It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


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


Help identify the strange segmented light captured on video

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 08:33 AM
a reply to: klassless

Not a bright (pun not intended) reply!

Nevertheless it is accurate , 14 seconds of a dark screen with a nondescript point of light then a sharp movement of the camera and streak of light , what can be gleaned from that ?
In the context of what was posted I stand by my reply , bright or not.

We are told that the lady was considerate to make sure that she got steady footage

We are also told that she saw the light independently of the camera and it landed in front of her , 10 ft away!

And what terrestrial source would you name?

Already speculated on that earlier.

posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 08:42 AM

originally posted by: klassless
And since a cellphone's shutter speed is to be taken into account when shooting extremely fast objects, that shoelace-like streak leaves a trail when in reality it's structure could be just one of the segments, as the argument is in some reports of rods. And what terrestrial source would you name?

Do YOU know what the shutter speed was

If so let everyone know.

posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 09:44 AM

originally posted by: 321equinox
My witness used her phone because it was handy. I will suggest she try a higher speed recording, if she has access to that, in her future attempts. Thanks Arbitrageur!
You're welcome. Most people do not have high-speed cameras and are not going to get one without having some special need for one, because they cost significantly more than consumer-grade cameras.

However there is a much cheaper and simpler solution for this example that any consumer can afford....a tripod. I don't think the i-phone even has a tripod mount, but most decent consumer cameras I've seen do (not the cheapies, but mid-range and up). So if a tripod had been used, we could at least determine if it was an object moving rather than the camera, and in the example it appears to be the latter. So recommend a mid-range consumer camera on a tripod, which a lot of people have or can get. That will still record rod-type artifacts however, but I think it would have eliminated the light streak on this video because I think it's the camera that moved.

Maybe she did see something else outside the camera's view, but if it's not in the video there's no way to evaluate that.

originally posted by: klassless
Your "knowledge" is non-existent. And that guy in the video is a fool. But don't derail the thread with bs, please.
All I see here is an ad-hominem for me and for the person in the rods debunking video, with no clear objection to what is shown in the video, but it's not derailing the thread, it's very much on-topic because it shows how ordinary cameras can record motion as a streak, whether the motion is caused by a flying insect, or by camera motion when filming a terrestrial light source flickering at 60 Hz as appears to be the case in the OP video.

You certainly don't get any points for articulately stating your objection to that rods video, which says more about your cognitive abilities, than the content of the video, as it's a fairly straightforward experiment.

posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 10:30 AM
a reply to: 321equinox

As for the light source that would have caused such a thing as you described, would it have to be right in line with this, like directly below or above it? Could it have been off to the side, above or behind her, for example? Considering that the beam she saw startled her, and I assume she fumbled to turn the recording off and get away asap, maybe she hit something on the phone that triggered the flash, or perhaps a light was on inside the house, or above her on the porch. Could one of those things, if they apply in her case, have caused this, when they were not in direct line with the light we see on the recording? Again, thank you!

You're welcome.

Well, usually in this case, the witness saw something in the sky that he can't explain. He grab its camera and begin to record in automatic mode as, most of the time, he don't know how to set manual parameters (as greatly explained by wmd_2008). Therefore, there's no visible reference points in the surrounding landscape on the video. Everything is mostly dark.

Then, in OP's case, what could happened is that he put down its camera seconds before he stopped the recording. Then, it is my opinion that the field of view of the camera possibly crossed a streetlamp, located somewhere on the ground, below where the camera were looking at, i-e on the same vertical axis.

Also, you are right saying that another possibility is that a light was inside the house (also of 60Hz frequency) , reflecting on the windows of the porch. It can't be the case with a non-flickering light source, such as a cig, any light source from a cell phone, etc...

So, next time you will meet the witness, I suggest you to look for some far away streetlamp around the direction he was filming at or for some light inside the house that could be visible as a reflection on the glass from her position on the porch.

edit on 10-7-2016 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in