What is the red circle near the moon phenomenon?

[DaveC426913]

I picked this up on another board and am mystified. I'd like some more input on it. What do you guys think?

Note especially the naked eye confirmation and the multiple witnesses.


A co-worker of mine, out on the weekend at a campsite, looked up at the moon and noticed a strange red circle in the sky near the moon. He grabbed his camera and took several pictures and had his wife and kids verify that he was not seeing things.

http://www.totedata.com/mars.jpg"

The quality of the picture is not the best, but it demonstrates what he saw (moon is on the left, red globe on the right). The moon was fairly large, near the horizon, and it was his claim that "that must be Mars!". I assured him that it was not (and could not be, for several reasons), and must have been some consequence of a lens-type effect of the atmosphere casting a shadow of a red moon some distance to the right of where it actually was.

(To me, the object on the left looks like an out-of-focus bit of dust or raindrop caught in the image, but that doesn't address the naked eye account.)


I am looking into the exact date so's we can verify positions of the Moon (and Mars). I'll ask about the camera settings too. and I'll get him to post the uncropped photo.


Does anyone have any theories?

 

[neurocomp2003]

mars or venus?

 

[DaveC426913]

Right, but of course it can't be. They are only points. This was a disc comparable in size to the Moon.

 

[russ_watters]

The red blob in the pic sure looks like the moon to me. It has the surface features of it.

I'll go with the atmospheric lensing, but that's an awful lot of separation.

Still, it is strange that the thing called the moon in that pic is wayyyy out of focus.

 

[Bystander]

Campsite near a pond, lake, other body of water? On a still night?

 

[berkeman]

Looks like part of the urban legend thing recently about Mars getting so close to Earth this year that its size would rival the moon. Look at the title of the picture -- it's part of the Mars legend.

Check out the scoop on Snopes.com:

http://www.snopes.com/science/mars.asp

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm acutely aware of the Mars hoax. As the star buff amongst my family and friends, I'm asked about and have to dispel this one all the time.

This has nothing to do with it.*

The filename of the picture (it has no "title") is Mars because the photographer saw a red light in the sky. Mars was his first, most likely guess (as evident in the OP), even if it's highly unlikely.

* (I grant that there is a vanishingly slim possibility that the photographer's story is totally fabricated and the picture is designed to play iright into the Mars hoax. But wouldn't you think then, that the images would show that better? I mean, it doesn't look ANYTHING like Mars!)

 

[russ_watters]

Are we sure that "the moon" in that photo isn't an aircraft landing light? Again, the moon should not look like a lens flare...

 

[DaveC426913]

Are we sure that "the moon" in that photo isn't an aircraft landing light? Again, the moon should not look like a lens flare...

Read the account.
1] He and other witnesses observed this enough that I would think a landing light would have to be ruled out.
2] The photo is pretty poor quality.

I propose that the photo be treated as nothing more than strong evidence that the event happened and only generally what was witnessed, but a close analysis of the photo itself would be a red herring.

I think the account itself is what is worth examining.

 

[franznietzsche]

Judging from the "moon" in that picture I'm calling hoax. Either that, or the guy's camera is worse than my cellphone camera.

 

[DaveC426913]

OK, I analyzed the red object. (Even though I just previous said that analyzing the photo is a red herring, I feel that my analysis here is not merely speculative, I am comfortably saying it is conclusive.)

I Googled a random pic of the Moon and played with the exposure settings (I did no 'shopping on it; I didn't even have to rotate it!) and then I put it next to the one from the pic.

Whatever else is happening in the photographer's picture, the red object is the Moon.

 

[chroot]

Well, duh. Of course the red thing is the moon. The white thing therefore must be a flying saucer.

Bottom line: anyone who claims that the white thing is the moon, while the red thing is not, is either trying to perpetrate a hoax or is so dumb that his eye-witness testimony is suspect.

I suspect the white object is some phenomenon like an Iridium flare, while the red object is, of course, the moon. An Iridium flare would be consistent with a white light low on the horizon, near dawn or dusk. This fellow's camera (or photography skills) are so poor that the auto white balance drastically underexposed the moon in order to capture the white object without blooming. Notice also the lack of stars in the photo. The white object had to have been extremely bright.

If the photographer had been sensible enough to provide time, date, and location data, I could look for satellites that would have appeared as shown.

- Warren

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[Integral]

Clearly that is an image of the moon. There is NO way it is Mars or any other planet. It is interesting that the the blurry image of the moon appears blue/green when generally it is more yellow, kinda like you took away the red...hmmm.

I guess the question is, which image is the "real" moon? Seems pretty clear to me that some sort of refraction is occurring. Perhaps the blue/green image is the refracted image and the red is the "real moon". I have read of a phenomena called Looming, where objects below the horizon can appear to be looming above the horizon, this is similar to a road mirage except the temperature gradient is in the atmosphere rather then at ground level. It is more associated with the sea then land.

I am assuming that since Dave knows who took the pic that we are not dealing with a photochop image.

 

[DaveC426913]

Bottom line: anyone who claims that the white thing is the moon, while the red thing is not, is either trying to perpetrate a hoax or is so dumb that his eye-witness testimony is suspect.
...
If the photographer had been sensible enough to provide time, date, and location data, I could look for satellites that would have appeared as shown.

In his defense:
1] No one said the guy knows the slightest thing about the night sky. He doesn't know how to understand what he saw. That does not make him a suspect witness. The account provides facts and circumstances, not interpretations (well, except the one final guess, which everyone has ruled out).

2] Time/date/location data are absent, not because of him, but because of the intermediary communication. He didn't KNOW it was going to get thrown onto several fora where it would get scrutinized by experienced.

As for an Iridium flare or satellite - no way:
a] a flare could not possibly have lasted as long as the account indicates
b] the image would have been smeared by motion

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess the question is, which image is the "real" moon? Seems pretty clear to me that some sort of refraction is occurring. Perhaps the blue/green image is the refracted image and the red is the "real moon". I have read of a phenomena called Looming, where objects below the horizon can appear to be looming above the horizon, this is similar to a road mirage except the temperature gradient is in the atmosphere rather then at ground level. It is more associated with the sea then land.

I can't imagine this could be some sort of double image. That would be quite remarkable in and of itself!

I am assuming that since Dave knows who took the pic that we are not dealing with a photochop image.

No, I do not ("...I picked this up on another board..."). It is a third-hand account.

A quick analysis of the image does not turn up any evidence of Photoshopping (try cranking up the brightness and saturation all the way), though someone more skilled than I might.

 

[Integral]

I had a reply spell checked and ready to post when we were hit by a power outage. Something like 40,000 pe'ps in this, and a neighbor community lost power. Back on now after ~2hrs.

I find it remarkable that both images are of about the same size, that seems to important to ignore. It could mean that this is indeed two images of the moon, or it is a photochop done with intent to deceive.

The one critical factor that we do not have is knowledge of the horizon. Can we assume that it is oriented correctly? It is interesting to rotate the image 90⁰ to the right, this brings the red image on to the horizon and the blue/green image to a position that could be about a 1/2 hr before moon set. So a double exposure would create such an image. I do not know how to do a double exposure with a digital camera, but it could be superimposed images?


Knowing that this is something off the web, reduces my confidence that the images were in the sky at the same time. Therefore less likely to have a physical explanation.

 

[DaveC426913]

Can we assume that it is oriented correctly?

Inasmuch as we assume the photographer's story is honest, I would assume he's posted it without rotation. This is corroborated by his account "...moon is on the left, red globe on the right..."

So a double exposure would create such an image. I do not know how to do a double exposure with a digital camera, but it could be superimposed images?

Knowing that this is something off the web, reduces my confidence that the images were in the sky at the same time. Therefore less likely to have a physical explanation.

Read the account! He saw it with the naked eye, and corroborated it with other witnesses.

You can claim the story is false, but unless you do so, any explanation that involves the camera is ruled out.

 

[DaveC426913]

Update:

1] Apparently there are more pictures. I'll try to post em as soon as they become available.

2] The poster has found a reference to http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?referrerid=11339&t=16233". (Even though this is on a "Bad Astronomy" Board, I don't think that negates the value of the post itself.) I'd say this changes things.

 

[DaveC426913]

OK. New evidence just in.

http://www.totedata.com/notmars2.jpg" in which you can see:
- a star off to the left
- the horizon (turn the brightness way up - or just look at the second pic)

The photos were taken near Calgary Alberta on August 7th. (Thing is, I can't find any star that would match this position in relation to the Moon on that night.)



And http://www.totedata.com/notmars1.jpg" , in which you can see
- the horizon
- the reflection of the Moon off the water in the foreground
- the beginnings of an object upper right from the Moon, which has not formed fully yet.


I'm comfortable now that a double image of the Moon is the most plausible explanation. I never knew such thing existed!

 

[berkeman]

Can you please post the source of your info? This is getting tiresome.

 

[DaveC426913]

"Source of my info". What do you mean?

This guy I'm in communication with on another board is the source of my info. Would you like his home address?

 

[russ_watters]

OK. New evidence just in.

http://www.totedata.com/notmars2.jpg" in which you can see:
- a star off to the left
- the horizon (turn the brightness way up - or just look at the second pic)

The photos were taken near Calgary Alberta on August 7th. (Thing is, I can't find any star that would match this position in relation to the Moon on that night.)

I'll look at Starry Night when I get home, but I don't see anything out of the ordinary in those photos. The first one now looks to me like the center object is a lens flare from the moon - it is in a very similar position relative to the moon as the lens flares from the other objects are (turn up the brightness and you can see them).

I'm not a big fan of eyewitness accounts - they generally suck, especially when the person giving them knows nothing at all about what they are describing. In this case, the photos do not match the eyewitness description at all. The white object could not possibly be what they are talking about seeing naked eye - it is out of focus, so it could not possibly be far enough away to be what they saw.

Turning up the brightness on the second photo, I'm not seeing a lake there, just a field with trees in the background. The light in the middle may not be a reflection of the moon, it may be on the ground. Regardless, the light on the left is actually not in the sky, it is on a hill. And the bright white point object above the moon in that pic isn't in the first pic. That makes it an airplane or satellite (iridium flare).

Going back a little:

I propose that the photo be treated as nothing more than strong evidence that the event happened and only generally what was witnessed, but a close analysis of the photo itself would be a red herring.

I think the account itself is what is worth examining.

From the description you gave, the account itself is utterly useless. It says nothing at all of value. It needs to be [redundant] more descriptive of what it is they saw.

 

[berkeman]

"Source of my info". What do you mean?

This guy I'm in communication with on another board is the source of my info. Would you like his home address?

Of course not. A link to the original thread. I assume that the "other board" allows guest read-only access.

 

[DaveC426913]

The first one now looks to me like the center object is a lens flare from the moon - it is in a very similar position relative to the moon as the lens flares from the other objects are (turn up the brightness and you can see them).

Again, camera effect is ruled out. How could they be seeing a lens flare with their naked eyes?

I'm not a big fan of eyewitness accounts

This is a foolish thing to say. A picture without an account is like a fossil-find without a location - it is meaningless without context.


Anyway, by the eyewitness account we can certainly see that he FIRST saw the phenomenon and THEN got pictures. He's not commenting on what he sees in the pictures, he's commeting on what happened to him in the first place. It is nonsensical to dismiss the account as useless and then examine the photo. You might as well surmise he was pointing the camera at a Moon poster on his wall - which, without hearing his account, could very well be a valid situation for all you know.

In this case, the photos do not match the eyewitness description at all. The white object could not possibly be what they are talking about seeing naked eye - it is out of focus, so it could not possibly be far enough away to be what they saw.

Your use of the phrase 'could not possibly' is way overstated (twice) here.

I agree that 'out-of-focus' is a plausible explanation for the object's appearance though it requires some explanation as to how that answers more questions than it asks. Are you saying it is the only possible explanation?

 

[DaveC426913]

Of course not. A link to the original thread. I assume that the "other board" allows guest read-only access.

Uh, sure. For all the good it will do you...

He asked a brief question. I responded and have been prying him for details of the account ever since. I've been putting them up here as I get them.

( You're tired? Maybe you should take a nap. )

http://www.astronomyforum.net/forum.html?db=&topic_number=3780&lastpost=2006-08-1709:23:12"

 

[berkeman]

Uh, sure. For all the good it will do you...

He asked a brief question. I responded and have been prying him for details of the account ever since. I've been putting them up here as I get them.

( You're tired? Maybe you should take a nap. )

http://www.astronomyforum.net/forum.html?db=&topic_number=3780&lastpost=2006-08-1709:23:12"

Well, I'll just make a couple more comments for now:

-- I'm pretty convinced it's a hoax for several reasons. The poster in the Astronomy forum sounds like he's not in on it, but I'm not sure about that. He never says that the guy's wife and kids told him personally that they also saw it, only that the guy SAYS that they saw it too. Pretty easy to say anything you want to when you're pulling other people's legs.

-- I like the guess about how the out-of-focus object is just hanging in a tree nearby, set up to look like the moon, and the color balance of the camera screwed up the color of the real moon to give it the red hue. Or else it could just be Photoshopped of course, but at least the color balance thing gives the hoaxter some credit for creativity.

-- You didn't post the part where there's temporary problems accessing the totedata.com website's version of the pictures, so they posted them on a different server:

Sarlock
Canada Aug 17th, 2006 08:31 AM Edit Delete Profile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bah, now my site host doesn't seem to be working, can't access the pictures (FTP is working but not HTML). I'll upload them to my other server:

http://www.elvenorder.com/notmars1.jpg

http://www.elvenorder.com/notmars2.jpg

But this may just be a playful clue by the hoaxter guy(s?). Check out what the elvenorder.com website is dedicated to:

http://www.elvenorder.com/

Welcome to the Ancient Order of Elves! [ElF]


"Take a walk down the forest path outside of Eldamar, take a deep breath and inhale
the sweet scent of the blue bells growing along the pathway through the trees.
Listen to the cheerful songs of the birds in the trees above, feel the warm sun upon
your cheek, hear the crunch of the autumn leaves beneath your soft leather boots."

"You are in the magical forest of Eldador, Land of the Elves..."

"We invite you to immerse yourself into a world that few others have been as
privileged to be a part of, one where the world becomes a realm of not just bits and
bytes on a computer screen, but where the world comes alive in your mind, where
your imagination adds whole new dimensions to your gaming experience."

"This is what being in ELF is about; Enhancing your roleplaying experience in the game
"Ultima Online". Contained within these texts is a myriad of
information, about our history, our culture, our language and our future."


Sarlock Longbow, King of the Elves

 

[DaveC426913]

Let me see if I can understand your logic.

-- I'm pretty convinced it's a hoax for several reasons. The poster in the Astronomy forum sounds like he's not in on it, but I'm not sure about that. He never says that the guy's wife and kids told him personally that they also saw it, only that the guy SAYS that they saw it too. Pretty easy to say anything you want to when you're pulling other people's legs.

So, you're convinced it's a hoax because
1] the poster acts like he's not "in on it". (this is brilliant circular logic)
2] "it's easy to make up a story if you're hoaxing". (self-fulfilling)

-- 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)

set up to look like the moon, and the color balance of the camera screwed up the color of the real moon to give it the red hue. Or else it could just be Photoshopped of course, but at least the color balance thing gives the hoaxter some credit for creativity.

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".

-- You didn't post the part where there's temporary problems accessing the totedata.com website's version of the pictures, so they posted them on a different server:

And this is relevant how? The images are indeed, on both servers. Did you bother to check?

But this may just be a playful clue by the hoaxter guy. Check out what the elvenorder.com website is dedicated to: http://www.elvenorder.com/

And your coup de grace, the ad hominem attack "This must be a hoax because the poster has a hobby that I think is silly."



This may or may not be a legit phenom, but I do expect that, if people are going to put their 2c in, they do so intelligently.

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are ignorant, than to open it - and remove all doubt."
.
.

 

[Labguy]

Go back to the first photo in the first post:
http://www.totedata.com/mars.jpg

Are my eyes just that bad? (no) or does anyone else notice that the left, larger "image" doesn't look round? It appears 6-sided, just like an aperture stop in any camera lens. If that's the case, then maybe the photographer noticed it first in the camera screen and then was convinced it was there when looking naked eye. (?)

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.

Eyewitness or not, it looks like lens flare from an aperture stop is the only explanation unless two images were overlapped on purpose, period. Color?? The red Moon at upper right (obvious moon showing Maria detail) is probably color-balance problems and the bluish, 6-sided object is a common effect of lens multicoatings. These are of two types as to color. Greenish or blue/purple. The larger (left) image looks blue/purple to me.

 

[russ_watters]

Again, camera effect is ruled out. How could they be seeing a lens flare with their naked eyes?

Whatever they saw with their naked eyes, it isn't in the photo. That center object is a lens flare.

Remember, you're treating this extremely thin eyewitness account as if it were good information and most of the rest of us are not.

This is a foolish thing to say. A picture without an account is like a fossil-find without a location - it is meaningless without context.

You're correct that location is context, but an eyewitness account is not context. The eyewitness account is the description of the event itself and as a general rule, eyewitness accounts are extremely unreliable - especially if the person giving them doesn't know anything about what he/she witnessed. And even worse if it is second-hand.

Anyway, by the eyewitness account we can certainly see that he FIRST saw the phenomenon and THEN got pictures. He's not commenting on what he sees in the pictures, he's commeting on what happened to him in the first place. It is nonsensical to dismiss the account as useless and then examine the photo. You might as well surmise he was pointing the camera at a Moon poster on his wall - which, without hearing his account, could very well be a valid situation for all you know.

Again, your line of reasoning starts with putting stock into the eyewitness account. Mine doesn't. If the eyewitness account is useless, which I think it is, then the photo is absolutely all we have to go on.

I agree that 'out-of-focus' is a plausible explanation for the object's appearance though it requires some explanation as to how that answers more questions than it asks. Are you saying it is the only possible explanation?

I think you misunderstood. Since the moon is in focus and the "object" is not, the "object" must be closer than about 10 feet from the camera (assuming it isn't just a lens flare). That's why it couldn't be what they say they saw in the sky.

Anway, I looked at starry-night and the night the photo was taken, there were nearly a dozen Iridium satellite flybys within about a degree of the moon. I don't know if any flared, though (starry night doesn't predict them).

 

[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.