I downloaded the video but I could not see it, I think I do not have the right codec.
Well this topic seems to be coming to a close, but for completeness sake, here's a link to the video codec needed to view the video: www.download.com...
Also, so that you don't need to sign up for Vimeo, here's a direct link for my Comet Lulin time lapse: www....(nolink)/download.php?uywmuyz4wgz
The dancing red hot pixel appears directly over the comet and seems to jump rightward in the frame every second or so. In fact, looking at it again,
it almost looks like it's trying to get out of the way of the comet but the comet is going to overtake it lol.
It fits the evidence perfectly and I was able to show a hot pixel in a time lapse exhibiting the exact same behavior, so it's not just because I say
so. I've been photographing comets and other astronomical objects for more than five years and I use an identical scope. I would say that gives me
the experience to identify a hot pixel. Even the professor who took the picture admitted it was camera noise.
Why would my example be a hot pixel but another timelapse taken with similar equipment and exhibiting the same behavior be something else entirely?
Would it do more to convinceyou if i produced a time lapse with a pixel that moved exactly like the one here?
Originally posted by ls1cameric
This yet again confirms my belief in ET's but I'm sure some sceptic out there will debunk it...
...It's an ET craft and you know it!
As other people have mentioned, the chances of these two objects being so close in space as to be a danger to one another are, well...astronomical.
Also, consider the distances involved and the size of the objects. 2009 DD45 was between 20 - 50 meters wide; the distance the "UFO" jumps to avoid
it is much further than it would have needed. And it just happens to move a dramatic distance and direction that could be detected by the human eye.
Originally posted by branty
So now lets see, swamp gas , balloons , light anomalies, hoaxes, japanese lanterns, and now... (EDIT: hot pixels)
You act as though these things have never been misindentified and attributed as UFOs. Are you denying that misindentification accounts for even a
minute number of sightings or do you think every claim of an alien craft is just that?
It's a convenient excuse for me to record new images, and just to make it more convincing, I'm planning to do it with an asteroid in the field of
view as well. As you may have heard, the shuttle launch was scrubbed. I just got back in town late yesterday, but I'm heading out again to try to
catch it on sunday. If they delay it again I won't be able to stick around for the launch, so sunday's the last day I'll be out of town one way or
the other. I'll try to record the images for the time lapse late tonight or early before sunrise if I can, but I won't have time (or access to my
desktop) to construct the video itself until later.
In the interest of time I had a change of plans. It occured to me that I have most of my original data laying around, so why not just use it here? I
went back to the original frames from my very first comet lulin time lapse (taken earlier than the one I mentioned on this thread) prior to the point
in the process where I filtered all the noise out of the images. I then looked for any hot pixels and found one sitting almost directly over the
comet once again. Sure enough, it looks like it dances left and right in the x axis while gradually moving upwards in the y axis, just like the hot
pixel in the asteroid animation.
I took the red channel from the original video frames where the hot pixel was located and isolated it to make a monotone image just like the one here.
Voila, mystery object near a comet at the top of the frame, just left of center. The first segment shows the full frame (in high quality mode you
can see the hot pixel move even in the full frame), the second segment shows a zoomed in crop of the dancing hot pixel.
Do bear in mind, this time lapse was shot over a month ago. I had no idea I'd be using it to refute another video, so it's not like I could have
done anything to intentionally cause the hot pixel to move like this. Both hot pixels exhibit sine-wave-like motion in the x-axis. The extent and
timing of that motion is determined by the "personalities" of our telescopes' different mechanical and tracking errors.
If you want to see the video nearly uncompressed so that the moving pixel is easier to see in the full frame and clearer in the close-up, here is the
high resolution original file prior to youtube compression. Be warned, I went for maximum quality so it's 80 megs. www....(nolink)/download.php?yhndcjdzhlz
Im sorry I do not know what time frame was used in that sampling but it appeared nothing like the asteroid footage. If you look frame for frame
between :07-:09 everything changes vastly, the only thing static is the object on the right. what is the reason for that? In the nasa video
everything is static except for that object.
They are very different if you look very close in full screen and stop frames.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the idea behind this, I am not debating that hot pixels exist but what you showed me is very different from what I saw on
the nasa video.
first of all there is no nasa video, just this one and the columbian university. the only things that move in my video are the comet near the center
and hot pixel near the top. i also have quite a bit of random thermal noise in mine, but it's never persistant for any given noise pixel. My camera
was operating at its maximum sensitivity so random noise is inevitable. is that what you meant by everything changing? i'm afraid that aspect has
nothing to do with the moving hot pixel which is persistent and the other stationary stars.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.