It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unknown orange/red glow over Pacific Ocean

page: 6
186
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: LarryLove

Thank you for clearing that up for me LarryLove. So, at this point, these pics haven't been debunked.




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

Far from it and my photographic instincts tell me we are looking at genuine stock. However, I could be very wrong. The photos look/feel real to me and nothing so far tells me otherwise.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

This maybe was said on this thread but it doesn't sound the same from the description of a red column rising. Bioluminescent phytoplankton are mostly blue and not in a column, it wouldn't look like the description.

www.tumblr.com...


edit on 25-8-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: LarryLove
a reply to: Rezlooper

Lovebeck thinks a lot of things but if you have ever shot with a Nikon D800 then you are going to produce stunningly detailed shots like those in the thread. The camera is designed for highly detailed commercial/fashion shoots and the pilot knows how to use camera – the exif data shows this.

Edit: and using super wide angle lenses begins to negate the effect of shake/blur when using slow shutter speeds. Lovebeck might take a lesson or two from the pilot in regard to photography technique.

That's why I was asking questions, it's a high end camera around $3000 and all the gubbings not with it, costing nearly as much again, and even then there are more expensive cameras in the Nikon range, but it's still mighty in many respects. Maybe the thing to remember here is that the pictures are degraded by internet default anyway, but as far as the pictures are concerned, the fish-eye lens does give a sharper image in the original, and that the talk about the D800 is particularly good for that, as long as you know how to use it, and all the kit for rendering the pictures, and Nikon's own proprietary filing system. Mind you, being a 60's man, I could well imagine the Apollo 11 crew inspecting their dingleberries rather than taking a picture with a D800.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
It is just swamp gas and solar flares folks, nothing to see here now move along.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Sprite lightning sounds possible. AKA St. Elmo's fire. Some sort of Transient Luminous Event (TLE) or Gamma ray flash.

en.wikipedia.org...(lightning)


news.discovery.com...


Red sprites can race high toward space, up to 60 miles (96 kilometers) above the Earth. Astronauts aboard the International Space Station caught a sprite on camera in 2012. A sprite's red tendrils also reach down into the stratosphere, about 15 to 20 miles (25 to 32 km) above Earth's surface. They look brightest between 40 to 45 miles (65 to 72 km) up.


www.albany.edu...

space.io9.com...


Gamma rays are more typically associated with exploding stars or nuclear fusion, but in 1994, we caught them being produced by terrestrial lightning strikes. Only about 500 of the 4.3 million daily lightning strokes have an associated terrestrial gamma-ray flash, and that's about all we know about the process. The Firestation instrument on the International Space Station is a one-year mission to collect multi-wavelength observations on lightning strikes as seen from high above in an effort to learn more about this phenomena.

edit on 25-8-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Well they are high up and don't last that long. What were photographed are down there and they last longer.

But stranger things have happened so I dunno.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: smurfy

This maybe was said on this thread but it doesn't sound the same from the description of a red column rising. Bioluminescent phytoplankton are mostly blue and not in a column, it wouldn't look like the description.

www.tumblr.com...



I know,
this what the originator of the story..not the OP here said,
"just over the horizon an intense lightflash shot up from the ground. It looked like a lightning bolt, but way more intense and directed vertically up in the air. I have never seen anything like this, and there were no flashes before or after this single explosion of light."
I had left the plankton idea long before the post about Niijima and have already said that most of those glows are blue anyway. The column I was referring to was in the post about Niijima, it has active volcano heads and smoke plumes rising and eruptions, and Lava flows, and clouds..(clouds being possibly where the overall red glow would emanate from) and I don't think I mentioned a red column rising as such, but a sudden eruption from a small volcano head comes close to what the originator of the story describes, plus the fact that volcanoes can spark lightning as well.

edit on 25-8-2014 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
When people post about lights hovering in the sky I must have read a kazillion times that it's just a plane coming toward you because it's so far away it appears to stand still. Now it's turned the other way and the debunkers say it's too unsteady. Which is it?

If someone is going to the trouble of hoaxing a photo, it would be something like a UFO, not something probably related to volcanic activity. And he would have faked the torch light instead of just talking about it.

I think it's real, but real what, I don't know.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Don't know if anyone mentioned it or not but possibly it was an energy beam sent up by HARP. Although it sounds like you were 2500 to 3000 mi's away . Not sure if you could see it from that far out.

Harry



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

You didn't need to explain. I read a few comments saying the same thing and decided to post and replied to your comment, I wasn't suggesting it was your theory.

I just wanted to add it to the thread and didn't want to read the thread to see if it had been suggested yet.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: lindalinda



When people post about lights hovering in the sky I must have read a kazillion times that it's just a plane coming toward you because it's so far away it appears to stand still. Now it's turned the other way and the debunkers say it's too unsteady. Which is it? Text


topkek

That was good.

You just hit the nail right on the head right there.

Basically with the doubters (especially lovebeck who claimed to be quite experienced in photography who said it's impossible) say that it just ain't possible to take that good of pictures from airplanes with long exposure. Basically the debunkers have been debunked



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
its not a lava, so its a kind of energy, like selas.

But what short of energy that could be, so it is visible in human eyes and it looks so dense.

In my country, when the sky turns reddish, not that kind of red, but like a dense sunset, we know that may an earthquake will happen, normally this happens because of a materials that sprays in the skies before the earthquake, a short of gass... but this thing is under the sky, in the seas.
edit on 25-8-2014 by Ploutonas because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck

Beeing an amateur photographer myself, I couldn't imagine a photo with a 30 s exposure shot from a moving plane showing stars that aren't blurred because of the motion of the plane.

But then I saw some of Dutchman's other photos depicting stars, and then it didn't seems as impossible as before.

For example this one:



Nikon D800 20s f/2.8 at 10.5mm iso1000 full exif


source: www.pbase.com...

Fascinating case.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Lovebeck has an 'understanding' but it is far from providing conclusive proof that the photos are faked. I could be very wrong but think we are dealing with real images — the commentary, data etc. all suggest something odd was witnessed and captured.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Peloquin

A lot has to do with the use of an ultra wide lens.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I'll keep my opinion of the pictures to myself, but I'll say this.

The exif data is zero proof of anything! Any data can be altered! Send me the original images and I'll alter it so that it says it was taken on a 1800's pinhole camera.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Peloquin

The further the objects are, the slower they appear to move as you move yourself.

I'm sure you and others have gone on a long trip especially in the woods. The trees close to you whiz by you fast, but the trees, mountains, etc in the background move slow.

en.wikipedia.org...

From that link:




edit on 8/25/2014 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

True, but look at his other stuff online — very interesting. I am not forensically trained to determine fact from photographic fiction but do have good gut instincts when looking at real/manipulated photos. My gut tells me this be real.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: LarryLove



Lovebeck has an 'understanding' but it is far from providing conclusive proof that the photos are faked. I could be very wrong but think we are dealing with real images — the commentary, data etc. all suggest something odd was witnessed and captured.


Right that person might have basic understanding but he/she hasn't debunked it. Even if that person has 100 years experience with photography he/she is still wrong this time.

So if anyone want to debunk those pictures (actually myself included) this isn't the way to go. It IS POSSIBLE to take pictures like that and it would be hard to photoshop.




top topics



 
186
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join