Something in the sky last night

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike6158

Originally posted by stirling
You guys threw out the tree for a forest.....

That high flyer is definately something very interesting....!
Try picture no 17 on the above Pann stars link provided by the OP
Notice the wedge shape of the craft......
The thing is wayeee up there too.....i think it could be the same ship that plane spotting champion in north sea spotted fuelling up from a K135 tanker with an escortof two fighter jets.....
Thats no 747 for damn sure!


FWIW, it was well above commercial aircraft altitudes. The contrails looked like they "could be" plasma forming around a re-entry vehicle rather than a vapor cloud. It helps that I have the original to zoom in on so I don't lose the pixels like shrinking, posting, and then linking to an image does. However... I'm usually skeptical about such things. You're right though... it wasn't a 747...



How do you know it was above commercial aircraft altitudes want to explain how you worked that out




posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike6158
 


One trail is from the ship bottom and two from some aft objects.
A Tesla triangle ship would be my best guess.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by Mike6158
 


One trail is from the ship bottom and two from some aft objects.
A Tesla triangle ship would be my best guess.


You would be wrong yet again !!!



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
wildlightimagingstudio.com...

bottom jets nice for support

possible unknown or known Tesla ship

that is the Illuminati owned ships they can't let go of

find someone in the know cause they payed Tesla to make them



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Easy. I was shooting with a 300mm lens on a crop sensor camera. I had an effective focal length of around 420mm. I wish I could have got on it with the 800mm lens but I was too slow to think of it.

There was very little relative motion. Actually, none that I could discern. It just sat there and that is indicative of it's distance from me. Alternatively I guess I could've assumed that it was hovering, with a contrail.

I saw numerous other commercial airliners passing through around the same time, some with contrails, some without, and they all had a lot of relative motion. Because of that I came to the conclusion that the object that I photographed was very high (stationary just doesn't seem plausible). The airliners that I saw were easy to discern with the camera. The object that I photographed wasn't easy to discern even cropping in very tight on a 31" monitor.

In the end, I have no idea what it was. I put the pic out there for people to judge for themselves.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I live next to O'Hare. Drive to work at sunrise and home at sunset much of the year, so I see a lot of this type of effect. Sometimes the patters and illumination can really make you wonder, but in the end it's just the low angle orange light playing on distant jets/contrails.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike6158
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Easy. I was shooting with a 300mm lens on a crop sensor camera. I had an effective focal length of around 420mm. I wish I could have got on it with the 800mm lens but I was too slow to think of it.

There was very little relative motion. Actually, none that I could discern. It just sat there and that is indicative of it's distance from me. Alternatively I guess I could've assumed that it was hovering, with a contrail.

I saw numerous other commercial airliners passing through around the same time, some with contrails, some without, and they all had a lot of relative motion. Because of that I came to the conclusion that the object that I photographed was very high (stationary just doesn't seem plausible). The airliners that I saw were easy to discern with the camera. The object that I photographed wasn't easy to discern even cropping in very tight on a 31" monitor.

In the end, I have no idea what it was. I put the pic out there for people to judge for themselves.


You might have some nice gear but you have a lot to learn if it was traveling away for you it will give the impression of it hovering or being almost stationary it's a well known problem on here and confuses lots of people.

Think of direction in relation to shutter speed for a moving object.


When it comes to direction, a subject that is moving towards you or away from you can be frozen with a slower shutter speed than a subject that is moving in a side-to-side direction. So, if you want to freeze a dog running towards you, you can probably freeze it with 1/500th second shutter speed, whereas if the dog is running right to left, you may have to increase the shutter speed to 1/800th second. This is because the motion is more pronounced when the subject is moving across the frame as opposed to towards or away from you.



You are supposed to be a photographer just goes to show you can have really expensive equipment but you still don't really know what your looking at!



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Oh... You're one of those troll things that I've heard about.

Where did I say it was going away from me?



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike6158
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Oh... You're one of those troll things that I've heard about.

Where did I say it was going away from me?


Well it was in the distance you were looking for Comet Panstarrs so its traveling away or towards you DOH!!!

Why do you require a slower shutter speed when an object is traveling towards/away from you because is speed relative to you /fov appears SLOWER hence why an aircraft would look almost like it's hovering or moving very slowly due to it's direction/speed and DISTANCE relative to YOU.

That effect is discussed here on many occasions usually on ufo videos of aircraft in the distance.

I thought that as a photographer you would look at the circumstances of your image and not jump to conclusions but then again obviously not! Next time look up flightrader 24 you can even track flights a few days after they take place!!!

Troll no !!
edit on 16-4-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Lol check the flight paths of aircraft on Google... they don't just travel east to west or west to east. Panstarrs was in the west. This thing had the appearance of pointing "up" and to the south southeast.

Why don't you take a look at the attitude that you portray in your posts? It's troll-ish.

I'm pretty open minded about what I photographed. It's most likely to be "normal" and least likely to be aliens or government controlled. I put the image links here for opinions, not to have some troll make disparaging remarks, which is pretty much all you have done.

Here's the extremely cropped version. It's pretty hard to see much and it looks like a larger version of the images of contrails that others have posted

edit on 4/17/2013 by Mike6158 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike6158

I'm pretty open minded about what I photographed. It's most likely to be "normal" and least likely to be aliens or government controlled. I put the image links here for opinions, not to have some troll make disparaging remarks, which is pretty much all you have done.


Here is my first couple of posts to YOU.

My first post to you.


Nice pics of Panstarrs can you give exif data for the other photographers on here waiting for a clear night like myself.


My second


That's some serious kit an EOS 1D MK IV a 300 f2.8 and a 60DA are you a pro or a wealthy amateur!


NOT as you say


"not to have some troll make disparaging remarks, which is pretty much all you have done".


You agreed that it look like aircraft contrails after a few members said that's what it was and posted similar images you then change your mind after one member claimed it was no 747.

You then said this.


FWIW, it was well above commercial aircraft altitudes. The contrails looked like they "could be" plasma forming around a re-entry vehicle rather than a vapor cloud. It helps that I have the original to zoom in on so I don't lose the pixels like shrinking, posting, and then linking to an image does. However... I'm usually skeptical about such things. You're right though... it wasn't a 747...


So with that

Could you explain how you work out it's above commercial aircraft altitudes that would be a handy skill for many of us on here so can you please explain how do you do it


The contrails looked like plasma so I take it you have a lot of experience or images taken of that happening


It also helps to have the original to zoom in on, then again its only a few pixels across so you wont see any real detail and you can take a crop save as a png or tiff and upload it.

It wasn't a 747 again how do you know, it could have been or a 757,A380 Airbus or any number of different aircraft.

As stated by myself and one other member you can look back at flights on Flightradar 24 for about 2 weeks iirc.

Re another comment that you made ....well lets see what you claimed


Originally posted by Mike6158
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Lol check the flight paths of aircraft on Google... they don't just travel east to west or west to east. Panstarrs was in the west. This thing had the appearance of pointing "up" and to the south southeast.


I never claimed the exact direction of travel.

Some members on here have fantastic way out ideas of what they think they see for example one person who posts always claims every unidentified object like yours on a still or a video is a Tesla ship that's there answer every time and I am not joking every single time.

There are many pro,semi-pro and very keen hobby photographers I got the bug 30+ years ago when I had just started work I saved a few weeks wages to buy a FULLY manual 35mm SLR (the best way to learn)

On here we see images like that a lot on here, we see crazy claims made regarding altitude, speed etc when they have NO frame of reference on the image or video to work that out, it was unusual to see a photographer jumping to those conclusions, SORRY! it seemed harsh but I am a straight talker anyway don't take it the wrong way.

Ps Had another look at your web site I like your Milky Way shots very very nice!



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You make some good points. You can't see what I saw because the bottom line is that the image isn't definitive. Fair enough... but toward the end you went on a needless attack. You can scroll up and read them, I'm not going to take the time to cut and paste them. Even at that... apologies for calling you a troll.

I watched it through the lens for a short while. Too long though. I should've put the 800 on when I first saw it. It was small though it was much larger than Panstarrs and, unlike Panstarrs, it was easily naked eye visible. To be honest... it wasn't that interesting in the lens because it was so small. I didn't pay attention to it until I zoomed in on it after I downloaded it.

Plasma- There are tons of videos from the inside of the Space Shuttle reentering. The Shuttle has a plasma cloud around it on reentry. So while I haven't personally seen plasma in person... I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last week.

Direction of travel- No idea... but I know... no... I THINK that compared to the relative motion of the other aircraft that passed through the scene it was higher. It had no apparent motion. Does that mean it was stopped or somehow hovering? No... it isn't a stretch to think that it was above the other traffic because they had plenty of apparent motion. I could also easily identify the other aircraft as aircraft in the lens.

Altitude- There aren't enough parameters to calculate that. To use the cosine rule I would have to know the length of two of the three sides and the angle formed by the angle between a line formed by my eye to the horizon and my eye to the object. I can come up with one because of where the visible horizon is (about 8 miles) but I don't know the range to the object and I need that to find vertical height. So... I can tell you how high that I think it was relative to other aircraft based on what I could see but I can't do much better than a guess so there is no value there.

If you're interested-

Line of site distance in miles to the horizon is = 1.22 * sqrt of the height of your eye above sea level (assuming nothing obstructs the sight line)

Cosine rule for all triangles:

a^2 = b^2 + c^2 - 2bc * cos(A) I can't figure out how to show the triangle to define the location of the sides and angles but just Google cosine rule for all triangles. You have to rearrange the equation to solve for the data that you have. Or just Google the same thing only add calculator to the end.

I only have one photograph of the object. That's how uninteresting it looked in the lens. It has no frame of reference in regards to the ground

I started with 120 film in a Brownie Hawkeye camera when I was 8 years old. I developed my black and white film in the families only bathroom with a "johnny woodchuck" Sears home developing kit that I got for Christmas. I was an amazing photographer at 8 years old. Amazingly normal in that my images pretty much sucked... But that's where I got the bug. I shot tons of film over the years after and I have nothing to show for it... it all died in a divorce in 1990. So did my interest in photography. In 2006 I bought my first digital camera with insurance money that I received for a motorcycle that I "broke". That decision has cost me way more money than replacing the bike would have. The digital camera started out in manual mode and other than the occasional switch to AV mode due to lighting that's where they've all stayed. I've shot close to 100,000 images since buying the first DSLR. I also shoot a Linhof Master Technica and 4x6 sheet film and a Hassleblad CM500 but to be honest I am so used to instant gratification now that I don't use either very much anymore.

Like I said, I'm open minded about the image. It's intriguing when I look at the super cropped original on my monitor but it's not definitive. Zoomed out it looks like some of the images that were posted.

and last... I'll check out the airliner link and see which one it was. If something shows up I'll post it up
edit on 4/18/2013 by Mike6158 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/18/2013 by Mike6158 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Bummer. Flighttrader 24 doesn't go back far enough. I needed 3/12/13 at 20:49:50



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike6158
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Bummer. Flighttrader 24 doesn't go back far enough. I needed 3/12/13 at 20:49:50



Pity, one of the early replies to you mentioned Flightradar 24, sorry if I was a bit harsh the problem is that there are so many people on here that don't have a clue about photography/video/digital imaging and jump to conclusions that are obviously wrong it's frustrating when someone that obviously knows about the subject falls into the same trap.

Seriously you should see some of the conclusions people jump to on here re what they think they see in a picture.

I post a lot on Apollo hoax threads and a lot of those threads rely on photographic evidence, the classic quote is often get Hubble to photograph the landing sites , they don't relise at the distance of the Moon Hubble can resolve objects about 300 ft across they get confused by the other stunning images it takes.

It's the same for other claims of the USA can read a car number plate /newspaper headline from space WRONG the resolution for a plate would be about 0.1cm/pixel we are a bit of that yet.

Newspaper from space

A lot of that is based on an assumption due to images on Google Earth many on here don't know the picture of their house close up was from an aircraft a couple of thousand feet up and not from space.

As for the height above ground distance to horizon /trig stuff I do know about that.

Anyway next time you see contrails like that remember Flightradar 24.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike6158
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Bummer. Flighttrader 24 doesn't go back far enough. I needed 3/12/13 at 20:49:50


Hi Mike try this site planefinder.net they can go back further than flightradar24



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
wtf is this? anyone knows?



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike6158
 


I saw this exact object last night! I never post, however after i saw this object last night, I started searching all over for an explanation.

I too thought it resembled a meteor but it just didn't look like a regular meteor. It did look like a comet, however it changed speeds from fast to light speed in under a second!

I'm right outside of Charleston SC area by the way.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mjab6910
reply to post by Mike6158
 


I too thought it resembled a meteor but it just didn't look like a regular meteor. It did look like a comet, however it changed speeds from fast to light speed in under a second!



Of course it did





top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join