UFO Captured In Telescope FOV 4/9/07

Originally posted by ngchunter
To be fair though, a sharshoot II is probably a little closer to my DSLR electronically than it is to my LPI.

I too have a DSLR, Nikon D-70, which I can remove whatever lens I have attached and use an adapter to connect to the scope. But the D-70 doesn't have a "movie mode" for video.

And the StarShoot II is only a 1.3 Mp cam. Not the best for recording video, but all I have at this point.
If you check out the "Scanning The Moon" section, you can see just about the best this cam can do.
Thanks for the input.

Originally posted by ngchunter
I'll try to recreate this when I get the chance using my own 8" SCT (same as used here) and similar webcam. Getting a plane to go in front of the moon on demand is tricky though (praying to it doesn't seem to work lol) so I may do it "sans moon" if that's ok.

The actual object being observed isn't really important. What the test requires is a catadioptic lens system and distant object with a strong point light source. A distant building reflecting the Sun off a window would be ideal in an attempt to replicate the doughnut-shaped bokeh seen in the OP video.

Good luck.

Originally posted by Jakman
And the StarShoot II is only a 1.3 Mp cam. Not the best for recording video, but all I have at this point.

That's true, but it's at least above 1 MP. For some reason I was mistakenly thinking it was more along the lines of SLR resolution like meade's DSI III. Although SLRs like yours and mine can't do video they can at least shoot decent bursts of frames to capture moving objects, which I've done before for capturing shuttle launches with the telescope. In fact, come to think of it I got some pretty odd effects on the last shuttle launch when I captured the SRB sep out of focus (the shuttle's change in distance between liftoff and srb sep is enough to throw focus). The shuttle looked a circle with a hole in it and the srbs had black holes surrounded by orange flames.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by ngchunter]

Mod note: Read this, especially the part about arguing with mods in-thread. -- Majic



[edit on 4/10/2009 by Majic]

Jakman

There are somethings I do not understand about this video.

First, I do not understand what is the "shock wave", I can't see anything like a shock wave, at least as I understand it.

Second, in your page you say that this was filmed at sunrise, that "the Moon was about 40° above horizon" and the Sun was "behind the telescope to the left and slightly higher than the moon". Isn't that too high for the Sun to be at 08:33 in the morning on April 9? I don't understand it.

You also say that "the object's distance is around 40-50 miles, based on known aircraft altitudes and distances in this area", is it possible that the object was closer than that?

PS: I don't have any idea of what it may be, but it makes me think of something not very high (higher than the bird) and not very fast (not as fast as the aeroplane, maybe faster than the bird).

OK, I'm uploading the entire original clip from that morning so everyone can see exactly what there is to see.
It's going to take awhile, it's a 651Mb file. And only 30 seconds long.
It will be on the same page in a player.
www.boomslanger.com...
Under the "Comparison" clip.
And under the original title the capture software gave it. (Capture 63)

If you download it, your connection speed will determine time of download.
Right click and "save".

I will notify here with another post when it's complete.
My upload speed is slow.
It's been uploading for 15 minutes as of now and it has completed only 45Mbs.
According to the "time left" it says 3hours 26minutes. But the time left column is usually inaccurate.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Jakman
First, I do not understand what is the "shock wave", I can't see anything like a shock wave, at least as I understand it.

Second, in your page you say that this was filmed at sunrise, that "the Moon was about 40° above horizon" and the Sun was "behind the telescope to the left and slightly higher than the moon". Isn't that too high for the Sun to be at 08:33 in the morning on April 9? I don't understand it.

You also say that "the object's distance is around 40-50 miles, based on known aircraft altitudes and distances in this area", is it possible that the object was closer than that?

Watch the Moon after the object passes. It oscillates slightly.
The atmospheric currents are being pushed and pulled. (to simplify the explanation)
Your second question:
When I looked around, that's where it was.

Third question:
Couldn't have been closer because I was looking at the Moon and not the laptop screen. I would have seen it with the naked eye.

Thanks for inquiring, but again, this info is on my page.
Everybody please read it so I don't have to repeat it.

Update on upload: 40 minutes and 125Mbs uploaded so far.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by Jakman]

reply to post by Jakman


I know the info is on your page, that is where I read it.

And I did not wanted a repetition, if I did I just had to read your page again.

What I wanted was some explanations, specially of the position of the Sun, but, apparently, you have nothing more to say about it.

I will ask nothing more about this case.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Jakman

 

I know the info is on your page, that is where I read it.

I will ask nothing more about this case.

Sorry, but I wasn't really concerned where the Sun was at the time.
And I'll always try to clarify any data someone asks about.
My previous reply wasn't meant to be nit-picky.

Easy now, easynow, it looks like your getting in trouble.

Update on upload: 1 hour 8 minutes so far and 200Mbs uploaded.
Only 450Mbs to go.
I need a T-Line.

Originally posted by Jakman
Easy now, easynow, it looks like your getting in trouble.

Update on upload: 1 hour 8 minutes so far and 200Mbs uploaded.
Only 450Mbs to go.
I need a T-Line.

great !...... can't wait to see that

i won't be responding to this thread anylonger but i will be watching from the sidelines

thanks again Jakman for putting this out there for everyone to see

Originally posted by easynow

great !...... can't wait to see that

i won't be responding to this thread anylonger

Why not? What happened?............Did you cyber-punch a Mod? lol

Update on upload: 376Mbs uploaded so far.
Estimate on finish: 1 hour 45 minutes.


[edit on 10-4-2009 by Jakman]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by RiotComing
Y'know, this is really hacking me off. Here we have another clear oval object with a dark hole in the middle (its propulsion system, presumably),

Any small heavily out of focus object passing in front of a reflecting telescope will have a hole in the middle due to the folded design of the optics. That explains this as well as the shuttle "ufos" you mentioned. Instead of being so fast to assume an extra-terrestrial origin and getting mad when the rest of us don't buy it, perhaps you should try to find any possible terrestrial explanation first.
home.earthlink.net...
starizona.com...

As for the object itself, I have suspicions that it's an out-of-focus plane passing in front of the moon. The moon and the object both have a similar looking tint to me, so i'm thinking it's actually white and the tint is lighting/camera white balance issues.

Okay, so all these ufos we have brought to light are spherical aberrations in your estimation. Fair enough. What concerns me, is the application of our five sense reality, our self-imposed limitations, in passing judgement on these things. You see, I don't think that's a plane at all. You've stated you think it is a plane because it fits neatly in your box, in your 'reality prison' as it were (I don't mean that offensively, because all of us on planet Earth are pretty much stuck in a mode of denying wider consciousness). It doesn't look anything like a plane. It is 'something else'.

We need to be prepared to consider alternative possibilities and not judge things according to what our head has been conditioned to tell us. That's my point. It's great to be skeptical, but it's not so great to be dogmatic and push a narrow understanding as truth.

I believe I've solved it. I photographed several planes this evening in my telescope at various levels of focus with some expected as well as unexpected results. Here are a couple that look like Jak's image:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd0952fa13c5.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8a5ff8fa4094.jpg[/atsimg]
I have a ton more like these, I shot 66 images in total this evening. Given identical lighting conditions I'm completely convinced that you would get Jak's image.

Now here's where I got an unexpected result just as I was about to pack up. The last plane I shot was low on the horizon heading towards the sun as I gradually brought it into focus with each image. The resulting images are far more bizzare than what I was expecting. The bright reflections off the plane formed some beautiful shapes, and even in focus the shake induced by the camera's shutter turned it into something that looks a bit like a ufo image I saw somewhere here on ATS a year or so ago:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/200ab0d2acc1.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ec718d1f2f55.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by RiotComing
It doesn't look anything like a plane. It is 'something else'.

Tell me, do the images I just now posted look like planes to you? Or do they all look like "something else"? My head hasn't been "conditioned" to tell me what these images are, my own experience tells me what they are. If we had a sharp image that showed it was something else then that's what I would accept, but all I see right now are the same things I see in defocused airplanes.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter

I'm sorry, but to be the 'clincher', your photos would have to also have the so-called "outside focus" going on (that you yourself provided picture links as an example) to emulate the dark-hole-in-the-middle effect, and your photos have none of that. Besides, you can still see the wings, you can still tell it's a plane.

Sorry, but unless you come back with a plane with the same out-of-focus look, PLUS the black hole in the middle then I really can't accept your pictures as a valid debunkment.


[edit on 10-4-2009 by RiotComing]

Originally posted by RiotComing
reply to post by ngchunter

 

I'm sorry, but to be the 'clincher', your photos would have to also have the so-called "outside focus" going on

Outside focus WAS going on in the OP's video, hence the moon's edge is extremely fuzzy (partly due to atmospheric seeing as well). Focused with fairly bad seeing the moon looks like this:
www.youtube.com...
Notice the moon's edge at 1:01
Plus being focused on the moon will not necessarily be the same focus point for a plane; that's why I've seen the focus point shift dramatically between the time the shuttle launches and the time it lets its SRBs go.

Besides, you can still see the wings, you can still tell it's a plane.

Not in all of the pictures, plus every single plane I photographed tonight went over my head, if it were viewed from the side you wouldn't see the wings. In fact, I did see this with an eyepiece but the plane flew off before I could get the camera set up. Sorry, but I can't force the planes to go the direction I need them to go to recreate his picture perfectly. Clearly though, the hole is explained as well as the shape.

Ironic that you're so adament about being open to all possibilities when you yourself refuse to accept proof when it is given. With all your insistance that it couldn't possibly be a plane before I posted anything I didn't expect you to accept any picture I could offer.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by ngchunter]

Upload complete.
I viewed it several times to make sure my server would handle a 660Mb movie file. Works fine in IE7, but I don't know if the same will apply for other browsers.
www.boomslanger.com...

Again, it's below the comparison clip titled: Capture 63.

Note for RiotComing: I use to work as a bartender at the Waiwera Hotel in the seventies when the hotel was the attraction.
Now it's a popular hot springs resort.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by Jakman]

Originally posted by Jakman
Sorry, but I wasn't really concerned where the Sun was at the time.
- - I'll always try to clarify any data someone asks about.

It's easy to recreate the scene around sunrise on the morning of April 9 2007, which will provide all the phase and positional information anyone may require. For simplicity, I'm taking Oakland, CA as the viewpoint. I hope that's near enough. The Moon's phase would be identical all across Northern US, so almost anywhere on the Eastern side will do.

One thing that needs confirming is the orientation of the video image, which depends on the angle the camera is attached. If you will confirm the images are oriented exactly South to top as per normal telescopic viewing, it will help.

It's certainly an intriguing capture, but whether the object can be assigned any of the physical characteristics described on the website is open to debate. As surmised, the stacking test provided little. Five blurs in gives one blur out, not much to form a conclusion of any kind. The background stack is slightly more useful.

WG3

Originally posted by waveguide3
One thing that needs confirming is the orientation of the video image, which depends on the angle the camera is attached. If you will confirm the images are oriented exactly South to top as per normal telescopic viewing, it will help.

It's certainly an intriguing capture, but whether the object can be assigned any of the physical characteristics described on the website is open to debate. As surmised, the stacking test provided little. Five blurs in gives one blur out, not much to form a conclusion of any kind. The background stack is slightly more useful.
WG3

This image is the position the scope and Moon were at (only different day and time). The scope was outside the garage in the driveway. The Moon was close to the images location. The scope is pointing WSW for that time of year (spring).



The characteristics are just that, based on my familararity of "known" objects I've seen through this scope.
Even though three independant groups did some analysis of the clip and frames, what's needed is an analysis using professional software (REACT comes to mind, $6,400), to break down the algorithms. This may or may not help, depending on how much information can be extracted from file.