Analytical Research - Sightings Database

[BobbyO]

H, who cares..;)

 

Just post.

 

Here's some graphics, if anything doesn't make sense, just shout and i'll explain.

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by BobbyO

[hiflier]

Ok, thanks BobbyO, I will then. One Moon mystery coming up Please pay special attention to the bolded words of this astronomer's report. On the surface this looks like an easy mystery to solve......BUT IT ISN'T!: I will give some backstory on this report later. Enjoy :

 

  "During the daylight hours, when I was at work with the spectroscope, Mr. Hirst employed some of his time in looking up Venus near the sun, and many other objects, principally well known double stars; and of these some splendid views were obtained, but he found nothing about which 1 wish now to detain you, until the morning of the 21st (October), at 9hr,. 5m., when, on looking at the moon, he found that a large part of it was covered with a dark shade, quite as dark as the shadow of the earth during an eclipse of the moon. Its outline was generally circular, and it seemed to be fainter near its edges. Conspicuous bright spots on the moon could be seen through it, but it quite obliterated the view of about half of the moon's terminator (or that part where the sunlight ends), while those parts of the terminator not in the shadow could be very distinctly seen. I should estimate the diameter of the shadow from the part we could see on the moon at about three-fourths that of the moon.

 

  This is one of those remarkable facts which, being seen, should be recorded, although no explanation can at present be offered. One can hardly resist the conviction that it was a shadow, yet it could not be the shadow of any known body, and if produced by a comet it must be one of more than ordinary density, although dark bodies have been seen crossing the sun, which were doubtless comets. No change in the position of the shade could be detected after three hours' watching. Mr. Hirst has faithfully copied on this paper what he saw."

[BigTreeWalker]

Maybe they need to clean the bird droppings off their telescope. If it didn't move after 3 hours it was probably something on the scope. JMHO.

[hiflier]

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 7:53 PM, Waggles said:

Best way to view a full moon  is through a spotting scope. You can see it cross the lens in about a minute and the clairity will blow you away

I emailed a head astronomer in Australia and presented this report and he said it was probably a smudge on the lens. But Waggle's post (which is TRUE!) would say different. The astronomer's report I quoted was the government astronomer in Sydney Australia back in 1878. Astronomers in those days had no slide rules and no computers so they really had to know their stuff. Reread all the things his assistant was looking at. And he was doing it with a 10 foot 4 inch long telescope that was seven and a quarter inches in diameter.

 

With their experience and training they would KNOW whether or not a smudge on the lens was remaining stationary while the Moon traversed their field of view. Since they had no automatic tracking they had to constantly adjust the scope every few seconds and a smudge on the lens would have been obvious to them. The report said the "shadow" didn't move off of the Moon for three hours. Seasoned astronomers at their level would instantly see the Moon move across the lens and the smudge remain in place. That astronomer I emailed with this question quite simply just blew me off.

 

I emailed another astronomer at the University of Arizona who was a professor in the department that was studying lunar and planetary impacts. She said she never heard of the report and wished me luck in my search. I emailed NASA TWICE to try to connect to someone there and got a reply for both emails. All the replies said was some boilerplate response thanking me for my interest in NASA!. Talk about getting locked out of these institutions. I was across the board dismissed like an old sock. 

 

At first I also dismissed the report but after several reads I realized just how much information was in those two small paragraphs. There's a LOT of information there and none of it is contradictory. That's what got me about it. The precision in the writing. I think their precision in the field was ever bit as good if not better. Just so everyone knows where this is going: It was either a natural phenomenon- or it wasn't a natural phenomenon. Not being a smudge on the lens leaves only those two choices and either one is nothing short of utterly fantastic

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

Well see you already had more information than given us. The date for instance. If you had motorized tracking a smudge would stay in one spot on the moon.

[hiflier]

True that. My apologies for the lack of date info. I'm so familiar with this mystery that sometimes I get ahead of myself. The Moon at that time was two days past its 3/4 phase and so well up before and ahead of the sun in the sky by about three hours. Since sunrise then was 6 am it means that at 9 am the Moon being three hours ahead would be pretty much overhead when the "shadow" was first noticed. As Sydney Australia is south of the equator it also means the Moon would have been due north from where the astronomers were. Now everyone knows that the "dark" side of the Moon looks blue in the daytime and matches the blue of the sky so all that should have been seen was the fat white crescent of the waning 3/4 phase.

 

This was in October and the last eclipse was back in July of that year. With the information you now know so far how in heck could there be an unmoving "shadow" on the Moon for three hours that had "conspicuous bright spots" showing through it? Look at it this way......if the "shadow" was outside of Earth's atmosphere it would look as blue as the sky right? But they said it looked like a Lunar eclipse shadow cast on the Moon by the Earth. So the big question is this: If it was a shadow- like as they say it was- then it HAD to have been INSIDE EARTH:S ATMOSPHERE or else the shadow could NOT have been seen as it would've been blue.like the sky and therefore simple blend in completely unnoticed.

 

I hope you are understanding the significance of this event as reported. You UFO people should be all over this by now. And since there has been some Alien discussion floating around I thought you especially would appreciate this. Oh, and by the way, no other astronomer anywhere else either witnessed or reported this  Only these astronomers and whoever their team was.  

Edited November 21, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

For it to appear black instead of blue during daylight hours, it would have to be an object within the Earth's atmosphere and it would have to be between him and the moon. It's important to note that this was in 1878 so the astronomer probably couldn't have imagined that it was likely a craft. 

[hiflier]

There is no doubt that the report is intriguing in that respect. Everyone would recognize a hot air balloon of course. Even if was an unusual cloud it would have to be moving slower than the moon over the three hour period in order to remain between the moon and the ones viewing the moon. It would also have to be traveling in a precise direction at a precise speed to do so. Plus it couldn't shrink or grow with added or subtracted water vapor. Yep folks, a real Moon mystery. You can see now why it gor=t my attention about three years ago?.

 

I ran across the report kind of paraphrased in a book by MK Jessup. He was an amateur  astronomer himself and wrote a book in 1955 called "The Case For The UFO:. The copy I read was on the internet and was a strangely annotated  in the margins. Its title is "The Case For The UFO: Varo Edition" and anyone can read it as it's readily available I think as a .pdf. It covers a lot of odd stuff but THIS report really stood out as soon as I read it. And of course I researched it to g]death and ran the whole thing to ground and up the flagpole all the way to my mentioned emails to NASA.

 

There's more to the backstory but nothing really to add to the case itself. The astronomer was also a highly trained meteorologist and he and his team at the time were sent into the Blue Mountains outside Sydney to see if an observatory at a higher elevation would be better for looking at objects in space. He ran a daily weather column in a Sydney paper complete with weather maps and forecasts, The man was brilliant really. His assistant was actually a very well known naturalist at the time and highly regarded for his astronomical drawings. He did in fact as mentioned in the report make a drawing of this Moon event. I'll post it if you want to see it because yes, OF COURSE I have a copy  

[BigTreeWalker]

I don't quite follow the shadow not being seen. Whether inside or outside of the earth's atmosphere it would still have been seen but as a blue hole in the moon. Remember the terminator line is also outside of the atmosphere. As you said, the dark side appears blue. Maybe I missed it in there but I didn't see that it said the shadow was black, it said dark. And in the case of an eclipse it's a dark reddish color. He also said bright points on the moon could be seen through it. I would suggest something between the sun and the moon and earthlight still lighting those places they could see in the shadow. Still it doesn't answer the question as to how it stayed in place for so long or what it was. As far as not being seen anywhere else. It was a form of eclipse and those can be seen only from certain parts of the earth when they occur. Anywhere besides Australia would have probably shifted it off the moon's surface. If anyone else saw it there in Australia what are the chances of it being reported or the report surviving. 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

If the moon was inside the Earths atmosphere at anytime in the last century you wouldn't be posting here.

You would be dead.

[BigTreeWalker]

I agree with you there, but I didn't see where anyone said that was the case. 

[hiflier]

I see your point BTW but I still think their description was a dark shadow- not as an extension of the blue area across the terminator but a real shadow. Also with the sun at approximately 90 degrees from the moon from the earth's perspective there is no way it could possibly be an eclipse in the traditional sense because the earth wasn't between the sun and moon. If there was an object in space between the sun and moon it would have to be enormous to cast that large of a shadow plus the shadow of course would not be seen as anything more then an extended blue area on the moon's surface. And if that was the case- say as in a huge molecular cloud- then in order for the astronomers to see it blocking part of the terminator but not the total side/edge that was being lit by the sun the "cloud" would have to be more between us and the moon. And it would have to be slow enough so that as the earth rotated for three hours it would appear to remain stationary.

 

There was no follow up bey these astronomers so I'm assuming that after the moon got to around a three o'clock position to the west that it either was so low in the sky as to not be seen of it became blocked from view by the mountainous terrain. IDK. Been scratching my head on this one for too long I guess. They presented and read a paper to the Royal Society in Australia and I'm sure the people and scientists that heard the talk had numerous w=questions for the astronomers as well as opinions on what it might be. Either way they trusted the astronomers expertise enough to print the paper into their annual scientific journal. There were those that gave them sone oublic flak and some ridicule of course but they stood by their observations. Here is an image Mr' Hirst, the naturalist, drew of what they saw:

 

    

[BigTreeWalker]

Eclipses are simply when one heavenly body passes in front of another one. In this case it would have been the unknown object that partially eclipsed the moon and not the earth. That drawing definitely looks like something eclipsing the moon. 

[BigTreeWalker]

Been giving it some more thought. Because of this statement made by the astronomer... "Conspicuous bright spots on the moon could be seen through it"... If it was between the earth and the moon then it wasn't opaque or solid. However, also because of this statement, if it was between the sun and the moon it could have been solid and earthlight was highlighting the moon's surface. What it was though is still TBD.

 

Who knows, if it was the latter above, it could have been a near miss asteroid either heading toward or away from sun. It wasn't directly aimed at the moon because the shadow was overlapping the terminator. It would have been centered on the bright side if it was heading directly toward the moon. The results of that would have been readily apparent and we probably wouldn't be here now.

[hiflier]

Ah, but centered on the bright side would have caused the darkening of the left side of the drawing shadowing what is seen as sunlit. Also anything that is between us and the moos seen as a shadow would appear blue. The drawing definitely shows the shadow as being darker than the surrounding sky so it would HAVE to be in earth's atmosphere and it would have to be itself dark. I don't think this is solvable unless it's a mother ship in our skies with lights (conspicuous bright spots". And since I'm not one who thinks aliens have ever been here I say it can't be that. Therefore unsolvable.