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.

 

Telescope Captures Somthing?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I got this a few days ago when near sacramento a observitory captured this image in a time lapse recording.



Any Ideas

Falcon




posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   
What was the timeframe of the timelapse? It might just be a cloud, or even a plane, if it has a slow shutter speed.



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   
How come you can see the little white dots on the inside of the telescope? They go through everything, the house, the telescope, the trees? What are those? And it looks as if the only part that 'moves' is the area around the ship, no trees swaying, nothing.

-wD



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Its kind of low too, like the lens is at ground level and how many "ground level" observatories have their high dollar optics directed at someones house?
The white spots seem to track with the object, looks like a fake to me.



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Right, here's my take on it. I've cropped the right side of the original around the lens flare area, rotated it 36 degrees to the right and sharpened the image a little (see below).

1. The tree is the same colour I'd expect when shot at night in infra-red. Think camcorder with night vision mode.
2. The two white dots look like the infra-red source reflecting on convex glass.
3. There is a faint shadow reflection of something which appears above the rooftop. Again, a reflection on the *inside*. Could this be a reflection of the camera or the person filming?
I think you are looking at the result of someone filming with a camcorder set on night shoot mode, perhaps through a peephole on a door (hence the fisheye shape). The lens flare and shadow reflections are what appear on the inside of the peephole lens when the infra-red hits it.
I haven't had chance to look at the supposed UFO yet, but I think this is a fake.
Anyone else have an idea?
Cheers,
Grey Pilgrim



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Hi all!!

Well, it looks like a wide angle, fish eye lens to me too, as GP says. As the bacjground shows domestic housing (??), it would appear to be taken from some ones back garden, rather than a professional observatory - any further details falcon please?? That is, location, time of day/ night, type of camera being used, etc.

This is not to decry the video - quite a few amateur astronomers use set ups like this to capture meteors, for example (though usually with a rotating "shutter" revolving at a known rpm, so that the meteors actaully speed of transit can be determined - the image is effectively "chopped" into a dotted line, so the distance moved on the film/ video can be ascertained).



from here

Perhaps the image might be something as mundane as a bird flying through the camera's lens? There does seem to be some sort of "rhythmic" movement to the objects flight characteristics??


I don't think it's a "fake" myself, but an observation of something (possibly a bird?) that "happened by"...



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Genya
Perhaps the image might be something as mundane as a bird flying through the camera's lens? There does seem to be some sort of "rhythmic" movement to the objects flight characteristics??

I don't think it's a "fake" myself, but an observation of something (possibly a bird?) that "happened by"...

I've been looking at the object and it does seem to change shape in the last couple of frames. As this was shot at night, it's more likely to be a bat than a bird though.
If I stuck with my "filming through a peephole" theory, I was a bit puzzled by the size of a camcorder lens compared to the peephole size. How about a DV camera with a CMOS lens? These tend to be tiny and would possibly shoot through something so small. Without testing it, I'm guessing of course. Also, look at the dark part at the bottom of the picture, below the horizon. If you look through a peephole you can see the metal housing, just as it appears here. I just don't see how a fisheye lens housing would show up in the actual footage. It has to be a normal lens shot through something else which isn't attached to the camera.
I'm skeptical about this being filmed by an astronomer though. A professional observatory wouldn't house a telescope in an urban setting like this with light pollution. An amateur with a decent telescope or time lapse camera would also pick a position where the local street lighting causes least interference.
Nope, still think it's a fake. Not necessarily someone creating the film with props, but something mundane being passed off as something unusual or inexplicable.
Cheers,
Grey Pilgrim.



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Hi Grey_Pilgrim!!

Thanx for your comments - it really needs falcon to return and try and clarify some of these questions if s/he can, doesn't it?

I offered up the "amateur astronomer" theory as a possibility - I've never used my camcorder for this (condensation and street lighting concerns!) but used to take still photographs when I had a darker sky location (sadly missed!!
) I gues the "unknown" here is *why* the camera was set up in this position in the first place - thus my attempt to try to find a "reason" for this photography (none of my business I agree - but relevant, I think, for this discussion?)

OK on the "bat" possibility - perhaps even a moth?? (as there seems to be no way to ascertain plate scale??)

As for being faked or not: I agree that it is more likely to be a "mis- analysed", mis-interpreted conclusion, rather than an attempt at trying to produce a "fake" per se.

We'll have to see what falcon says on return!!



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Hi Genya,
Very good point about the moth! Even better, because in infra-red light a bat (generally black in colour) wouldn't show up so brightly. Yes, I think you're probably closer with that.
The position of the camera is an odd one, particularly when the poster said it was taken by an observatory. I'd never set up my telescope or time lapse cam in this sort of position to look at the night sky. It would be pointless. I think the astronomer connection is a red herring

I agree we need the original poster to give us more info on this.
Cheers,
Grey Pilgrim



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
This is utter nonsense, this is not even from a telescope. It is obviously from a camera of some type shooting through a fish eye lens. Why is it sitting at ground level ??? The object passing through must be a bird of some type. And the frame rate is advanced to exagerate the speed.

Nothing to see here folks.



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
This is utter nonsense, this is not even from a telescope. It is obviously from a camera of some type shooting through a fish eye lens.


I thought we'd already said this, but more politely

Cheers,
Grey Pilgrim



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join