<p>Video astronomy requires much more equipment than traditional eyepiece viewing. It helps to understand what is going on between the camera lens and the video screen.</p>

<p>Most important is the conversion of the cameras analog signal to the computer digital format. This is usually done with a frame grabber and its associated drivers. The cameras typically have 700 ish lines of resolution which are usually translated into 640 by 480 digital signal. The camera analog signal is 60 cycle interlaced. The computer display frequency is whatever the PC is set to. I'll let the Math people tell us how the drivers fit all those numbers together and make a nice picture. I think the answer is PI or at least within a decimal place or two. The numbers get rounded and every once in a while the computer screen hiccups. National Enquirer sort of news. </p>

<p>The frame grabbers come in a wide range of cost and reliability. There's no rhyme or reason to their reliability. They depend on the computers operating system which is not identical on every computer. The frame grabber and driver will work well on one PC but not another similarly equipped PC. </p>

<p>Typically the astro video cameras two output connectors, a coax and an S-Video. The person making the video could have proven the "Waves" were and artifact of the PC by simply connecting one of the cameras outputs to an analog video screen, a television with a composite input for example and the other output to the computers frame grabber. Provided the camera and analog video are functioning properly he could have shown us a rock steady image on the analog screen and the waves on the Computer screen. With a little skill he could have shown us an alien or two surfing on the waves. </p>

<p>Smoke, mirrors and snake oil. Suckers are said to be born at the rate of one per minute. I have a feeling the con artist birth rate is up there as well.</p>

<p>It is a bit of a shame, Video or near live viewing as many of us call it, is gaining in popularity. Having someone use what is not unusual for a Video astronomer to see just for a bit of sensationalism serves no useful purpose.  </p>

<p>Another point to edit in. The uTube is a video of a video. The image we see is taken by a second video cameras pointed at a video image being displayed on a computer screen. Crunch the computer screen frequency and resolution with the frequency and resolution of the second camera. You end up with images of airplane propellers that appear to stand still or move very slowly. I wonder how much adverting revenue that sort of video would bring into uTube. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-20T07:44:30.540Z
you may be interested in contributing to [Are questions about phenomenon only observed in certain YouTube channels on-topic?](https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/q/499/7982)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-20T14:43:02.547Z
I would be happy to upvote this answer if you [edit]ed it to remove the subjective opinion (especially paras 5 & 6, and your last sentence), which detracts from the value of an otherwise good *science-based* answer.
Chappo Hasn't Forgotten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-18T19:09:46.610Z
2019-04-18T20:31:09.150Z
2019-04-18T20:31:09.150Z
L d Bonnie
<p>The guy's a wack job.   It's atmospheric turbulence that just happens to have a long regular structure in one direction.   Heck, he might even be deliberately blowing a fan across his telescope to create those patterns.  Ignore him.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-11T18:03:25.250Z
The comments on that video are hilarious. Or sad - depending on how you consider the whole thing.
Florin Andrei
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T11:33:07.893Z
`-1` Debunking pseudo science looses credibility with wrong sentences like "...he might even be deliberately blowing a fan across his telescope to create those patterns. " That would not do this.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T13:40:19.963Z
@uhoh ORLY?  There are plenty of examples of crackpot "scientists" who fake their data - sometimes knowingly, sometimes via unconscious bias or "fudging" steps.
Carl Witthoft
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T14:12:41.107Z
"...blowing a fan across his telescope..." can not "...create those patterns..." That's wrong in several ways.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T14:44:30.570Z
@uhoh, I spent 20 years designing, building, and testing AO systems. I know what patterns can be generated with aerodynamic sources.
Carl Witthoft
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T14:47:36.423Z
Anything immediately in front of the telescope will be completely out of focus. Patterns in the video are relatively sharp which means *if they were to be real* they would be caused by things hundreds of meters beyond the end of the telescope. Refraction patterns shown *if they were to be real* result from optical path differences larger than you could make with a fan. A fan pushes air around, but in free space it does not have a significant impact on density and therefore index of refraction.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T23:17:02.640Z
It's clearly not a sonic boom, or else it would be 200 km away or something like that. It's some other kind of change in air density. Maybe thermal. Maybe wind-like. But I have a lot of trouble imagining some way that would make such a neat and regular wavefront via mechanisms other than a shock wave. Convection tends to be messy and turbulent. Maybe some kind of shear between layers of air at different temperatures? It would help to know the Moon's elevation at the moment of observation.
Florin Andrei
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-10T16:59:41.167Z
2018-09-10T16:59:41.167Z
Carl Witthoft
<p>Thus far there has been no solid explanation.</p>

<p>However, the person who discovered it, YouTube user Crrow777 has a video which explain his observations, and handily debunk Carl Witthoft's explanation of it being atmospheric turbulence.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUGxysKSGEM" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUGxysKSGEM</a></p>

<p>The most obvious of which being that the distortion does not extent beyond the boundary presented by the structure of the moon in the image, even while the camera is moving around.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T05:46:03.503Z
Please. This is crackpottery. Not even worth debunking.
Florin Andrei
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-18T17:53:50.347Z
Be nice to see these wave vids paired to detailed atmospheric pressure, frontal systems and jet stream movements at the time they were taken. https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/sfc/lrgnamsfcwbg.gif Airlines likely have a good detailed jet stream mapping somewhere.
Wayfaring Stranger
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T00:12:26.773Z
2019-03-19T00:12:26.773Z
crestind
<p>In multiple video clips of the moon but also one of Jupiter, some kind of waves can be observed. Is this just the effect of the object moving behind layers of different refractive indexes (similar to what we observe at sunset) or is there a wave propagating through the atmosphere?</p>

<p><a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xUGxysKSGEM" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xUGxysKSGEM</a></p>

<p><a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EMSkd4Xhp0g" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EMSkd4Xhp0g</a></p>

<p>There is an <a href="https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-lunar-wave-from-a-non-conspiracy-anti-government-anti-science-standpoint" rel="nofollow noreferrer">answer on Quora</a>, but I would love to see a more detailed answer, why we can see exactly these two rather sharp lines moving.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-18T01:05:05.907Z
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it asks about youtube videos of pseudoscience and fakery, not about astronomy.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-18T02:15:31.470Z
@uhoh aren't you conflating two distinct issues? Yes, the first video is a compilation by "crrow" who is an astrologer (boo, hiss), but are you saying that every one of his 10 videos is a fake, and the other unrelated video is also a fake? Or are you just reacting (negatively) to the messenger rather than the message? If you are certain all the videos are faked, please explain what brings you to that conclusion...
Chappo Hasn't Forgotten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-18T02:22:51.820Z
@uhoh On the other hand, if there's a possibility that at least some of the videos are genuine, then the question is very much on-topic as it's about an anomaly in astronomical observation. The Quora post suggests several explanations, but we can rule out “atmospheric tides”, “atmospheric diffraction” and "an effect of Astronomical seeing" (all proposed by actual astronomers), since these don't match the slow symmetrical pattern. Sticking strictly to **science**, that just leaves either some other atmospheric anomaly, or an equipment or recording issue. I'm interested in hearing from others...
Chappo Hasn't Forgotten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-18T02:23:20.177Z
@Chappo I'm saying only exactly what I've said in my 21 word comment. (plus those twelve words (plus those four (plus those three (plus those three (plus...
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-18T02:27:40.803Z
@Chappo then you can ask the moderators to move it to [Skeptics SE](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/) where that kind of "it might not be wrong" speculation is well-suited.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-18T02:37:05.393Z
@uhoh I do understand that even mentioning astrology makes astronomers foam at the mouth, hence the extraordinary level of derision in the other answer and comments. But I suggest Florin Andrei's calmer, more *scientific* approach [see his comment](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/27597/what-phenomenon-causes-lunar-waves?noredirect=1#comment54885_27608) is preferable, and I note your own dismissal of far-fetched ideas like blowing a fan.
Chappo Hasn't Forgotten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-18T02:40:42.350Z
@Chappo it's the monetization of the far-fetched ideas in YouTube along with a lack of peer-reviewed publication and independent scientific scrutiny that leads me to call it "pseudoscience and fakery". If this was anything other than a hoax, thousands of people would see it in binoculars and telescopes, not just in money-making YouTube videos. This is Astronomy SE, a site about a field of science.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-18T02:42:50.917Z
I'm voting to leave this question open. It's without doubt *on topic* (excluding any conspiracy theory that all 11 video clips are fake), and there's no risk that a visitor to this page could possibly think there's any support for astrological or other occult or non-scientific views on this. I don't believe in closing a question just because it's awkward or asked by someone we don't like or doesn't (yet) have a good explanation.
Chappo Hasn't Forgotten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-18T10:41:40.923Z
To me atmospheric distorsion seems the most likely cause, so I would love to see a model explaining it, either via theoretical physics or with a sketch. I am just curious which conditions could lead to such a clear "line". Or get another explanation for the phenomenon, if there are clues for that.
Gimli
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-19T00:39:58.167Z
@Gimli that's the opposite of how science works (choosing a favorite explanation, then try to find someone to make a model to justify your choice).
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-20T00:19:38.757Z
@Chappo [Are questions about phenomenon only observed in certain YouTube channels on-topic?](https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/q/499/7982)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-20T08:26:39.070Z
@uhoh This is pretty much how science works as long as you are open to admit it when your theory fails. A scientist observes something and tries to build a model that describes it and similar effects in general. And for that you have to choose a starting point from which you start checking all possible explanations.
Gimli
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-20T08:34:59.537Z
@Gimli no, this is not pretty much how science works. Where is the *Materials and Methods* section? Where is the peer review? And here *there is no theory*, just a monologue complaining that "the observatories" don't take the owner of the monetized YouTube channel seriously. Click away! But we shouldn't be using Astronomy Stack Exchange to advertise and drive traffic there, leaving comments that it's "pretty much how science works".
uhoh
<the-moon><observational-astronomy>
What phenomenon causes "lunar waves"?
Gimli
# What phenomenon causes "lunar waves"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-09-09)

In multiple video clips of the moon but also one of Jupiter, some kind of waves can be observed. Is this just the effect of the object moving behind layers of different refractive indexes (similar to what we observe at sunset) or is there a wave propagating through the atmosphere?

<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xUGxysKSGEM>

<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EMSkd4Xhp0g>

There is an [answer on Quora](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-lunar-wave-from-a-non-conspiracy-anti-government-anti-science-standpoint), but I would love to see a more detailed answer, why we can see exactly these two rather sharp lines moving.

**Tags:** the-moon, observational-astronomy
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it asks about youtube videos of pseudoscience and fakery, not about astronomy.  
> **username_2**: @uhoh aren't you conflating two distinct issues? Yes, the first video is a compilation by "crrow" who is an astrologer (boo, hiss), but are you saying that every one of his 10 videos is a fake, and the other unrelated video is also a fake? Or are you just reacting (negatively) to the messenger rather than the message? If you are certain all the videos are faked, please explain what brings you to that conclusion...  
> **username_2**: @uhoh On the other hand, if there's a possibility that at least some of the videos are genuine, then the question is very much on-topic as it's about an anomaly in astronomical observation. The Quora post suggests several explanations, but we can rule out “atmospheric tides”, “atmospheric diffraction” and "an effect of Astronomical seeing" (all proposed by actual astronomers), since these don't match the slow symmetrical pattern. Sticking strictly to **science**, that just leaves either some other atmospheric anomaly, or an equipment or recording issue. I'm interested in hearing from others...  
> **username_1**: @Chappo I'm saying only exactly what I've said in my 21 word comment. (plus those twelve words (plus those four (plus those three (plus those three (plus...  
> **username_1**: @Chappo then you can ask the moderators to move it to [Skeptics SE](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/) where that kind of "it might not be wrong" speculation is well-suited.  
> **username_2**: @uhoh I do understand that even mentioning astrology makes astronomers foam at the mouth, hence the extraordinary level of derision in the other answer and comments. But I suggest Florin Andrei's calmer, more *scientific* approach [see his comment](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/27597/what-phenomenon-causes-lunar-waves?noredirect=1#comment54885_27608) is preferable, and I note your own dismissal of far-fetched ideas like blowing a fan.  
> **username_1**: @Chappo it's the monetization of the far-fetched ideas in YouTube along with a lack of peer-reviewed publication and independent scientific scrutiny that leads me to call it "pseudoscience and fakery". If this was anything other than a hoax, thousands of people would see it in binoculars and telescopes, not just in money-making YouTube videos. This is Astronomy SE, a site about a field of science.  
> **username_2**: I'm voting to leave this question open. It's without doubt *on topic* (excluding any conspiracy theory that all 11 video clips are fake), and there's no risk that a visitor to this page could possibly think there's any support for astrological or other occult or non-scientific views on this. I don't believe in closing a question just because it's awkward or asked by someone we don't like or doesn't (yet) have a good explanation.  
> **username_0**: To me atmospheric distorsion seems the most likely cause, so I would love to see a model explaining it, either via theoretical physics or with a sketch. I am just curious which conditions could lead to such a clear "line". Or get another explanation for the phenomenon, if there are clues for that.  
> **username_1**: @Gimli that's the opposite of how science works (choosing a favorite explanation, then try to find someone to make a model to justify your choice).  
> **username_1**: @Chappo [Are questions about phenomenon only observed in certain YouTube channels on-topic?](https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/q/499/7982)  
> **username_0**: @uhoh This is pretty much how science works as long as you are open to admit it when your theory fails. A scientist observes something and tries to build a model that describes it and similar effects in general. And for that you have to choose a starting point from which you start checking all possible explanations.  
> **username_1**: @Gimli no, this is not pretty much how science works. Where is the *Materials and Methods* section? Where is the peer review? And here *there is no theory*, just a monologue complaining that "the observatories" don't take the owner of the monetized YouTube channel seriously. Click away! But we shouldn't be using Astronomy Stack Exchange to advertise and drive traffic there, leaving comments that it's "pretty much how science works".  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-04-18. Score: 5

Video astronomy requires much more equipment than traditional eyepiece viewing. It helps to understand what is going on between the camera lens and the video screen.

Most important is the conversion of the cameras analog signal to the computer digital format. This is usually done with a frame grabber and its associated drivers. The cameras typically have 700 ish lines of resolution which are usually translated into 640 by 480 digital signal. The camera analog signal is 60 cycle interlaced. The computer display frequency is whatever the PC is set to. I'll let the Math people tell us how the drivers fit all those numbers together and make a nice picture. I think the answer is PI or at least within a decimal place or two. The numbers get rounded and every once in a while the computer screen hiccups. National Enquirer sort of news.

The frame grabbers come in a wide range of cost and reliability. There's no rhyme or reason to their reliability. They depend on the computers operating system which is not identical on every computer. The frame grabber and driver will work well on one PC but not another similarly equipped PC.

Typically the astro video cameras two output connectors, a coax and an S-Video. The person making the video could have proven the "Waves" were and artifact of the PC by simply connecting one of the cameras outputs to an analog video screen, a television with a composite input for example and the other output to the computers frame grabber. Provided the camera and analog video are functioning properly he could have shown us a rock steady image on the analog screen and the waves on the Computer screen. With a little skill he could have shown us an alien or two surfing on the waves.

Smoke, mirrors and snake oil. Suckers are said to be born at the rate of one per minute. I have a feeling the con artist birth rate is up there as well.

It is a bit of a shame, Video or near live viewing as many of us call it, is gaining in popularity. Having someone use what is not unusual for a Video astronomer to see just for a bit of sensationalism serves no useful purpose.

Another point to edit in. The uTube is a video of a video. The image we see is taken by a second video cameras pointed at a video image being displayed on a computer screen. Crunch the computer screen frequency and resolution with the frequency and resolution of the second camera. You end up with images of airplane propellers that appear to stand still or move very slowly. I wonder how much adverting revenue that sort of video would bring into uTube.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: you may be interested in contributing to [Are questions about phenomenon only observed in certain YouTube channels on-topic?](https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/q/499/7982)  
> **username_2**: I would be happy to upvote this answer if you [edit]ed it to remove the subjective opinion (especially paras 5 & 6, and your last sentence), which detracts from the value of an otherwise good *science-based* answer.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-09-10. Score: -1

The guy's a wack job. It's atmospheric turbulence that just happens to have a long regular structure in one direction. Heck, he might even be deliberately blowing a fan across his telescope to create those patterns. Ignore him.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: The comments on that video are hilarious. Or sad - depending on how you consider the whole thing.  
> **username_1**: `-1` Debunking pseudo science looses credibility with wrong sentences like "...he might even be deliberately blowing a fan across his telescope to create those patterns. " That would not do this.  
> **username_4**: @uhoh ORLY?  There are plenty of examples of crackpot "scientists" who fake their data - sometimes knowingly, sometimes via unconscious bias or "fudging" steps.  
> **username_1**: "...blowing a fan across his telescope..." can not "...create those patterns..." That's wrong in several ways.  
> **username_4**: @uhoh, I spent 20 years designing, building, and testing AO systems. I know what patterns can be generated with aerodynamic sources.  
> **username_1**: Anything immediately in front of the telescope will be completely out of focus. Patterns in the video are relatively sharp which means *if they were to be real* they would be caused by things hundreds of meters beyond the end of the telescope. Refraction patterns shown *if they were to be real* result from optical path differences larger than you could make with a fan. A fan pushes air around, but in free space it does not have a significant impact on density and therefore index of refraction.  
> **username_5**: It's clearly not a sonic boom, or else it would be 200 km away or something like that. It's some other kind of change in air density. Maybe thermal. Maybe wind-like. But I have a lot of trouble imagining some way that would make such a neat and regular wavefront via mechanisms other than a shock wave. Convection tends to be messy and turbulent. Maybe some kind of shear between layers of air at different temperatures? It would help to know the Moon's elevation at the moment of observation.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2019-03-19. Score: -2

Thus far there has been no solid explanation.

However, the person who discovered it, YouTube user Crrow777 has a video which explain his observations, and handily debunk Carl Witthoft's explanation of it being atmospheric turbulence.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUGxysKSGEM>

The most obvious of which being that the distortion does not extent beyond the boundary presented by the structure of the moon in the image, even while the camera is moving around.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Please. This is crackpottery. Not even worth debunking.  
> **username_7**: Be nice to see these wave vids paired to detailed atmospheric pressure, frontal systems and jet stream movements at the time they were taken. https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/sfc/lrgnamsfcwbg.gif Airlines likely have a good detailed jet stream mapping somewhere.  

---

