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: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


looked like it was morphing to me
thanks for the reply




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas
They're just shaky pics dude. Morphing...lol


then how would you explain the crystal clear stars right next to it, if the camera was shaking, then every single star would be obscured.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by fill0000
then how would you explain the crystal clear stars right next to it, if the camera was shaking, then every single star would be obscured.


Some of those are hot pixels on the camera. The ones that are stars are much dimmer and the light is not strong enough to leave a visible blur in most cases. Tearman did catch one of the stars blurring in exactly the same manner as the object of interest in this animation he made:


Originally posted by Tearman
i51.tinypic.com...


Compare the star to the left to the object, the camera movement is identical.

Nice work there Tearman.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
Id like to thank the people here that have POLITELY offerd there opinion in a reasonable, civil manner..All i did was post some pics of what i saw and they are real there not moon pics or of some planet..There have been some in here that i feel have gone out of there way to be hateful ..Ive explained every thing that i could in a civil manner..Ive showed you my modified trigger or shutter and no i didnt make it i bought it.. ive also answered the questions that have been asked and the thing that bothers me the most is being called a lier and to fess up to something i am being honest to i dont think anyone needs this kind of ridicule..I love ATS this is a wonderful site all im doing is bringing something new to the table not a utube video.. and i will in the future post more pics i wont be ran out of ATS.. all im saying is cut me as little slack here and keep an open mind
thanks sugar~~


Well said, I've read this thread from the beginning and tbh can't see why the attack dogs are out, I was particularly annoyed at the pressure used to invade Sugarcookie's privacy over the trigger.

So what's up why all the knockers out when no exceptional claims have been made, if Sugarcookie is wrong that certainly doesn't make her a liar and if she isn't an expert photographer that just means she spent her time doing other stuff, it doesn't make her a Hoaxer and she hasn't answered any poster with anything other than politeness, so again why all the pressure?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Nice pictures. Lay off the photographer. If you have nothing productive and constructive to say dont say anything at all.
They look legit.
and very clear.
Nice snaps.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:03 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.


Hi Mr Photographer, if they are just wobbly pictures.... why aren't the stars in the background wobbly too?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


according to cnet it retailed at 418 dollars when new hardly cheap. i know its an old model but that doesnt make it a rubbish camera..



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas
They're just shaky pics dude. Morphing...lol


I think a shaky pic would also show distorted stars as well, but these aren't.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crayfish

Originally posted by fill0000
then how would you explain the crystal clear stars right next to it, if the camera was shaking, then every single star would be obscured.


Some of those are hot pixels on the camera. The ones that are stars are much dimmer and the light is not strong enough to leave a visible blur in most cases. Tearman did catch one of the stars blurring in exactly the same manner as the object of interest in this animation he made:


Originally posted by Tearman
i51.tinypic.com...


Compare the star to the left to the object, the camera movement is identical.

Nice work there Tearman.


I was thinking about the pic last night and was going to mention hot pixels. Looks like that is exactly what is showing up as the pinpoint "stars". Very nice work Tearman, and Crayfish.

If someone needs another example, I think I have an older Canon at home that has some hot pixels...and can take a shot of the moon or venus to see if I can replicate the photo in question.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
You ever wonder why they have a really strong light glow.

I bet the reason is that if it didnt and you happend to snap a picture of it you could see the outline of it.

If only you could shade the light.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ch1n1t0
 


I believe the date of the photo was posted earlier with the photo info:

Date Time Original = 2010-08-15 22:13:16
Date Time Digitized = 2010-08-15 22:13:16



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Julie Washington
reply to post by ch1n1t0
 


I believe the date of the photo was posted earlier with the photo info:

Date Time Original = 2010-08-15 22:13:16
Date Time Digitized = 2010-08-15 22:13:16




Checking Stellarium, Jupiter was in the eastern sky at 22:13. There is a good chance that is what was captured. I'll see if I can replicate that photo with a shot of Jupiter...2 sec exposure...with a camera I know has hot pixels. It should be in a good position just after sunset tonight for me.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Great pictures I believe they are genuine. Thanks for sharing



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I also agree that there are hot pixels, we can forget them.

Also, there are a couple of stars, which are seen in this gif animation done by Tearman.

i51.tinypic.com...

those stars, together, are more bright when the "UFO" is more close to a point (less extended), and less bright when the "UFO" is more extended. Also, the most to the left star, we can seen some very similar motion blur like the "UFO"

CLEAR INDICATION of a shaken exposure, despite OP saying is not due using tripod and remote trigger.

Given the time 8 aug 2010, hour and direction (East), i will go with "UFO" being Jupiter (close to Uranus, maybe OP was trying to catch them both, as a rare event). Jupiter had -2.8 magnitude brightness, while Uranus just 5.7 too faint to be recorded.

But, if OP continue to say that it was a UFO, then, maybe it doesn't matter other opinions.
edit on 17/1/11 by depthoffield because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SciFiSi

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.


Hi Mr Photographer, if they are just wobbly pictures.... why aren't the stars in the background wobbly too?


Don't be lazy and read through the entire thread. Other members and myself explained that before.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
These are obviously 2 second exposures of a light source which created a light trail because the camera moved during the exposure.

Because of parallax, the stars didn't move as much as the object, so the object made larger light streaks. However, you can see several stars are blurry because they moved very very small amounts during the exposure, so their intensity is less.

The camera has several "hot pixels" which you can tell are "hot pixels" because they are single pixels. Stars will never show up as single pixels.

I have to call hoax on this one... because what you see in the pictures is not what the photographer saw with their eyes..... yet the photographer is claiming what you see in the pictures is what they saw with their eyes. That is impossible unless the photographers eyes have a 2 second exposure time as well.



reply to post by sugarcookie1
 



Originally posted by sugarcookie1
Ok to all those that do not believe there is a modified trigger or shutter release if you want to get technical here it is. Oh and you can buy one too. Here is the link.

Modified trigger or Shutter Release for Fuji FinePix any model

This is what is attached to my camera. So please quit trying to im a liar about my equipment.


Ok, I don't believe you at all.... So why don't you prove us all wrong?

Why don't you settle this by getting a piece of paper, writing your name "sugarcookie1" and "ATS" on it, then use a mirror to take a picture of your camera with your modified trigger rig attached, next to that piece of paper.

If you can not do the above, I will confirm this a hoax in my book.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
After looking at this topic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It appears the OP has a history of posting long exposure images of lights and claiming they are UFOs. One of the images in the above link has a 4 second exposure time, and a different camera.

That seems to be the new trend of a few hoaxers... take long exposures of light sources, move your camera around to "paint" a weird shape, and claim it is a morphing UFO. There is a couple hoaxes just like that in the HOAX forum I believe.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Just a note on taking pictures with a camera on a tripod, a shutter release cable is a must, not expensive, and give good results, or put the timer on a second or so to give a shake free image.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 

Some cameras actually have a IR remote control that can release the shutter as well. I've used one on my Canon for years now. Definitely less bulky than an actual cable release.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Tearman, your gif, I just realized, shows the hot pixels as moving position within the image. This is not possible if they are actually hot pixels. Did you stretch out one of those two images? What about the 3rd frame in your animation?

We've both identified different objects it looks like as stars, and somehow when you did your animation, even tho the hot pixels change position, some of the "stars" stay in place. In my animation, the hot pixels do not change position but also there are tons of "stars" that stay in place. So there is some discrepancy there...

Here guys since nobody but Tearman looked at my animation, posting a link again, this time not a zip file. You have to look closely, as it's a GIF and the quality isn't perfect: g.imagehost.org...



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join