Ufo near asteroid 2009 !

So in the end, it was a UHP? Unknown Hot Pixel. How frustrating.
No second line for UHP...

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by ngchunter

 

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.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by deccal


sorry I am not so quick to dismiss just because someone says.. its a hot pixel does not make it so.
Unless they are an expert.. I am leaving my verdict out.

reply to post by NephraTari


For me, this one is pretty much settled.

As another poster had said, the chances that these objects are the same distance in space relative to the scope is miniscule at best.
Astronomically low odds.

The hot pixel explains it quite well.

reply to post by NephraTari


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?

reply to post by ngchunter


yes actually that would be very helpful.

reply to post by NephraTari


Ugh, another time lapse it is then. It will take a couple days sinceim leaving town right now as i type to catch tomorrow night's shuttle launch.

reply to post by ngchunter


I sincerely appreciate your taking time to do this. Not many people offer to back up what they say. I look forward to your time lapse.

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?

reply to post by NephraTari


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.

reply to post by ngchunter


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

[edit on 14-3-2009 by ngchunter]

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.

reply to post by NephraTari


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.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by ngchunter]