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.

 

Morphing UFO Pictures you can even see the stars around it!

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
reply to post by Hellas
 


Well im not a photographer and it doesnt take an expert to know how to take a picture and to see the other stars around it they would be shaky too or morphed.

And I too use a trigger to take my pictures thats why they are so clear.
edit on 16-1-2011 by sugarcookie1 because: (no reason given)




Sure you do


The stars are not shaky because they are way to far away.. You had an exposure of 2 seconds. The light of the stars around your "ufo" need more time.

So 2 seconds -> shaky -> morphing UFOs



+2 more 
posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Oh and your FinePix S3100 isn't even compatible with a remote trigger. Just so you know. HOAX



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
... Great pictures! I came across stuff like this a few months ago ... It was quite mind boggling! The night sky is a scary place to look up to nowadays!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by faryjay
 


thank you faryjay
and yes i agree ive seen some strange stuff in the skys over the years on my farm but im glad i do its not often people get to see such wonderful stuff..



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


yes your right it was taken with a FinePix S3100 with a modified manual trigger ..but im not hear to argue with you in my heart i know what i took and what i took it with i have no reason to lie ..If you want to belive the pics are a hoax thats up to you ..but i stand by my pics 100 %
and have a wonderful evening



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
First of all, interesting photos OP!

Second, can you give us a certain date of the sighting?

Sorry, if you've already posted it, I might have missed it.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 


Modified manual trigger? Jeez, your cheap camera details seem to change every time Hellas points out the obvious. Can you tell us all about your modified manual trigger?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
reply to post by Hellas
 


Believe what you will. But these pictures were taken from a tripod and not shaky at all.


I'm a Photographer and these are just shaky pics. To avoid shaky pics a tripod isn't enough. You would need a remote control to trigger the shutter, too.


I'm also a photographer and what you dont seem to realize is that if these are shaking images, then the stars in the sky will also have the same shaky blur which is not the case here.

Also a tripod is enough to avoid shaky images, timer, buddy. Depressing the shutter button is not enough to create that much shake.




Originally posted by Hellas

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
reply to post by Hellas
 


Well im not a photographer and it doesnt take an expert to know how to take a picture and to see the other stars around it they would be shaky too or morphed.

And I too use a trigger to take my pictures thats why they are so clear.
edit on 16-1-2011 by sugarcookie1 because: (no reason given)




Sure you do


The stars are not shaky because they are way to far away.. You had an exposure of 2 seconds. The light of the stars around your "ufo" need more time.

So 2 seconds -> shaky -> morphing UFOs


Distance has nothing to do with them not looking shaky. With the distance of the object from the camera the DoF is going to be at infinity. The camera doesnt care how far it is, everything in frame is in focus and any moventment will have the same effect on everything. The stars may need more time to be exposed in the image and if the image was "shaky" the movement of the camera wouldnt have exposed the stars properly in the image. May I ask what kind of photographer you are? How much experience do you have what what work you have done?
edit on 16-1-2011 by bobbinika because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Thanks for sharing!

Never will we know what's in those pictures. It might be a shaky moon, a lonely ufo balloon exploring the vastness of the sky or a plasma creature descended from the meso-, thermo- or exosphere. Or something else.

I like the sky color. Beautfiul.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobbinika

I'm also a photographer and what you dont seem to realize is that if these are shaking images, then the stars in the sky will also have the same shaky blur which is not the case here.


However, not in this case. The stars are not dominant in the night sky in this image enough to analyse. The " Thing " that is more dominant is the white blob, thus making the stars appear even darker. With that being the case then there is not enough brightness of the stars to analise enough to see if they are effected or not!


Also a tripod is enough to avoid shaky images, timer, buddy. Depressing the shutter button is not enough to create that much shake.


Having a shutter speed of 2sec, such as this case here, and having the camera mounted on a tripod can STILL blur light scources in an otherwise dark sky. A Typical example of this would be " Releasing " the shutter button, or indeed the shutter being released through timer or otherwise. Fuji are known to have " forcefall shutters "


And, whats to say it wasn't windy




Distance has nothing to do with them not looking shaky.


Distance IS everything



With the distance of the object from the camera the DoF is going to be at infinity.


We dont have the EXIF data to determine if this is correct or not.



The camera doesnt care how far it is, everything in frame is in focus and any moventment will have the same effect on everything. The stars may need more time to be exposed in the image and if the image was "shaky" the movement of the camera wouldnt have exposed the stars properly in the image.


But not in this case, as Ive stated above, the exposure was not long enough to capture the light from the stars, only the blob of light, which at such a short exposure could easly be enough time to distort light in an otherwise dark sky



May I ask what kind of photographer you are? How much experience do you have what what work you have done?
edit on 16-1-2011 by bobbinika because: (no reason given)


Although not directed at me, I myself have two awards from the RPS in London....LRPS and ARPS, Ive been doing and teaching photography for 17 years, covering subjects such as DownHill Mountain Biking to Snowboarding, Landscape, Nature and Wildlife!!

My point? My point is, although I'm a qualified photography I am NOT qualified to tell people they are wrong. There are to many variables in these images to know FINE WELL it IS an EXPOSURE Problem.

A grade one student would happily say the same


Be safe be well

Spiro



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 


They look like normal long exposures of a sligthly moving light (or camera).

Seeing that the photos are named DSCF2134, DSCF2127 and DSCF2135, do the missing photos also show that light? Do you have those photos? Can you post those photos?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bobbinika
 


Don't call yourself a Photographer if you don't even understand light in photography. That's all I have to say to you.

And to the OP, modified Trigger? MacGyver style?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
reply to post by Hellas
 

and have a wonderful evening


You too!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
OP, great shots!
The other shots in the order are they availableÉ
Perhaps a slide showÉ
Id love to see all the series....
To the detractors, get a life,there are far fewer haoxes than honest attempts to present observed phenomenae.
Every time somebody steps up with what they have managed to get, you idiots begin to bitch and moan.
The whole thing is getting rather thin.
The idea is to deny ignorance, not emulate it!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
whys everyone so quick to yell hoax? its a #ing light in the sky. nothing crazy. not like she's gaining anything from this.


on the other hand, I believe you, as I watch these things every single night here in the lower Hudson Valley. I believe we can all see them if you would just bundle up and check the skies out for more than 10 minutes youll notice that many of the lights that appear to be stars are flickering different colors and jump around the sky in all different directions. Its amazing stuff and I pray we get to learn what they really are and get to meet all the other beings that are here on Earth.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
star for bobbinika for these words:



I'm also a photographer and what you dont seem to realize is that if these are shaking images, then the stars in the sky will also have the same shaky blur which is not the case here.


Exactly.
Interesting thread, i must say, i'd like to see missing photos, too.

I could imagine stationary cam with "manual trigger", focused ON THE BARELY visible stars, not on something that makes out of focus blurry blobs, from what i see here, you know.
edit on 16-1-2011 by potential_problem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ch1n1t0
 


Northern Minnesota 10 to 11pm at night



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by belsce
 


thank you for the reply



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Multiple objects, seen one front of the other til they get out of alignment.
What kind of objects?
IDK



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiro
 


thank you so much for the reply..



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join