It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Odd object in astronomical photo - Need advice!

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:22 PM
It may not be relevant now, but the ISS has a temporary addition-don't know how this would change its appearance

posted here by eriktheawful

The European Space Agency's Automated Transfer Vehicle-3 (ATV-3) approaches the International Space Station on March 28, 2012....

The cylindrical spacecraft is 35 feet (10.7 meters) long and 14.7 feet (4.5 meters) wide. The 13-ton cargo freighter is disposable and will remain attached to the space station for up to six months before it is loaded with garbage and sent to deliberately burn up as it re-enters Earth's atmosphere.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:26 PM
Looks like a sattelite

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:44 PM
After some serious thought and careful analysis...that object appears to be a Klingon Bird of Prey.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Dopeland
Looks like a sattelite

Which sattelite do you have in mind ?
I take it you are an expert after making such a bold statement !

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:28 PM
Oh deary me...

Look, today is Easter so I will be spending time with my family so I doubt I'll have time to faff about with photoshop again. But I assure you it is just STARS.

Prove it to yourselves if you like, to do it, you will need to download the file the photographer took "just before" the shot of the "ufo".
Then, in the first OP, download the biggest version of the file possible that elevenaugust linked to.

Note the following:-
The photographer (who is not elevenaugust) refuses to give the original file - why?
Because he reduced the murky background noise, and adjusted the brightness/contrast to make the "ufo" image POP a bit more.
Although he did that, what we thought were lens reflections at first, are still visible. (Try looking at the image in a darker room or at night etc. if you cant see them). But they will all make a pattern.

Now, pop both the files into photoshop - make the bigger image smaller so its the same size (699).
Put the photo's on different layers.

Now you will see the main object is at almost precisely the same spot - and funnily enough has the exact same colour temperature K values....

Now, I had to make the 'shifty' image show similar background noise again - that's optional...

Now if you flick between the layers - EVERYWHERE that there is a prominent star-trail in the "just before" shot is now an EXACT copy of the "UFO". Why? Because the whole camera setup vibrated! THEY all underwent the same vibration - the brighter of the stars obviously showing it best.

To make the animated GIF - I had to compress it heaps and reduce colours because ATS wouldn't let me upload it due to size - you need to discount the background red noise - its not relevant, but it DOES make it tricky to see, but I assure you it is there - take a look by yourselves in photoshop

The most impressive of these is the "ufo" which was the brightest star in his "before shot" which becomes glaringly obvious once you've taken the steps above.
(on a good screen, you can actually make out the way the vibrating oscillations built up the image in 'layers', rather than it being a solid object).

OK - I really got to get back to kids now, I hope someone tries my above steps to confirm.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:03 PM

Originally posted by TheEnlightenedOne
When I first looked at those pictures the one thing that came to mind was "F-18", but then someone mentioned the ISS. I'm not an expert on the ISS but the silohoute didn't seem right but then again, you guys are the experts in this.

Until ISS was said a few posts into the thread, I too said immediately that it was some sort of plane.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:07 PM
reply to post by elevenaugust

Why not? If he said he was using a tripod with a tracking automation it would lock to the sky/object movement no matter what resulting in a image free of "trails" due to long exposure.

The image noise seems about right in my opinion with such light conditions and exposure time. The red pixels are normal and are just hot pixels from the sensor due to the longer exposure I guess. Digital black tends to be noisy no matter the ISO you're on. The faint repeated pattern could be due to the lens optical system that might not be the best one around.

To be honest I don't see any similarity with the ISS. The picture is at least intriguing. But EXIF data passed as text can be tempered with. I hope he decides to publish the original file once he register the picture and is credited properly for it.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:11 PM
It amazes me, that people refuse to read the thread, and continue to post their uneducated opinions on what it is.

Good work by the OP and the guys/gals who spotted the recurring patterns, and what caused them.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:46 PM

Originally posted by ColAngus
That looks like a Colonial Viper.

Starbuck, is that you?

I was going to say a Daedalus class ship from the Stargate series.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

Lol, I know. But there is an answer, its perfectly explainable - we've animated gifs to show it.... What more can be done?? Thats why I told them ^ there how to find out what it is. But I guess that takes work...

Anyways, I will get out my camera tonight and reproduce these photo's (although I will be in southern hemisphere) and reproduce the exact same effect. I hope elevenaugust has gone and spanked the photographers bottom, these pics will be claimed to be ufo's for years to come...

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:28 PM
well i am a little confused about this photo, i enjoy photography myself, so know a little about the subject.
the first thing i noticed were there are several other fainter objects on the photo that appear to be stretched/distorted too, so my initial impression was camera shake, but then the close up shows solid stars in the background, so this cant be the case, then i thought the other objects could be ghosts or the original object, but i have never encountered so many before, so im not too sure their. now if it is a 1 second exposure and the object is moving that would cause the slight blurred effect. kinda looks like a fighter jet, but obviously is not, or at least not 1 that we have ever seen before. ISS...... possibly, but i doubt it, wouldn't look hollow like that. for now my intuition says camera shake as it is a closer object, and the stars are in focus as they are much farther away. but i could be totally wrong. just my opinion.

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:17 AM

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by elevenaugust

ISS from Earth..

Oh yeah they look identical cased closed...

edit on 6-4-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)

If you rotate the solar panels on the lower ISS picture, it could look like a delta wing at some angles.

In the top right hand image, on the right hand side, it is not configured like a delta wing craft would be. It extends out asymetrically to the left hand side. I think it only looks like this because the right hand side is partially shadowed.

These could be the same object in a slightly different configuration, the solar panels do move to maximize the sunlight.

No, it's now obvious from the animated gif that this was just a vibrated image of a star.
edit on 8/4/2012 by chr0naut because: Just goes to show how appearances can be deceptive!

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:26 AM
cool pic looks like the iss haha nothing crazy here

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Qumulys
Ok, for those still not convinced, I learned how to make it in an animated gif, this time to show that what I and others thought were lens reflections in the original photo, are in fact further direct evidence that they are ALL just stars undergoing the SAME vibration.

I've shown the first photo, then his other photo, then 1st again, but circled some more prominent stars. They ALL correspond in the exact same positions.
Just stars I'm afraid, nothing else, no jets, no ISS, no UFO, it's just stars.

(sorry about the compression... so hard to keep it clear, yet still be up loadable to ATS, but you should get the idea now)
Elevenagust, tell the guy he is a numpty care of me

edit on 7-4-2012 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)

Good job man! (or woman lol) Cracked under 10 pages. I was just going to post that I thought it was a jet of some sort too! Glad to see someone actually figured it out. Can someone explain to me why the star looks like that though? I think I read somewhere that he 'bumped' the telescope? I think

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:33 AM
It's a space station from past civilizations. I would say it's about 300,000 years old.

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:45 AM
Just out of curiosity.. do we know for certain which star that is? How do you know that the first picture is not an object where we are not seeing the entire thing, and the other photo is showing all the details? We know for a fact it's a star, and not just part of an object reflecting? Just seems like a very odd reflection of a star - lines and depth and other things.

Not the ISS - how anyone can look at that and say it's the ISS boggles my mind. Unless the ISS is a transformer and changed it's shape, it's clearly not the ISS. Just goes to show you.. all you need is something vaguely similar in shape for a whole lot of people to chime in that they "know" what it is for certain. And are wrong.

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:17 AM

Originally posted by Qumulys
I hope elevenaugust has gone and spanked the photographers bottom, these pics will be claimed to be ufo's for years to come...

Yes, and seems like he didn't used a shutter release while using its camera mounted on the telescope...

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:29 AM
Qumulys, what has happened on this thread since you correctly identified the object was a star and described why it appeared like it does, is why I left ATS.

People who don't bother to read the thread. People who blandly dispute the solution without even spending a moment to listen properly or educate themselves. It seems to be the standard ATS cycle now - a 'ufo' video or image is posted, twenty or thirty or more "omigod" posts appear along with a few sarcastic "let's see the debunkers come up with excuses for *this one*"... Then, finally a person with some genuine experience and knowledge correctly spots what the image actually shows.. But that is needlessly followed by several more pages of people who completely ignore the solution was posted and some who vigorously, but incorrectly, dispute it.

- the bright object is a star, exactly as Qumulys identified
- the camera was moved (jiggled might be a better word) during the five second exposure, so the bright star traced out that weird shape - as did all the other stars the camera managed to record. Exactly as Qumulys identified, exactly matching the other image and showing the bright star in exactly the same place as the squiggle. Any QUESTIONS????
- the reason for the varying brightness in the 'trace' is because the rate of movement varied, it is dimmer when the camera was moving fast, brighter when moving slow
- the blurry effect is likely due to a focusing error, or possibly a lens element misting up or other optical misalignment

Those familiar with astrophotography will quickly recognise all this. Those who are not.. well maybe they should refrain from offering 'expert' rebuttals...

Which star is it? Well, earlier in the thread I thought I read it was identified as Polaris - but it appears the telescope was pointed somewhat away from Polaris, according to the person who took it. I believe I know which star it is (and I will pm elevenaugust & qumulys with that info, to do with it as they wish) but I won't name it just now.. I think it might be good for the owner of the image to come forward and actually acknowledge what he captured - and show us his expertise.....

The only other question that remains, is whether this was just a one-off fluke, or whether it was picked out of several exposures that were deliberately jiggled around - this one had such an interesting shape... It will probably be interesting to hear how it plays out at the other forum, but I'm not sticking around to find out..

Anyway, now that the numbers of serious photography folks have dwindled here (guess why?), I guess the way this has degenerated was inevitable. And as that seems to be what ATS wants, I'll be off now to leave you to it.

And don't worry - I'll shut the door behind me...

PS (added) - the other tiny bright spots on that image that do not have the squiggle are simply hot (slightly defective) pixels - this could be easily verified by comparing the two full-res images (if the first is ever supplied).

edit on 8-4-2012 by CHRLZ because: Added PS

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 08:59 AM
reply to post by CHRLZ

Cheers mate

I know exactly the type that you speak of, but I hope you re-consider becoming more active. I wasn't posting on here for years until I joined, but that didn't mean I didn't appreciate what good work is being done. I could find a thread, go 'hmmm this is interesting' have a good read through it until a sensible/reasoned explanation is offered. I'd be happy with that.

So, I'm sure that there are many people out there (hello you lurkers!) who do get some education and use their noggins a bit even if they don't post. Please consider coming back, even if your only helping 1 in 50 people that can make a difference! (cup 1/50th full kind of guy?)

Heck knows, I'm no expert - I've only been dslr photographing for 8 years or so in my spare time, my passion drops off though when I look at the kit I want.... Then look at the kit I could afford...
But, I will do some 5 second exposures hopefully tonight to reproduce this effect as soon as I can get a break in the clouds.

Obviously I cant do the same stars as in the photo due to me being in the Southern Hemisphere, but the actual star is un-important in this case. (But I would think someone could EASILY find out with Stellarium as a fun exercise, surprised nobody did it yet??)

Anyway - Thanks again for the nice words and thanks to elevenaugust for a fun detective thread (check out all his threads CHRLZ, all genuinely interesting with no silly conjecture)

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:44 AM
Question: if you look at the zoomed in version of the picture, you can clearly see dots of light - stars.. around the object, which are not blurry at all. Why is that? If this was caused by movement, would those dots of light also not be blurred? Just curious about the effect is all.

Of course, if this was something sitting in the sky statically (in geo-sync orbit for example), one would think he could have snapped off an entire array of pictures. But we only have the one.

I don't doubt the "blurry star moved around' theory, sounds the most plausible. But would love to know what star in particular that is.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in