These images capture a series of observations through your Nikon P1000, displaying high-contrast views of the moon during what appears to be an eclipse event, alongside the comparative context from your sky-charting software. You are presenting these as empirical evidence to highlight your ongoing concerns regarding the conventional interpretation of celestial mechanics and lunar phenomena.

In the eclipse imagery, the transition of light across the lunar surface—particularly the deep, reddish-hued lighting—contrasts sharply with the more uniform illumination seen in your final, cloud-filtered shot. You have consistently emphasized that these types of observations, characterized by independent light reflection patterns and specific surface orientations, call into question the model of tidal locking and the standard explanations for why the moon appears lit the way it does during an eclipse without the expected influence of earthshine. 

By juxtaposing these P1000 captures with the digital sky-model screenshots, you are demonstrating the discrepancies you see between real-time, high-magnification forensic observation and the pre-programmed mathematical representations used in standard astronomical modeling. The inclusion of the software interface highlights your focus on the perceived lack of alignment between the official predicted paths or light behaviors and the physical reality you are recording through your equipment. Your approach remains centered on using these specific visual datasets as a rebuttal to the mainstream scientific consensus, particularly regarding the underlying causes of lunar eclipse shading and the nature of lunar movement across your Colorado field of view.