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.

 

UFO Images From L.A. 3-19-2011 - Mufon Report #28330

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Went and looked at the exif data, here is the data:

Model: Canon EOS REBEL T2i
Date: 3/19/2011 – 9:20 AM
Shutter Speed: 0.6 sec
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO: 400
Focal length: 120.0 mm
Flash: Fired

Now the t2i has a focal magnifier of 1.6x so the zoom level is really 192mm instead of 120.00mm (side note: the human eye sees at 50mm so anything above is a zoom and anything below is a wide angle). At iso 400 and f5.6, the 0.6s shutter speed is telling of the speed of the craft. If the exposure was longer and the object was just as clear, it would tell us that the object was stationary or close to it, as it would be a blur if moving. Now, dont let me confuse you, .6 seconds is not a lot of time, but more than enough for blur to occur, on a rapid moving near object. However, the further the object the slower its appearance. My opinion is this is a plane or helicopter, although I do not claim to hold the truth and admit i could be wrong.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
reply to post by kromaion
 


Exactly! I posed that same question on another forum here somewhere. Every time someone seems to get a closer shot of something, it's blurry, shaky and unidentifiable.

With all the high quality vid and camera technology we have, not one clear, concise and irrefutable photo or vid anywhere. Even military footage is unrecognizable.

I don't get it.



I explained why its so difficult just a few posts ago.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
"Unknown craft observed while photographing the lunar perigee" Los Angeles 3-19-2011



I noticed these UFO images and report on the Mufon website and couldn't think of a good explanation for the object. does anyone have any idea what this UFO might be ?



cropped image


www.mufoncms.com...

www.mufoncms.com...

www.mufoncms.com...



My guess is that it is twin lamps (headlights) on a helicopter and the two bright lines are the landing pontoons which are painted fluorescent for a ground crew to see the distance from the ground as it lands.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I know the OP had this image tagged, but i get the feeling everyone skipped it. This is the original "uncropped" version. See how small it is? Now for anyone unaware, the further the object from the focal distance the less detail there is, and when you combine that with digital cropping (which makes image quality even less) and you get the lesser quality you see in the OP's embedded image.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by derst1988
 


Ok I can see the explanation is possible in a number of cases but there has to be millions of photos and vids taken over the years. It can't possibly explain every sighting.

IMHO



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Bonified Ween
 


Maybe navigation lights?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by el1jah
I think it is just a plane.... with an long exposure the red tipped wings would make a streak in the sky, while the white dot, is a flashing light, possibly not flashing for the entire exposure, the lights shooting out the front make it look pretty human.

Absolutely!

I checked the EXIF data for the original and it appears to be of 0.6s, which is enough to create such effect.

Sometimes, long exposure shoot can create odd things:




A Coast Guard helicopter taken with a Nikon D50 at 10s exposure.

SOURCE

Technical explanations on how it works:







posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
reply to post by derst1988
 


Ok I can see the explanation is possible in a number of cases but there has to be millions of photos and vids taken over the years. It can't possibly explain every sighting.

IMHO



I mean, it can. the explanation is of camera facts, not of what we think cameras can do based on day time close up shots of bees. The point im getting at, is that there is a reason why UFO's are hard to capture to a "without a doubt" level. It is 2 phase, the camera is more limited than our eyes, and it is controlled by a person who may or may not know what they are doing with said camera on a professional level. Even professionals have a insanely hard time capturing a ufo on film to their liking (clear, without a doubt images). I am one of these professionals.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bonified Ween
What helicopter do you know that leaves twin contrails? I know they have jet engine helo's now, but really. How would that work ?
edit on 21-3-2011 by Bonified Ween because: (no reason given)


I see headlights. You see contrails.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by Bonified Ween
What helicopter do you know that leaves twin contrails? I know they have jet engine helo's now, but really. How would that work ?
edit on 21-3-2011 by Bonified Ween because: (no reason given)


I see headlights. You see contrails.


I too think that they are headlights. All aircraft have them, and i have seen them many times. I first thought they were contrails but that was before I really looked at it.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Thanks for all the replies


It could very well be an Airplane or Helicopter but the question i have is, if the two long rails (or whatever they are) were produced by a "long exposure" then why doesn't the white object in the middle of the rails look the same ?





if it's a long exposure shouldn't the object look something like this ?



edit on 21-3-2011 by easynow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow


if it's a long exposure shouldn't the object look something like this ?



its a flashing light !



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Maybe the white 'light' wasn't constant- but a fast blinking one/strobe?
Any photography experts that can comment on this?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

It's all explained in my post above with the graphics.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ltinycdancerg
reply to post by easynow
 


Maybe the white 'light' wasn't constant- but a fast blinking one/strobe?
Any photography experts that can comment on this?


I am one.
It is either a blinking light at the 1 second or longer interval (most likely in my opinion) or the object wasn't moving fast enough to cause any blur in the photo and the other lights are just long (like on the bottom of the pontoons) It is a .6 second exposure so it would have to appear to be almost stationary for this to work, i.e. i think its a blinking light.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Experimental military aircraft, maybe?
It does looks like some sort of plane after all, it has the same jetstream effect on its back.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevenaugust
reply to post by easynow
 

It's all explained in my post above with the graphics.


i'm satisfied with the blinking light theory and i'm not trying to make this into something it's not but nobody really knows for sure what the white object is or if it's a blinking light. imo it looks much bigger than the light shown in the examples you posted so i'm not a 100% convinced it was a blinker.

anyways thanks again everyone for the replies , cheers



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


All your seeing is the landing lights on a jet, and the lights reflecting off the inside of the doors of landing gear bay.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Could also be a nice.move to viral the coming "Battle L.A." movie...?
2nd



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by flice
Could also be a nice.move to viral the coming "Battle L.A." movie...?
2nd


Didnt that movie already come out? Also they litter the television with a large amount of trailers as it is, no need for this "viral marketing campaign" everyone already knows about it.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join