Photo of Object Posted on Mufon I Want Everyone's Opinion , page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 53 times

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 06:01 AM by smans

Hi, its a plane.
You can tell by the repeating nature of the lights.
Also the stars are blurred indicating your extended exposure.
These 2 facts fit together and tell me its a plane.
Evenly space lights that show the object is moving fatser than the stars are moving.

PS great shot though, worthy of a desktop background.
Red moon rising...

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 06:08 AM by rocksolidbrain

Exif says :
Camera : Konica Minolta
Model : Maxxum 5D
Shutter Speed : 4.0 sec

etc etc

4 sec shutter speed and it captured exactly 4 red light blinks. Not a coincidence because the plane light blinks at 1 per sec.

The pic is dated 28-02-2005 (from exif), and I remember it was discussed here on ATS in past. Or could have been a similar pic.

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 06:14 AM by LateApexer313

Thanks everyone for all the great debates and the awesome examining of the photo! And thanks Internos

Sorry I had to go to bed, so I missed it all

But I just read it all, and great work to everyone!!!

I knew ATS could solve the mystery of how this was done...I still have many questions but I guess it IS a plane huh? I should have posted this earlier because this picture has been bugging me for about 6 months lol.

This is why I love ATS by the way! Really, you guys were awesome, thanks to everyone who put so much work into the thread it was an amazing picture wasn't it?

[edit on 2-7-2008 by LateApexer313]

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 06:30 AM by nablator

Originally posted 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.

Yes, I agree. Even with a strong perspective effect, and the plane moving away rather low on the horizon it is hard to find a speed and altitude consistent with a plane, be it a jet, crop-duster or rc plane. Too slow. I double checked with the apparent wingspan - no way. Maybe a helicopter?

As there is no EXIF information the exposure time could be wrong, but there is nothing wrong with the stars, they move just as they should in 4 seconds, no mistake there.

Edit: just saw the actual EXIF data.
Lens: 250 mm
Exposure: Auto exposure, Program AE, 4 sec, f/5.6, ISO 800

[edit on 2008-7-2 by nablator]

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 06:43 AM by nablator

reply to post by internos

Very good analysis, but how do you explain the light on the right doesn't stay blue? I can imagine a green FAA position light may look blue in the photo, but change color???

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 06:45 AM by Deaf Alien

reply to post by nablator

That's what I was thinking. It just seems that it moved too slowly to be a plane. Very likely that it was an helicopter.

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 06:50 AM by nablator

Originally posted by LateApexer313
But I just read it all, and great work to everyone!!! I knew ATS could solve the mystery of how this was done...I still have many questions but I guess it IS a plane huh? I should have posted this earlier because this picture has been bugging me for about 6 months lol.
[edit on 2-7-2008 by LateApexer313]

Let's examine those questions. The mystery isn't solved until someone explains the speed, wingspan, and color change issues. Those pesky aliens are getting better at mimicking airplane lights, but they're not good enough.

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 06:56 AM by Nookster

The bottom line is there isn't enough information in the photograph for reliable identification.

Lunar eclipses tend to result in UFO sightings. There are many people looking into the sky that ordinarily would not. A bored hoaxer knowing that a lunar eclipse is coming up might find the temptation too great to resist.

If I desired to replicate the appearance that particular object, I'd get a couple of pieces of balsa wood to make the structure, a set of those LED Christmas light strings which require very little to power them, a small battery will do if suitably rewired, and a couple of transparent helium balloons at either end to provide lift.

Lacking propulsion, the object wouldn't move fast. You would see no blur in a four second exposure.

Because the object could be so easily hoaxed doesn't mean that's what it is, only that it is a possibility.

One of the things I look for when I look at purported UFO pictures are hints of functionality. When I see a lot of weird things like multicolored lights or a kitchen whisk that have no obvious function I am less inclined to believe the object in question is likely to be of extraterrestrial origin.

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 07:07 AM by mikesingh

Originally posted by Havalon

Sure does look like there is something there, other than star movement!

H

Yep! It sure looks like a cylindrical object to me. Check out the interse distance between the lights. They seem to be equally spaced and therefore probably fixed on a solid object - like portholes.

And therefore, this is what it probably is...

Notice the portholes?

Cheers!

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 07:14 AM by kdial1

OMG, people look at the exposure time....this is a conventional aircraft. If you want me to demonstrate this with an exposure at 4 seconds I will. Keep in mind I am usually not a skeptic! But this is just so obvious.

I can't believe this got some many stars and flags!

-Kdial1

[edit on 2-7-2008 by kdial1]

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 07:20 AM by Deaf Alien

reply to post by kdial1

If you do that, do that with the moon in view so we can compare.

I just realized that you may need a filter for this.

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 07:20 AM by ImaginaryReality1984

reply to post by Rhain

First thing that occured to me was an airplane or helicopter. taken with slow exposure. Sorry guys, i know we all want proof but this isn't any good, then again i can be slightly biased, night time sightings are rarely much proof.

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 07:26 AM by Havalon

reply to post by kdial1

Hi kdial,
Please explain the angle of climb (or decent) if you will. (check back on all the rotations by teratoma and myself)

Mike: you are one scary dude!

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 07:27 AM by internos

reply to post by nablator

I don't think there's a way to explain it conclusively (i would be a liar if id claim the contrary

)
but of course, there are a many possible explanations:
from the atmospheric factor to ISO noise: 4 seconds are an extremely long exposure time, in four seconds many things may happen

for instance, take a look at this photo by ignorant_ape, showing an aircraft, and you can notice that the lights turn their color

you can also try by yourself, setting the camera close to the settings of the photo of the op, and taking some shots of some blinking objects: i guess that in some attempts you could get some variation in the colors:
the only problem, though, is that the variation seems to affect only that specific light, as if the noise or whatever it is, affects just a part of the spectrum, in this case the one closer to green:
but who knows?
It looks an airplane to me

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 07:55 AM by network dude

Internos, you really do earn your paycheck. Nice presentation. I am always amazed at the way you approach these photos.
I saw this picture a while ago and even saved it on the pc. The guy taking the photo may not have known it was a plane so I wouldn't call it a hoax, just a mistake.
IMHO

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 07:57 AM by Liamoville

reply to post by mikesingh

Just how exactly did you come up with the Cylindarical theory? What some people will do to see a UFO out of nothing

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 08:17 AM by ignorant_ape

reply to post by internos

i can try to explain it for you

if 2 strobe lights of different colour are out of synch by half thir frequency - they will APPEAR to flash as a single dual colour light

observe :

2 strobes - one red / one green - both with a frequency of 2 seconds - with the green 1 second behind the red

would if attached to the same airframe traveling @ a constant speed APPEAR TO BE a single strobe with a frequency og one second alternating colour

at a distance and moving target - it would be VERY hard to discern the subtle difference in position

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 08:24 AM by Ceara

Originally posted by roadgravel
Some parts look like strobe lights. Seems to be a definite repeating pattern. May be some type of aircraft passing.

If it was a passing airplane, the lights would be blurry as the stars in the background. And it would be a huge streak across the image. Remember this is a time lapse photo of 4 seconds, as mentioned in the first post.

This image however is pretty darn clear. Well, except for the moon. It's blurry a bit too.

No idea what it is, but it's certainly not an airplane.

I've never seen anything like it.

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 08:32 AM by nablator

reply to post by ignorant_ape

I agree for the photo you posted. But in the Mufon OP picture, the perspective is different, the two rows of lights are distinct, one on the left, one on the right. A typical FAA pattern for an airplane moving away from the observer, no problem, if only the color stayed the same or nearly the same. I can accept random color change for sub-pixel sized lights (like stars) but these are consistently not random. Twice blue, then five times yellow. Weird.

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 08:36 AM by ignorant_ape

reply to post by Ceara

there ARE streaks ` connecting ` the lights

the lights ARE blurred NOT sharp

compare it to the plane image i showed you - and bear in mind that mine is @ ISO 1600

see the conecting streaks in mine - they are just brigher versions of the connecting streaks in the origional photo - you do understand the difference ISO makes on a digital camers - dont you ??

why are people so desperate to believe it is somethng other than a plane ?