posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 02:10 PM
Originally posted by BIGPoJo
This is a good example of why good UFO footage is hard to find. Even with a good telescope and camera setup you just cannot capture good quality
footage of fast and high moving objects. The footage you captured is almost impossible to get but you got it!
Thank you! I would describe it like this; this footage shows what it takes to resolve satellites so that they show shapes instead of just being
point-like light sources (which can be literally any shiny thing at a sufficient distance and/or small size).
In most lights-in-the-sky footage people try to zoom in with their camcorders, the camcorder's autofocus has no idea how to properly focus a
point-like light source (because it wasn't programmed with astrophotography or point-like light sources in mind), the image goes out of focus and you
see a big circle called a bokeh, and then people spend time trying to analyze pictures of a bokeh which in reality tells you about the shape and
quality of the optics (or lack thereof), maybe a bit about the color of the object (but not necessarily; goes to the optical quality again), but
really tells you nothing else.
In the truest sense, I suppose that makes it "UFO" footage in that you can't identify it, but that does not equal or even suggest aliens or
anything else paranormal. If its shape could actually be resolved, as in the footage seen here, it could be positively identified whether it be
aliens or a weather balloon. I've actually had the chance to identify the latter before. To the unaided eye (and probably to camcorders as well),
the balloon looked just like a reddish bizzare satellite at sunset. It was brighter than Saturn, but moved too slowly to be a low earth orbit
satellite. A quick look in the telescope showed the balloon, the tether, and a payload box attached to it swinging back and forth like a pendulum.
This was actually during a public viewing, so myself and a few other amateurs actually had the opportunity to show this to several people thus
demonstrating the key to making identifications of point-like light sources.
The key is angular resolution. The bigger your optical diameter, the more you can resolve. A camcorder's lens just isn't all that wide, so it
can't resolve much no matter how much magnification you apply. An 8" telescope, on the other hand, can resolve down to about an arcsecond in
average seeing, sub-arcsecond if you stack a bunch of images.