Originally posted by Infi8nity
I remember a while back a bunch of UFO'S wear seen in day light in new york. The media tried to dismiss them as balloons.
Any ways after that a bunch of people started watching the live city cams and wear posting pictures just like the ones you did.
Yeah thing is, they were balloons, and most of us on ATS came to that consensus, heck they even found out where the balloons most likely where
released from if i remember.
The live city cam was just NY airport planes coming into land... although im sure there are a few who still refuse to see that.
One other thing the OP could mention is high exposure when taking pics of stars with a hand held camera. It gives the 'trail that wasnt there' effect
you sometimes see in UFO pics. Someone seeing a bright star or planet like Jupiter and not know it is one of those things might take a quick night
shot then look at the photo and say wow where'd that trail come from, in the old days when you had to wait a day or so to get your photos developed
the trail could be (as it often was explained) the UFO doing a quick burst of speed in the space of a single frame. With insta viewing of your
pictures with digital cams it obviously comes back to a long exposure and an unsteady hand... even a tiny twitch or sway can make an elaborate trail
during high exposure shots.
Ive done a few myself over the years and theirs no way of stopping it without using a tripod.
Originally posted by elevenaugust
1- The first one was submitted to me by Whitley Strieber some years ago:
Was it?... if it is then Strieber has gone Billy Meir, although I think he did that years back personally (hey you become a sensation you gotta keep
the cash flow coming in even if your genuine experiences have stopped). Light areas above look like a window reflection of the bright light near the
'road' (including the lesser reflection of the lights from off the road surface itself), lights at back are city or town street lights I guess and the
bottom bright light/s could be from a passing cars headlights... but who knows.
For me its comes to this... most if not all digital cameras are crap at doing night shots without having them on long exposure with a tripod and any
type of exposure that isnt more or less instant makes an untrustworthy picture in the long run since your not getting a representation of what was
actually being seen at the time.
Originally posted by elevenaugust
That was the 26th October 2010, 10.30PM and the little girl haven't noticed anything unusual while taking the shoot, except a very bright flash at the
exact moment of the shoot. There was no sound at the moment (but the window was closed).
I was wondering if a 1/4s exposure shoot would be enough to impress this way the ccd sensor and artificially create this (flat) triangular black
One thing i was thinking is, how do digital cams do long exposure? since looking at that, there appears to be ghosting of the photographer in the
window reflection to the left and i count 4ish of them? Do digital cams take multiple regular images over the exposure time then simply stack them to
get the final frame? With old cameras it was just simply the iris being left open to allow more light to hit the film which would create blurring with
movement rather than a stuttering image id assume.
Digital camera pics also seem to be a hell of alot more grainy with night shots compared to old non-digital pictures. Which is what could be causing
issues with that girls pic to much detail is being lost on the 'object' with graininess causing its shape to become weathered. Although the lights
follow the long exposure pattern, I mean you have a group of 2 red a green then 2 red again and a green... not sure how it would work with a dark
Then it comes down to the old question... why where they taking a poorly framed shot while peaking from behind their curtain, of the street outside
their window at the moment in time if they saw nothing? if it was to test a new camera then they sure got lucky with their timing. Not impossible, but
still makes you question their account of events. I say they did see the object and were taking a lazy shot of it, which means they most likely knew
what it was to begin with, so it probably is a plane.
edit:- I take it back for Streibers (supposed) image since a cars head lights couldnt come out like that (wheres the dark car body blur for starters)
looks like possibly 4 bright lights in a line with a large less distinct light behind it (unless that is caused simply by the blowing out effect of
the 4 lights trails overlapping near the middle). Im simply basing this on what i think are the 'car window' reflection of the lights which appear to
show what the lights look like with alot less glare.
edit on 14-1-2013 by BigfootNZ because: (no reason given)