It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# So I took some rather interesting photos of the sky tonight...

page: 3
9
share:

posted on May, 2 2013 @ 04:35 AM

So much for the iphone app!

posted on May, 2 2013 @ 06:44 AM

Originally posted by dashdespatch

So much for the iphone app!

Goes to show that sometimes the basics are all you need!

posted on May, 2 2013 @ 09:44 AM

You are a wise owl

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:09 AM
A friend of mine took this on April 25, 2013:

The exposure time was 1/10th of a second so that object must have been moving pretty fast.
He didn't see anything until he saw this photo so it isn't a contrail or a meteor.

I doubt it's a satellite because it's moving too fast.

Does anyone know how to calculate an estimate about how fast this body must have been moving?
Based on the size of the moon on the given date, it should be possible to figure out the diameter of the moon's image, and from that, the velocity of the object.
edit on 3-5-2013 by UnderGetty because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:38 PM
I did some math and it looks like the object was moving at approx. 2,000 km/h

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 02:08 PM
My friend,

Originally posted by UnderGetty
I did some math and it looks like the object was moving at approx. 2,000 km/h

Sounds about right for a Meteor

Be safe be well

Spiro

posted on May, 4 2013 @ 03:59 AM

i took a picture of one one of those once too, actually i took a bunch.. i witnessed it on my way home from work, had time to make it home, grab the cam, drive to nearby open area and use my sitting car as stabilizer.. notice how in ever pic the stars are in focus.. to the naked eye at one point it looked like the star of david.. but when it moved, it would "branch" it's light.. the whole thing was just light... in the direction it was going to move, and then act like the light rope would PULL the rest of it to where it stretched to...

a little later, the light dimmed, and i saw the distinct shape of a gyroscope, and witnessed the craft "bounce around" like when you push two magnets together in the direction they don't attract eachother.... it was countering the earths gravity... it was a dim light, inside of a gyroscope, after about 15 mins of me snapping pictures, and in awe of what i was seeing, it slowly moved away.. and then flash! and it left a streak of light that lingered for about 4 seconds and accelerated incredibly fast, then dissappeared completely...

here's the folder of all the pics i snapped, there is a text file explaining what the files labeled "edited" are.. all i did was adjust brightness/gamma

www.ntin.net...

posted on May, 4 2013 @ 03:21 PM

Originally posted by indicaindigo

. notice how in ever pic the stars are in focus..

www.ntin.net...

What stars

Exif data from the first picture in the link you gave.

Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) [0x829A] = 10/1000 second ===> 1/100 second ===> 0.01 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop [0x829D] = 50/10 ===> ƒ/5
Exposure Program [0x8822] = creative program (slow program, depth of field) (5)
ISO Speed Ratings [0x8827] = 320

At 1/100 of a second at f5 at iso 320 it wont be a star!

The second picture

Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) [0x829A] = 10/10 second ===> 1/1 second ===> 1 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop [0x829D] = 50/10 ===> ƒ/5
Exposure Program [0x8822] = creative program (slow program, depth of field) (5)
ISO Speed Ratings [0x8827] = 200

At 1 second (explains the blur) f5 and iso 200 you are still going to struggle to see a star.

posted on May, 5 2013 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

What stars

Agreed. I think he is seeing the dead pixels and thinks those are stars. Reminds me I need to take my camera in to get it serviced....getting more of those myself.

posted on May, 5 2013 @ 02:29 PM

Originally posted by lovebeck

It is a disappointing read, you are right, because instead of discussing the photos and what they could be, I have been repeatedly explaining how the photos were taken and that the images are not due to camera shake/vibration/etc.

Why would we need to 'discuss' what is shown on the image when you were told precisely what it was very early on? If I took a picture of a chicken and posted it asking what it was, how many pages of discussion do you think I would get?

People aren't trolling you when they tell you what it is. And once told what it is, it's not trolling to discuss other aspects of the images, especially when you cannot accept the true explanation.
edit on 5-5-2013 by Subterranean13 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

9