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.

 

Some intriguing images snapped by a photographer in Colorado ..,

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


Recently looking out an airplane window I noticed the row of airplane cabin lights behind me were reflecting back a long straight curve of lights with larger unusual shaped rectangles above (where the seat lights are.) Sky background. There was no way could I find to hide inside cabin lights from the view out the airplane window glass. If I were filming anything out a plane window, I would fully expect these lights to be there and quite surprised if not. Not saying thats what this is but I can see now how it might be and should be ruled out.




posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   


You are attempting to insult a well respected member of ATS with your juvenile snipes.
reply to post by tpg47
 


I´m not trying to insult anyone..and if i did i´m sorry.
You gave you´re opinion and i respected it.
Same way i respected Phages opinion.
And i know he is a respected member (you don´t need to kiss his boots).
I´m not here to insult anyone...



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   
This is the image that leads me to wonder about the long exposure when those cars are driving towards the camera on that road in the distance.



They appear as streaks in the image, but could the CCD imager capture them as a point source as they sweep by while the exposure is occurring? This might produce a row of lens flares that appear similar from shot to shot?

Dunno...



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 





And i know he is a respected member (you don´t need to kiss his boots).
I´m not here to insult anyone...


Really ??



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky

Hot pixels would appear to be the best explanation so far, but this is challenged by Greg saying he also saw the lights with his own eyes.


Then why would he check the processor of his camera and also consider the hot pixel theory? It seems odd to me. Another odd thing is that Greg doesn't talk about seeing the lights with his own eyes in the comments section.


I can't think of any good reason not to upload the RAW files because quite a few of us have done it ourselves and it's a 2 minute job.


Yes. Am I being overly suspicious or is there something going on here?



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


he says this about the second image


Shutter speeds ranged between 10 seconds and even up to 5 minutes for photos not shown in this forum. I might be able to slightly agree with your superimposed theory if I was using a filter; however, I was not. Follow up pictures show no such reflections.


What you think?



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoulVoid
reply to post by intrptr
 


he says this about the second image


Shutter speeds ranged between 10 seconds and even up to 5 minutes for photos not shown in this forum. I might be able to slightly agree with your superimposed theory if I was using a filter; however, I was not. Follow up pictures show no such reflections.




Fine . Let's see them .
It's all well and good to proclaim that the points of light are not present in later shots , but he should at least provide some evidence.

I noted in that quote , he himself refers to them as reflections . Hmmmmm
edit on 20-7-2012 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-7-2012 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   
As a photographer of over 20 years, i have a sneaky suspicion those photos are double exposures / multiple exposures...He used a Nikon d700 which is capable of multiple exposures / double exposures.

Click here to see multiple exposure



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
The Nikon D700 take shots at these sizes, depends of the format (SX or DX) used:

Image sizes (FX format)
• 4256 x 2832 [L; 12.1 MP]
• 3184 x 2120 [M; 6.8 MP]
• 2128 x 1416 [S; 3.0 MP]
Image sizes (DX format)
• 2784 x 1848 [L; 5.1 MP]
• 2080 x 1384 [M; 2.9 MP]
• 1392 x 920 [S; 1.3 MP]]

It makes a 1.5 ratio for both FX and DX formats.

The two 'UFO' pictures have 960 x 494 (1.94 ratio) and 960 x 514 (1.86 ratio) format.

So what we have are two cropped and resized pictures, making them (conveniently?) impossible to determine whether the 'UFOs' are hot pixels or not.

Anyway, let's see if we can get something with these two photos.

First step is to mesure the distance in pixels between the farthest 'UFOs' and the angle that the formed line do with the horizontal plan:





Second step is to resize (at 91%) and rotate (0.28+2.79=3.07°) the second photo to make it fit within the size of the first:



Conclusion 1: the 'UFOs' kept the exact same relative position between themselves.

Third step is to overlay the photo using landscape reference points:



Conclusion 2: 100% match between the landscape reference points in the two photos and 100% match, in the two photos as well, in the angle of the lines formed by the 'UFOs' comparatively to the landscape.

More to come....
edit on 20-7-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
I think without the RAW files anything is speculation and the images don't show anything other than white specs on a digital image (Well thank you, Captain Obvious...) which could be anything. I've taken an infinite amount of photographs with light anomalies and unexplained pixels or reflections....that didn't make them UFO's.

One thing is for sure, many people were out taking photos that night and if there was anything out of the ordinary, you can bet your rear-end they are going to tell somebody.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Good detective work, my man.

Much appreciated.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Thank you for your work explaining and not just ´´talking´´ or flaming me.

edit on 20-7-2012 by SoulVoid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   
I'm a firm believe of ufo's having seen one my self so don't get me wrong here when i have my suspicions, i still find it odd that the object in question isn't illuminated by the lightning storms, that's presuming it was close by?

Edit: i still think they are multiple exposures.
edit on 20-7-2012 by MegaSpace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


Shutter speeds ranged between 10 seconds and even up to 5 minutes for photos not shown in this forum. I might be able to slightly agree with your superimposed theory if I was using a filter; however, I was not. Follow up pictures show no such reflections.

The problem I'm having with that statement is the "superimposed" part. That implies two separate images imposed on top of one another. Thats not the issue. Neither is a filter which won't cancel lens flare if the source points right at the imager.

But I don't know for sure because I never made a study of distant headlights at night during long exposures before. There may be other point sources that momentarily sweep across the imager while the lens was open, but would not show in the image if they aren't in frame. You see you don't need to see the source in frame, as long as it is in front of the camera it can produce an artifact.

And I am guessing that multiple sources (like cars) would produce multiple anomalies.In a straight line as well? Over multiple images? As long as that road in the distance is in view.

Edit: Never mind what I am saying, I'm a hack. Waitng for elevenaugust professional study results.

edit on 20-7-2012 by intrptr because: additional...



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Here is my opinion on what happened that night.

A supposedly "professional" photographer hears on the local weather forecast that there maybe some lightening that night .
So he sets off with his camera and his tripod to hopefully capture a few shots of lightening forks .
He takes the first couple of shots and then while viewing them on the LCD playback screen , notices a line of lens artefacts . He then realises that he has made a fundamental error . He forgot to remove the UV filter that was still attached to the lens.
He then removes the UV filter , fires off a few more shots that now contain no reflections, goes home and crops the images in an attempt to hide his mistake and to hide the point of origin of the reflections . He then tries to pass the images off as UFO's and then states " I didn't use any filters , as you can see in the later shots ".

After that he relies on gullible people to advertise his story.

I bet this is not too far from the truth !!!
edit on 20-7-2012 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


timed exposure... really... try not crying wolf and try not wanting to put up post that you yourself didn't pay too much attention.... not to make you feel bad but my son 10 years old solid me on debunking the pics... both time exposure and might or might not have been a reflection from a glass of some sort.... but i think my sons theory is valid...



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   


both time exposure and might or might not have been a reflection from a glass of some sort..
reply to post by sacraficiallamb
 


Please read the comments on the link before starting flaming me..

peace



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   


Here is my opinion on what happened that night. A supposedly "professional" photographer hears on the local weather forecast that there maybe some lightening that night . So he sets off with his camera and his tripod to hopefully capture a few shots of lightening forks . He takes the first couple of shots and then while viewing them on the LCD playback screen , notices a line of lens artefacts . He then realises that he has made a fundamental error . He forgot to remove the UV filter that was still attached to the lens. He then removes the UV filter , fires off a few more shots that now contain no reflections, goes home and crops the images in an attempt to hide his mistake and to hide the point of origin of the reflections . He then tries to pass the images off as UFO's and then states " I didn't use any filters , as you can see in the later shots ". After that he relies on gullible people to advertise his story. I bet this is not too far from the truth !!! edit on 20-7-2012 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by tpg47
 


Again. Thanks for your tenth or more professional opinion.

Peace



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


That was my only " opinion " , but you are welcome .

edit on 20-7-2012 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Now, let's see if the hot pixels theory is possible.

First step is to mesure the distance between the rightmost 'UFO' to the frame in the second photo:



Secondly, let's report this mesure to the first photo, resizing it to fit within the frame:



Oddly, we got this way a size for the width of 1024, which is a common size for 1:3 ratio for digital camera (1024 x 768)... Could this be a coincidence? Hmmm....



Let's do the same for the first picture:



Same result: 1024 for the width...

To be continued!
edit on 20-7-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join