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

Originally posted by edged1
[Look at the lights on the ground>Seems obvious to me.

It's my first thought, too, however, per the image above, they don't line up with the ground lights from photo to photo. That makes me think they're associated with something else that doesn't have anything to do with the sky or the lightning or the lights on the ground, and more likely a reflection.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SoulVoid

 

Easy to forget external quotes. Easy to forget a link to the source. Everyone makes mistakes.

I would also like a response from you on this. You know quite a bit on this subject

I know that using "print screen" and overzooming the image results in image artifacts. Just one more reason why the original images are needed.

edit on 7/20/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Just like what I did!!!!

Any professional photographer would have released the 300 dpi raw image. It is a waste of time to speculate unless he does that. Do you know how easy it is to add white dots in sky in photoshop? Takes two clicks.

Originally posted by network dude
It was a long exposure and an airplane flying left to right in the frame. The lights only flash on every few seconds, so it appears to be a massive object, but is only a set of light in reality.

I don't think it's an airplane, as an airplane at that altitude would show more lights.

Also, for the lights to appear in exactly the same position in two photos it would be a huge coincidence.

Everything points to some kind of reflection, as a long exposure would make more visible lights that were not much noticeable.

The fact that those photos had the EXIF data removed but the daylight photo did not is also a little suspicious.

They do look alot like reflection from the ground lights. Tough to say though, Because its 2 pics from different angles from I can tell, and the same shape in each pic, maybe a reflection from inside the camera. still a cool pic

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Any professional photographer would have released the 300 dpi raw image. It is a waste of time to speculate unless he does that. Do you know how easy it is to add white dots in sky in photoshop? Takes two clicks.

That's all anyone really needs to know.

The proof is in the pudding. Put up or shut up. Make with the original files, or it didn't happen. Burden of proof, ladies.

Seems like older images. I recall ones just like these filmed in some South American country. Maybe it was Chile, but I can't remember. Those were deemed to be just headlights from cars coming down a high mountain road which leads up to the Andes. ~$heopleNation

Greg writes:
"........I have the pictures in RAW format with Nikon’s tamper proof seal – something the Nikon D700 is able to do to prove a picture hasn’t been tampered with."

“I did all I could to debunk this. Everything from checking the processor on my camera to calling NORAD and AFOC. Obviously not stars, nor is it a reflection of any type. No aircraft in the air. Meteorologist can’t explain, Air Force can’t explain. That’s the most I can do.”

Well, Greg, you haven't provided the RAW images for examination on ATS.

Hasn't anyone emailed him yet?

There seems to be a short time lapse when you look at vehicle lights down to the left, and even some indicators of time lapse of other lights on the ground, the dots in the sky could be faint backscatter from dust. No matter, these are not single shots.

reply to post by elevenaugust


Good post, and investigation

I'd go with this possibility. Hot pixels are usually much more random in distribution in my experience. These appear to be arranged along a line, which suggests "ghosts" from light sources that would likely be visible were the images that we have been shown left un-cropped.

I could be wrong, but to me this smells like a half baked attempt at a hoax. Either that or the photographer is not nearly as competant as has been suggested in this thread.

reply to post by SoulVoid


Very interesting. Clearly not planes.

Originally posted by tpg47

Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth' ! Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Perhaps....but I offer, "when in doubt, ORB out." without the raw data, we can only ass-u-me orb.

Originally posted by Druid42

Greg writes:
"........I have the pictures in RAW format with Nikon’s tamper proof seal – something the Nikon D700 is able to do to prove a picture hasn’t been tampered with."

“I did all I could to debunk this. Everything from checking the processor on my camera to calling NORAD and AFOC. Obviously not stars, nor is it a reflection of any type. No aircraft in the air. Meteorologist can’t explain, Air Force can’t explain. That’s the most I can do.”

Well, Greg, you haven't provided the RAW images for examination on ATS.

Hasn't anyone emailed him yet?

I asked him via the comments section on intrepid and it seems he is willing to share the files. I just sent him an email.

I can image the headlines...

"FAILED PHOTOGRAPHER HOAXES UFOS TO GAIN ATTENTION"
Plasters logo all over images...

Is it really human nature to stoop so low? Unfortunately, yes.

To the believers (especially the OP), when someone refuses to present ALL the information, there's normally a pretty good reason for it.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by edged1
[Look at the lights on the ground>Seems obvious to me.

It's my first thought, too, however, per the image above, they don't line up with the ground lights from photo to photo. That makes me think they're associated with something else that doesn't have anything to do with the sky or the lightning or the lights on the ground, and more likely a reflection.

don't forget to take into account the slow shutter speed and what that would do for reflections

reply to post by cripmeister


Let's see if he provides them. We are at a stand still until we get the RAW images.

Please link them, if you hear anything back.

Im an avid believer in UFO's I dont even think "believer" is the right word, I have seen enough that I have no doubts.
But i cant believe these crap pics of light flare have gotten so much attention

I posted some pics I shot from my DSLR (nikon d700) full size and unedited, and I didnt recieve much feed back.
I know the object in my shots is a long way away and appears very small in the frames, but it was there, it was day time and I gave the full size photos for ATS to pick apart.

It could be a weather balloon but i would love someone to be able to tell me the distance and or size of the object, by using the focal leangth, sensor size etc of the camera. or any other information or ideas.

please take a look www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by dadfortruth1
It could be a weather balloon but i would love someone to be able to tell me the distance and or size of the object, by using the focal leangth, sensor size etc of the camera. or any other information or ideas.

please take a look www.abovetopsecret.com...

What you are asking for is physically impossible - you can't estimate distance/size/altitude/speed of an unknown object without points of referance/cues.

For example, if a UFO passes infront of an object of known size/distance, we might have an idea of the physical characteristics of the UFO then - at least we will know how far the object is, so we can put an upper limit on size.

For more info on the subject, see the following threads:
How Big And Far Is That UFO?

How good are we at estimating the distance and altitude of UFOs?

reply to post by SoulVoid


Hello...
We've been talking about these specific photos since I posted them on July 15th....
At:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by tpg47
Hi.
I may be able to offer an explanation .
I am an avid photographer and have seen similar effects before.
You can wager that any photographer using a DSLR camera , who knows his stuff , will have a UV filter permanently attached to the lens . This lens filter can cause reflection problems when shooting at night . See Below.

Now it could be that the lights that have caused the similar reflection in the OP's post were out of shot , or conveniently cropped .

Please don't be swayed by the fact that the OP's pictures were taken by a pro , because he could be a wedding photographer for all we know , who is obviously unfamiliar with taking night shots. Photography has many fields in which one could be considered a pro . It doesn't automatically make one an expert.

Just trying to keep it real . Any decent amateur or any pro photographer will back up my explanation

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

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

It now appears this explanation is the correct one, check out the bottom posts in the comments section. Greg did send me the RAW image files, I sent them to elevenaugust so he could check them out.