Help me Identify this object

Originally posted by Tharsis
The first two, actually. They look entirely unalike, in both shape and color. What did the light appear as in the sky? Was it just a single dot or did it have shape or were you unable to discern w/your vision (you mentioned it isn't what it used to be)?

At what point did you stop observing the light and at what point did you realize it was no longer there?

The second imageshack pic, to me, looks just like a moth or other flier in your headlights. Then I read that it didn't move, so there goes that...

All 3 of those images posted at imageshack
are different pics taken at different times.

the difference between pic 1 and pic 2
is the tilt of the object. As you can see
I did not tilt the camera so I have no clue
why the object tilted one way in 1 and another way
in the other. That's a mystery too.

As far as what it looked like with the naked eye,
it just appeared to be a light

and I stopped observing it when it hid behind the clouds
and wouldn't come back out. I left.

Originally posted by scraze
Yay! Works like a charm. Thanks for the effort, hope you didn't mind. So far, I haven't found any new details like I expected to, despite the virtual absence of compression artefacts in the originals. I'm not done playing with filters yet though - if I find anything, I'll let you know

!

great and thanks for your help
please let me know if u find anything.
And just so ya know, I don't have or use
photoshop so u will not find photoshop
exif data in those pics. I used windows
to d/l straight to pc from camera.
So the originals at imageshack haven't
been edited.

That is way too big and bright to be Venus.

Looking at the full res one of the 3rd image, Boondock do you think that could be an artifact from the camera moving? The car going past and the grass all look like you might've moved the camera during the shot or the low light made it hard for the camera to get a clearer shot?

cheers mob

reply to post by boondock-saint


If you see this thing again, it would be a good idea to turn off your headlights before taking a pic..
I'm no expert but I'd expect that to highlight the object better..
It seems very bright in that first pic..Brighter than stars usually look to me..

Originally posted by mobtek
Looking at the full res one of the 3rd image, Boondock do you think that could be an artifact from the camera moving? The car going past and the grass all look like you might've moved the camera during the shot or the low light made it hard for the camera to get a clearer shot?

well I did not use a tripod. I don't know
how steady I was. I was not overly excited
as most people would think when viewing
something like this. I'm a pretty cool
customer. I just don't think I was
shaking that much. I think it was
more of a focusing thing. I do remember
taking some pics at a ballgame back
during the fall and I had the camera set to
autofocus. And when you press the button
to snap the shot, there is a lil red box that
appears in the display that shows u what
object the camera is focused on. This camera
had a hard time focusing on what was in the middle
of the shot, it kept moving the focus to some other
background object. So I went into settings
and turned the auto-focus to OFF back in
early fall.

Originally posted by backinblack
If you see this thing again, it would be a good idea to turn off your headlights before taking a pic..
I'm no expert but I'd expect that to highlight the object better..

It seems very bright in that first pic..Brighter than stars usually look to me..

well see herein lies another dilemma.
On all those UFO threads, the skeptics
kept saying there was nothing in the shot
for them to compare the size and distance
of the object, no landmarks or trees or buildings
to use as a scale. And if I had of not turned
on the headlights, then all you would have seen
in the pics were just an object in the black sky
with nothing else to compare it to. I thought I was
doing the right thing by leaving the lights on
so folks could see the other objects in the shot
so they could determine scale. So how can
anybody win when taking photos such as these?

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
That is way too big and bright to be Venus.

well that is what I am here
to find out.

reply to post by boondock-saint


It isn't too big and bright. Remember that camera shake has to be taken into account? You can see the shake visible on the second image with the road lights and the white lines.

Currently Venus in the UK is at 0500 big and bright in the South Eastern sky.

TJ

Looking at the EXIF date they were all taken at 1 second shutter speed. As you have already pointed out to the naked eye it just appeared as a light.

The 1 second shutter exposure is the answer to the puzzle. At 1 second shutter speed hand held any light source is going to end up distorted. There is no point zooming into it and trying to work out a shape at that shutter speed as some people have done.

As you state Venus is the most likely suspect. It is currently very bright in the Northern hemisphere. 1 second exposure hand held will only make the light source something that it isn't.

TJ

Lens flare.... Nuff said

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
That light it definetly Venus. I saw it myself, I am on the east Coast as well and it took me by surprise.
But Venus 100%

well unless anybody else
comes along with a better
scapegoat, then Venus is
my #1 suspect at this time
which is why I asked if it was
Venus in the OP.

I don't know why you're saying "#1 suspect"?

Did you download Stellarium and compare the position of the object you saw at that time to the position of Venus at that time? If you did, and it's a perfect match, I don't know why you would still have any uncertainty.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
That is way too big and bright to be Venus.

I explained back on page 2 why that's not the case, but feel free to debate the issue: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by boondock-saint

Never said et related,I did say it looked like a ufo,by definition of the term,it's unidentified it's flying,and it's an object.It's a term probably used way too much these days and that's the stigma attached,but it should be used when it fits the scenario.If you could identify it you would not be on the computer asking everybody else to identify it...make sense?

reply to post by boondock-saint




Can you attached the original photo file to imageshack.com for us to look at?

Originally posted by Symp EL
Can you attached the original photo file to imageshack.com for us to look at?

they were posted on page 4 already
2nd

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
]I don't know why you're saying "#1 suspect"?
Did you download Stellarium and compare the position of the object you saw at that time to the position of Venus at that time? If you did, and it's a perfect match, I don't know why you would still have any uncertainty.

because Venus can be hid behind the
cloud cover just as well as this object can.
Venus could have been hid
while this object was peeking.
A lot of the other stars were hid
by clouds, stands to reason.

Originally posted by tommyjo
The 1 second shutter exposure is the answer to the puzzle. At 1 second shutter speed hand held any light source is going to end up distorted. There is no point zooming into it and trying to work out a shape at that shutter speed as some people have done.

so u seem to know cameras,
can u tell me how to change
my shutter speed so this does
not happen again ????

Originally posted by boondock-saint
can u tell me how to change
my shutter speed so this does
not happen again ????

If you shorten the exposure, it may be too short for the image to show up.

I would have to read the manual for your camera to see how to change the setting, it's a little different for each camera.

But really the better answer is to use a tripod.

Looks a lot like a tower light in the distance.