|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 02:04 AM by Teratoma
|
reply to post by alienj
That's pretty strange. There was a total lunar eclipse on February 20th, 2005. I think it's been shown that the picture contains no anomalies
though. Perhaps it's a pic of the 2005 event, but the person thought he'd garner more attention by claiming it was more recent?
Speculation at this point, but again, I think it's just a picture of a big rock floating in between a bigger rock an even bigger fireball with a
metal tube full of people going by. Maybe it doesn't happen every day, but that's about as interesting as I can make it sound. 
Goodnight, ATS.
[edit on 7/2/2008 by Teratoma]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 02:38 AM by Shakesbeer
|
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:
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 02:46 AM by alienj
|
Originally posted by Teratoma
reply to post by alienj
That's pretty strange. There was a total lunar eclipse on February 20th, 2005. I think it's been shown that the picture contains no anomalies
though. Perhaps it's a pic of the 2005 event, but the person thought he'd garner more attention by claiming it was more recent?
Speculation at this point, but again, I think it's just a picture of a big rock floating in between a bigger rock an even bigger fireball with a
metal tube full of people going by. Maybe it doesn't happen every day, but that's about as interesting as I can make it sound.
Goodnight, ATS.
[edit on 7/2/2008 by Teratoma]
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 03:24 AM by the00110001
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 03:35 AM by Tiloke
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 03:36 AM by 1Veritas
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 03:49 AM by Thain Esh Kelch
|
To me it really looks like a series of repeats - ie. something that the shutter could be due to. I believe it to be a plane..
Notice how most of the lights are positioned relative to each other, again and again.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 04:01 AM by Anonymous ATS
|
reply to post by ignorant_ape
I wouldn't discount the possiblity of a plane either...
If you look at a plane moving away from you in a straight line and decending at the same time, you would in fact get a vertical line.
This could be a case of a plane moving away or towards you, and the same time moving slightly to the left and down.
Since there's no reference points we can't say that the size doesn't fit a plane.
What more is that the colors indeed as pointed out corresponds to two wings with different colors and white lights.
One thing I would like to say however, is that it is definately not pixel error.
So this leaves us at another stalemate. It's really unfortunate we haven't gotten an upclose and personal shot of anything yet. Hopefully that day
isn't too far away.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 04:01 AM by DarthChrisious
|
I think it looks like one of those rods that are always caught on camera, only with lights on it.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 04:05 AM by Deaf Alien
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 04:13 AM by ignorant_ape
|
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 ?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 04:17 AM by ignorant_ape
|
reply to post by Deaf Alien
hi - please look at my post immediatly below yours and tell me how fast you think it is flying and how far away it is
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 04:20 AM by flice
|
reply to post by ignorant_ape
Well, the one in your shot is moving across your vanishing point instead of slightly off it as in the OPs image. You only have one wing visible from
your point of view.
The object in the OP post, seems to move away or towards him at the same time of moving slight down and to the left... so where your shot is a profile
shot of plane, the OPs shot could be a frontal (or back) making both wing signature lights visible.
If you were to watch a plane move away from you or towards you and you drew a line from it, it would appear vertical. Depending on angle (left or
right) and descent/ascent it would be more or less a very steep angled line.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 04:22 AM by Deaf Alien
|
reply to post by ignorant_ape
Well assuming that that is a passenger plane it travels 500-600 mph. Without anything to measure the length (i.e. moon) and the exposure time, I
cannot tell how fast it was going.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 04:38 AM by SadisticRabbit
|
That looks like a plane to me. Look at the lights layout and repetition.
Aircraft have strobes on the wing ends, and a rotating beacon on top and bottom. I find it easy to imagine that pattern coming from an aircraft over a
long exposure.
Here, I knocked this up quick.
Keep in mind that it's a long exposure. Also imagine that the planes right wing is slightly obscured by the fuselage. The strobes appear to be
flashing twice in quick succession and the rotating beacon... well rotating 
I'm not great at working on pictures but I do have an interest in aircraft and as soon as I saw this picture, the above is what jumped straight
in.
I HOPE I am wrong, would love it to be a UFO
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 04:40 AM by internos
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 04:46 AM by flice
|
Excellent layout Internos... I don't know what else to say, hehe. But that kinda seals the deal for me.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 04:49 AM by flice
|
reply to post by kosmicjack
The reason for the lights not streaking is because they are blinking. The blink duration is simply not long enough for a streak to occur in this
case.
Regarding the steepness / angle of the line, refer to my post further up 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 05:04 AM by damagemouse
|
Raddest pic ever.
totally looks real
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 05:05 AM by mortalengine
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
