasoned amateur astronomer who has seen lots of visual as well as photographic artefacts over 30 years ?

I could say the same thing.  You would doubt my expertise.  Not proof.

This is all besides the point.  A convincing explanation has yet to be given.  People can holler atmospheric effect all they want, but it's not convincing without an explanation of the detailed physics.

I guess then we shouldn't be convinced about FET then, right? Especially wanting in FET is an explanation of how the Sun produces its energy.

BTW, there are plenty of detailed physics on the issue for those you care to read them. What's stopping you?

No one is saying all issues in FET have all the detailed physics convincingly worked out.

BTW, there are plenty of detailed physics on the issue for those you care to read them. What's stopping you?

That doesn't mean the explanation exists.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:36:24 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:32:03 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

Blatant ad hominem.

Are you saying that all ad hominem attacks are fallacies?

Says ClockTower with his Wiki link ready.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Quote

The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious.

Setting semantics traps to win an earth shape argument is very cheap.

I was never going to state otherwise. I am well aware not all instances of ad hominem is fallacious. However, this instance is.

Also Clocktower, you are yet to prove there are any experts that posted. The guy you quoted stated he is an amateur. Amateur does not = expert.

Quote from: Thork on October 25, 2010, 04:49:45 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:36:24 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:32:03 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

Blatant ad hominem.

Are you saying that all ad hominem attacks are fallacies?

Says ClockTower with his Wiki link ready.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Quote

The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious.

Setting semantics traps to win an earth shape argument is very cheap.

Thanks Thork! It's nice that you took care of EG for me.

I just thought I'd steal your thunder as that wiki link has been trotted out so many times on this site. It was poor form of you to try to use such an underhand tactic, but I did notice EG never fell for it, denying you your little moment.

As for the thread I am dismayed how closed minded you are being with Euclid. He makes no wild claims, but merely questions inquisitively. With no evidence you then stomp in with "It cannot be! It isn't, because I wouldn't like that!" You have not offered an alternate explanation. Only rubbished his attempts to make sense of an unexplained phenomenon. I too would like to know what this was about and would prefer sensible suggestions if you can offer them.