Spent a few minutes to try to draw out any detail I could from the pic. Here's two more enlarged views with a little "enhancement" and inverted as well:

Originally posted by alienj

No anomalies, how about one big one, why use photoshop CS2 to take pictures off your camera, you dont period. You use it to touchup or add something. Please show me where its been proven there are no anomalies, and pls make the guy an expert. I am not an expert but have already found 3. The date, photoshop, the blur from the aperture on the stars but none on the craft, and the moon.

I use photoshop everyday as my profession doing high quality photo editing.

Here's what i think.

1. The CS2 input would probably be when the red text was added. Thou some people do dump photos straight to photoshop, that's not unusual in itself - especially if your only interested in a couple photos for a closer look.

2. There are no photoshopping anomalies - that object is in the photo - there is no editing.

I think the 'strobe' explanation is the most correct.

Removing all the doubling up of the lights, which would indicate a strobe - we're left with typical looking plane lights.
There's a red strobe, a white strobe and a blue & white strobe which flashes blue on every 4th beat. The faint line looks like the light which stays on and isn't as bright as the strobes. It's creating the line which gives the 'mothership disc' affect but it's actually just streaking like the stars, although due to the fact the plane is moving it's creating a longer streak than the stars which are only moving with the Earth. Only very bright stars have come up in this photo which would put the planes permanent light luminosity somewhere in the middle between the brightest and smallest stars in the sky.

So, IMO, this IS in the photo, there is NO manipulation, but it's NOT a long UFO.
Most likely it's a plane. The angle isn't so strange when removing the strobe streak.

and just quickly to explain in pictures:




[edit on 2-7-2008 by the00110001]

Well, I suppose I am going to get flamed for it , but, I think it's a plane.

You can tell from the stars in the shot that it was a fairly long exposure. I think what has happened is a plane flew that distance over the exposure time and its blinking lights , being so much brighter then everything else, were captured multiple times along its flight path.

When I saw the pic I was reminded of the similar light sig from the video the the mexican government released of ufos filmed from their jets. Someone else posted how they were also similar to the 2004 mexico ufo pic he posted. Just interesting how they all have the same light pattern thought I would mention it.

I think it looks like one of those rods that are always caught on camera, only with lights on it.

I think it is a plane but I have one problem with it. The exposure time is 4 seconds and the streak is about 30 arcminutes (the moon is about 30 arcminutes) so I did some calculations and found that the plane will have to be very high (over 100,000 ft) or it will have to move slowly.

ok my pictures :

whole picture



cropped



appologies for ISO noise - opertating in the dark and trying to capture details - with no lights allowed

myy picture recorded an aircraft passing through the shot

care to explain why the OP image is something different ?

Thanks, LateApexer313, for your U2U
And kudos to everyone for some great contributions and for keeping the debate clean and intelligent.

In my humble opinion the plane explanation is the one that makes more sense, the lights match 100% FAA configuration.


Ah: ive noticed that here around there's someone who seems to hate the subject matter, and who keeps constantly an offending and insulting behaviour: dude, i really hope that you will give vent to your personal frustration elsewhere: you never add anything to the debate than insults:
i reallty wonder what is supposed to be the purpose of your presence here.



[edit on 2/7/2008 by internos]

Excellent layout Internos... I don't know what else to say, hehe. But that kinda seals the deal for me.

Raddest pic ever.

totally looks real

Originally posted by Macrotus
Gullible woo-woo believers of faith can't distiguish between UFO and strobing conventional aircraft lights on multiple camera exposures. They only need parrot like rantings from their peers to prove every speck of light, dust, hair, etc as UFOs.

Sometimes it makes me wonder how these people see everyday objects through their eyes. Obviously they never heard of occam's razor or simply cannot comprehend reality.

Anything to get a star and a flag and a little bit of attention from their gullible peers...

Oh well that's what ATS is for.... Mundane everyday objects being labeled UFOs and being the star attraction of ATS front page.

Here's your typical gullible UFO poster and member response to every conceivable UFO thread in ATS who crave worthless stars and worthless ATS points:


*Sees an aircraft* : Woo-woo believers of faith: "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*A helicopter* : "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*A bird* : "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*Chinese lanterns* : "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*A bug in front of a lens* : "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*A water speck on a window* : "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*A reflection of light on a window* : "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*A hair in photo negatives*: "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*A hair in photo negatives*: "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*Sun behind a cloud *: "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*A lenticular cloud *: "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*Ice crystals* : "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*Space debris: "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*Venus*: "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

No wonder 99.9 % UFO threads in ATS are utter crapola.


[edit on 1-7-2008 by Macrotus]

Perhaps you're right, the only thing that I'm wondering is... would stars really move that much in 4 seconds ?
I'm looking at the length of the star's in relation to the length of the object in question and trying to think if an airplane would cross that distance in the the time given.

I mean it's definately following the pattern of two blue flashes, one red flash - loop - a common airplane pattern. It's just the time and distance that's got me wondering.