Something you don’t see every day

[javadog]

An unusual eclipse:

https://mobile.twitter.com/BeachDog15/status/1518818029639020545

[craigster59]

That is a trip!

[Heel n Toe]

Very cool, but it's not real if this dude is telling the truth.

There's no sound here:



The Facts

The video is fake and was made by CGI and animation creator @aleksey__nz. Originally, the artist published the video on May 17, where it gained over 32.9 million views.

@aleksey__nz regularly creates animation and CGI videos of space travel and the sky, posting them to his TikTok account where he has over 1.9 million followers.

There are also inconsistencies between the video and the text posted by @amoskabuthi0. The viral TikTok claimed it was filmed at the North Pole, which is completely covered in snow and ice. The video, however, features dry, grassy land.

At perigee, the point at which the moon is closest to Earth, the distance is approximately 360,000 kilometers, so it appears far smaller than the video suggests.

The video also shows various faces of the moon in those few seconds. But in real life, the moon appears still when observed from Earth because it takes about as long to spin once on its axis as it does to complete a single orbit, which is roughly 27 days.

Previous to this video, the artist also duped viewers with an edit of a UFO flying around the moon.

More: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-does-viral-video-show-giant-moon-eclipsing-sun-north-pole-1638063

.

[pwd72s]

What? More twitter misinformation?

[javadog]

Say it isn’t so…

Still cool…

[Shaun @ Tru6]

First, how can anyone watch that and not know it's fake? Seriously. It's like watching Ted and thinking it's a documentary on a stuffed animal that came to life.

Second, everything on twitter is fake. It's essentially a community of a million versions of the guy you saw on the street corner in the 70s with a The End is Near sign.

[hbueno]

For slightly more real astronomical pictures, try this instead: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day.

[stevej37]

I think it tore the top off of one of those hills it passed over.

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by stevej37

I think it tore the top off of one of those hills it passed over.

The moon may have been that close in the way back, like, around when Marv E was born, but it moved away slowly

[javadog]

So shoot me, I still think it’s a cool image.

And you can make the moon look that big, using a long enough focal length lens.

Jesus…

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by javadog

So shoot me, I still think it’s a cool image.

And you can make the moon look that big, using a long enough focal length lens.

Jesus…

I enjoyed the clip. It's all good.

I like this one.

[Superman]

You mean to tell me that some of the stuff I see on the internet is untrue?

[javadog]

Yeah, just like in the movies.

Just think how much more interesting the world would be if we actually got to see stuff like that.

[javadog]

Those of us that were shooting photographs in the ‘70s will know the name Mitchell Funk. He created a lot of cool images, using a variety of techniques. Ultra long lenses, multiple exposures, colored filters, etc… none of it was real, but it was very cool.

This reminded me of some of the images he created, his work was featured in a lot of the Nikon Image books from back in the day.

[GH85Carrera]

I worked in a professional photo lab for several decades. Long before Photoshop we could drop out a background, and doge and burn and make composite images.

One standard super easy "trick" for a nice evening landscape shot was to place a nickle on the print during exposure. Instant full moon look and many customers loved it. They had to ask for it, and we had a sample set of prints under the front counter to show them with or without the fake moon.

Now of course with the world of digital photography and photo or video is 100% useless as evidence. In the past we always kept the original aerial film negative in our archives. Over the years more than one lawyer claimed the print was faked and that a fence or object on the ground was located somewhere else. That original negative was real proof, and unfakable. A negative in the middle of a roll of film with the time and date stamp as part of the exposure is not something that can be faked.

[911 Rod]

Originally Posted by javadog

Those of us that were shooting photographs in the ‘70s will know the name Mitchell Funk. He created a lot of cool images, using a variety of techniques. Ultra long lenses, multiple exposures, colored filters, etc… none of it was real, but it was very cool.

This reminded me of some of the images he created, his work was featured in a lot of the Nikon Image books from back in the day.

Is this suppose to be Terry Fox?

[javadog]

I have no idea. This is how he labels it:

Mitchell Funk
Sci-fi Single Man, Surreal Road to Destiny, Camera 35 Cover
1975

[masraum]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

I worked in a professional photo lab for several decades. Long before Photoshop we could drop out a background, and doge and burn and make composite images.

One standard super easy "trick" for a nice evening landscape shot was to place a nickle on the print during exposure. Instant full moon look and many customers loved it. They had to ask for it, and we had a sample set of prints under the front counter to show them with or without the fake moon.

Now of course with the world of digital photography and photo or video is 100% useless as evidence. In the past we always kept the original aerial film negative in our archives. Over the years more than one lawyer claimed the print was faked and that a fence or object on the ground was located somewhere else. That original negative was real proof, and unfakable. A negative in the middle of a roll of film with the time and date stamp as part of the exposure is not something that can be faked.

Years ago, Canon sold a module for their early digital cameras that could provide some sort of guaranty that the images coming out of the camera were unmodified which was targeted at LE that took crime scene photos.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

I worked in a professional photo lab for several decades. Long before Photoshop we could drop out a background, and doge and burn and make composite images.

One standard super easy "trick" for a nice evening landscape shot was to place a nickle on the print during exposure. Instant full moon look and many customers loved it. They had to ask for it, and we had a sample set of prints under the front counter to show them with or without the fake moon.

Now of course with the world of digital photography and photo or video is 100% useless as evidence. In the past we always kept the original aerial film negative in our archives. Over the years more than one lawyer claimed the print was faked and that a fence or object on the ground was located somewhere else. That original negative was real proof, and unfakable. A negative in the middle of a roll of film with the time and date stamp as part of the exposure is not something that can be faked.

When I was at OU, I was a photographer for the school newspaper. Everything was free, film, chemicals, dark room time. I had a color dark room set up in my dorm room but the black and white dark room at the paper was way more fun. I shot a lot more pictures for me than I did for the paper.

Manipulating images in those days was actually real work. When I started shooting digital, for some reason I never got interested in manipulating any of those images.

[Eric Hahl]

It's something you don't see ever. Sorry, the Moon and the Sun are the same size as viewed from anywhere on earth. Total BS video.