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.

 

MIT students photograph Earth from Space - object seen in one photo

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

Daniel_g has the location correct.

Here's the view from 93,000 feet above the launch site, looking SE. Note the Connecticut river with Long Island Sound beyond. The bright spot seems to be located at a place called Leetes Island. There doesn't seem to be much there but marshland.





posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by amigo
 


Seriously? These are different projects? From the dates it looks like you're right. It just looked like Harrison was documenting the flight at Flickr...

Wow. They are both even called "Project Icarus".

Are we certain these projects are not related?

I found Harrison's homepage here:
www.robertharrison.org...

This is so wierd......

How does a still shot taken from Harrison's flight contain an object remarkably similar to the object under discussion here, and both projects have the same name, but are launched a year apart from different continents?

I'm sorry, that's just plain strange.

I'll have to look into this further...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Excellent work Phage, I knew you would find it before I did! LOL

Way to go Daniel G on the initial identification!


Amigo, this photo just got more interesting IMHO, without a high albedo structure in the right area...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Here is a side-by-side of the two objects, for comparison...




-WFA



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Okay, I think I've now read all there is to read about the MIT students and Robert Harrison available online...

I can find no connection, other than the fact that they both sent up homemade balloons calling the project Icarus, and that in both of their online photo sets, a similar anomaly occurs in a single image.

So I suppose the Harrison info is just useful as comparison data, as opposed to being further evidence from the same data set (the MIT Student's Project under discussion).

I'll post more if I find anything...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Here's a quick photoshop work on the images. I took the Google Earth and composited it over the original photo, as well as extracted the Google Maps location of where this object would be if it were on the ground.

Somehow I do not believe it being on the ground, the more I look at it and looking at the surrounding terrain...

P.S. Right mouse click over the image and select View Image to see the whole thing, it's being cut-off in the thread view.

Cropped and rotated for horizon line:


Composite of above image and Google Earth:


Google Maps location of where the object might be if it were on the ground:


[edit on 14-9-2009 by amigo]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by amigo
 


Nice work Amigo!

I think that pretty much settles it. It's not something on the ground with a high albedo!



I suppose the next most likely candidate would be a Cosmic Ray hit, or a hot pixel?

but don't those usually form circles? neither of the objects in question are circles, and the MIT photo is pretty clearly an oval/ellipse...


-WFA

[edit on 14-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by amigo
 


Nice work Amigo!

I think that pretty much settles it. It's not something on the ground with a high albedo!



-WFA


Thanks, though I'd still like to see at least one more photo before or after this one to be sure that it's not a glitch in the camera. With any luck the object would still be present in the previous or next photo as photos are just 5 seconds apart.

That is unless it was a momentary CCD glitch, or a real UFO that just zipped out of sight...

[edit on 14-9-2009 by amigo]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by amigo
 


I think it's possible it's a new type of image artifact with which I am unfamiliar (edited to add: "or a real deal alien spaceship!"). Phage what do you think? Ignore the Facts, you still following this thread?

I don't think it's a Cosmic Ray hit, due to the shape, and it doesn't really look like a hot pixel either. We've already eliminated the 'on the ground, but looks like it's in the air' illusion theory...

Thoughts?

-WFA

[edit on 14-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I have just sent them an email with a request for the preceding and the following photo to the one posted, so that this matter could be further investigated.

We can speculate in the mean time, but our main concerns (glitch in the imager, reflection in the lens, cosmic rays, UFO...) can only be addressed with more evidence, so hopefully they read my email sometime this week and respond positively.
(they wrote their Inbox is flooded with emails).



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I had to reflect and rotate the photo to get the terrain to match Google Earth, and still the match wasn't 100% but it was way closer than anything I could get before I reflected the photo.

Edit: Look at the opening in the bay, it's on the right in the photo and on the left in Google Earth:

Once you reflect the photo to get the opening to match Google Earth, you have a much better match of the terrain.

As far as I can tell, if it's a reflection, the reflection is coming from a location pretty close to the Fowler island area.



Because this island is in a river, then it would allow a concentrated reflection from the sun without reflection from the surrounding landscape.

But while it could be a reflection, I'm not sure it is. I think the cosmic ray on the CCD is a possibility:



Not many pixels were affected, and a high energy cosmic ray could impact multiple pixels if it struck the CCD at a shallow angle. I also think a lot of the pixels are the result of jpeg compression artifacts that are not part of the actual image or cosmic ray impact.

It's an interesting photo!

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
looks like it could b a ccd overload from the reflection of the sun hitting the camera ... remember this was done on a $150.00 budget.. I am sure the camera wasn't the greatest... Don't get me wrong.... theres lots of objects out there that are extremely questionable......but this one doesn't really stand out.. could it be an object? possible but indefinite.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
This thread is awesome and so interesting. keep up the research guys! im excited to read what comes up



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
This is the camera used:
Canon A470 /w chdk open source firmware

This is that camera for sale:
www.usa.canon.com...

Some more data on the firmware here:
chdk.wikia.com...

And here are the Specs for the camera:
[Specifications

Type of Camera
Compact digital still camera with built-in flash, 3.4x Optical/4x Digital/14x Combined Zoom
Image Capture Device
Type

7.1 Megapixel, 1/2.5-inch type Charge Coupled Device (CCD) Total Pixels

Approx. 7.4 Megapixels Effective Pixels
Approx. 7.1 Megapixels Lens

Focal Length
6.3-21.6mm f/3.0-5.8 (35mm film equivalent: 38-132mm)


Digital Zoom
4x
Focusing Range
Normal: 1.5 ft./47cm-infinity

Macro: 2.0 in.-1.5 ft./5-47cm (W), 9.8 in.-1.5 ft./25-47cm (T)

Super Macro: 0.39-3.9 in./1-10cm

Autofocus System
TTL Autofocus



Viewfinder & Monitor

Viewfinder
N/A

LCD Monitor
2.5-inch low-temperature polycrystalline silicon TFT color LCD

LCD Pixels
Approx. 115,000 pixels

LCD Coverage
100%

Aperture and Shutter

Maximum Aperture
f/3.0 (W) - f/5.8 (T)

Shutter Speed
15-1/2000 sec.; Long Shutter operates with noise reduction when manually set at 1.3-15 sec.


Exposure Control

ISO Sensitivity
Auto, High ISO Auto, ISO 80/100/200/400/800/1600 equivalent (Standard output sensitivity. Recommended exposure index)

Light Metering Method
Evaluative*, Center-weighted average, Spot**

* Control to incorporate facial brightness in Face Detection AF
** Metering frame is fixed to the center

Exposure Control Method
Program AE

Exposure Compensation
+/-2 stops in 1/3-stop increments


White Balance

White Balance Control
Auto, Preset (Daylight, Cloudy, Tungsten, Fluorescent, Fluorescent H),
Custom


Flash

Built-in Flash
Auto, Red-eye Reduction, Auto Red-eye Correction, Flash On, Flash Off; Slow Synchro

Flash Range
12 in.-9.8 ft./30cm-3.0m (W), 12 in.-6.6 ft./30cm-2.0m (T) (when sensitivity is set to ISO Auto)

Recycling Time
10 sec. or less (battery voltage=3.0V)

Flash Exposure Compensation
N/A


Shooting Specifications

Shooting Modes
Auto, Camera M, Special Scene (Portrait, Foliage, Snow, Beach,
Sunset, Fireworks, Aquarium, Indoor, Kids & Pets, Night Snapshot), Super Macro, Movie

Photo Effects
My Colors
Vivid, Neutral, Sepia, Black & White, Custom

Self-Timer
Activates shutter after an approx. 2-sec./10-sec. delay, Custom
Wireless Control
Not available

Continuous Shooting
Approx. 1.9 fps (Large/Fine)

Image Storage

Storage Media
SD/SDHC Memory Card, MultiMediaCard, MMC Plus Card, HC MMC
Plus Card

File Format
Design rule for camera file system, DPOF Version 1.1

Image Compression
Normal, Fine, SuperFine

JPEG Compression Mode
Still Image: Exif 2.2 (JPEG)

Movie: AVI (Image: Motion JPEG; Audio: WAVE (Monaural))

Number of Recording Pixels
Still Image: 3,072 x 2,304 (Large), 2,592 x 1,944 (Medium 1), 2,048 x 1,536 (Medium 2), 1,600 x 1,200 (Medium 3/Date Stamp), 640 x 480 (Small), 3,072 x 1,728 (Widescreen) Movie: 640 x 480 (20 fps/20 fps LP), 320 x 240 (30 fps) available up to 4GB or 60 minutes, 160 x 120 (up to 3 minutes at 15 fps)

Number of Recordable Images
Large (L) Medium 1 (M1) Medium 2 (M2)
SF F N SF F N SF F N
File Size (KB) 3,045 1,897 902 2,503 1,395 695 1,602 893 445
32MB 9 15 32 11 20 41 18 32 64
SDC-128M 40 64 134 49 87 173 76 136 269
SDC-512MSH 156 251 520 190 339 671 295 529 1,041

Medium 3 (M3) Small (S) Widescreen (W)
SF F N SF F N SF F N
File Size (KB) 1,002 558 278 249 150 84 2,304 1,420 678
32MB 29 52 99 111 171 270 12 20 42
SDC-128M 121 217 411 460 711 1,118 53 86 177
SDC-512MSH 471 839 1,590 1,777 2,747 4,317 207 335 686


Time of Recordable Movies
Standard, Color Accent, Color Swap Compact
640 x 480 320 x 240 160 x 120
20 fps 20 fps LP 30 fps 15 fps
Movie size (KB/sec.) 1,280 640 660 120
32MB 22 sec. 45 sec. 43sec. 3 min. 30 sec.
SDC-128M 1 min. 36 sec. 3 min. 10 sec. 3 min. 01 sec. 14 min. 29 sec.
SDC-512MSH 6 min. 12 sec. 12 min. 16 sec. 11 min. 42 sec. 55 min. 57 sec.
Note: N=Normal F=Fine SF=SuperFine
Storage Capacity varies depending on camera settings. This data is estimated from Canon's standard shooting conditions. Figures for Movie Mode represent total capacity of the particular media.
Playback Specifications
Playback Modes File

Still Image: Single, Magnification (approx. 2x-10x), Jump, Auto Rotate, Rotate, Resume, My Category, Transition Effects, Histogram, Overexposure Warning, Index (9 thumbnails), Sound Memos, Slide Show, Red-eye Correction, RAW, Resize
Movie: Normal Playback, Special Playback, Auto Rotate, Resume
Erasing Specifications
Erase Modes

Still Image: single image, select all images
Movie: part of movie, all of movie


Interfaces

Computer Interface
USB 2.0 Hi-Speed (mini-B jack)

Video Out
NTSC/PAL

Audio Out
Monaural

Other
Memory card slot; direct connection to Canon SELPHY Compact Photo Printers, PIXMA Photo Printers and PictBridge-compatible printers via camera's USB 2.0 Hi-Speed cable


Power Supply

Power Source
1. AA-size Alkaline Battery (x2)

2. Rechargeable AA-size Ni-MH Battery (x2)

3. AC Adapter Kit ACK800 (optional)
Shooting Capacity
Still Image: approx. 150 shots (AA-size Alkaline Battery), approx. 400 shots (AA-size Ni-MH Battery) *
Playback Time
Approx. 360 min. (AA-size Alkaline Battery), approx. 480 min. (AA-size Ni-MH Battery)

* LCD screen on. The above figures comply with CIPA testing standards and apply when fully-charged batteries are used.



Physical Specifications

Operating Temperature
32-104°F/0-40°C

Operating Humidity
10-90%

Dimensions (WxHxD)
4.13 x 2.17 x 1.60 in. / 104.8 x 55.1 x 40.7mm

Weight
Approx. 5.82 oz. / 165g (camera body only)]


-WFA

[edit on 14-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
There are 2 objects, the other is up and to the right, another member mentioned it on Page 1. Seems to be the same shape and poised at the same angle..... perhaps this may tell us something more. Take a look.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   
The camera certainly got high, but not in space or close to it.

If it was a reflection then the same reflection should be seen on the water, which is close to the UFO. Reflections are usually spread across a wide area, not a small one.

I could be wrong though...

[edit on 15/9/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   
*gasp*
You can't even see any stars? This is an elaborate fake, NASA are obviously...oh...wait...never mind.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I did some further enhancement of the "white dot" for those of you who are interested.
media.abovetopsecret.com...




peace



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by scubagravy
There are 2 objects, the other is up and to the right, another member mentioned it on Page 1. Seems to be the same shape and poised at the same angle..... perhaps this may tell us something more. Take a look.

I noticed that. That points to the likelihood of a real image entering the lens and not a cosmic ray source.

The brightest object may have been reflected inside the camera lens to produce a dimmer reflected image of itself from an effect called "lens flare"


Originally posted by C0bzz
The camera certainly got high, but not in space or close to it.

If it was a reflection then the same reflection should be seen on the water, which is close to the UFO. Reflections are usually spread across a wide area, not a small one.

I could be wrong though...

[edit on 15/9/2009 by C0bzz]


I think you are both right and wrong. Look at this photo of a reflection of the sun:



In the top reflection the reflection covers a wide area, in the bottom reflection it does not cover a wide area but it requires relatively calm water to make a reflection like the bottom one. Therefore most ocean reflections will be wider like the top one, as the ocean isn't calm. Inland bodies of water can be calm enough to produce the bottom type of reflection illustrated in this photo. And if the body of water is not large, the size of the reflection will be further confined, such that you may not see the reflection anywhere else.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Great photo. The angle, the light, all. Amazing!



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join