my cute little ufos..awww...no really WHAT are these?

originally posted by: thesingingsaint
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Thanks. and thank you for taking me seriously and not insulting me by telling me its a bird.

When you have a topic like UFOs, especially when you are claiming to see one, the "Peanut Gallery" will never be far behind to insult you and make fun (even though one of the guys making fun claims he was abducted by aliens ). Can't take these guys to heart, just ignore and move on because there are a lot more of us who believe you and are interested in ur story and video! Hope to see a new video some day soon!

I spend a good deal of time looking at the daytime sky. This summer I noticed the objects you describe. The ones I spotted seemed to travel east northeast, slowly, and it was difficult to tell if they held a straight tack, or seemingly drifted, as there were usually clouds which momentarily obscured them, and made a definitive track difficult.

Shiny, tiny, way high, seemingly well above the clouds, sometimes giving a sliverish yellow flash, causing me to wonder if it were a mylar balloon. Impossible to say. Initially I suspected a satellite catching a glint of the westering sun...or perhaps the ISS...but the ISS moves very fast, though it does seem to take the same track as I have seen it several times, and is much larger. The object never stood still, to the best of my judgement, and remained visible for around 5 minutes as it crossed about a fifth of the sky. Curious.

# 916

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: thesingingsaint
You need this camera. It's actually very affordable.

The problem is it's ok for things like the Moon at night but it has a tiny sensor which can create noise.

Quote from imaging resource

The Nikon P900 is not a camera meant for low ambient light shooting, which is no surprise given the sensor size.

Daylight yes night shooting no.

The sensor is 1/2.3-inch (6.17 x 4.55 mm) thats why it has a large zoom range they quote as 83x which is very misleading because it's 35mm equivilant range is 24-2000mm. 24mm on a 35 mm camera is approx 0.5x magnification so the real actual magnification is just over 40x.

Also it is fairly expensive.

For small distant objects. The Nikon Coolpix P900 at $579.95 from Adormama is cheaper and better. The Sony A7s is $1,998.00 but does better in low light but has no real zoom capability anyway even with a better low light sensor. With the Sony you'd need to buy a comparable 83x zoom lens for thousands of dollars more.

Links to prove my point from one of the best online photo stores. Go to Amazon you'll see the same thing. The Nikon Coolpix 900 is the better all around choice to photo/video distant objects. The Sony A7 doesn't come with a zoom lens at the $2,000 dollar price point! At 1/4 the cost the Sony Coolpix can shoot a closeup of a gnats anus at 600 yards, or orbs that are miles away!

Nikon COOLPIX P900

Sony Alpha a7S



Watch the video. You'll get shots from the Nikon Coolpix 900 you can't get from any other camera. Maybe the proof you need to capture evidence to prove your orb case to the world!

a reply to: thesingingsaint

Are you certain, based on movement, that these aren't weather balloons? Not saying they are, but trying to be sure we can eliminate one possibility. Clearly some actual object, based on your video here, as they are moving, but here, they seem to be moving in one direction, and the same one for both objects. Do you have other videos that show movement variation? From this, no way to really say.

Also, have you checked with anyone in your area for balloon launches, or any other possibilities? Any chance of getting some video through the binoculars?

If these objects are traveling in the winds direction that might go a long way to verifying a balloon theory too.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

First of all the P900 has a 83x zoom range the actual max magnification is just over 40x it's lens is the equivalent of a 24-2000 mm lens on a full frame film/DSLR camera as 50mm gives approx 1x on those cameras 2000/50 =40

My reference to this the Sony A7s



If you look was to the comment by misterassist69 on the Australien skies documentry by a professional film company on a youtube ufo nut job, if they really wanted answers they could have hired that camera for better results at night.
It was very obvious many of the things looked at were out of focus.

To give you an idea of sensor size



The P900 is between the first and second from the left at 6.17 x 4.55 mm

Yes P900 has a great zoom and if you are not that serious about photography or want a high zoom back up it's a good choice but will show it limitations at night due to the tiny sensor which gives it the great zoom range and as a lot of people go out at night to film ufo's that could be an issue.

Now for example I took this shot I knew what it was as I could here it in the distance didn't change camera settings took a short video with my 70-300 zoom here is a still your typical ufo light at night.



Now change the exposure & manual focus best thing to do at night.



No longer a ufo.

As for daylight again same lens 70-300 . 300mm f16 1/200th sec iso 200 a jet heading over the Atlantic a few miles down range from my house at over 25,000 feet



Cropped



Still a reasonable quality of image.

Here is a guide to possible print sizes for the P900 against a Nikon 3200 (old model now)

P900
A very good 13 x 19 inch print at ISO 100; a nice 8 x 10 at ISO 800; a good 4 x 6 at ISO 3200.

The Nikon 3200

SO 100 shots look terrific printed as large as 24 x 36 inches, with good detail and color. Wall display prints are possible to 30 x 40 inches.

ISO 200 shots look great at 20 x 30 inches.

ISO 400 images also stand up to printing at 20 x 30 inches.

ISO 800 prints start to show a little more noise in the shadows and a little softer detail at 20 x 30, so while we'd call them usable, we prefer them printed at 16 x 20 inches.

ISO 1,600 prints are pretty good at 13 x 19 inches. A bit of noise is creeping into a few areas, but still good for the ISO.

ISO 3,200 shots are a bit rough printed at 13 x 19, but pass muster at 11 x 14 inches, with just a bit of noise in flatter areas.

So the zoom advantage can diminish very quickly if you crop from prints.

I am just posting to report that I see absolutely no lights or moving objects in the :55 second video..

i'm not asking for explanations or analysis....just reporting in is all

so I cannot even say anything about what is invisible to me but others attest that they see in the same video presentation

a reply to: wmd_2008

You're comparing Apples to Oranges. The Sony is 4 times more costly ($2,00) and has NO Zoom lens. The Sony is more expensive because of the fact it's geared toward professionals. Totally overkill for the OP of this thread when the all in one Nikon Coolpix 900 will do just nicely and not bust their budget at $596. I use pro cameras in my advertising work, but I'd never recommended such a pricey camera to an average photographer person who can get fantastic results form a cheaper and frankly a better zoom lens than the Sony A7 which has no zoom lens and to get one would cost thousands more to get comparable results as on the Coolpix 900.

a reply to: thepixelpusher


FFS read my post the comment re the Sony A7S was not to the OP

I said this

If you look was to the comment by misterassist69 on the Australien skies documentary

Done by a professional company with normal gear.

Reread before I send the ghosts after you

I believe you left a false impression on the Nikon Coolpix 900 and I was just responding with some facts. Feel free to send the Holy Ghost after me. I love talking to the Holy Spirit.

I agree the Sony A7 is nice, but just too pricey and not appropriate for photo/filming distant objects like the Nikon Coolpix 900, unless you spend thousands extra for pricey zoom lenses. The Nikon Coolpix 900 is a heck of a bargain.



Imagine if that plane was the OP orbs!!

a reply to: thepixelpusher

I responded to your errors re the P900 and the ghosts were from pacman because of your avatar that shows how easily you jump to the wrong conclusion. Plenty of videos on the net of P900 users making stupid claims even with their 40x zoom.

Yes I would agree there is something going on at the moment, and all this year for that matter. The week just gone might have been a strong one for anyone with a "connection to UFOs". I myself saw something two nights ago around 4am that defied convention, and also a "daytime star" back in the summer months. On top of that the two orb UFOs that play with each other are a thing (I call them 'the cheeky pair'), so I have no reason to personally disbelieve your post and nice video!

I came by to see if anyone else had seen anything star/orb like in the last couple days. I guess they did... kudos!

a reply to: wmd_2008

And I was responding to your bias against the P900's great camera for the money of $596.00 vs Sony A7 at $2,000. And Sony has no zoom!!

You seem to be ill informed about cameras. I've been using them for decades in my advertising work. I suggest you go to DPreview.com site and educate yourself more before you dismiss my opinion.The Sony A7 zoom lens to match the P900 would cost thousands on top of the 2K camera price. Hardly a solution for this OP, or anyone that is not professional. The Sony A7 has a bigger sensor but also costs 4x more and is geared toward the professional market. The P900 is geared toward wildlife and zoom photography like for the orbs.

I've made my case with facts already and you can choose to ignore it. Since this isn't a camera thread, let's get back on topic to focusing on the orbs the OP has shared.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

I will ask again can YOU actually undestand what you read

I posted the video of the Sony A7S in reply not to the OP but to misterassist69 about the Australien skies documetary and in that post link below

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can YOU point out where I compare it to the P900 in that post.

In reply to your post re the P900 I give this reply link below.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can YOU point out where I compare the P900 to the A7S, again I didn't even metion the A7S as everyone can SEE

The person who decided to compare them was YOU

Even when I compared it to another camera it was a NIKON D3200 as can be seen below.

Here is what I said

Yes P900 has a great zoom and if you are not that serious about photography or want a high zoom back up it's a good choice but will show it limitations at night due to the tiny sensor which gives it the great zoom range and as a lot of people go out at night to film ufo's that could be an issue.

Also this.

Here is a guide to possible print sizes for the P900 against a Nikon 3200 (old model now)

P900
A very good 13 x 19 inch print at ISO 100; a nice 8 x 10 at ISO 800; a good 4 x 6 at ISO 3200.

The Nikon 3200

SO 100 shots look terrific printed as large as 24 x 36 inches, with good detail and color. Wall display prints are possible to 30 x 40 inches.

ISO 200 shots look great at 20 x 30 inches.

ISO 400 images also stand up to printing at 20 x 30 inches.

ISO 800 prints start to show a little more noise in the shadows and a little softer detail at 20 x 30, so while we'd call them usable, we prefer them printed at 16 x 20 inches.

ISO 1,600 prints are pretty good at 13 x 19 inches. A bit of noise is creeping into a few areas, but still good for the ISO.

ISO 3,200 shots are a bit rough printed at 13 x 19, but pass muster at 11 x 14 inches, with just a bit of noise in flatter areas.

So the zoom advantage can diminish very quickly if you crop from prints.

So as we can see the ONLY person comparing the P900 with the Sony A7S is YOU

a reply to: wmd_2008
If there was a misunderstanding on my part, lets just stay on topic as this isn't a cameras thread.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: wmd_2008
If there was a misunderstanding on my part, lets just stay on topic as this isn't a cameras thread.

I have no problem with that

Are there any good articles on Orbs? It seems this is a phenomenon unto itself or at least its own category.

a reply to: thepixelpusherknowing more the a bh know it all is never called 4 u know that

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Plenty of videos on YouTube and pictures on the net even claimed as shape changing ufo's .

Any I have seen in so called evidence for are out of focus lights and dust particles.

One member on here that claimed had regular visits to his house in a remote area when asked to take pictures or video came up with the lame excuse that if they did they would know and not return very convenient don't you think.

I saw something exactly like this a few months back. However, mine was preceded by something else I couldn't explain. It was around 2pm in the afternoon, sunny day with just a few clouds in the sky. This dark, circular object caught my attention in the sky. It seemed to be rotating as it crossed the sky. I watched it for a minute or two as it crossed right across and out of sight. I was a bit confused as I had never seen anything like it before. The thing had mass, looked like it had weight to it.

So I continued up the street and glanced up again. That's when i saw the things more or less identical to OP's video. 3 tiny little lights darting in and out of clouds. Changing direction, going back and forth. They absolutely looked as if they were reflecting light also. After a minute or so, they were gone.

That's my one and only 'UFO' encounter. I didn't record anything as I was working. I work in social housing and was on a street where a lot of our tenants live. Would have felt silly explaining to anyone who saw me that i was filming what i thought was a UFO.

I regret that now.