What is the red circle near the moon phenomenon?

[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.