reply to post by usmc4hire
The picture. Ahh, that picture. Not stars, the lights are all curved and the blue/green is going the wrong way, red lights all have breaks in the
middle. 57 second exposure means that the blue/green light hovered while the red lights traveled slower than the stars. It could be an earthly
aircraft but the blue/green one is not. This has been confirmed by the photographer who was just published for a night series he shot of Phoenix Sky
Harbor. He knows how to shoot aircraft, been doing it for years. He is 100% sure its not an airplane that we know of. I, myself spent 8 years in the
Marines and now work for the leading air and space contractor. I live, eat, and sleep military aircraft and all their aspects, its my job.
The star trails are obvious. I just mentioned them for completeness. It would help to see the original photo rather than what is on youtube, which is
highly spatially compressed.
Something that "hovers" is probably something flying at you or away from you, but in the case of aircraft, the former since there is a light at the
front. At these distances, your only perception of motion would be sideways. The dome can be the body of an aircraft illuminated by its own lights.
These long exposures integrate (as in calculus) the light, in your case over 57 seconds. The eye has an integration period of 10ms to 20ms, depending
on how you define integration. The short time is for flashes of light, such as a motion picture projector. Dark integration is more like 100ms to
200ms. My point is it isn't like you are looking at something in a "human" time frame.
To get a natural looking image with long integration, you need to use very low contrast film. The low contrast film is called chromogenic, which
incidentally was used for filming nuclear explosions. Kodak has/had a commercial version of such film, designated BW400CN. I see it still exists on
the Kodak website.
The latitude of this film is so wide that you can do time exposure shots and see shades of gray rather than blobs of light and the imediate area
around the light source. The problem is film is a lot of work these days to develop and scan, plus you can't do a test image at the scene like you
can with digital.
I photographed the air space over the base from the Power Line Overlook, probably around 10 years ago. This is a shot done with no moonlight:
You can just barely make out the hillside, but it isn't lost in the noise. Mind you I am integrating star light and the glow from Las Vegas, which is
actually brighter than star light.
Once the moon was out, I got this image:
My point is integrating film approaches what you see with your eye.
The problem with integrating a CCD is the dark areas barely toggle a few lsb. If any thing, they are just dither. The only thing you see with a CCD is
the light and the area very close to the light. In the case of your UFO, I believe that is the fuselage of an airliner. Looking head on, it would have
such a domed shape. And here again, because the UFO is high up in the air, it can easily be off the range. If the object just moves a bit laterally or
zig-zags, it can make the curved shape too.
If you had this object with a mountain in the background, this would be a totally different story. That was why I showed some low altitude trails that
are obviously "local" to some degree.
So I guess I disagree with the Phoenix expert, but this isn't my first trip to the rodeo. This person is simply wrong IMHO, but you can invite said
person to post their photo interpretation.