My friend filmed an orb, can we debunk it?

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Bokeh is more than that. Bokeh (in Japenese) refers to the quality of the out of focus light. The images presented in the OP are nothing more than out of focus images. Standard 'UFO' pics.

It's called bokeh regardless of the quality, but there is good bokeh and bad bokeh, so it's actually the adjectives "good" and "bad" that refer to the quality, the former being more pleasing to the eye:

books.google.com...

The term bokeh comes from the Japanese word meaning to blur in ink-washing painting. In photography, bokeh is used to refer to blurring in a selective focus photograph, Good bokeh is smooth and pleasing, whereas bad bokeh produces a jagged and discordant effect

originally posted by: SargonThrall
a reply to: Arbitrageur
This appears to be a clear representation of the Sphere Being Alliance of the Confederation of Planets from the Christmas Tree Nebula. I hear that they are quite generous and leave gifts for abductees.

Hmm, that wouldn't have been my first guess, but since it's out of focus I guess I can't rule it out!

The OP's video is obviously out of focus. The light doesn't look organic. In fact, it looks rather synthetic and flat toned like an LED. To be honest it looks like a common rave toy to me. I'm surprised nobody made that connection yet. I'm sure I'll get heckled to death for saying it, too.

Those orbs over India look interesting, though. They kind of look like a daytime version of the Pheonix lights.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Those orbs over India look interesting, though. They kind of look like a daytime version of the Pheonix lights.

Flares you mean? Yeah, they could be.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I'd suggest that she video'd Jupiter.Unfortunate,really.Zooming in doesn't help at all.

She has a lovely voice,by the way.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Good catch Looks like a real ufo orb. Ask your friend to get a flash light and try to make contact with it. Three flashes, one second apart. It always helps if you can get something else in the background to reference against but this can be achieved at first light like fiveish in the morning. They seem to be around quite a bit just around sunrise. The pulsating effect is very typical of them, plus the way the colours change too.

Flares you mean? Yeah, they could be.

Yes, flares would be my first guess with both cases.

edit: Not to drift off topic but I always thought it to be rather peculiar how everybody's first guess for the Pheonix lights was a giant mile-long craft floating over the city when there was no way to indicate with the video that there is such an object (a single object) responsible for the lights. It always looked like multiple objects in multiple places that hovered in a formation so that the negative space within the lights was construed to be solid mass. Yes I've always thought they were flares, but still cool nonetheless.

Ok! People brought up some good points!

However, let me reiterate, this is my friend, she is middle aged, MBA with kids. Not some teen in their parents basement looking for attention. She has no reason to lie or punk me. She did not even want to put this out there, I made the youtube channel to share this.

This is what she told me, or at least along these lines - "it was about 200 feet away, and would move very quickly, and the colors kept changing" - I'm not sure how anyone could confuse that with a star.

You can see from the pics we are looking at something that is solid, not a reflection, and it is spherical, and you can see the hexagonal shapes on it/within it. So I'm not sure how a reflection would produce hexagonal shapes.

Also, I'm not sure how a reflection would under go these color changes that I have captured, and in one of these you can see a concavity formed on the top of the sphere, again something you wouldn't expect to find in a reflection.

Concavity on top and color change



Clearly spherical with shape sticking out



Changing colors



Changing colors quickly with some pixilation



Changing colors



Hexagon sticking out



So let me respectfully suggest we put the reflection theory to rest.

Reflections are not spherical, do not have concavities at their tops, do not have hexagons protruding from them, and do not rapidly change colors. But I am open to other explanations that do not involve the ones already shot down, including drones, stars, streetlights, and now reflections......

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

The changing of the colour is produced by the inner workings of the orb. The inside sort of spins like a washing machine, rotating at immence speeds, this swirling gives the impression of athe change in colours. That applies to your type of orb, the reds and silvers generally do not have the swirling and their light is constant.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

You have obviously done some research on this, do you have a website or facebook page?

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

All I can offer you is my opinion , in my opinion it looks like a scintillating star , the movement due to the camera not the object.
Many people including myself have been fooled into thinking a bright flashing celestial object is something within our atmosphere but the evidence provided for this case looks like evidence of scintillation to me.

a reply to: gortex

Thanks for your opinion gortex, I appreciate you chiming in!

A couple things, my friend, who I talk to a few times a week, swears it was not a star, she says it was about 200ft away, she thinks, and it was moving. She is not really the type to play jokes like this, I told her I was posting it here (she doesn't really know anything about ATS), and she is the type of person who would have told me if it was a joke by now to save me the time and trouble of doing this.

Secondly, most stars do have that twinkling effect, you can see in the video and the pics there is no twinkling, flashing or scintillating! It is just a sphere that moves around quite a bit with weird shapes coming from it and quick color changes......but thanks anyway for the effort.

As a field investigator, amateur astronomer and experiencer of many night and daylight sightings, I would not hazard a guess until I had more data. Any investigator would first get time date location and direction observed. Easily modeled in simple astronomy software for an idea of stars in the sky at the time of event. If a star like Sirius was in the sky, and conditions were favorable it would be one probability factor.

Then , because the camera likely was hand held and no ground reference is seen in the footage, you ask for details of camera and model to ascertain lenses and focal, type of auto focus and what settings were used, easily found by looking at the camera used, and even telling the witness to go out again same time to see if they see it again and get more video if they can. 7 out of 10 times they see themselves it was a star, distant terrestrial light source eclipsed by a tree or building so seemingly coming on and going off or setting.

Weather conditions can be referenced several days or weeks later with satellite cloud data depending on where they were also. We can even look at aircraft data for certain locations that give live and up to a few weeks of 24hrs of aircraft data for ID, altitude, heading and more like origin and destination. Example site FlightAware And all this is basic before even more benchmarks are made and more detailed witness questioning for their general health, perscriptions, eyewear and then others present also as well Similarly.

So that is why a video is only a small part of the data, and by itself is not good evidence of anything except when all the other data is gathered. I even did Google Earth kmz Sims myself if only to put all the details into a visual context. Then and only then would I even hazard a guess. The most you can then say is if it was known or unknown. In this case we only have a small piece of the data with which to start an investigation, and lacking that we can't even guess.

Have her contact local MUFON to get a field investigator. It will answer her questions too.

ZG

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
You can see from the pics we are looking at something that is solid, not a reflection, and it is spherical, and you can see the hexagonal shapes on it/within it. So I'm not sure how a reflection would produce hexagonal shapes.

The polygon shape, that I CAN identify. It's the shape of the camera aperture, has nothing at all to do with the shape of the object being photographed. You can see the same thing here:

Bokeh

An example of the bokeh produced by the Canon 85 mm prime f/1.8 lens. The polygonal shapes are due to the 8-bladed aperture diaphragm being slightly closed. At its full aperture (f/1.8) these shapes would be smooth and not polygonal.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That has to do with the aperture opening and focal. Does anyone remember the diamond or 4 -leaf verizon that when zoomed in looked like a diamond when the camera could not get critical focus at a distant point source? See this about different apertures. see link

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I don't understand why you would even try to debunk something you know to be true. Did you mean explain it? Debunking what someone films suggests they have a motive to lie, is this the case?

a reply to: gortex
Here are some of the tricks that a camera can play with Venus. Same camera, same night, same planet.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE


First of all

Definition of "Orb" - "a spherical object or shape."

So what exactly are we supposed to be debunking.

"it was about 200 feet away, and would move very quickly, and the colors kept changing" - I'm not sure how anyone could confuse that with a star.

Then it was probably something like this and I bet you are dying to know what it is?



But let's see if you can debunk it first!

a reply to: Phage

Thanks Phage for your input. As I mentioned, my friend has no reason to lie to me, this "orb" was moving around quite a bit, I don't think stars do that.

So are so absolutely ruling out the existence of mysterious orbs, like the one the Denver reporter mention in the bottom video of the OP, the orb that was static for minutes then shot off, ruling out birds, balloons, drones?

a reply to: ZeroGhost

There is actually a ground reference in the video seen at about 1:38.

You can see it in the sky moving quickly, while the camera is relatively stationary.

I grabbed a screen shot where the camera is moving a bit, and circled where the orb is, she zooms in on it after this point.

a reply to: mirageman

Could be an out of focus tennis ball?