Debate Stirs over UFO Photograph

Originally posted by NGC2736
Let's start easy here, with wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

Note the first two pictures on the right hand side of the page. In both, the flare washes out the image, toning down the view.

In the first picture the small blue flare at the bottom right is similar to our UFO, the UV filter probably explains the color change. The picture is not washed down at all... I don't understand... maybe you mean the halo around the Sun. The rest of the picture is crystal clear. As the main yellow light in the Chinese images is not as strong as the Sun, there is no halo around it.
These NASA images (AS14-66-9604, AS14-66-9605, AS14-66-9606) are perfect examples of lens flares.




See how they are homothetic relative to the center: the ratio of distances (flare-center) to (source-center) stays constant in all images. This property is typical of lens flares, it is not shared by any other artifact of reflection (like the nice reflection of the dashboard in the windshield posted by Sherpa ). That's why there is absolutely no doubt, objectively.

In no picture here is the flare itself less visable than the object of the photo.

As you can see in the Apollo 14 images the circled lens flares are transparent, dim, far less visible than the light source, the Sun. I do hope we agree about this!


edit: picture links

[edit on 2008-6-27 by nablator]

reply to post by nablator


Yes, we agree. I was not focusing on the smaller photograhpic anomolies, but rather on the most obvious one. I agree that these very small "secondary" flares are inded washed out.

You have my attention sir. Yet I must ask, these smaller flares still appear "forefront" to the objects behind them; why? They appear superimposed "over" the object directly behind them. This is never appearant in the China Photo, to my eye.



[edit on 27-6-2008 by NGC2736]

nobody commented my pic with the green ball belov the ufo on page 2.

anyway its all been solved by a previous post

the green lasers can not create the lensflare. laserlight dont spread and is not pointed at the camera.

the yellowhite light can. but the ufo is the same color as the laser.

the yellowlight do not create a lensflare as the same color of the laser, this is against all odds when the laser has no effect on the lens.


only green would be reflected from a green laser.
obvious that the ufo reflects the laser color being in black night.


the ufo is either real,
otherwise is part of the laser show.





[edit on 27-6-2008 by skywatch]

reply to post by skywatch


Actually, until the question has been at least defined, if not settled, about this all being lens flare, then your point remains moot. Not that it isn't important if we determine that lens flare cannot cover all the photographic anomilies of this picture. But there are always first steps.

Yes, it is intriguing the amount of detail that can be garnered from this photo, provided a solid basis for it being lens flare is first eliminated. ]b]If lens flare turns out to be the most likely option here, then naturally any details of the photo will not stand,as they would therefore be camera artifacts.

I look forward to more people with greater knowledge than my own, of the lens flare phenomenon, weighing in here. This is the first hurdle we have to cross.

reply to post by nablator


As a further question, why is this China Photo not consistent with other photos, such as the lander photo you have used, in having a primary lens flare and then the secondaries? Is this somehow due to the "front on" position of the camera?



[edit on 27-6-2008 by NGC2736]

Haven't we been recently seeing new 3D holographic presentation technologies popping up all over the place recently?

This may be another example of the showmanship China plans to display during the Olympics. Or has that been refuted already?

reply to post by NGC2736

They appear superimposed "over" the object directly behind them. This is never appearant in the China Photo, to my eye.

Why?
Both the flare and laser add light. Laser beams do not block any light, of course, they are not solid. If you mean the beams is not greener over the UFO, I do not agree. Just look at the green component value with PhotoShop or PaintShopPro. It is impossible to decide whether the UFO is a solid object or not just by looking at it anyway, as there is no light in the black sky in the background that could be blocked. So this is a moot point.

reply to post by NGC2736

I wouldn't call this a primary lens flare. I would call this a halo. It's a different phenomenon; caused by small imperfections on the lens, like a dirty lens or anti-reflective coating, typically made of an organic polymer that scatters light. This layer creates a halo of refracted light. You still get a crystal clear picture except where the 0.000001% (maybe) of scattered light amounts to something visible, as is the case with a very strong light. That's why we don't see halos and flares elsewhere in the picture.

[edit on 2008-6-27 by nablator]

reply to post by NGC2736

Why is there no halo you ask.
1) First there is one. I doubt very much the yellow light source is as big as it appears to be.
2) Sunlight is much brighter than the yellow light in the Chinese photo.
3) The Hasselblad on the Apollo pictures has a different filter and anti-reflective layer. Its lens flares are blue, not green.

In the wikipedia article you linked, I just saw this:

Anti-reflective coating, used to reduce lens flare and produces the red and green colors common in lens flare.

Even better: anti-reflective coating

The exact nature of the coating determines the appearance of the coated optic; common AR coatings on eyeglasses and photographic lenses often look somewhat bluish (since they reflect slightly more blue light than other visible wavelengths), though green and pink-tinged coatings are also used.

This is an example of obvious lens flare that could be mistaken for a UFO if you don't notice the shape of the cloud is mirrored on the green flare:

Source

At the risk of sounding as if I'm harping on one small aspect, and please believe me when I say you present the case very well, at least to my limited understanding of the subject, I am left with a few nagging questions.

Why are there no other outside/beforehand instances of photos displaying these properties?

In the China photo we have a multiple britght light source, yet only a single defined lens flare? Where are the other expected lens flares so evident in other simular photos of mundane known scenes?

In the China photo we have a continuous shape with a desolving effect, dispite the shifting of the green laser lights which you attribute for the initial colorization. (If there was a color shift due to repositioning of the laser lights, is it not reasonable that there should have been an alteration in the shape of the flare; as seen in other photos? if not an outright repositiong of the whole?)

And finally, why would this manifest as a green flare when the light source is not, if the flare is produced by a light source not associated with the laser lights? There seems little reason to suppose that a flare, on the camera lens, would adopt acolor from another part of the photo. as this is not born out in simular photos where lens flare color has no seeming relation to surroundings.

If they repeat the light show (and I can't see why they wouldn't eventually), wouldn't we be able to reproduce the effect?

Can that kind of test be done?

reply to post by Maxmars

With the same type of camera, a test could be done with any bright yellow light.

Originally posted by NGC2736
At the risk of sounding as if I'm harping on one small aspect, and please believe me when I say you present the case very well, at least to my limited understanding of the subject, I am left with a few nagging questions.

You're welcome.

Why are there no other outside/beforehand instances of photos displaying these properties?

In the China photo we have a multiple britght light source, yet only a single defined lens flare? Where are the other expected lens flares so evident in other simular photos of mundane known scenes?

Well there are many instances. Every light creates flares, but they are too dim to see, or out of the frame. Only very bright lights create visible lens flares. The yellow light does not appear much brighter than other lights because of saturation. Depending on the camera one or more lens flares may be created by the same light source. See the Hawaii picture; only one lens flare and green too.

In the China photo we have a continuous shape with a desolving effect, dispite the shifting of the green laser lights which you attribute for the initial colorization. (If there was a color shift due to repositioning of the laser lights, is it not reasonable that there should have been an alteration in the shape of the flare; as seen in other photos? if not an outright repositiong of the whole?)

No, the laser beams are not creating any lens flares. They are not bright enough. How do I know? The geometry points to the yellow light exclusively.

And finally, why would this manifest as a green flare when the light source is not, if the flare is produced by a light source not associated with the laser lights? There seems little reason to suppose that a flare, on the camera lens, would adopt acolor from another part of the photo. as this is not born out in simular photos where lens flare color has no seeming relation to surroundings.

Again it is a coincidence. With red lasers the lens flare would still be green.

Thank you for your patience in this matter. It's good to exchange ideas and understanding/knowledge in an environment of mutual respect. This is especially valuable when so many times such things degenerate into chidish namecalling squabbles by one or more participants.

You do ATS justice.

I'll work with the data and facts as you understand them as we go forward in this case. I must be honest and say that you accept many coincidences of time and place in this event to present your interpretation of the data, just as others accept different "data" and coincidences for conclusions. I suppose in the end it all comes down to how we each interpret the available information.

I must say, as it now stands, you have assembled a healthy prospectus for your interpretation being the true one. As always, I'll wait as long as possible before giving myself the luxury of a personal opinion.

For now I must look forward to more information on this affair, or settle for the meager fare we have at hand.

been in photography a while now and I don't see this as a lens flare.

With the amount of pictures taken of the same scene supposedly, only 4 having the anomaly in the entire set doesn't jive.

The "centering" of the flare and secondary lights doesn't jive either in the pictures trying to demonstrate the center point.. If you turn the camera left or right, the axis should still stay aligned throughout each image. instead you have to change the axis..

Flares also echo the source and I don't see an echo of shape.

Need more data though but for now the flare issue still isn't flying for me. I'd like to hear someone else in photography put forth an opinion as well.

b

This "lense flare" is very detailed, with what appears to be windows. Funny how the flare turns out such detail and shape accidentally. Of course, yet again, we're not supposed to trust "our lying eyes" or minds in any way shape or form.

Now just out of interest, google lens flares and look at the images! Theres none like this one.

Took 5 years of photography classes and i have made photoshop skills.
That being said, and in my opinion, I am confident this is NOT a lense flare.

The object in question is clearly behind the green laser lines, a lense flare would manifest in the foreground without question.

I believe its most likely part of the light show, a holographic display. After that, i hope its a bunch of friends in a real extraterrestrial spacecraft!

Check this photoshop action, gives a better look at the SHAPE of the object in question.

The object from the original photograph on the right and a photoshopped zoomed, levels adjusted and a few other techniques to bring out the shape on the left.
This showed me some shape and clarity to the bulb of light at the bottom of the object.

This is zoomed out from the above adjustment, what this shows me is that the object is BRIGHTER(darker in the image) than the Brightest point of the lasers while still being further from the source.

Other perspectives:
img388.imageshack.us...
This shows some RED reflected on the object as well, the only other place you see this red in the picture is from the city lights shining below.

If it were some chinese floating holographic projecting uav tech of some sort then it would project light beyond the top of the object, it would assumedly extend further out beyond the laser beams that are shown to extend past its topmost point.

Im getting confused examining this thing now i need a break but enjoy the pics, tell me what you think. I'll be back to discuss these 2 images as well what and they indicate.

img219.imageshack.us...

[No editing of the object took place just filtering and leveling]

Think it may be a holographic projection?

Originally posted by s0ndernet
The object in question is clearly behind the green laser lines, a lense flare would manifest in the foreground without question.

A lens flare is not solid. It only exists as a 2D object on the sensor. There is no foreground nor background on a 2D plane.

Anyway discussing the merits of any theory (hologram, UFO, ...) that fails to explain why the object follows exactly the movements of the camera is useless. It stays on the line between the center and the big yellow light, gets dimmer away from the center. There is no way this is not a photographic artifact.

The unusual colored diffraction rings and cap may be due to a water droplet on the lens or to the peculiar geometry of aperture and optics in this camera.