a reply to: brace22
Hello, I tried to read all the posts for this, but I confess I read only the 1 and the last pages, hope I don't incurr in repeating something that was
said. I hope you don't mind some of my own thoughts about it.
First, by the work Brace22 did I can see clearly a triangle, and not at all looks like an airplane (at least not a conventional one), stretching, it
could look like a B-2, a F-117 or any other delta-type military aircraft.
Second, OneHuman said he took a series of 6 pics. The intervals between one and the other would tell something about movement and speed. If the first
5 pics didn't show anything, from the same point of view, obviously the "triangle" kind of entered in the scene, meaning it was flying.
Finally, #3 the fact that you have the "triangle's lights" in a still shape, or spot if you will, (I mean, they are not a white line against the black
sky), it says about the speed of the object. Usually, cameras that don't have a shutter speed control prolong the time of aperture even for mere
fraction of seconds (just to allow more light come in) making any moving object look like a blur - short or long depending on the time of exposure.
If the triangle were moving in regular business jets speed, the camera would (probably) registered a small blur, which it didn't, if the triangle
were moving fast, the blur would be longer.
Now, judging by the last observation I am prone to believe the object was just sitting there not flying, however #2 denies that conclusion. So, as you
can see this is a very intriguing picture, and though the way I saw Brace22's PS work there is clearly a glimpse of triangle, logically speaking I
would have to say the lights were stars. I'm confused haha
Just a question to either of you, if you don't mind: By any chance, can this be the reflex of (let's say) street lights on the bottom of the fog line
which would make it look like it's an object flying?
Nice thread BTW