Photographer captures stunning images of UFOs above Hatfield

reply to post by Druid42


You make me smile :-)

Some crazy stuff you come out with! You must love making stories up in your head!

I have told everybody on this thread what happened. I have answered questions for people in an effort to find out what it was I saw!

Yet there are always a the few who just love dig into everything trying to find a conspiracy, or maybe they just feel the need to basically call people liars.

You are entitled to think what ever you please..... and that is fine, because it makes me smile at your madness

:-)

The answer is in his original posting...
"I shot these through the bedroom window"
Now incorporate this with the crappy 17-85mm f/4-5.6 lens (no offence mate the glass is $#!t) known to produce excess glare... i have that lens also.

Reflection of light from the outside refracting on the bedroom glass window.

@ 20min exp ... doubtful - no trailing but the exif does state 1314 sec(=21min)

but as a photographer yourself (sic) a few questions
1. why a #ty kit lens on the body?
2. why shoot f/11 into night sky
3. why not a telephoto lens ?
4. single point AF - why? granted can easily forget here

reply to post by Druid42


At no point did I ever say I was a "Professional Photographer" Photography is my passion and my hobby, I love it!

But I never said I was professional!

I am sorry I don't have a spare £1000 for another camera! I wish I did! Not so easy to save any pennies these days though is it!

I do have other lenses but they were not to hand that evening!

reply to post by lavenlaar


At no point did I ever say I was a "Professional Photographer" Photography is my passion and my hobby, I love it!

But I never said I was professional!

I am sorry I don't have a spare £1000 for another camera! I wish I did! Not so easy to save any pennies these days though is it!

I do have other lenses but they were not to hand that evening!

My bedroom window is quite big and opens up a slider, my camera was on a tripod below looking out an open window!

Looks like WW2 era Parachute

Right? I think so.

Originally posted by Jasonlreeve
reply to post by lavenlaar

 

At no point did I ever say I was a "Professional Photographer" Photography is my passion and my hobby, I love it!

But I never said I was professional!

I am sorry I don't have a spare £1000 for another camera! I wish I did! Not so easy to save any pennies these days though is it!

I do have other lenses but they were not to hand that evening!

My bedroom window is quite big and opens up a slider, my camera was on a tripod below looking out an open window!

The hole gets deeper, Jason.....You are shooting from your bedroom window, on a tripod, so I assume you are at home, eh, mate?

Read the bold above.

If you don't keep other lenses in your home, where are they? I'd keep my lenses that I own with me. I guess you loan them out, and that is why they aren't in your home. Please provide a better explanation if you can.

If you are gonna say you didn't have time to find them, I got you again, because you were running a 20 minute exposure, and PLENTY of time to dig them out. You say you are an amateur, so ok, next time, think ahead.

Us ATSer's see you backtracking, explaining things that don't match up. I am not the only skeptical member here. Food for thought. Everyone here is reading your words, and judging your responses.

reply to post by Druid42


Yeah!

Im Bored Of You!

reply to post by Jasonlreeve


I never get tired of denying ignorance, that's the motto around here. Therefore, I never get bored.

Sorry you got bored.

I will continue on my path for truth. Thank you for participating in this thread.

I have made my case, the logical inconsistencies in your story, so I will rest where I am at.

However, I do think you are a VERY talented photographer, all things aside. You seem to be able to catch human emotion at it's finest, and have a knack for a realistic visual perspective. Stick to what you are good at.

Peace, my friend.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Jasonlreeve

 

Can you take a long exposure photo with the lens cap on? If it was noise it will probably affect the same pixels.

Yes you can and yes it does, in astrophotography the idea would be to take say 50(or more) regular shots and then take another 20 or more with the lens cap on, these are called darks. Once you run all of them through a stacking software the noise in the darks is used by the software to get rid of the noise from the final stack and picture, you can even use extra images called lights for better results again.

reply to post by Druid42


Thank you!

Im not a thread person, never have been! They make me mad and i get sucked in!

Just wanted answers, but wasn't counting on sooooooo many questions!

I guess in the true nature of UFOs they are, but I for one will be so happy once we get away from the "lights in the sky" as our proof.

Now for the pictures.. I find it interesting he has taken over 80 UFO pictures. To me that speaks that it is not UFOs as we would like them to be, but something either created by him, or lights playing across his long exposures.With the long exposures they must be just blinks or flashes of light to not have the movement smears that long exposures create, also cameras tend to have pixilation when flashes are close up that take on shapes that are not real.

In the end they are flashes that were either created by the camera guy or other lights that have confounded his long exposures.

Originally posted by Druid42

Originally posted by Jasonlreeve
reply to post by lavenlaar

 

If you don't keep other lenses in your home, where are they? I'd keep my lenses that I own with me. I guess you loan them out, and that is why they aren't in your home. Please provide a better explanation if you can.

If you are gonna say you didn't have time to find them, I got you again, because you were running a 20 minute exposure, and PLENTY of time to dig them out. You say you are an amateur, so ok, next time, think ahead.

How can I be prepared for a UFO sighting? lol
I will carry my 300mm in my back pocket everywhere, just in case!

and if you have to know, which I dont think you do!

My kit was in the car, which was being used by my girlfriend that night!

reply to post by Xtrozero


This is the only time ive seen a ufo, I am NOT the guy who films UFOs up the road in Welwyn Garden City.

The author of the WH Times article mentioned this other guy in the paper. Some how wires have been crossed!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ommadawn

 

The photographer, Jason mentioned he'd seen lens artifacts before when he framed a shot, and these three didn't show up like that so that's why he thought they weren't lens artifacts.

I pointed out they could just be dimmer lens artifacts than he's used to seeing, which only showed up in the time exposure, at least for the three objects in the time exposure.

Anyway he insists he saw one object without the lens so I suspect there are two events here.

He saw something in the sky, which wasn't a lens artifact.

Then he took a time exposure and captured some objects that are almost certainly lens artifacts. I didn't get the sense he was trying to be deceptive about it, maybe just a little confused. The fact that 3 objects showed up in the photo and that's not what he saw should be a clue.

edit on 20-11-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

As I mention on my earlier post, the eye can see these same lens flares. The eye carries the same circular shapes and inner lenses that his camera has. Most people tune them out but everyone sees them from reflections of nearby light sources. My experience is similar to his. I saw these lens flares with my eye and with the camera. So, yes they can be the same experience. These flares have the same classic shape and patterns.

reply to post by thepixelpusher


The other objects on the long exposure did surprise me as I could not see ANY sight of them with the naked eye!

Unsure about lens flare with the naked eye though, I know i saw this light in the sky, I dont really feel it was some sort of eye reflection. I will look into this theory online though!

Just as most people tune out the floaters in their eyes, so it goes with lens flares. I have had a similar experience and at first wondered what I was seeing too. If these didn't match so closely to my experience I wouldn't be as insistant. That said I am glad you shared and if you have additional ideas or other proof I'm open to other explanations. Obviously I wasn't there so it's just an opinion. But consider it in your search for answers.

removed.

I think I've figured it out.

20 minute exposure, all stars will have trails (the stars aren't moving, the earth rotating cuases the percieved movement) so all stars will move regaurdless of how near or far.

So, what we need is something that stays relatively in the same place over the 20 minutes.

Solution: GOES (geosynchronous) satellites.

Here is a NOAO picture.

Problem solved.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by pazcat

 

If the maximum is 999 seconds (I don't understand if that's the maximum time or the limit on the display) it's not enough for 20 minutes, that's "only" 16 minutes and 39 seconds.

And I don't see anyone waiting 20 minutes pressing a button.

if he's using magic lantern firmware (which is common) he'd be able to do this and longer.

reply to post by pianopraze


A geosync satellite looks nothing like what is in the pictures though, it generally will just appear as a point of light or even a small streak depending on it's orbit.