What is the red circle near the moon phenomenon?

[DaveC426913]

I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that the object on the left is suffering from some sort of distortion effect due to the camera. Frankly, I thought this went without saying. I grant that the shape distortions and even the blue/purple colour distortions are in-camera.

The red Moon at upper right (obvious moon showing Maria detail) is probably color-balance problems

Occam's Razor! Why are we fabricating explanations for things that don't need explaining? Am I the only one who's ever seen a red moon near the horizon?

Any camera "lens flare" from an aperture stop will appear farther from the original bright object depending on how far the bright object is off-axis from the optical centerline. Near the center, the flare is close by. Farther off center, the flare is farther away in the frame.

Which would be a good explanation - if it matched the evidence. If you look at the uncropped photo: http://www.elvenorder.com/notmars2.jpg and find the centre of frame, you'll see that a lens flare won't work. The image, the c-o-f and the "flare" would be in alignment. They're not.

...is the only explanation ... period.

Actually, by far the best explanation going, the one that matches
1] the eyewitness account
2] both photos
3] analysis of the photos (i.e. no foul play)
4] precedent (I've provided an example of the phenom. Anyone who thinks this explanation is too unlikely (including me, originally ) is talking through their hat).

is the "double Moon image" theory.


The only piece of evidence that anyone has mentioned that can shed even the slightest doubt on this theory is the distorted image of the second object in one of the pictures - and we all agree that much of that can be explained by camera distortion.

Any other theory put forth requires uncorroborated speculation about motives.


I'm still open to theories, but the arguments will have to be stronger than this.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, by far the best explanation going, the one that matches
1] the eyewitness account
2] both photos
3] analysis of the photos (i.e. no foul play)
4] precedent (I've provided an example of the phenom. Anyone who thinks this explanation is too unlikely (including me, originally ) is talking through their hat).

is the "double Moon image" theory.

1. The eyewitness account is useless. Heck, the guy who posted it didn't even realize the red object is the moon! With that big of an error, I don't see how you can think there is anything of value in it (besides the contextual info of location).
2. The two photos don't show the same thing.
3. I doubt the photos were faked. They are so bad, it would be counterproductive.
4. Atmospheric refraction looks nothing at all like what is in the photo. For one thing, it only occurs vertically, and for another, in the real phenomena the refracted image looks pretty similar to the real one.

No, I don't think atmospheric refraction works at all here.

The eyewitness account is so un-descriptive, there are lots of possibilities, but whatever they saw, they were unable to capture it on film. That implies to me that it was short-lived (like an iridium flare or airplane).

 

[berkeman]

-- I like the guess about how the out-of-focus object is just hanging in a tree nearby,

Are you reading the same thread I am? I can finding nothing that says this. (fabrication)
Your logic here that "this is a hoax" is that "someone else thinks this is a hoax" and their logic is "this could have been hoaxed".

I guess I read a little too much into your post #13 in this thread:

The white object looks very much like a point object burred into a disc, lit by flash. This is an extremely common event in photography. The fact that the object is blurred *at all* corroborates the likelihood that it is not in the same focal plane as the Moon (i.e. infinity) and in fact, would have to be quite near and quite small, like within feet.

That is two marks against the veracity of this account.

I think that the photographer is going to have to do some pretty fast talking to save this story.

If it was an object that was within feet, how in the world does that match up with the eye witness account? I'm not trying to be insulting, Dave, honest. And if I came across that way, I apologize. I think it would be neat if it were a natural phenomena that caused the strange sight in the sky on their camping trip, and the strange sight lasted for several minutes and the wife and kid saw it too (can you imagine that sight for a kid!). But the photo evidence sure seems to point to something other than a true double image in the sky seen by the naked eye and lasting long enough to go find people to show it to. Seems more likely to be a camera effect that the photographer noticed and made up a story about, or a set-up set of pictures. Sorry.

 

[chroot]

I got to say I agree with both russ and berkeman. I've never once seen an example of "look what I saw in the sky!" reports from astronomy neophytes turn out to be anything other than optical phenomena or mundane things like heat lighting, aircraft, or satellites.

- Warren

 

[DaveC426913]

I got to say I agree with both russ and berkeman. I've never once seen an example of "look what I saw in the sky!" reports from astronomy neophytes turn out to be anything other than optical phenomena or mundane things like heat lighting, aircraft, or satellites.

- Warren

Well, this is a mundane (albeit uncommon) optical phenomena, we're not talking UFOs or anything.

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess I read a little too much into your post #13 in this thread:


If it was an object that was within feet, how in the world does that match up with the eye witness account? I'm not trying to be insulting, Dave, honest. And if I came across that way, I apologize.

OK, it just seemed pretty mocking. Anyway, no harm, no foul.

My original opinion a was hoax too, but the more I looked, the less I was convinced.

I think it would be neat if it were a natural phenomena that caused the strange sight in the sky on their camping trip, and the strange sight lasted for several minutes and the wife and kid saw it too (can you imagine that sight for a kid!). But the photo evidence sure seems to point to something other than a true double image in the sky seen by the naked eye and lasting long enough to go find people to show it to. Seems more likely to be a camera effect that the photographer noticed and made up a story about, or a set-up set of pictures. Sorry.

I guess this does have to fall into 'unresolved' afterall. I have to confess, there are some discrepancies between the account and the photos.

 

[DaveC426913]

For those or you still interested, I have some further analysis (for those of you not still interested, I'll get the hint by your silence ).

An analysis of the two photos sheds a little light on which objects are real and which are transitory. (see attachment) While the moon matches up in both photos, the two unidentified objects in the two pictures are unrelated to each other.

Here's what I think is happening:
1] the notmars2 pic (the dark pic with the fuzzy white object) is a mistake. The flash fired, which results in:
- a much darker exposure than notmars1, including a blacked-out landscape AND a Moon that is not completely washed out
- the flash has caught a bit of fluff in the air, which is both highly overexposed and out-of-focus.

I repeat: I think notmars2 is crap. But I think it's an honest mistake, caused by either the witness being confused about what he is seeing in the photos, or there has been some loss in translation between the witness and the poster.



2] the notmars1 pic (the brighter pic, the one with the oddly-shaped object upper right) is a valid pic of the phenom whatever it is.


I still think that notmars1 and the account have validity. (Disproving elements of the account is NOT justification for dismissing ALL the evidence.)

 

[russ_watters]

An analysis of the two photos sheds a little light on which objects are real and which are transitory. (see attachment) While the moon matches up in both photos, the two unidentified objects in the two pictures are unrelated to each other.

Agreed.

Here's what I think is happening:
1] the notmars2 pic (the dark pic with the fuzzy white object) is a mistake. The flash fired, which results in:
- a much darker exposure than notmars1, including a blacked-out landscape AND a Moon that is not completely washed out
- the flash has caught a bit of fluff in the air, which is both highly overexposed and out-of-focus.

I repeat: I think notmars2 is crap. But I think it's an honest mistake, caused by either the witness being confused about what he is seeing in the photos...

Agreed. And I'm a little annoyed I didn't think of it earlier, but I'm a shutterbug and I've taken pictures like that. When it happens, though, I consider it a failed photo, which is why I didn't think of it. Anyway, attached are two examples of it I've taken (brightness enhanced). I was annoyed that I couldn't get a clear one of the girls (of course ), but one of them liked it so much she cropped and framed it as is. The other one has issues all over the place, probably due to the multiple different light sources (the flash, flashlight, laptop, celestial objects, and sky-glow) and the fact that it is a double exposure (short exposure with the flash, longer exposure without it). Both cameras used were point-and-shoot and probably don't have aperature control, which is why the aberrations are all round.

2] the notmars1 pic (the brighter pic, the one with the oddly-shaped object upper right) is a valid pic of the phenom whatever it is.

Agreed, but the orangish object is the moon, and the bright object above it is a point source of light. The image is jittery simply because it is a long exposure (probably about half a second) and you can't hold a camera still for that long. The fact that the point source of light only appears in that photo and not the other, though, tells us that it was a transient phenomena - which makes it an airplane or satellite.

I still think that notmars1 and the account have validity. (Disproving elements of the account is NOT justification for dismissing ALL the evidence.)

Well, again, it does tell us that those who saw it had no clue whatsoever what they are looking at and as a result, their account of it is pretty much useless. Remember, the claims started with:

1. The white object is the moon.
2. The red object could be mars.

Both were way, way off.

If the second photo is an accurate representation of what they saw, then what they saw is nowhere near the angular diameter of the moon (like the description said) and the description we got is, again, useless.

Also, on corroboration - similar to what Warren said, corroboration often goes like this:

Dad: Hey, do you see that?!? [points]
Kid: Yeah, awesome!

But they don't make sure to clarify for each other what they say. The kid may have thought dad was pointing at the girl walking toward them. Just because someone says they saw 'it', that doesn't help corroborate the sighting at all. They have to independently describe what they saw for it to be useful.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think a lot of what has happened here is due to translation error. I think the guy who's posting this is interpreting his friend's account and his photos.

When I first thought about bringing this over from ADP to PF, my "by the book" voice said "This is a bad idea, you need the unmangled story." but my louder voice said "what could possibly go wrong?"

Doh.