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.

 

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

page: 9
53
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Sorry if this is a repeat. I didn't read through the whole thread, but I wanted to ring in here with my first impressions.

The first thing that struck me was the light formation around what appears to be a solid object. The lights give me the distinct impression that the object is cylindrical, with the lights wrapping around in a spiral pattern, like the stripes on a candy cane.

But why would the object rest at such a pitched angle? I say "rest" because a long exposure would not have been so clear if the object had been in motion.




posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I would put $100 on it being a plane as it looks identical to what my friend was snapping on his camera on the bus home from Sydney last night. He wasn't sure what it was at first and then I looked up where he took the picture and pointed out the plane and so he did another long exposure shot and it turned out it was a plane.

I will see if I can get the pictures (I think when he realized they were a plane he deleted them but I'm not sure).



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

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

[edit on 2/7/2008 by internos]


okay latecomers?



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadoefax
 


Good post.

Yes, the date in the EXIF must be wrong, because on Feb. 28, 2005 there wasn't a full moon. You can use this moon phase calculator to see.

stardate.org...

Also, you are correct, the image must have been rotated 90 degrees. The only reason I could think of why someone would do such a thing, is to make it look more like a horizontal space craft. I'm pretty sure the person taking the image knows what they captured on film, and they must be trying to fool people. Or it could be an honest mistake... but, its obvious that you don't need Photoshop CS2 in order to get the image onto your computer. It also is very odd of someone to put the exposure time, aperture size, and camera type on an image that has JPG EXIF data.

This image seems to me like it was purposely submitted to get reactions.


The first time I ever herd of the name "Minolta" for a camera type, was when I was researching the C2C drone. Rajman1977 supposedly used a "Minolta" camera. Just struck me as odd, probably means nothing though.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


How does he say it could be 13 km long? Without a reference point, or triangulation, it is almost impossible to say so.

As I had mentioned in my earlier post, it is a solid object. But whether an airplane or a UFO is the bone of contention. Now if that person tells us how he has arrived at a length of 13 km, then the mystery could be solved. Afterall, you don't have planes that long, what?

Cheers!



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Well to be fair if this is plane, surely it would be pretty easy to recreate the image?

Anyone wanna give it a go?



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Lee_K
 


if you had read the thread fully - you would have seen my posts which show SIMILAR effect from a known aircraft - and others have linked other SIMILAR works by other photographers that show how aircraft strobes are captured by cameas @ long exposure

or are you just being disengenous and demanding an EXACT match be recreated - which of course would require an identical plane , weather conditions , distancess and bearings , plane attitude , altitude and velocity etc etc etc



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I set out to prove that it was a plane by using calculation using known airplane's average speed and height. I made the mistake of assuming the moon and the airplane was up high in the sky which in fact they were close to the horizon. So the airplane may be going or coming creating perspective effect so the angle is smaller.

Case closed... no?



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by LateApexer313
 


If you zoom in, you'll see that the lights on the object are dots. Everything else in the picture is blurred; especially stars - they are all small diagonal streaks - from upper left to lower right. i.e. the camera moved slightly while taking the photo and slightly blurred everything... except the object... I believe the object was added later to the photo. I think it's fake.

-v



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by verbal kint
i.e. the camera moved slightly while taking the photo and slightly blurred everything... except the object... I believe the object was added later to the photo. I think it's fake.


No the camera didn't move, the Stars did.

So did the moon, or at least it should have...

Have you ever herd of stereoscopy, or wiggle stereoscopy?
en.wikipedia.org...

I think that comes into play somewhere in the image, since it is a 4 second long exposure and the Star's moved. Usually with wiggle stereoscopy, you move the camera, but in this case, the object is the only thing moving.

Since the jet is closer to the camera, and the Moon further, and the Stars even more further away, it might explain the extreme difference in the streak or blurriness.






[edit on 3-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by LateApexer313
Hi all...

I check the MUFON reports for Ohio since I live here...and I keep going back to this one because I think it's pretty unique but I'd love to have your opinions as well. I've kept an eye on it off and on to see if it ever pops up anywhere else and I have no clue if MUFON reports on each case whether or not it's "solved" or "identified" or not...but I keep going back to it, so figured I'd post it for everyone's opinion? Especially those of you good at photoshopping and analyzing, spotting CGI etc! This object intrigues me!!!

It doesn't look like much until you click on the magnifying tool...the object is above the awesome picture of the moon....and here's the report that was submitted with the picture somewhere in Ohio on 08/28/2007:


During the lunar eclipse I wanted to photograph the event. I got my camera and set up my tripod in front of my house. Night photography needs longer exposure times without camera movement. I set the desired exposure and set the timer so I wouldn't shake the camera while taking the picture. Pressing the button and waiting 10 seconds for the camera to fire I would not be looking through the viewfinder. This photo was the longest exposure of the night at 4 seconds. You can see some of the movement of the stars with a small amount of streaking with a long exposure of 4 seconds. This object has a very defined pattern of lights and some visible structure.




Thanks for your opinion all!

[edit on 1-7-2008 by LateApexer313]

My issue with that particular image is that everything looks like it has a small motion blur, like the photographer had moved while taking the picture.
But, the supposed "ufo - alien ship" has not blured.

I'd love for it to be real, but I don't think so.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
During the exposure the Earth has turned slightly on its axis. So the stars create what appears to be a short line. Given enough time the line would look curved. The farther from the pole the greater the effect.

Edit: Example



[edit on 7/3/2008 by roadgravel]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
If this is a plane shouldn't the lights have streaked even to some degree?

Also, viewing the photo, the lights are separate colors. The far left of the rectangle has a red light, followed by two white lights, followed by two blue lights. This pattern repeats as:

Red, White x2, Blue x2
Red, White x2, White x2
Red, White x2, White x2
Red, White, White


Why do we see only one pair of blue lights?


Also, since the image was determined to have been rotated, when we place it back into it's original setting, we find that the object itself is either ascending or decending at a fairly sharp angle, is this possible for a conventional craft?


Awesome pic either way, but very curious about the discrepencies. Does anyone here have any idea what they might be caused by?



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Looks pretty interesting, but like others have said, without a point of reference, it could be a simple airplane.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Well it does IMO look like an airplane of some type..Faster blinking lights then a commercial airplane...Not sure what type thou...The exposure could be maybe around 5 secs give or take a sec...The background stars streak giving away the longer exposure then just a standard click and snap photo...

Heres a reference photo...This was taken on an old SLR canon camera mounted on a tripod..The exposure length was about 20 to 18 secs...I took this photo to intentionally capture a commercial airline.....


img512.imageshack.us...

[edit on 3-7-2008 by CFandM]

[edit on 3-7-2008 by CFandM]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taj Mikel
Why do we see only one pair of blue lights?


To explain that, you must understand that for every second the camera shutter is open (exposure), the camera is layering another layer of light on top of the last.

Look at this image:


1,2,3,4 indicates the 4 second exposure time. The camera started capturing at 1, and the very last capture was at 4. So the jet was traveling from top to bottom.

Right after the 1st second of exposure, and during the 2nd second of exposure, light was layered on top of the blue lights on the 1st second blue lights. Then after the 2nd second, and during the 3rd second, light was layered on top of the 1st and 2nd section of blue lights. Then during the 4th second of exposure, light was layered on top of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd sections. Since the camera stopped at the 4th section, no light was layered on the 4th section.

Every time a layer of light is added, it takes away color, and turns reddish/white. So the lights that are supposed to be blue, they actually were blue, but because of the exposure time, it turned the blue into reddish white color.




Originally posted by Taj Mikel
Also, since the image was determined to have been rotated, when we place it back into it's original setting, we find that the object itself is either ascending or descending at a fairly sharp angle, is this possible for a conventional craft?


When you watch an aircraft fly away from you, it appears the aircraft is going down. When the aircraft is really high in the sky, and it is flying away from you, it will look like the image in the OP. This is because the Earth is round.

Hope that helps.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lee_K
Well to be fair if this is plane, surely it would be pretty easy to recreate the image?

Anyone wanna give it a go?


If you do a simple Yahoo/Google Image search ("long exposure plane" or something like that) you will see plenty of photos that match this. But it would be nearly impossible to get an exact match.






[edit on 3-7-2008 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Originally posted by Taj Mikel
Why do we see only one pair of blue lights?


To explain that, you must understand that for every second the camera shutter is open (exposure), the camera is layering another layer of light on top of the last.

Look at this image:


1,2,3,4 indicates the 4 second exposure time. The camera started capturing at 1, and the very last capture was at 4. So the jet was traveling from top to bottom.

Right after the 1st second of exposure, and during the 2nd second of exposure, light was layered on top of the blue lights on the 1st second blue lights. Then after the 2nd second, and during the 3rd second, light was layered on top of the 1st and 2nd section of blue lights. Then during the 4th second of exposure, light was layered on top of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd sections. Since the camera stopped at the 4th section, no light was layered on the 4th section.

Every time a layer of light is added, it takes away color, and turns reddish/white. So the lights that are supposed to be blue, they actually were blue, but because of the exposure time, it turned the blue into reddish white color.




Originally posted by Taj Mikel
Also, since the image was determined to have been rotated, when we place it back into it's original setting, we find that the object itself is either ascending or descending at a fairly sharp angle, is this possible for a conventional craft?


When you watch an aircraft fly away from you, it appears the aircraft is going down. When the aircraft is really high in the sky, and it is flying away from you, it will look like the image in the OP. This is because the Earth is round.

Hope that helps.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]






Ah, that it does. Thank you much, AllisONE. It's amazing to me how a photo of a jet can end up looking that much different from what I would expect
Good learnings, though. Thanks again!



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
its probably just the moon base.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
So this is supposed to be a shot of a UFO on a maxxum sensor...

4.0 second shutter release @ F/5.6

I'd like to see a comparison on fringing, chromatic aberration, and detail capture from the lens that was used, if it was using a high aperture like 5.6, everything should be nice and tack-sharp (depending on the quality of the glass) but if it's a closed max. aperture, such as 3.5 or 4 then 5.6 wouldn't result in adequate sharpness to keep all those lights in perfect focus, even at infinity MF setting.

Secondly, the image was taken at four seconds... try photographing any light at four seconds with your dSLR and see what happens to the trails. If this object is truly a UFO, it's gotta be pretty bloody still and the camera has to absolutely be mounted on a tripod, I don't know any amateurs whom can shoot that steady without a set of sticks.

I'm a believer, but I've got my skepticals on for this one.




top topics



 
53
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join