Stu my dear friend, you could also reverse it and ask why every photo should be real, in the sense that it IS a flying saucer.

The problem is that when it comes to something as important as the idea of ufos' existence I think it would damage the cause if we automaticly agree with the author of every photo, when he says "it's a genuine ufo".
However I do believe we should attack the subject with a wish to analyse it objectively.

Im affraid I might have jumped the gun on saying that I have taken a stand on this particular photo. But when something could so easily be photoshopped or some kind of natural occurance duplicated, and already is of so poor quality then I need some heavy heavy counterweight which speaks for it actually being a ufo.

In a way when I think of the whole subject I view it as the object is the accused, accused of being a ufo, but it is innocent until proven guilty

It would be nice if we could get some more people in here with expertise on things that normally isn't about ufos. I mean, in this case it would be interesting to hear from someone who has maybe done shots of fireflys in the night (just an example)... but you get the idea.

[edit on 8/8/07 by flice]

I should clarify...

I'm not saying it IS a saucer, triangle or even a dodecahedron

Just asking that we get past the Photoshop fad and accept it is a genuine, undoctored image. It seems real enough, no apparent trickery. To me, it seems like an image of some objects.

Now, they could have been flies, or perhaps they were UFO's. But we are always getting bogged down in this photoshop fad on ATS and never actually try to expalin the image for what it is. Even when there is naff all evidence of anyone "shopping" an image, people will still claim it is.

IF the lights turn out to be something benign, fine. But I see this all the time on ATS where images, no matter what they may be, are instantly declared "shopped".

I even debunked an image of an "alien" in a zoo myself. Turned out it was a plant in the foreground. But even after I, and others, pointed this out, other posters would come and instantly declare it is "shopped", even though the more logical and simple explanation was a plant.

To have photoshopped, or whatever, the image would have been much more difficult than having just captured a plant waving about in the foreground.

Originally posted by stumason
Why not read the accompanying link with the image?
Seems some people cannot even manage that...

I did - and the relevant info is were in that thread exactly???

Don't you think the OP of this thread should include all the relevant info here, instead of making people have to run around looking for it ?

Your question was whether the person taking the image saw the lights before, or noticed them after he processed the image.

The answer is on the accompanying link. If you read it, you would know.

Also, whilst it is the OP's responsibility to provide some info, he cannot just copy and paste from other websites willy nilly. Nearly all threads on ATS will have accompanying links with maybe a snippet from the site.

Is it too much to perform a single mouse click? I mean, I don't want you to wear yourself out....

I see people saying that the stars should be blurred by the long exposure due to the earth rotation. This would not be the case if somebody is using a barn door tracking device or one of the new computerized tracking devices on modern telescopes.

Ah true Stu... I agree on that, and a bit embarresed that I didn't offer that posibility myself.

What I meant was that when something is in the dangerzone of being a shopped item, then that should be taken into account aswell as the other posibilties

Funny thing is that I notice a lot of people deliberately saying no to a photo being shopped simply because they are so tired of hearing people say it is shopped We are turning into regular armies in here On side trying to make the other side agree with them.

I'd love to see some really really clear photos where all exif data is included on the raw file and nothing else :'(

Let this be an invitation... people, don't run your images through photoshop or similar, not even to "clarify" anything (if you can't deduct anything from the raw file then you can't deduct anything. Raw files contains a lot more detail than a tif or jpg).
Just develop your images or even better just use the raw and upload them to a server where you are allowed to keep 20mb files etc. Then it is harder to scream shop / fake / etc.

[edit on 8/8/07 by flice]

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Originally posted by Tibris
It doesn't change the fact that there should still be an object in the picture if it was only exposed that long, plus the lights don't move all the way off the screen so it should still be in the photo when the shutter closed.

Why does there *have* to be an object there? What makes you think that there was?

Everything about that photo points to there not being anything but stars in the frame. If there had been an object for any length of time, that was blocking out the stars, then the star density where stars were hidden by the object would be different to where the stars were not hidden by the object (if there was an object present for any length of time). The stars around any object would also be more trailed, than those only briefly exposed and then hidden. The photo does not show any of these traits - star density and length are consistent throughout the whole frame.

Is this supposed to be a case where someone actually saw an object in the field of view of the camera, and then presented this photo, or is it just a case of someone taking photos of stars, and not seeing anything "unusual" until they looked at the photos on their PC ?

To me it sounds more like that latter, and whoever took the photo is just jumping to the conclusion that they photographed a UFO that they couldn't even see in the first place. Heck, even if they did see something, it certainly doesn't look like they captured anything... except a few stars!

Oh i think we may have misunderstood each other, from this statement i gather you don't think there's an object there? I too am against the idea that there's anything there but stars and a possible photo shop, I assumed from your post that you thought there was something to this and thus i was trying to point out that if it was real there would be still in the photo since the lights never moved off screen. Forgive me

Originally posted by stumason
I think it is a rather good picture of several, distinct objects moving around the sky. What they are, I couldn't say.

But, as always, there are the armchair image "experts" saying it's "shopped". Even those these "experts" have made some glaring mistakes in their analysis.

Honestly, you could post a genuine, actual crystal clear picture of an Alien battle cruiser, complete with a flight of escorting craft and people would still sit there and say "Hoax..it's shopped"... Why does everything have to be "shopped"?

Why not take the image for what it is, an image. Instead of trying to claim it is a shopped picture, move past that and try to explain what could cause those distinct and independent trails.

Listen, I want just as much as anyone to find conclusive proof, I would LOVE that, I'm just saying this is really inconclusive and it's easily shopped.

And if we believe everything we see on here is real (even the Chad Drones) then we're only hurting our cause, it's best (imho) to be objective and then let evidence convince you otherwise. In this photos case, the only thing i see is a shopped photo of stars, or at least something that can be explained as something other than "ZOMG GIANT UFO."

So please don't assume I'm trying to debunk everything, I am however trying to be objective.

Good day
Tibris

Originally posted by Tibris
Oh i think we may have misunderstood each other, from this statement i gather you don't think there's an object there? I too am against the idea that there's anything there but stars and a possible photo shop, I assumed from your post that you thought there was something to this and thus i was trying to point out that if it was real there would be still in the photo since the lights never moved off screen. Forgive me

No worries Tibris, you are forgiven

I'm 100% sure there is no object there!

Good to know at least someone can see a bit of sense here

Originally posted by groingrinder
I see people saying that the stars should be blurred by the long exposure due to the earth rotation. This would not be the case if somebody is using a barn door tracking device or one of the new computerized tracking devices on modern telescopes.

Somehow I doubt he was using a barn door or equatorial mount - there would be a heck of allot more star detail there if he was! If he was, then he was still managing to under-expose by a massive amount, when the whole point is that you should be able to accumulate much more detail. An exposure that looks like this is perfectly possible with a tripod mounted camera - there is no need to assume that he was using a mount of some kind.

And before anyone asks, yes I do own a mount which tracks the stars, so I do know what to look for...

For what it's worth, I've been taking photos of the stars since before 2000, and my equatorial mount has been with me since 2002 or 2003 - I'd have to check to be sure.

Lost_Mind, your hypothesis is certainly plausible. However, the geometry of the lights would tend to make me think some other anomaly is at play besides peripheral light sources.

I do think that this shot was shot with analog gear, and with a longer exposure than normal. That seems to be given. It is strange that the stars do not show any obvious streaking that would result from a longer exposure. But imagine a shorter exposure of say, 10 seconds. Then imagine the amateur photographer picked up the camera toward the end of the exposure and the lights from his truck or camp or house (or whatever) quickly and faintly streaked across the image before the shutter closed.

Of course, this theory assumes that the geometry of the lights are a result of coincidence...

Just a thought - I could very well be wrong. I'm grasping at straws as it is - we just don't have much data on the image. The peripheral light source is a possibility as well, but I would imagine a more direct, quick, and faint object jumping into the picture at the end of the exposure.

The geometry is still bugging me though... makes me think it has to be some sort of lens/refraction anomaly that got into the end of the exposure.

Ok, I'm done rambling.

$.02

[edit on 8/8/2007 by damajikninja]

Originally posted by flice
Good... then I wonder why the "true" stars in the photo don't have trails? Even with a semi long exposure you'd get a slight elongation of the stars. I'm not asking for something like on the last star photo, but maybe 10% of that or so...

[edit on 8/8/07 by flice]

Because: Cameras can be on rotation systems matching Earth's rotation speed. Thus, Stars can be exposed without said blurring. How do you think profesional photographers get those clear pictures of the night sky without movements

Originally posted by Foxe
How do you think profesional photographers get those clear pictures of the night sky without movements

Ahhh! It would appear that I am weak in my sky photography knowledge. Good thing you guys are around to fill me in on everything.

Makes sense. It would be great if we could find the guy that took the shot and ask some questions.

The same effect duplicated in two places. Notice the top and bottom seem to be the same artifact, just two different positions.