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
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
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)