UFOs? No! .... Long exposure shoots

page: 2
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Nice thread. There are quite a few photos out there of airplanes landing or taking off claimed to be UFOs, in which case slightly long exposure makes such a plane and its flashing lights photographed in side view look like a cylinder or saucer with a row of lights.

And nice examples of long-exposure art above.




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevenaugust


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 shape.

Thoughts?
edit on 14-1-2013 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)


Well if it's a large plane near an airport just before landing or just after take off 200 mph wouldn't be an unrealistic speed or 293.333 feet per second, so it would travel around 73 ft during the 1/4 second exposure.

Would be good to know exact location picture was taken and proximity to an airport.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Yup sites saying it is all real when it is total rubbish are also to blame and totally detracts from any morsel that actually might be in any way real as it gets buried in a whole heap of poop.

Regarding knowing it was a long exposure from the photo data or the way the moon looks is all very well if you know anything about photography, but not everyone does, like me for instance. I might be good at photoshop and flash animation and vid/audio editing, but knowing the technical stuff on how to take a photo.. pffffff, no chance.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
My friend,


Originally posted by elevenaugust

1- The first one was submitted to me by Whitley Strieber some years ago:



It was resized by Strieber's team under Photoshop to fit within Unknow Country, as for the original photo, in spite of my several requests and Strieber's promise to disclose it, I never received anything:


This is a great example of " painting with light " as I have shown in my images on page one. How it was done I do not know because I don't have privy to how they done it. My first impression leads me to believe it is car headlights and the tracers going across the image are the side lights of either the same car or perhaps a car just passing previous to this.

The fact they have not released the original says it all really. I would bet my camera the EXIF data would show a slow shutter speed for sure.


It has not been altered, and I believe we do have the original as it was created in the camera


Of course its not been altered and of course it was created in the original because it is the classic example of slow shutter speed at night.

Source with the description below:


The photograph was taken by a young woman known to a contributor to this website and is entirely authentic. The object remained on the ground for only a few seconds. It was less than 200 yards from the witness. It made no sound and shot off into the sky at extreme speed.


Less than 200 yards? More like 20 feet away. The reason it stayed on the ground for a few seconds was just enough time for the camera's shutter to be open to record the car going past



Looks like a long exposure shoot of some headlights, what do you think?


I completely agree





Could be just a plane (with the green and red lights on the wings [3 and 4 on the picture below]) view under certain circumstances that give to it a strange aspect. I was especially thinking of the "long exposure" effect.


It could very well be a plane, in fact that's probably most likely what it is. My first impression was that off a ceiling lamp shade, you know those ones that are round and almost flat?




The exposure time here was 1/4s and the flash did not fired. The original photo can be found here

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 shape.


Shooting at 1/4s without the flash would blur any moving object at night so yes, I believe it would be the case here


Be safe be well

Spiro



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   
This is a very interesting post to read. Thank you so much for sharing, and it certainly debunks many of those recent photographs on sites and You-tube that show very similar photographs.

Every site that illustrates UFO pictures should have this thread posted on it so people can get educated what long exposure photographs look like, and how they can make an ordinary airplane or helicopter look much different, especially if there is light being emitted from search lights or strobe lights that are equipped on the aircraft.

EBS



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CthulhuMythos
 


Hi I have said this before and I will say it again there is more chance of a sceptic like me or some of the others on here finding some real evidence.

Although it may not see like it to some on here I look at pictures/videos with an open mind but when something points to a BS claim I will say so, but with the same respect if I saw something I thought was the real deal I would back it to the hilt. That's why I joined here as I was told I would see some really good evidence.

That's why it always good if the picture still has the exif data attached so we can see things like aperture,shutter speed, focal length, time date etc even better if the camera has GPS and you get a location. It's good if we can get the location direction facing etc as that also helps to either rule out or confirm other possible objects.

What really bugs me is when people look at a tiny dot on a picture/video and make really really stupid claims about height, speed etc when they have nothing to compare with.

We can all learn from each other on here.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Skeptic is good, I try to be too with an open mind along with it, though I do still live in hope of something tangible with all the cameras and telescopes people around the world seem to have now.

Certainly when observers say what size something is and how far away it is when all they have seen is a small dot (especially at night) I have to say that it would be almost impossible to discern that with any kind of accuracy because a small light/ship/something up in the air could be something huge far away or something small like an RC flying toy above a neighbour's house. It is so hard to tell these things when all you have is sky next to it for reference. Plus all the fancy CGI stuff that numpties continually try to fool people with just muddy the waters for anything that just might be real (alien or top secret), which is a shame and indeed a sham.

Have to admit, I would not know how to interpret Exif (did I get that right?) data, of course I would have to figure out how to find it in the first place.

So have you ever found any irrefutable evidence of real ufo's as in alien space craft not government secret squirrel stuff?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
My friend,


Originally posted by CthulhuMythos
Have to admit, I would not know how to interpret Exif (did I get that right?) data, of course I would have to figure out how to find it in the first place.


Hopefully I can help you.

To access EXIF data from a digital image, simply right click on the thumb nail of the [original] image then select properties. When this box appears, along the top there will be a few tabs, one will say " details ", click this and up will appear the EXIF data


To interpret the data, just simply look at what it is telling you, such as >

Shutter speed
Exposure
Date
Time
Location [if the camera/phone has gps, such as the Nokia N8/Iphone etc]

Etc....

It's from this data that we can determine the originality of the image should we suspect a person misleading, etc


I hope this helps ya!

Be safe be well

Spiro



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiro
My friend,


Originally posted by CthulhuMythos
Have to admit, I would not know how to interpret Exif (did I get that right?) data, of course I would have to figure out how to find it in the first place.


Hopefully I can help you.

To access EXIF data from a digital image, simply right click on the thumb nail of the [original] image then select properties. When this box appears, along the top there will be a few tabs, one will say " details ", click this and up will appear the EXIF data


To interpret the data, just simply look at what it is telling you, such as >

Shutter speed
Exposure
Date
Time
Location [if the camera/phone has gps, such as the Nokia N8/Iphone etc]

Etc....

It's from this data that we can determine the originality of the image should we suspect a person misleading, etc


I hope this helps ya!

Be safe be well

Spiro


Thank you for that, 'twas indeed worth getting up today as I have now learned something new

Dunno I would really understand the significance of shutter speed and exposure but I definitely understand 'time', 'date' and 'location (with a bit of help from google maps)


thx again

C



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by CthulhuMythos
 


Hi I don't want to make this to long but the shutter speed, aperture size, focal length and iso setting (film/sensor speed) can all help prove or disprove a claim.

For example all camera lenses have a property called Depth of Field it relates to what looks in reasonable focus in front or behind an object that a lens is focused on. This distance depends on focal length, aperture distance focused on and in the digital age the sensor size.

An example of depth of field.



There is an online depth of field calculator with thousands of camera/ lens / aperture combinations.

A use for this is when we get a thread with a picture with a claimed ufo object in it that wasn't noticed when the picture was taken if we have enough data we can make an educated guess at the objects distance from the camera.

If there is motion blur if we know the shutter speed we can make an educated guess if the object was traveling fast or slow an even better guess if we have a distance already worked out.

See the more info you have the better answer you get!

In answer to your other question not yet!!!



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Thank you for taking the time to give me a wee lesson in photography, definitely a lot more in the 'know' now and can sort of see how with suitable training and experience you could indeed determine a lot of details of the proposed ufo. Very clever stuff!

I truly do hope we get some proper proof/visitations from real aliens, but at the same time pretty scared about the prospect in case they are not all nicey nicey and helpful and turn out like 'V' or Predator! That would be such a bummer.

C.
edit on 15-1-2013 by CthulhuMythos because: added last comment
edit on 15-1-2013 by CthulhuMythos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CthulhuMythos
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Thank you for taking the time to give me a wee lesson in photography, definitely a lot more in the 'know' now and can sort of see how with suitable training and experience you could indeed determine a lot of details of the proposed ufo. Very clever stuff!

I truly do hope we get some proper proof/visitations from real aliens, but at the same time pretty scared about the prospect in case they are not all nicey nicey and helpful and turn out like 'V' or Predator! That would be such a bummer.

C.
edit on 15-1-2013 by CthulhuMythos because: added last comment
edit on 15-1-2013 by CthulhuMythos because: (no reason given)


Thanks I don't mind giving info to people willing to listen, photography has been a hobby of mine for 30+ years so I have a reasonable grasp of the basics


Lots of info can be determined from a picture if you have all the details, may be that's why lots of ufo sites remove exif data!!!

I would like and hope to see some real proof eventually as for the V/Predator comment that might not be a bad thing it would give all the gun lovers on here something to shoot at



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Thanks I don't mind giving info to people willing to listen, photography has been a hobby of mine for 30+ years so I have a reasonable grasp of the basics


Lots of info can be determined from a picture if you have all the details, may be that's why lots of ufo sites remove exif data!!!

I would like and hope to see some real proof eventually as for the V/Predator comment that might not be a bad thing it would give all the gun lovers on here something to shoot at


Hmmm didn't know the ufo sites deliberately took off the exif data, which is no surprise as I didn't know it was there until now. Does make you think they really do know what they are up to in trying to fool the world. That kind of thing is why I wonder if it really is mostly a government influence smoke screen to hide whatever their secret squirrel stuff is (along with the possibility of genning us up for the old Project Blue Beam scenario, if that comes).

The thing with the gun lovers and the Predator scenario, it just means peeps like me who do cuddles rather than guns will just become lunch! So, def a bad idea on from my point of view



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by CthulhuMythos


Hmmm didn't know the ufo sites deliberately took off the exif data, which is no surprise as I didn't know it was there until now.


I am not saying it's done deliberately some maybe, sometimes the person sending the report may have taken it off or they did an edit to the picture (for example cropped of changed the size) which saved without the data.

One thing is certain it would help in a lot of cases.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join