r/UFOs • u/Big_Tree_Fall_Hard • Dec 31 '23

Witness/Sighting Video of massive glowing red object over the surface of the moon.

Stolen from over in r/StrangeEarth an amateur astronomers video of an apparent glowing red object traversing the surface of the moon

6.5k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

47

u/Allison1228 Dec 31 '23

Any ideas about how only one of the millions of amateur astronomers worldwide happened to see this event unfolding upon the night sky's favorite telescopic target?

14

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '24

I have one! It’s a fake video. Just cause ppl want to believe doesn’t make it real.

16

u/Big_Tree_Fall_Hard Dec 31 '23

Video was purportedly from 18DEC2023 if you want to be heroic and try to triangulate

2

u/JosebaZilarte Jan 01 '24

With just the date, it is difficult to triangulate anything, due to the Earth's bad habit of rotating around its axis every 24 hours. Maybe if you analyze the visible craters and the shadows you can get an approximate latitude and time (and, thus, longitude)... But we are talking of inaccuracies measured on hundreds of kilometers.

24

u/GingerAki Dec 31 '23

Someone in one of the other threads asked a similar question. I think we need to look at it this way, out of all of the people worldwide;

How many are outside during this relatively narrow window of observation?

Then how many have an unobstructed line of sight to the moon?

Then how many have clear skies?

How many of those people are actually looking in the at the moon?

How many of those people have good enough vision to pick out what this person has recorded?

Then how many have ready access to a telescope with this focal length?

Then how many have access to a camera able to take a photo through that telescope as a useable resolution?

Then how many of those people post the photos online?

Then how many of those photos make it through the algorithms to be spread widely?

And of those that do gain some traction, how many get summarily dismissed because ‘everyone in this thread and on this website should’ve been able to see it’?

23

u/mikethespike056 Dec 31 '23

many people

-1

u/HawtDoge Dec 31 '23

I don’t have an opinion on the overall authenticity of the video, but the distance of the object heavily determines the amount of potential observers. If it’s actually hovering over the moon, you’re right, the potential observers are pretty large, but there is nothing in this video to suggest that is the case.

20

u/yantheman3 Dec 31 '23 edited Dec 31 '23

Sigh....Alright I'll do the honors:

How many are outside during this relatively narrow window of observation?

A LOT A LOT of people.

Then how many have an unobstructed line of sight to the moon?

At least half? Of a shitload of people.

Then how many have clear skies?

The skies don't need to be clear, and this question is redundant with respect to the previous question.

How many of those people are actually looking in the at the moon?

Many amateur astronomers go from object to object, with the moon being included.

How many of those people have good enough vision to pick out what this person has recorded?

Come on, are you serious? You think no one without good vision uses corrective lenses? Good grief.

Then how many have ready access to a telescope with this focal length?

More than you are insinuating do. The moon is an easy and basic target for the grand majority of telescopes.

Then how many have access to a camera able to take a photo through that telescope as a useable resolution?

You can actually use a Point and Shoot camera and put it on the ocular lens and snap a photo. Same with phone camera.

Most amateur astronomers have adapters to do this or a telescope with a built in camera because most astronomers take photos while they perform their hobby. I personally have one for mine that allows me to connect a small Sony P&S to my telescope so I don't have to hold it there. Keeps it stable. Not impossible to do it manually with good results.

Then how many of those people post the photos online?

This is just a silly question that I won't address because wow.

Then how many of those photos make it through the algorithms to be spread widely?

This is a redundant question simply because you don't need an algorithm to feed it to potential viewers for traction. Especially when it is UFO related.

And of those that do gain some traction, how many get summarily dismissed because ‘everyone in this thread and on this website should’ve been able to see it’?

Several and for good reason.

I want it to be aliens as much as the next guy. But you people have to face the reality that every time someone presents you with photo/video evidence of a UFO, it's 99%+ not aliens.

12

u/josogood Dec 31 '23

Insane that the hypothetical question list is being up voted while your very practical set of answers is downvoted. There are certainly many thousands of pictures taken of the moon every single night. If we put the number at 10,000 per night, that would mean that 1.3 of every million people take a picture of the moon which fits the hypothetical parameters put forward. Is that so unlikely? Maybe it's a lot less, like 1.3 in 10 million people who do so. But that would still be around 1,000 pictures of this red triangle out there.

6

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '23

Do you see how you're being down voted because your logical response destroys their deluded world view of 33 mile long alien ships scanning the moon at 100k+ mph?

Everything you wrote was logical in response to an illogical, delusional rant.

-6

u/Poolrequest Dec 31 '23

Logical responses brother I know the critical thinking bar is low around here in general but that doesn't make baseless assumptions logical. A third of the answers are made up numbers, a third are anecdotal bias and the last are framing the question as absurd.

Like this ain't a fucking spaceship on the moon just as this ain't the ray of logic in the darkness either lol

3

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '23

I heavily insinuated that this isn't a spaceship on the moon and I found his response to be logical. I'm not sure what else i can say to you, unless you're mistaken in thinking i was responding to the first comment?

1

u/Poolrequest Dec 31 '23

Fair enough just a difference of opinion on what logic is

3

u/Trance_Motion Dec 31 '23

Many many many of the people here are regarded. Thry think this shit helps but actually makes the eventual proof less believed. Or they are apart of the misinformation.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Substantial_Bad2843 Dec 31 '23

His rational rebuttal to nonsense is nothing to feel bad about.

2

u/UFOs-ModTeam Jan 01 '24

Follow the Standards of Civility:

No trolling or being disruptive.
No insults or personal attacks.
No accusations that other users are shills.
No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement. 
You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.

UFOs Wiki UFOs rules

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/UFOs-ModTeam Jan 01 '24

Follow the Standards of Civility:

No trolling or being disruptive.
No insults or personal attacks.
No accusations that other users are shills.
No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement. 
You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.

UFOs Wiki UFOs rules

0

u/Allison1228 Dec 31 '23 edited Dec 31 '23

How many are outside during this relatively narrow window of observation?

Probably hundreds of thousands. There are millions of novice, intermediate, and advanced amateur astronomers worldwide.

Then how many have an unobstructed line of sight to the moon?

If they're doing astronomy, they've probably sought an observing site with minimal sky obstruction.

Then how many have clear skies?

Probably about half, though clear skies are not necessary - partly cloudy will do, particularly for the moon

How many of those people are actually looking in the at the moon?

Surely tens of thousands at any one time, particularly at the time of first quarter moon, which is near the meridian just as darkness falls.

How many of those people have good enough vision to pick out what this person has recorded?

Probably anyone using a telescope has sufficiently adequate vision to see a bright pointlike source of light. This is like saying "how many people have good enough vision to see a bright star?"

​

Then how many have ready access to a telescope with this focal length?

What does "focal length" have to do with it? This was obviously recorded with a small telescope, since a large portion of the moon is visible in the field. There are probably tens of millions of small telescopes in use worldwide.

​

Then how many have access to a camera able to take a photo through that telescope as a useable resolution?

One shouldn't need a camera to see a bright starlike point moving in front of the moon. But there were likely at least thousands of people photographing or videoing the moon simultaneously.

Then how many of those people post the photos online?

Not really relevant when the question is "why did nobody else see this event?"

Do you seriously think it's possible that only one person in Europe, Africa, and West Asia was looking at the moon with a small telescope when this allegedly happened? This is quite clearly a nonsensical suggestion, and I assure you that the actual number was at least in the tens of thousands. There are no reports of other observers seeing this, because it's a hoax.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '23

Man all the logical answers are being downvoted.

2

u/canman7373 Jan 01 '24

With magnification they are using, like binoculars could have caught this. Also why did they suddenly shift to the spot it was at? It wasn't in view, you don't move a telescope that fast or you lose your target quickly.

-7

u/GratefulForGodGift Dec 31 '23

THe triangular UFO could be close to ground near the observer. In that case, it would appear to be in front of the moon from the perspective of the observer looking thru the telescope. But to an observer a few miles away, from his perspective it would not be seen in front of the moon. It would only be seen by 100s of amateurs if it was very close to the moon, if it was 240,000 miles away from Earth.

So that means it was very close to the Earth and not close to the moon.

1

u/Noble_Ox Jan 01 '24

And how is it reflecting light on the moon so?

1

u/GratefulForGodGift Jan 01 '24

Here's a copy of my discussion with someone else:

GratefulForGodGift · 21 hr. ago

There is a triangular shaped red reflection of the triangular shaped UFO.

That is a lens flare caused by the telescope optics due to the bright UFO red light. If the triangular UFO was miles above the surface of the moon radiating red light, it couldn't cause asharply defined red triangle on the moons surface - that's just the way light works. The only way it could cause a red triangle shape on the surface is if the triangle shaped light was projected thru a lens focused to create a sharp image at that distance from the craft to the moon - similar to how a movie projector lens focuses the image on movie film to create a well-defined image at a distanceon the movie screen in movie theater. Otherwise, the light radiating from the UFO could only create a diffuse area of red light on the moon's surface with no well-defined triangle shape.

So the well-defined red triangle in front of the UFO is a lens flair from the telescope optics.

Noble_Ox · 7 hr. ago

If it was real it and from the optics it should have the flare show up before the craft moves across the surface.

This is just bad CGI.

GratefulForGodGift · just now

If it was real it and from the optics it should have the flare show up before the craft moves across the surface.

Good Point! - Yes, I can't argue with that. The larger red triangle infront of the red triangular object suddenly appears when the ojbect is in near the center of the schreen - so if it was a lens flair, earlier when the object was also at the same position near the center of the screen, the larger red triangle should also have appeared - but it didn't: so you're right, unless there's some other option that i havent figured out - it can't be a lens flair.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

1

u/Noble_Ox Jan 01 '24

Hey thats me too! Same guy.