UFO Captured In Telescope FOV 4/9/07

Originally posted by Schaden
At the low magnification of the video, any satellite in orbit would be a spec of light, that UFO was too big, it had to be something in the atmosphere.

The resolution of the video in this clip (and the "scanning the moon clips")
is 640x480. And the scope is acting as a very big telephoto lens.
So what we see on the screen is a scaled-image-width of 900 miles when viewing the Moon.

The Moons distance is approx. 235,000 miles away. With the independent distance calculations performed by myself and at least 3 other sources, we have concluded this object is approx. 40 to 50 miles out, at a 40 degree inclination from the horizon. Putting it around 65-70,000 feet altitude. Appproximating it's size at around 250 to 300 feet in diameter.
And this is a conservative estimate.

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
No idea what the object is but the light circular area with the "hole" is merely the bokeh produced by a out-of-focus catadioptric lens system as is employed by a Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope.

I might agree if the object was stationary and in the background. But I was trying to achieve focus on the Moon. (unsuccessfully I might add because of morning conditions)

And the majority of the "body" of this object is a solid form. We're not even sure it is a hole. It could very well be the shadow of a dome.

But an interesting theory worth considering. Thanks

Now I know you are all going to think I am making this up, but I am not. It looks like a weather balloon to me. Once they get real high up they pancake out like that.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Thx ! To me it seems like it is a DROPA stone flying by?

Dropa Stones

it looks to be a reflection of something and remember UFO = Unidentified Flying Object = anything that is unindentified and flying is an UFO..

Looks like it passed very close to the telescope.

2nd line.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by F15-Pilot]

looks like an out of focus image of the moon taken from a car while driving past a street lamp...

Tell me why is most so called UFO footage so..... crap, this is so out of focus it could be anything, it could have a massive structure holding it up but because of the focus you wouldn't be able to see it. pointless footage, pointless thread.

Where is the unstar button?

Originally posted by F15-Pilot
Seems too "convenient" to me. It is too much of a coincidence that of all days and times for this object to "fly" by that there "happened" to be a video camera running. Feels like some sort of a staged event. There is absolutely nothing verifiable in this video.

I spend all night (sometimes), recording the Moon when conditions allow.
This session was no different. I had been recording 30 second to one minute clips most of the night.
In the morn, conditions were deteriorating fast and this was my last video to record through the scope.
It's not a matter of a camera "just happened" to be running. It had been recording all night with no other unidentifiable object in any of them. (about 60 clips).

You obviously haven't read the web page this originated from.
I suggest you do.

The OP has the address in post #1.

Originally posted by JakmanToo get some of the obvious "known objects" eliminated, I can assure you it is not a bug or any object thrown into the field of view.
All telescopes have near and distance limitations. My 8 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain doesn't detect anything closer than 100 feet. And small objects (bugs, frisbees, etc.) farther than that, can't be seen either.

The near focus limitation is indeed common to all telescopes. However, the far focus is unlimited, they wouldn't be of much use otherwise.

Observing bugs at a great distance is quite easy if they stand still. I have personally observed a fly resting on a tree branch located at least 400 meters distance. If a bug happened to pass across the field at the right speed at the right distance, with the right lighting, there is no reason why it couldn't be captured on several frames of video. It would be an unusual event, but far from impossible. One cannot be assured therefore, that this isn't a similar, equally mundane object.

WG3

reply to post by Jakman


Why is the moon moving so fast in the image, to me this could be taken from a standard camera telescopic lens (based on the moon size) with such a high magnification wouldn't any small or local object passed in front of the lens appear large and in more in focus in the video, the focus of the object shows it extremely close to the lens in comparison to the background. could be anything, doesn't look flying more moving a UMO maybe?

are you kidding me? thats a damn car driving down a street with a camera pointed at a stranged shaped cloud as it passes street lamps.......street lamp ufo ftl...

reply to post by neverheardofit


I think you are right. If you look at the video it looks exactly like that. You can even see the top of the street light. You got my vote.

Originally posted by neverheardofit
are you kidding me? thats a damn car driving down a street with a camera pointed at a stranged shaped cloud as it passes street lamps.......street lamp ufo ftl...

Suggest we bail on this thread and leave it to the cooks to decide when the federation of light is returning based on said evidence.

Jettison reason... we'll follow.

ta ta

Originally posted by waveguide3
The near focus limitation is indeed common to all telescopes. However, the far focus is unlimited, they wouldn't be of much use otherwise.

My point exactly, I'm focused about 2/3 maximum focal range, as near to 235,000 miles as i could get in those conditions. That's too far for anything as small as a bug or frisbee type object to be this much in focus.

Is this from a CCD ? They pick up things the eye misses.

Originally posted by Schaden
Is this from a CCD ? They pick up things the eye misses.

No, it's a CMOS sensor equipped camera.
Here's the specs from my site:
www.boomslanger.com...

Originally posted by neverheardofit
are you kidding me? thats a damn car driving down a street with a camera pointed at a stranged shaped cloud as it passes street lamps.......street lamp ufo ftl...

Look more closely at the "cloud". That's the moon. You can see the shimmering along the top, from the atmosphere. It really looks washed out on that youtube video though, so I don't blame you for thinking it's a cloud.

Rather than mess with image enhancement on individual frames, why not use stacker software to try and improve the resolution? There are programs that stack images of objects moving across frame, you're not interested in the background.

I don't see how we can tell that the object is in focus or even near focus. There's no way of determining that without considerably more frames containing the object. Unfortunately working with only five dissimilar images isn't going to get very far. The natural tendency of casual observers is to assume what appears in the images is a good rendition of the actual object, but it's a falacy.

WG3

Originally posted by waveguide3
Rather than mess with image enhancement on individual frames, why not use stacker software to try and improve the resolution? There are programs that stack images of objects moving across frame, you're not interested in the background.

Film stacking is for multiple frames of one image in a stationary position.
For example:
Subject: The Moon
Telescope Position: Geostatioary on equatorial mount keeping the Moon in same position.
Exposure: 30 seconds
Then you stack the best frames on top of each other to aquire the most clear image.
Here's what screws that up:
A bird, plane, balloon, or anything that passes in the FOV is going to have to be deleted. But it's going to be the same amount of frames that the unwanted object is in.
You can't stack "objects in motion."
If you knew how to use this software, you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement.

That is the software I use. But the software also has a "movie mode".
And that's the mode I was using.
But it's the same scenario, the object is on only 5 frames, in different locations of the FOV. Not ideal images to try and stack. If fact, it would look much worse.