Strange Object in Bat Photo

reply to post by VaporTrail


Thx for the pointers and the blah blah blah, bud, but as I stated, I'm not the photographer and I did say I thought it was a moth but the object that looks like a shadow stood out as odd. Sorry for wasting your precious time. The reason I posted was to get some feed back from someone who knows photography.
And it seems most found it a little interesting.
Guess I should have had it analyzed by experts before I posted it -damn, I'll keep that in mind next time. But then again I thought that was the whole purpose of this site, to discuss the unexplained, which we were doing here. Maybe you should only click on the threads that are titled "Fully proven and real" next time.

reply to post by librasleep


So the "orbs" are dust and the moth could cast the shadow, if there was enough distance between the flash source and the lens, and the moth was close enough to the camera.

I penciled it out to visualize it and it makes sense to me.

So, whatever, it's still a wicked photo, and you deserve all the stars and flags it generated.

And, yeah, that's why we're here, to examine stuff like this and, as a community, find the truth.

But, some of us would still like to get more info concerning the photographer's set-up, and their general impressions of the moment this image was captured.

That'd be really sool, er, cool, if you could manage it...

Thanks again, librasleep!

reply to post by librasleep


didn't say analyze before post, I said analyze before creating theories that could be cut off before they multiply into more and more theories... not meant for you at all.

I had read that you didn't take the pictures, my brain omitted it in my impatience. I apologize for pushing your buttons.

••• I'll take my own advice and unsubscribe. No more wasted time for you or I.

[edit on 10/30/2007 by VaporTrail]

Yep, I say an over exposed bug close to the flash and just a dark spot on the ground. When I look at the ground I see a rock just infront of the dark spot lit up by the flash and one would wonder why the spot is not lit up too since the flash is farther away and should light up that area too. If that was a large distant object then the flash would need to be rather high up to cast a shadow like that, maybe 20 feet or more up. Since the object looks to be just a foot or so down from the flash then the shadow would be in the woods unnoticeable.

[edit on 30-10-2007 by Xtrozero]

Probably a damp area with camera problems. FOr there to be a shadow there either has to be lighting shone on it or the bottom does not luminate. Notice that it's during night time, so that can not be a shadow. The light is definitely created from the camera's flash, the unknown discrepancy is a malfunction.

If its a fireball then there cant be a shadow because it's too bright.

I don't feel like reading 5 pages, so I'm just going to say my bit. The damp patch could be damp or it could be shadow. Personally I opt for shadow, because from the line up of shadows against the trees it's obvious )to me) that this camera person did not use the inbuilt flash, he has some sort of flash on a tripod or he has an halogen bulb light on a stand which he either leaves on all the time or turns on when he wants the area illuminated.

You can see the shadows of branches on the trees do not line up with the camera, they are all illuminated from above the camera position.

Had the motion blur on the white object been in the other direction I'd have said it is the object that he threw into the air falling to the ground...why did he throw an object into the air? to attract the bats. But it's going in the wrong direction for that.

So I think it is a moth fairly near the camera, hence why it is out of focus and greatly illuminated. and the shadow it casts is inline with a light source above the camera position. All of this could be recreated with enough time and equipment.

Why is the moth shadow not dark? because it is a small object close to a powerful lightsource, the shadow is blurry and semi illuminated. It's a well known characteristic of light to do this.

[edit on 4/11/2007 by Wig]

Originally posted by ready4whatever
I'm not sure if anybody else noticed but look at how many transparent orbs you can see in the picture and their all over the place!

As soon as I saw the picture, I knew someone would have to mention those dust particles. and i was right.

reply to post by Wig


Congratulations, do you want a cookie? If we all agreed to what the picture is, why bother bringing up unnecessary remarks.

Originally posted by Wig
this camera person did not use the inbuilt flash, he has some sort of flash on a tripod or he has an halogen bulb light on a stand which he either leaves on all the time or turns on when he wants the area illuminated.

All of this could be recreated with enough time and equipment.

[edit on 4/11/2007 by Wig]

I believe it was just a girl with a digital camera in the woods.

Originally posted by ready4whatever
Congratulations, do you want a cookie? If we all agreed to what the picture is, why bother bringing up unnecessary remarks.

It's not unnecessary, I felt it needed to be said that those were dust particles not transparent mystical orbs.

Originally posted by librasleep

I believe it was just a girl with a digital camera in the woods.

I believe you are mistaken or have been misinformed. Look at the top left of the photo, the shadows cast by the flash (or light source) of the branches infront of the tree trunk. You see all the shadows appear to the camera to be under the object casting the shadow. That means the light source is seperate from the viewer (camera) and as those branches are high up, higher than the camera, the light source is significantly higher than the camera.

Why do you think it was just a digital camera using inbuilt flash?

It might be possible it is a powerful light mounted on top of the cab of a small truck type car, the photograper is standing on the left side of the road, inkeeping with North American cars being Left hand drive, so the person is standing with the drivers door or window open, and flicks a switch to light the lamp, before taking a photo.

What is needed is another photo from the same location, without the white thing, to see if the road is that colour or not.

Whatever the object is, it is quite close to the camera & light to be as bleached out as it is. and this explains why the shadow is so far back on the road.

I wonder if it is the photograpers 'bait' for the bats could be a small piece of cloth tied to black cotton thread which they dangle up and down to attract the bats. Then when they see a bat coming in they put the lights on and photo. They want the area brightly imlluminated, hence, they use a powerful 1000W halogen lamp mounted in the truck. A normal flash would not be good enough and might not be quick enough either.

[edit on 6/11/2007 by Wig]

maybe its a fire breathing bat flying towards you and it just spit a ball of fire at you. just kidding im pretty sure its moth or another bat

Good points everyone, but I dont think it's possible for me to ever know all the details. This pic was sent through 2 other family members from one of their friends before I saw it so, I've told all could find out, so this could be anything, or exactly what you have all discribed. Sorry I cant come up with more but I'm pretty sure now it's just a moth or something. On to the next.

I'm looking for a few photos of bats taken with a normal camera, here is what I found. You can see that a normal cameras inbuilt flash is not powerful enough

www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk...
from this thread
www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk...

And another thread saying how difficult it is to do, that you need an external flash.
www.photographyboard.net...

It's kinda wierd. I wouldn't say it's a flame. It travels very quickly, maybe it's a fire elemental. It's really rare.

Ive had a few of these pics before, after looking closely, i think you captured a bird maybe an owl just taking off as you approach, because the owl is close it has reflected most of the camara flash distorting its image. You can clearly see how far the flash has reached, but all that aside if you look more closely at the picture as a whole, you caught some impresive orbs.

Originally posted by orby1976
you caught some impresive orbs.

Do you think it is possible to photograph dust particles for example on a dry dirt track on a windy night or possibly thrown up by a vehicle recently travelling along said track?

If yes, how then do you propose to differentiate between those dust particles and so called "orbs"?

Or does your definition of "orb" include out of focus dust particles

[edit on 3/12/2007 by Wig]