Correcting the 8.11.11 video

Hello Neumayer again.

At 2:05 we're told that stars don't move - not in minutes. But what we're seeing is movement over tens of minutes.
The star in question is the same Fomalhaut we remember from earlier and if we
compare a superimposition of Neumayer from 17:40 to 18:40 to one from YourSky over the same time we, once again, see a perfect match.
And at 18:40 on YourSky we also see Diptha which makes an appearence at 2:59 in the video

 

View from http://www.fourmilab.ch/yoursky/

At 4:00 we're told that this "looks like the mini dipper - but on the other hand it doesn't".
Absolutely right - it's Lepus with the behind of our old canine friend to the right.
We also see the radar dome shadow again 

View from http://www.fourmilab.ch/yoursky/

And, sure enough, if we turn the YourSky "camera" around by changing the Azimuth from South-East to North-West we see the moon causing the radar dome to cast a shadow.

View from http://www.fourmilab.ch/yoursky/

At 6:16 we're told that the sun shoudn't be out at 9:50 in the morning.
http://www.weatherimages.org/latlonsun.html tells us it should - in fact we're only three minutes from acctual sunrise :)

We also get a great shot of the spotlight on the leftmost leg of the station, the one that supposedly was a sun or star

At 8:40 and 9:10 we notice that the small bright objects of interest over the roof only appear when the spotlight is cranked, causing lens flares.

So, to the butterfly at 10:20. There's no way this :

can be said to be the same as this :

At 27:20 it's totally impossible to see the four distinct objects in each row, no matter how much we use our minds...

Not to mention that the brightest objects on the lower left and upper right all of a sudden, after supposedly hanging together in the same formation (below) since the first picture back in January or whatever, in three days suddenly move almost past each other.

Quick comments on the 8.10.11 video

Ok, these are basically the same artifacts as before (and do see foghaze's excellent video) except this time we clearly see the moons face in the blue reflection, further proving that it is just a reflection, and we also get to see some additional flares and reflections.

As is said at about 13:03 it's "very hard to adjust" the camera and binoculars to see the extra objects.
Now if these were real things in the sky you should just be able to point the camera up there and see it, right? There's no adjusting needed to see the white moon.
Why would you have to find the exact angle between the camera and binoculars to see the other things? Well, simply because the light has to hit the lenses in the right way for the reflection to appear.

At the beginning of the video the blue moon is really close to the real (white) one.

Then all of a sudden it's dropped down the equivalence of its entire diameter :

So what happened in those 25 seconds?
There was a switch in which one of the binocular eyes the camera's looking through.

If the object was really behind the moon those 2 inches (or something) wouldn't make it move a bit. But the viewing angle has changed and so does the reflection.
If you're good at angular mathematics you can probably prove that those inches fit the diameter drop perfectly.

At the end we can see the upper brownish reflection shake with every small movement of the camera, once again proving that the object is caused by something in the camera.