It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


2 Objects from My Backyard

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:44 PM
reply to post by marsorbust


Thank you for your reply.

I only have a few sec's before I have to sign off ATS for today, but if you look on my profile page you will find a thread I posted about a UFO photographed above a windmill.

This was also lens flare.

I will post again later on.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by marsorbust

Its much better than hearing it came from a 3d website somewhere.

I never made anyclaims about this comming from a 3d website.
i did a search on what i could read from the filename and came up with this*.jpeg&form=QBIR&qs=n&sk=#

Now the space picture with the nebula stuck out to me.
So why did you add the noise to the first photo?

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by zaiger

What is saying is the original photo that is black is black, as attested to by the unaltered photo sent in to the Green eyed leo. That when he used a certain program to remove noise, a demo I believe, the stars popped out. I take it there were stars that night. What part of what he is saying are you not understanding. If you don't like the result between the black unaltered, and the stars that are achieved by removing the noise, it doesnt change anything. Perhaps someone on a windows OP could try downloading that demo and removing the noise from the photo themselves.

OP: its rather interesting affect. I don't believe half the things they say are lense flares or compression artifacts are, but in this case, what is it? Thanks for posting this photo for discussion.

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by zaiger
...OP: its rather interesting affect. I don't believe half the things they say are lense flares or compression artifacts are, but in this case, what is it? Thanks for posting this photo for discussion.

What makes you say it isn't lens flare? It most certainly looks like lens flare in this "raw" image that greeneyedleo posted:

I can't positively identify this as lens flare, but It definitely looks enough like lens flare that it can't be ruled out, either. Also, by the looks of the rest of that picture, I don't think the exposure would have been long enough for stars to be visible.

[edit on 4/9/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by Unity_99

Well said unity.

The program to use is called neat image demo. I use it quite often especially for star fields. When you do high iso exposures, you will most likely pick up noise which will cover or blend in with the data.
The demo is a full package free for non comercial use.

Enough said about that.

I do appreciate your comment on the lens flare. I also have other images taken from the same position with no lens flare detectable to me. Thats the problem with the lens flare theory. It should hold true for any images under the same conditions with the camera mounted in the same position. I''ll see what I can do to find one to demonstrate what I'm describing.


posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:06 PM
reply to post by Unity_99

That when he used a certain program to remove noise, a demo I believe, the stars popped out.

Yeah you can get it yourself

You can try to remove all the noise and it will not make stars "pop out". I have tried with his original with 2 different programs to remove the noise and get stars but i have not been able to do it.
Now when i add noise i can add as many stars as i would like.
ISO noise is a factor of the sensitivity of CMOS to light. As the ISO number gets higher, the sensitivity increases but so does the possibility of noise. The result is that you can shoot at faster shutter speeds and higher apertures to obtain greater DOF but, as with most other things in photography, there is a cost or a trade off. As ISO increases the amount of noise generated in the image also increases. Noise can be seen as random colour flecks that are not really in the scene that is being photographed but are placed in the image by the CMOS...
...when one is photographing the stars, doing an extreme close ups, or using the Hubble, you need to know that noise is not creating something in the image that is not really there.

Please note as the ammount of noise increases those little white specs increase.

To make stars "pop out" you use a noise filter, not one to filter out noise you add noise to get stars.

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by marsorbust

If you tell us what direction you were facing, what time was the photo taken, and the general geographic location, we could attempt to match the "star field" up against a map of the sky.

[edit on 4/9/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:38 PM
The full picture helped!

Two ideas:

1. The two skylights might be lights in the distance, like streetlamps?

2. The better of my two ideas - it's called a "superior mirage". I've seen some wild pictures of superior mirages. Notice the direction of the light beam in the 'skylights'.

P.S. Superior mirages are weather based phenomenon ... therefore you can't repeat the picture effect unless you could ABSOLUTELY repeat and duplicate the weather perfectly.

[edit on 9/4/2010 by Trexter Ziam]

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 08:36 PM

Sharpened it and changed the contrast and brightness so the details could be seen better. The purple thing on top is also there on the upper right and left side of the street light. When i overlay the thing in the sky over the purple lensflare next to the street light it does not look too far off.

reply to post by Trexter Ziam

superior mirages are a bit different than that

[edit on 9-4-2010 by zaiger]

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by marsorbust

I see pin heads of light.
Are those stars.
Those are two fairly bright lights not to see when taking a photo.
ED: Gad if you want to go for a UFO the red area might be one
of those triangle craft, two circular areas are opposite the
bright point. Or you got a mask flare.

[edit on 4/9/2010 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:02 PM
reply to post by marsorbust


Here’s the article I posted in my thread wherein a professional photographer was not able to understand the appearance of lens flare / reflection in his photos.

If you look at the 2nd picture in the series (follow the link) you can clearly see the “object” is in front of the blade of the windmill, proving unequivocally it is lens flare / reflection.

Close encounters of a Norfolk kind: Glowing green UFO spotted hovering over windmill
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 3:06 PM on 10th March 2010

While he was there he didn't hear or see anything unusual and it is only when he got home to King's Lynn that he realised there was something odd about the images he'd taken.
The green light was on some images but not others indicating it was not a smudge on his lens and it appeared to have moved from right to left.
Plane? Helicopter? Gyrocopter? The theories abound in and around the villages close to the windmill, which is 30 miles from an RAF base, about what went on that February night.
Lindsay Abel, manager of the windmill, told Mail Online: 'It is very strange it has to be said.'
She said the building was an aerial landmark for pilots and had even been used as a navigational tool during World War II.
'The Germans used it in the war when they headed up to the Midlands to bomb,' she said.
'Maybe the UFO looking down saw these strange sails and wondered what the hell it was!'

Malcolm Robinson, founder of Strange Phenomena Investigations, said he thought the photograph showed a Chinese lantern.

He said: '[Chinese lanterns] can be from 2 to 6 feet across and a candle can be lit inside them whereupon the individual then releases them into the sky.

'Chinese lanterns have given rise to many a false UFO report here in the UK.
'What I think has happened here is that the paper which makes up the Chinese Lantern could have been made of green paper and the candle would shine through the green paper turning the image/light to green.

'When photographed, the cold night air would intensify around the light making it blur for the camera.'
The 19th century windmill stopped working in 1941 when its sails were struck by lightning but has since been restored and is the last working windmill in Norfolk.

Here is an enlargement of the photo:

Here is a link showing the “object” in front of the blade of the windmill (see 2nd image):

Here is a link to the thread:

I hope this helps.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:29 PM
looks like some sort of light reflection to me mate

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:32 PM
Hello everyone,

I just returned home from work and its around 1:30 a.m.

I'm really beat for the night. The comments on this page are excellant and I thank you all for them. Fascinating stuff. Yes, I learned lots. Thanks to all and I mean ALL of you.

I'll comment better tomorrow when I get some shuteye.

No hard feelings and apologize for sounding too harsh.


posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by marsorbust

Super impressive, got my vote! Just beautiful.

You must live somplace rural, where I'm at there is so much light pollution.

Hope to see more.

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 06:42 AM
reply to post by marsorbust

I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this but I don't care. Upon viewing the first pic, it's looks like a spherical outline of a Planet to the right couldn't help but notice that it was goldish in color. Please tell me that I'm not the only one to see it.

I won't say the words but, I think everyone knows what I am thinking on this one.

Yes, they look like two Planets to me.

Actually, on second thought the red one looks like a "dark star" and the gold one looks like a planet. Yes, it looks like a "golden planet" that could possibly be revolving around a "dark star". And being how the Op, has taken the photo from his back yard, they are obviously very close to "Mother Earth". Catch my drift?

There, I said it.

This sounds very familiar to me for some strange reason.

I believe the Op. This photo is not a hoax.

~ Zeus

[edit on 10-4-2010 by Zeus2573]

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 04:15 PM
reply to post by Zeus2573

Yeah...i see what your implying.

Interesting conclusions however I'm surprised the size of the objects (or photo artifacts) and the luminosity that they are projecting out (shown by these camera images) that professional astromoners havn't spotted these out with high-end telescopes and such like; and commented on their movement and size.

I think i'll wait for some more confirming evidence with high definition images captured by a credible telescope and analysed by a professional astromoner. Or at least wait until i can clearly see something in the night sky (or day)

Anyone with that insight and experience with telescopes and astronomy please post your findings or theorys.

Interesting but questionable images though OP. Thought provoking.

Peace out

[edit on 12//4/1010 by misteRee]

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by Zeus2573


Two things me ol' mate.....


That picture shows lens flare / lens reflection, which you already know because I told you that in the other thread


What happened to your spinning avatar?

That was one of my favourites!

Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 12-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:05 PM
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

...Somedays i just curse myself for being skeptical........ but am i mistaking being skeptical with being logical and rational?

Again, call me a skeptic HOWEVER i do believe in extra-terrestrial life, i think it would be arrogant not to when you take into account probability.

...You just have to look at the Hubble Telescope images to realise it would take a mirracle and sheer ammounts of chance for us to be the only life in the observable universe. Thats how i can come to reason with that belief.

...........But HOW do you reason with these images, artifacts sourced by amateurs/enthusiasts with no mathematics to show where it is, how big it might be, speed of orbit or if it even orbits. No one with a credible high-end telescope has recorded or commented on any data. Only people on youtube, and other unrealiably sourced articles.

Again, i'm encouraging someone with some know-how, an astronomer, amature, professional - anyone to pose some theories with some hard hitting evidence and some anaylsis.

Peace out

[edit on 12//4/1010 by misteRee]

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 08:37 PM
reply to post by misteRee

Well we had an astronomer here saying there was no possible way he could get that kind of image from space

I have done amateur astrophotography for 20 years, and unless you had the camera on a tripod with an autotracker, and a shutter speed of at least 1 minute, you would never get an image like that, since the primary is simply too small to gather that much light.

There was a problem with the noise also. The first image he posted had lots of noise edited to look like stars. Then he posted the cropped original with no noise and no stars. The OP then said he removed the noise and the stars "popped out" which by my demonstration above just simply was not true.
If you go through the previous posts and my pictures you can see that this is a lens flare.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 08:52 PM
When I adjust the brightness contrast and intensity, I get this.

I think somebody is playing with layers and filters in photoshop.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in