Photo Of The UFO That Shut Down The China Airport!!

page: 38
134
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I highly doubt this picture was an "over exposure" of any object, let alone a helicopter.

1. Over exposures are the realm of film cameras, which went out of style over a decade ago. This picture was likely taken with a portable digital camera that uses a fixed exposure time.

2. The row of lights on the object, whatever it is, has a pattern of 2, 2, 1. If this were an over exposure, a 2, 2, 2 pattern would be visible in the row of lights. The 1 light alone on the end would be duplicated in an over-exposed image. I believe the fact that the pattern is 2, 2, 1 indicates this was absolutely not an over-exposed picture.

3. The person who took the picture was apparently quoted as saying he decided to snap the picture because he could not understand what he was seeing, and he wanted to document the event. Almost every grown adult understands what helicopters look like and sound like, and people know what they're dealing with especially when a known object is as close to the observer as this unknown object was.




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by UofM.Physicist
 


Interesting to see that abovetopsecret.com is now a part of this Chinese UFO mystery/news story as posted here on Saturday, July 10th:

"I don't think a helicopter is what was witnessed," wrote one commentator on the forum Above Top Secret.

"I do, however think that it is definitely a helicopter in this picture and is more than likely unrelated to the incident."

And I may have missed it in the numerous pages of this thread, but the article continued on with:

"We should first find out how the owner got the approval to fly the object," said the staff member, who did not wish to be named.

"Even a fire balloon needs to get the authority's permission before lifting off."



Source: news.ninemsn.com.au...

[edit on 12-7-2010 by manta78]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
I highly doubt this picture was an "over exposure" of any object, let alone a helicopter.

1. Over exposures are the realm of film cameras, which went out of style over a decade ago. This picture was likely taken with a portable digital camera that uses a fixed exposure time.


Ummm, no. Digital cameras don't all have a "fixed exposure time". Ever try and take a picture at night of city lights with a digital camera? Your shutter speed will usually be so slow it will alert you that you need a tripod or something. You can clearly see the image was blurred because of this long exposure (looking at the buildings).

The object in question is most likely a helicopter or small aircraft, taken with maybe a 2 or 3 second exposure. Examples of pictures of helicopters taken with similar long exposures have been posted here already, so no need to duplicate other members hard work here.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Ummm, no. Digital cameras don't all have a "fixed exposure time". Ever try and take a picture at night of city lights with a digital camera? Your shutter speed will usually be so slow it will alert you that you need a tripod or something. You can clearly see the image was blurred because of this long exposure (looking at the buildings).

The object in question is most likely a helicopter or small aircraft, taken with maybe a 2 or 3 second exposure. Examples of pictures of helicopters taken with similar long exposures have been posted here already, so no need to duplicate other members hard work here.



The row of lights on the object, whatever it is, has a pattern of 2, 2, 1. If this were an over exposure, a 2, 2, 2 pattern would be visible in the row of lights. The 1 light alone on the end would be duplicated in an over-exposed image. I believe the fact that the pattern is 2, 2, 1 indicates this was absolutely not an over-exposed picture.

Furthermore, digital cameras do not 'overexpose' the image like film cameras do. Digital cameras wash out the image by increasing the pixel brightness at discrete points. The fact that the 2,2,1 light pattern exists on the top part of this image proves that this effect cannot be due to an image artifact, or else the light pattern across the top would have registered as 2, 2, 2.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
The row of lights on the object, whatever it is, has a pattern of 2, 2, 1. If this were an over exposure, a 2, 2, 2 pattern would be visible in the row of lights. The 1 light alone on the end would be duplicated in an over-exposed image. I believe the fact that the pattern is 2, 2, 1 indicates this was absolutely not an over-exposed picture.


.....or, the photo captured the 2,2 and only 1 of the third white light strobe flashes before its exposure was done.


There are examples posted on this very thread of long exposures of helicopters at night, which easily match this photo.

This could easily be answered by having the person who took the picture post the original RAW photo...which would show the camera and exposure settings. Until then, we can use other similar photos as classic examples.

edit: corrected for white strobe flash, not red

[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

.....or, the photo captured the 2,2 and only 1 of the third white light strobe flashes before its exposure was done.


[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]


I'm sorry, but that response is non-sensical. The camera collects the entire image during the exposure time. It doesn't selectively capture one part of the image with one exposure time, and another part with a different exposure time.

I believe my logic is sound here. A double-exposure, over-exposusure can be sufficiently ruled out by the 2, 2, 1 light pattern captured on the top of the object.



[edit on 12-7-2010 by UofM.Physicist]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
I'm sorry, but that response is non-sensical. The camera collects the entire image during the exposure time. It doesn't selectively capture one part of the image with one exposure time, and another part with a different exposure time.

I believe my logic is sound here. A double-exposure, over-exposusure can be sufficiently ruled out by the 2, 2, 1 light pattern capture on the top of the object.



Apparently you need to learn more about photography in general....might ask your arts professor there at UofM.

The camera collects the entire image during the exposure time? Whaaa?

No double exposure...just a long exposure. Very few, if any, digital cameras can do a double exposure. That is mainly done in post processing.

The photograph that was taken clearly shows the blurred buildings, correct? Please tell me you can at least see the buildings are blurred as well.

The blurring affects both the building on the left, as well as the power lines, and building on the right....PLUS the object in the air. The strobe light from the passing aircraft causes the "white dots".

We have ALL seen long exposures of cars driving by, with the long blurred white or red lines. However, a flash (or strobe) from an aircraft will only show up as a dot, since it is only on a fraction of a second.

If you want to see aliens, more power to you. However, this photo doesnt show them, sorry, please try again.



[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]

[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron


The photograph that was taken clearly shows the blurred buildings, correct? Please tell me you can at least see the buildings are blurred as well.

The blurring affects both the building on the left, as well as the power lines, and building on the right....PLUS the object in the air. The strobe light from the passing aircraft causes the "white dots".


[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]


Hang on there. First of all, the buildings were clearly not 'moving'. Therefore, if you wish to attribute the building shadows to motion, then you must hypothesize that the camera itself was moving as the image was captured. Camera moving slightly right to left as the image was captured, because the shadows are on the right. However, the 2-2-1 patter left to right is contrary to what would be achieved if the camera was panning right to left (in which case you'd get a 1-2-2 pattern).

A problem also arise where you throw in conjecture that we are seeing aircraft strobe lights. Strobe lights have a frequency on the order of seconds, and night time camera exposures on portable digital cameras have a timeframe on the order of 1/3 of a second (at most). The 2-2-1 pattern being achieved would require an exposure time of ~6 seconds if the strobes were 1-sec based, which is clearly not the case here.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
Hang on there. First of all, the buildings were clearly not 'moving'. Therefore, if you wish to attribute the building shadows to motion, then you must hypothesize that the camera itself was moving as the image was captured. Camera moving slightly right to left as the image was captured, because the shadows are on the right. However, the 2-2-1 patter left to right is contrary to what would be achieved if the camera was panning right to left (in which case you'd get a 1-2-2 pattern).


Umm...you can achieve the pic by the following:

- 1st strobe of light goes off
- shutter is released, captures 2nd strobe, and slight shift to right.
- exposure completes (2 secs later?) capturing remaining strobes in sequence.

Strobe flashes can be quite quick, not seconds as you have stated.

"Conventional ( xenon) strobes provide all of their light in a short 100 micro-second long burst each time they flash, whereas the LED strobes are on for 80 milli-seconds for each flash. This provides a longer period of time for the human eye to see the flashes."
www.zenithair.com...

I guess I thought that everyone could figure that out....

[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Umm...you can achieve the pic by the following:

- 1st strobe of light goes off
- shutter is released, captures 2nd strobe, and slight shift to right.
- exposure completes (2 secs later?) capturing remaining strobes in sequence.

Strobe flashes can be quite quick, not seconds as you have stated.

"Conventional ( xenon) strobes provide all of their light in a short 100 micro-second long burst each time they flash, whereas the LED strobes are on for 80 milli-seconds for each flash. This provides a longer period of time for the human eye to see the flashes."
www.zenithair.com...

[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]


My friend, you are confusing the strobe flash duration with the strobe frequency. The burst of light is indeed on the order of ms, but the time in between flashes is on the order of seconds. In order to get 5 distinct light sources to show up on the image, you would need a minimum exposure time of 5*frequency, or roughly 5-6 seconds. Stock digital cameras have a night-time exposure setting fixed at around 1/3 of a second. Secondly, a long exposure like this would result in a band of light across the image, three of them to be exact, not 5 separate bursts of light.

I don't think you or I can sufficiently state what was captured in the photograph, and it is incorrect to state unequivocally it was a helicopter taken at a 5+ second exposure.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Oh?
So i guess everyone just completely ignores the FACTS now at ATS?

This picture or any of these pictures HAVE NOT been confirmed as related to this incident. According to whatever was at the airport nobody could spot this with a Naked eye and you certainly wouldnt be able to photograph it the way this shows up.

Please stop arguing about what is in this photograph and what is in the other photographs they havent been confirmed as anything to do with this event.

STOP arguing about if its a helicopter OR not. Its completely irrelevant. That photograph was likely passed off as the said object and we've covered this already multiple times.



Anyone got any actual leads to further factual information on this case? What would be good now is if a Mod came along and closed the thread pending a further report or further info. I can only see this waging into battles of people shouting 'fake' or 'its a helicopter' and arguing about exposure times.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
. Secondly, a long exposure like this would result in a band of light across the image, three of them to be exact, not 5 separate bursts of light.


A band of light? Why?

The white light below...yes, since it was on constant.
The red light above it...yes, since it also looks to have been on constant, or for a longer period of time.

The dots ARE consistent with a strobe. Why would it be a blur if it was only on for a fraction of a second? Have you seen photographs that show a strobe light passing? There is a beautiful night pic on airliners.net that shows the cool effect you can get from a strobe light on a plane taking off:

blog.makezine.com...

red dot in center...single flashing strobe.


Have you seen posted somewhere that he was using a stock digital camera, set on the night setting? Can you be so certain that he didn't just pick up his camera, power it on, point and shoot? Where have you seen more information on the camera that was used?

[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

The dots ARE consistent with a strobe. Why would it be a blur if it was only on for a fraction of a second? Have you seen photographs that show a strobe light passing? There is a beautiful night pic on airliners.net that shows the cool effect you can get from a strobe light on a plane taking off:

blog.makezine.com...

red dot in center...single flashing strobe.


Have you seen posted somewhere that he was using a stock digital camera, set on the night setting? Can you be so certain that he didn't just pick up his camera, power it on, point and shoot? Where have you seen more information on the camera that was used?

[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]


You are referencing a professional photograph that has a custom-set exposure time on the order of dozens of seconds. The fact is that there's no way a hand held digital camera has a shutter speed any longer than 1/3 second, even in the darkest of conditions. A strobe with a frequency of 1-second would require a 5+ second exposure time. It's as simple as that. Neither of us know what we're looking at in this picture, but we know it isn't a picture of strobe light.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
The dots ARE consistent with a strobe.
[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]


And actually you can be proven wrong here yet again. The dots in the picture are not spaced evenly across the image. There are a set of two lights, one space, another set of two lights, a much larger space, and then a single light. If your strobe theory was even close to being correct, the spacing between the strobe pulses would be equidistant throughout the image.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist

Originally posted by gavron
The dots ARE consistent with a strobe.
[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]


And actually you can be proven wrong here yet again. The dots in the picture are not spaced evenly across the image. There are a set of two lights, one space, another set of two lights, a much larger space, and then a single light. If your strobe theory was even close to being correct, the spacing between the strobe pulses would be equidistant throughout the image.


You make the assumption that the helicopter was traveling exactly perpendicular to the camera at constant speed throughout the exposure. Helicopters can slow, hover, rotate... double pulse strobing seems right, and the single pulse is at the end of the exposure, which probably occurred before the second pulse.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
You make the assumption that the helicopter was traveling exactly perpendicular to the camera at constant speed throughout the exposure. Helicopters can slow, hover, rotate... double pulse strobing seems right, and the single pulse is at the end of the exposure, which probably occurred before the second pulse.


A helicopter is not going to have the flight characteristics you describe inside a 1/3 second shutter speed interval.

The typical shutter speed on a handheld digital camera is 1/3 second. The typical strobe frequency on aircraft is 1 second. These facts indicate we are not looking at a moving strobe light, because A) the lights are not evenly space, and B) the camera's exposure time would have to be 5+ seconds in order to capture 5 strobe flashes.

Those who continue to insist this is a helicopter aren't doing themselves any favors. We don't know what was captured in this image, but we do know a helicopter with strobe lights can be sufficiently ruled out.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist

Originally posted by gavron
The dots ARE consistent with a strobe.
[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]


And actually you can be proven wrong here yet again. The dots in the picture are not spaced evenly across the image. There are a set of two lights, one space, another set of two lights, a much larger space, and then a single light. If your strobe theory was even close to being correct, the spacing between the strobe pulses would be equidistant throughout the image.

Here, let me know you where you are wrong again.

Perhaps you need to do a little research on strobe lights on the wings of aircraft....and how they flash....and at what rate.

Not all lights flash like this.

X...X...X...X...X...X...X...X...

there are some that flash like this.

X.X...X.X...X.X...X.X...X.X...



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
You are referencing a professional photograph that has a custom-set exposure time on the order of dozens of seconds. The fact is that there's no way a hand held digital camera has a shutter speed any longer than 1/3 second, even in the darkest of conditions. A strobe with a frequency of 1-second would require a 5+ second exposure time. It's as simple as that. Neither of us know what we're looking at in this picture, but we know it isn't a picture of strobe light.



You might want to check your local camera store. Best Buy has cameras for less than $70 (point and shoots) that have exposures up to 4 seconds.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist


The typical shutter speed on a handheld digital camera is 1/3 second. The typical strobe frequency on aircraft is 1 second. These facts indicate we are not looking at a moving strobe light, because A) the lights are not evenly space, and B) the camera's exposure time would have to be 5+ seconds in order to capture 5 strobe flashes.



Please show us where you are getting your data that states aircraft strobes ONLY flash at 1 second intervals, please.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Superiorraw
So i guess everyone just completely ignores the FACTS now at ATS?


Not everyone. But many people ignoring facts is a longstanding tradition on ATS. Sometimes it works out well, as some "facts" are shown to be covering up something. The majority of times, however, as in this thread, it just gets annoying and foolish.






new topics
top topics
 
134
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join