Why does the moon look full in my photos,....

[Jessica Ann Yost]

It can't be Venus either: way, way, way too bright. You can't see Venus that close to the sun.

It's a lens flare. A couple of observations:

1. In all three pictures, if you draw a line between the sun and the flare, the line goes through the center of the photo.
2. The first two photos are apparently taken within minutes or seconds of each other, yet the position of the sun and "moon" are completely different with respect to each other. They should be aligned and the same distance apart in both if that's what it was.

In the first one, I was on the right side of the street. In the second, I was on the left side, and walked down the street, west, several feet.

The third photo was taken in October, last year. First two, around May 1st, last year.

 

[Jessica Ann Yost]

[personal info deleted by mod] in the afternoon, near May 1st, 2015, I saw the moon, and decided to take a picture. I took several. I deleted the blurry, shaky ones. The rest were saved in my google pictures, thingy, during a sync. That's all the info I have about the first 2.

Same as above, in October, 2015, standing maybe a few yards away, further East, still facing West, in the last picture.

I'll keep looking up. Would be nice to get a good camera, and catch it again with a flare shield on, removing any doubt.

 

[Bandersnatch]

in the afternoon, near May 1st, 2015, I saw the moon,

I know you think you've got a good memory, but as has been already said a few times, there's no way you could have seen the Moon at that time. And you'd need to wait almost two weeks for the moon to be this close to the Sun (or, made the photos nearly two weeks earlier).

 

[Jessica Ann Yost]

I know you think you've got a good memory, but as has been already said a few times, there's no way you could have seen the Moon at that time. And you'd need to wait almost two weeks for the moon to be this close to the Sun (or, made the photos nearly two weeks earlier).

It's possible they were taken two weeks earlier. The date I got might only be the sync date on my google photos.

The last photo was around or before October, last year, then.

 

[russ_watters]

Here's what a directly illuminated moon looks like during the day:

You can't see the un-illuminated part until after sunset:

https://yogainyourpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/moon-sunset.jpeg

 

[russ_watters]

I've seen Iphone5's having that issue, in the last image. I don't have an iphone. And no, it doesn't look exactly the same..

Every camera has a different lens configuration, so the lens flares look a little different. But one thing they apparently always have in common is they are oriented along a line that intersects the center of the image.

 

[Jessica Ann Yost]

Every camera has a different lens configuration, so the lens flares look a little different. But one thing they apparently always have in common is they are oriented along a line that intersects the center of the image.

Intersects the center of the image, or do you mean of the light source?

 

[Jessica Ann Yost]

Here's what a directly illuminated moon looks like during the day:

You can't see the un-illuminated part until after sunset:

https://yogainyourpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/moon-sunset.jpeg

I've seen those, also.

 

[russ_watters]

Intersects the center of the image, or do you mean of the light source?

Drawing a line between the sun and the lens flare it caused, the line crosses the center of the image.

It's also worth googling "one day old moon" for photos that show you just how dim the moon is when it is almost new. I don't think the unilluminated part is ever visible before sunset.

 

[russ_watters]

Here's one I took of the moon and Venus:

 

[Jessica Ann Yost]

Drawing a line between the sun and the lens flare it caused, the line crosses the center of the image.

It's also worth googling "one day old moon" for photos that show you just how dim the moon is when it is almost new. I don't think the unilluminated part is ever visible before sunset.

Ok. I understand your point about flares.

And yes, I know the moon is not supposed to be so visible when it's almost new or right after.

 

[Jessica Ann Yost]

Here's one I took of the moon and Venus:

Haha. Great photo. Which one is Venus? Behind the tree? Above and to the left of the moon?

 

[Jessica Ann Yost]

Here's one I took of the moon and Venus:

When and where was this taken?

 

[russ_watters]

When and where was this taken?

The "where" is Norristown, PA, but I have no idea about the "when" -- at least 10 years ago. I could probably figure it out if you are really curious, but I doubt if I have the original.

 

[Jessica Ann Yost]

The "where" is Norristown, PA, but I have no idea about the "when" -- at least 10 years ago. I could probably figure it out if you are really curious, but I doubt if I have the original.

It's ok. Not necessary. I'm more interested in knowing which of those lights is Venus.

 

[russ_watters]

It's ok. Not necessary. I'm more interested in knowing which of those lights is Venus.

The bright one in the tree is Venus. The date was January 20, 2007.

 

[Jessica Ann Yost]

The bright one in the tree is Venus. The date was January 20, 2007.

Cool. Thank you.

 

[ogg]

The Air Force's 'Blue Book' reportedly (I've not read it) pointed out that virtually all UFO sightings by credible witnesses were reported days or months after the event. There is study after study proving that memory is malleable. I'd suggest that those facts should be factored into our answers & in addition the statement by OP that she continues to damage her eyes because either she doesn't accept scientific fact or thinks it doesn't apply to her (due to magic, I suppose). I agree that we should show respect for any OP, especially one such as this who appears quite sincere. The facts (not explicitly made) seem to be that she saw this "full moon by the Sun" first & then took a photo. She needs to confirm that (does she have some record of it happening? tweet a friend? post it? etc.) without relying on her (fallable) memory. (My memory is no doubt worse, fwiw, but we all "know" what we know, even if we're factually wrong...). Any problematic digital pic may have a software cause, I've not seen that discussed. Also the answer that it is lens flare directly contradicts her claim of seeing it herself (assuming normal eyes). Repeating that explanation isn't productive (since if it is true, then she is bearing false witness & if not true isn't useful.)

 

[ogg]

Jessica, with all due respect: smoking a cigarette has no DISCERNABLE (perceptable) health effect. It does NOT follow that if you can't see the damage, that there is no damage. Every moment your eyes are exposed to direct unfiltered sunlight, your eyes are damaged. This is not something that a wise person would argue isn't true because their vision is 20/20 and they've been doing it for years. (That makes no sense, at all: its an apples and oranges argument). Do not stare into the Sun, and in an ideal world if you go out into the sun, wear sunglasses, at the very least avoid directly looking at the Sun, ever. The health effects are well established, there is no "safe" level of UV exposure for your eyes. I am posting this (off topic), because I have some hope you will benefit from it, I don't mean to offend.

 

[Jessica Ann Yost]

The Air Force's 'Blue Book' reportedly (I've not read it) pointed out that virtually all UFO sightings by credible witnesses were reported days or months after the event. There is study after study proving that memory is malleable. I'd suggest that those facts should be factored into our answers & in addition the statement by OP that she continues to damage her eyes because either she doesn't accept scientific fact or thinks it doesn't apply to her (due to magic, I suppose). I agree that we should show respect for any OP, especially one such as this who appears quite sincere. The facts (not explicitly made) seem to be that she saw this "full moon by the Sun" first & then took a photo. She needs to confirm that (does she have some record of it happening? tweet a friend? post it? etc.) without relying on her (fallable) memory. (My memory is no doubt worse, fwiw, but we all "know" what we know, even if we're factually wrong...). Any problematic digital pic may have a software cause, I've not seen that discussed. Also the answer that it is lens flare directly contradicts her claim of seeing it herself (assuming normal eyes). Repeating that explanation isn't productive (since if it is true, then she is bearing false witness & if not true isn't useful.)

"she continues to damage her eyes because either she doesn't accept scientific fact or thinks it doesn't apply to her (due to magic, I suppose)."

You can talk to me about me. Thanks. Do you, or anyone you know, take prescription or over the counter drugs? You know, everyone who takes them, is experimenting with their own body.. not understanding how bad the side effects can affect them over time? I read the small print.

Sure, memory is malleable. It is, especially, for people who pack all kinds of information into their minds at once. I have no problem admitting there's a possibility that I may have remembered incorrectly. There's always a possibility, but I have seen with my eyes, the fullish moon, with the sun out high in the sky, nearby. For now, i'll say, if I see that again, i'll try to get a better picture. I didn't agree that it is lens flare. I saw the point someone else was trying to make about it looking like lens flare. Try again.. right? I have all year.

Btw, magic and science are not much different. ;) Every body is not the same. Everybody experiments. I keep looking for the permanent imprint of the sun I'm supposed to get from looking at the sun, but it always goes away quickly.

 

[Jessica Ann Yost]

Jessica, with all due respect: smoking a cigarette has no DISCERNABLE (perceptable) health effect. It does NOT follow that if you can't see the damage, that there is no damage. Every moment your eyes are exposed to direct unfiltered sunlight, your eyes are damaged. This is not something that a wise person would argue isn't true because their vision is 20/20 and they've been doing it for years. (That makes no sense, at all: its an apples and oranges argument). Do not stare into the Sun, and in an ideal world if you go out into the sun, wear sunglasses, at the very least avoid directly looking at the Sun, ever. The health effects are well established, there is no "safe" level of UV exposure for your eyes. I am posting this (off topic), because I have some hope you will benefit from it, I don't mean to offend.

I smoke cigarettes. I don't have to see the damage. I feel it, every puff.

Bummer for me, being an addict, but you don't seem to understand feeling. And you can stop implying that I'm not intelligent. Thank you again.

Oh, and sun glasses made my eyes more sensitive to light, before, so I stopped using them. Now, I can handle more light better.

You don't offend me.

 

[russ_watters]

Repeating that explanation isn't productive (since if it is true, then she is bearing false witness & if not true isn't useful.)

To that extent, the thread may have run its course (though I won't close it yet). She wants an explanation of what she saw, but the photo doesn't match the description. Yes, we've adequately explained/demonstrated the discrepancy but it is inherrently impossible for us to resolve it for her.

Regarding staring at the sun:
When I was a little kid, I used to do it. I don't recall it being painful and I found the purple spots it laid over my vision intriquing. I used to draw pictures with it! Ultimately as I grew up, I stopped and now my eyes are sensitive to light (bright light is quite painful). Cause/effect? I don't know exactly, but I do know, Jessica, by your descriptions of this issue you are succeptible to drawing improper cause/effect conclusions. It makes me wonder if in your memory, a spot on your vision that you created has morphed into a memory of a real object.

In either case, yes, I encourage you to try taking such pictures again, but also suggest that you will have trouble seeing/photographing a near new moon until just after sunset. The good news is you'll have an opportunity to check once a month!

 

[Jessica Ann Yost]

To that extent, the thread may have run its course (though I won't close it yet). She wants an explanation of what she saw, but the photo doesn't match the description. Yes, we've adequately explained/demonstrated the discrepancy but it is inherrently impossible for us to resolve it for her.

Regarding staring at the sun:
When I was a little kid, I used to do it. I don't recall it being painful and I found the purple spots it laid over my vision intriquing. I used to draw pictures with it! Ultimately as I grew up, I stopped and now my eyes are sensitive to light (bright light is quite painful). Cause/effect? I don't know exactly, but I do know, Jessica, by your descriptions of this issue you are succeptible to drawing improper cause/effect conclusions. It makes me wonder if in your memory, a spot on your vision that you created has morphed into a memory of a real object.

In either case, yes, I encourage you to try taking such pictures again, but also suggest that you will have trouble seeing/photographing a near new moon until just after sunset. The good news is you'lol have an opportunity to check once a month!

"They" say your eyes can be damaged from staring at computer and tv screens, too. But "they" give us these things to carry around and stare at. Lol. "Smart phones"
There's a lot that doesn't make sense. You are assuming, but could be right about me. I'm not going to deny, that's possible. And communication isn't my best skill.

I was always scared to stare at the sun too long because of this damage you and others have told me about. I use glances, not stares, to look. I'm sorry your eyes got sensitive.

 

[Jessica Ann Yost]

http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/obasogie-blindness-sight-race

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/cleere.htm

I know this is off-topic.

I guess go ahead and close?