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.

 

Bizarre Objects Caught by Illinois and Missouri Game Trail Cameras

page: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by LateApexer313
 


I did read it. But how do we know it's true, or accurate?

Even if it is accurate, why couldn't this be a very mundane, explainable optical phenomenon, or digital/video artifact?

My point is this; why does everyone automatically assume it is supernatural rather than exploring the more "terrestrial" possibilities?

(I believe in UFO's, and aliens.) However, everything seen that can't be easily explained is automatically supernatural or extraterrestrial?

That's not good.

Lets assume the camera data that has been presented here are 100% accuarte. Ok, that's great.

1. What were the environmental and physical conditions of the area? (Does anyone have that data?)

Wouldn't the environmental and physical data be extremely important here?
These things would effect optical data recorded.




posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Is it my imagination or is there another one of these in the lower right hand corner?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
That reflection thingy has me flummoxed. I've spent a lot of time in the woods, at night, dusk, daylight.....lights simply don't reflect from the leaf strewn floor of a woodlands like that. I may have missed someone else mentioning this, but....that is not a reflection on the ground. And why does the reflection seem to not have any regularity in its position relative to the anomaly? It's to the left, the right, in front...

I wonder what the flash mechanism on the camera looks like?

Edit to add: What is that bright object on the left of the night shots, that isn't in the daytime shot?

Also, kinda' answered my own question....the flash mechanism of some Cuddeback cameras is a multifaceted lens in a bar arrangement.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by MrPenny]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 



I wonder what the flash mechanism on the camera looks like?


I found this picture on the web only two of the three cameras available have a flash but both are identical.
Hmm I think I know where you are comeing from the shape of the flash yes ?




[edit on 11-4-2008 by sherpa]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Electro38
 


Exactly the point, it very well could be a very mundane object, easily explainable. That's why everyone in this thread who has the ability to study the photos is working to rule out or in the possibilities of what it is...or isn't. No one said it was anything but what the title says "Bizarre object".

It's just a set of deer/wildlife cameras set up to watch animals. An object shows up in the photos. Now people are trying to figure out what the object is.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I am getting a lens artifact headache comeing on, I havn't thought this through yet because I am fairly new to photographic analysis.

Someone throw me a bone here



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
If i knew where the camera was exactly, i would go out investigate the surrounding area.

The rectangle flash on the camera has kinda sealed it for me as a light reflection...
but i live in this area and have seen a few weird things. We also have the famous spook light. Im going out this summer to see if i can see it again.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


Me too Sherpa, the "object" is a dead on match to the flash


Oh well good work all
Another mystery solved
Nothing wrong with solving a good mystery Sherpa and good job all who worked on this!



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by LateApexer313
 


Well I cant piece it together exactly yet and what we would need to prove it.

How the camera was mounted comes to mind as to how it was triggered.

rivos, is it possible the camera could have been set of by vibration ?

I am assuming the camera was mounted on a tree and if it was a slender one maybe somthing climbing it or bumping into it.

This would also give motion blur.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by sherpa]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


One model has a larger flash aperture...



Horrible, little tiny picture, I know.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


Yep, you are correct it does look like a wider aperture.

Although I can't quite work out how the anomalie is produced, would it not need something reflective to bounce the flash shape back to the lens ?

Puzzling



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
reply to post by LateApexer313
 


Well I cant piece it together exactly yet and what we would need to prove it.

How the camera was mounted comes to mind as to how it was triggered.

rivos, is it possible the camera could have been set of by vibration ?

I am assuming the camera was mounted on a tree and if it was a slender one maybe somthing climbing it or bumping into it.

This would also give motion blur.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by sherpa]


It is possible but usually only in the summer time and in windy conditions. I'll explain:

There are 2 scenarios: One is the sun heats up the foliage you see in the background, wind blows the foliage, camera detects heated motion causing a "false" trigger usually resulting in an empty picture or the cam is mounted to a slender tree and is blown in the wind detecting the same foliage heat mentioned above. Neither scenario in this case is likely as the temperatures could not have been nearly warm enough for this to occur in mid-Nov in MO. Not only that, if it were something moving the tree, the entire image would have been blurred.

A vibration wouldn't cause a trigger unless there is some kind of heat source in front of it (and it would have to be a pretty major vibration).

The key to making PIR camera's work is heated motion (if there is a cold object moving, it will not trigger; if there is an inanimate heat signature, it will not trigger). There are some out there - I believe some Moultrie brand cams - that have a sensor beam that may not rely on heat. It's simply triggered by anything that breaks the sensor beam, but most newer models these days use the PIR sensor.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rivos
 


Hm.so there must of been a heat source and movement.

Ok, we have a pretty good match for the anomalies shape, ie the flash aperture, but no answer for the camera being triggered.

And for all the bug exponents here is an interesting picture taken by a Cuddeback with a spiders web complete with spider nicely covering the camera and yet still functioning normally.




www.scalesadvertising.com...



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
Although I can't quite work out how the anomalie is produced, would it not need something reflective to bounce the flash shape back to the lens ?


Yeah, and that leads us back to the spider web thing. Or, actually, two of them. The larger one gets the brighter reflection, and the smaller, lower, perhaps more flexible one closer to the camera, gets a smaller reflections. They aren't really connected, except that they're reflecting the same shape of the flash. That's why the angles between the two reflections are all screwy. They're not really related.


[edit on 11-4-2008 by Nohup]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Rackham
 


OMG,GO ON HOME DUDE...........Are you serious/Once again I find some IGNORANT post-that stops me in mid thread w/o even reading further cause it angers me so much with someone trying to "debunk:"some irrevutable evidence of the paranormal just cause they prolly cant stand to acknowledge that this stuff exsists.its to scary for you(them)Im not saying I know what it is-BUT ITS NOT BUGS--------ROFLMA/LOL,are you some disinfo agent,seriouslly your answer is worse than "swamp gas"over a desert.What worse is you come with a one or two line post"Its a bug reflecting off of Venus(dramatazation)..blah,blah,blah"
I mean SOME skepticsisim is good,but you-come on man.

EDIT to say:It looks like a light saber,lol.


Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 11-4-2008 by elevatedone]

[edit on 4/11/2008 by jkrog08]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I found this on the product support page.

My camera will still flash when it is in DISARM mode or powered OFF.

Are you using new batteries?

Install new Duracell or Rayovac bat

I am not sure if this is relevant but I am just thinking if this thing gets screwy when the batteries start to fail then maybe it triggers spontaneously.


Also because we know that it is a C1000 it has the smaller flash aperture.

app.cuddebackdigital.com...


[edit on 11-4-2008 by sherpa]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Sorry Nohup I am not sure if I understand you right.

Are you saying there are spiders webs on the ground perhaps causing the reflection ?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
Sorry Nohup I am not sure if I understand you right. Are you saying there are spiders webs on the ground perhaps causing the reflection ?


Not big circular spider webs, but single strands that stretch across where the image is being taken. The reflection of the flash would show up as the "disc" shape, roughly the same as the shape of the flash (two brighter areas in the middle). The higher stand, more in line with the flash and maybe closer, would show a brighter reflection. A lower strand out of line with the flash, would show up as a similar shape, but less bright. If a wind blew the strands around a little, they would show up as similar, but out of place, and as shown in the animation, there would not be a consistent angle between the two reflections.

Two flash reflections on two single, separate strands of web. The only question is what triggered the flash. Sounds like it could be a lot of things, and wouldn't necessarily have to be the webs, themselves.

P.S. -- The little reflection in the lower left hand corner might also be a single web strand, stretching away from the camera at an angle.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Nohup]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I agree that it could be the flash, but unless I'm missing something, why does the position of the flash change? The angle of the object stays relatively the same except for one frame, but why would the flash reflection move while the camera stayed still?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol
I agree that it could be the flash, but unless I'm missing something, why does the position of the flash change? The angle of the object stays relatively the same except for one frame, but why would the flash reflection move while the camera stayed still?


The single web strands could be being blown around in the wind. Movement of the leaf on the left shows there was some wind. So the web is moving, and the reflection on it, but not the flash. That's why the big, high reflection, and the lower, dimmer reflection both show up in different, unrelated, positions with each flash. Maybe.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join