Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
The typical shutter speed on a handheld digital camera is 1/3 second.

Not in dark conditions. The "shutter" will stay open for as long as it takes the camera to record what it thinks is a good image.

Now, if the camera happens to move in that period of time, you'll get shadowing that looks like a double exposure. With the photo in question, the person opened the shutter for short period of time, then moved it to better match the path of the thing in the sky.

Originally posted by gavron

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...

But none of them flash like this

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

Originally posted by gavron
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.

Again, most stock hand held digital cameras have a maximum shutter speed of 1/3 second. It is simply too difficult for a person without a tripod to hold the camera steady for longer than 1/3 second, and that's why most digital cameras do not even allow you to configure the shutter speed. They adjust it for the surrounding light level, and they max it out at 1/3 second.

I'm not going to argue this fact any longer. This photograph does not show a helicopter strobe light. I've given at least four valid reasons why we're not looking at a helicopter here.

Impossible to tell what it is because of the long exposure time and high ISO.

I would say a regular commercial aircraft.

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist

Originally posted by gavron

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...

But none of them flash like this

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

Intimately familiar with the strobe patterns of all Chinese aircraft nav lights, are you?

You don't know what type of craft it is. You don't know the direction of travel. You don't know the speed. You don't know whether it accelerated, decelerated, or changed orientation during the exposure. You don't know how stable the camera was. You don't know the exact shutter speed.

Seems the only thing you do know is that it's definitely NOT a helicopter.

This post is about as convincing as it gets.

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by Chadwickus
It's a long exposure of what looks like a helicopter.

Yes it does. Here's some other long exposures of helicopters.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by freelance_zenarchist]

[edit on 12-7-2010 by draknoir2]

I like how it looks like it has windows. Almost man-made i would think.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist

Originally posted by gavron

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...

But none of them flash like this

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

Intimately familiar with the strobe patterns of all Chinese aircraft nav lights, are you?

You don't know what type of craft it is. You don't know the direction of travel. You don't know the speed. You don't know whether it accelerated, decelerated, or changed orientation during the exposure. You don't know how stable the camera was. You don't know the exact shutter speed.

Seems the only thing you do know is that it's definitely NOT a helicopter.


Yes it does. Here's some other long exposures of helicopters.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by draknoir2]

"Chinese aircraft nav lights"? Did you just ask me if I knew "Chinese strobe patterns"? You are obviously not a pilot, my friend.

Who has verified that the pictures you posted are "long exposures of helicopters"? You have posted two random pictures. And the pictures you posted do not contain the irregular 2-2-1 pattern of lights that the photograph in question contains. I have written about how this pattern rules out the light coming from a consistently flashing strobe.

I believe you are the only person here trying to convince people to believe this object is a known helicopter. I am not taking an approach that requires me to know beforehand what this object is, as you are.

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist

And the pictures you posted do not contain the irregular 2-2-1 pattern of lights that the photograph in question contains. I have written about how this pattern rules out the light coming from a consistently flashing strobe.

Actually, your theory doesn't hold water. According to you, the flashing light pattern could only be 2,2,2.....and because it is 2,2,1 it is otherworldly?

There isn't the chance that the image only captured 5 of the flashes, and not 6 because the shutter of the camera was only open for the duration of 5 of the flashes?



I think the other pictures shown here easily prove it was more likely a conventional aircraft, and not a 5 strobe ufo from the planet niburu.

Originally posted by gavron

Actually, your theory doesn't hold water. According to you, the flashing light pattern could only be 2,2,2.....and because it is 2,2,1 it is otherworldly?

There isn't the chance that the image only captured 5 of the flashes, and not 6 because the shutter of the camera was only open for the duration of 5 of the flashes?

Tell me where I said this object was an 'alien spacecraft'? I did not say this. You are the one telling people you "know" what the object is. I don't know what it is, and neither do you.

Finally, regarding the 2,2,1 pattern, yes, this proves the lights are not a camera artifact, exposure related, or otherwise. The one single light at the end is not space evenly with the other two sets of lights, indicating this photo did not capture a consistently flashing strobe. The pattern also proves that this was not a motion artifact, as I explained above. Whatever was photographed in the sky had this pattern of 5 lights on it.

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist

Originally posted by gavron

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...

But none of them flash like this

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

Intimately familiar with the strobe patterns of all Chinese aircraft nav lights, are you?

You don't know what type of craft it is. You don't know the direction of travel. You don't know the speed. You don't know whether it accelerated, decelerated, or changed orientation during the exposure. You don't know how stable the camera was. You don't know the exact shutter speed.

Seems the only thing you do know is that it's definitely NOT a helicopter.


Yes it does. Here's some other long exposures of helicopters.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by draknoir2]

"Chinese aircraft nav lights"? Did you just ask me if I knew "Chinese strobe patterns"? You are obviously not a pilot, my friend.

Who has verified that the pictures you posted are "long exposures of helicopters"? You have posted two random pictures. And the pictures you posted do not contain the irregular 2-2-1 pattern of lights that the photograph in question contains. I have written about how this pattern rules out the light coming from a consistently flashing strobe.

I believe you are the only person here trying to convince people to believe this object is a known helicopter. I am not taking an approach that requires me to know beforehand what this object is, as you are.

Can't recall saying I was. You, however, do profess to be a physicist... a claim I am finding increasingly difficult to accept.


Oh, and if you bothered to read the quote source you'd see that the comparison photos were posted by someone else [freelance_zenarchist ].

[edit on 12-7-2010 by draknoir2]

funny how people keep speculating when it's a known fake, hell go read eve online or scrapheap-challenge forums lot of people make these hoax pics using spaceships from in game and blurring them up in photoshop and placing them into scenes. There's even one of our ships next to statue of liberty looks really good.

pretty funny when gamer's fun photo forum threads gets picked up on a conspiracy theory site

I just tried to access an update on China news and got a security warning. Haven't had a security warning for ages, ???????



My software did detect the thread and deleted it.

Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
. The one single light at the end is not space evenly with the other two sets of lights, indicating this photo did not capture a consistently flashing strobe.

Umm, did you happen to notice the blur of the building? Does that mean the building rooflines dont space evenly with the rest of the buildings, so they are part of a UFO too?

Also, notice those pesky power lines? The ones that kinda intersect where the other light might be?