NEW UFO Photo: Red UFO in Aztec, NM, May 8th, 2018

it wont let me......just tried again........with my Armasight and pvs fourteen......I see all the shapes......

can't post tho

Tommy Jo has solved this.

What I am now thinking is that the photographer 'knew' this was a jet and inserted the shots of the plane anyway, but, without the wings.
By that I mean that he would have to have deliberately 'brushed in' the lights 'only' in either LightRoom or Photoshop.
I do that all of the time but not on UFO's of planes, but wildlife.

TommyJo's shot explain how the jet engines and the flaps are exactly what he says they are.

EDIT to add:
The photographer may not have done it on purpose actually, he may have just "brushed in" the galaxy to show it that is to the right of the jet in the original shot. Every night sky photographer I know (and I know a lot) do this, they work on parts of the sky and use Layers in Photoshop to bring them back in and it makes it look like it is one shot in the end result.

I watched the video, but I don't recall if they matched up the recorded flight path of the proposed aircraft with the orientation of the astro-photograph's strobe events. That would be a crucial piece of evidence to verify their claim.

Also, I would think that someone knowledgeable could determine the field of view of the image and use that as a scale. Then, using the standard timing between strobe events, determine the arc length of travel of the aircraft for that time interval. Then using the altitude of the proposed aircraft, determine its airspeed. If the airspeed of the object is similar to the airspeed of the proposed craft, then that's another nail in the coffin for the UFO.

JMHO.

-dex

originally posted by: tommyjo
A Boeing 777 landing showing how the strobe reflects off the inner sides of the engine nacelles.

That's pretty damn close. Could be the lights were strobing at the usual rate, but it moved across the field of vision fast enough that it only registered twice during the three minutes.

I see similiar lights....

with an 18 second delay....on a strange looking strobe that goes too long for a strobe and appears to have some diameter coming through to the eyes......

and the usual 8 second anomaly on high FL aircraft at a distance......where the atmosphere focuses every 6th strobe...or so

and i was trying post that first time five tries ago about how other pvs-14 viewers see lights...but I have never on my ......i'll try.....B-2's and the new B-2 with a different trailing edge....and there's another....best way to describe it is as having a slippery view........icy slippery by just the design of the ........see if it crashes here.........design of the trailing edge which is probably ion propulsion....

ha.... the tr3-b has the underside being darker in color than the leading......saw it plain as day....I could do a graphic

I see similiar lights....

with an 18 second delay....on a strange looking strobe that goes too long for a strobe and appears to have some diameter coming through to the eyes......

and the usual 8 second anomaly on high FL aircraft at a distance......where the atmosphere focuses every 6th strobe...or so

and i was trying post that first time five tries ago about how other pvs-14 viewers see lights...but I have never on my ......i'll try.....B-2's and the new B-2 with a different trailing edge....and there's another....best way to describe it is as having a slippery view........icy slippery by just the design of the ........see if it crashes here.........design of the trailing edge which is probably ion propulsion....

ha.... the tr3-b has the underside being darker in color in the back than the leading......saw it plain as day....at night with the Pinnacle ....Armasight lab fabricationed.....pvs-14 on full gain.....full gain or you'll miss em....I could do a graphic

Hey guys, I’m on my phone right now so I might not post very much, at the moment.

I glanced at the thread; I agree that the SHAPE of the lights MIGHT match with the underside of a plane.

However, it was the odd pattern of flashing that I found so mysterious. The photo is showing 2 flashes in a 3-minute exposure. That much is undeniable because that’s just exactly what the photo shows, 2 identical flashes in a 3-minute exposure. We can interpret it in different ways, but there’s no ambiguity that it’s showing 2 flashes in a 3-min. exposure.

Also if it was a plane, we would expect to see the lights on the wings flashing, right?

In other words, if the light is from the belly of a plane, and that one light is showing up so clear and bright, then all the same factors should make the wings’ lights also very clear & bright.

Right?

Doesn’t the lack of wing-tip lights on its sides, suggest that the one red light is NOT from the belly of a plane?

a reply to: peacefulpete
Read the reply I made above, that (hopefully) explains why you are seeing that red light so far apart.
If you aren't familiar with Layers in Photoshop then you may not understand it, but what I see is that the photographer only showed the TWO frames that the red flashing image was in, he had a lot more but didn't put them in.
I am about 99.9% sure on this because I was not there I can't say for certain.
I honestly believe that people here want to see something that isn't there. Believe me, I am on your side, I want to believe too, I am just too familiar with Photoshop and photography to not the what is actually there.

I'm not arguing, but if y'all don't want to see it, none of us that know what this is can change your mind.

Respectfully...

originally posted by: peacefulpete
However, it was the odd pattern of flashing that I found so mysterious. The photo is showing 2 flashes in a 3-minute exposure. That much is undeniable because that’s just exactly what the photo shows, 2 identical flashes in a 3-minute exposure. We can interpret it in different ways, but there’s no ambiguity that it’s showing 2 flashes in a 3-min. exposure.

But they could have happened at any time during the exposure, right? And they might have been only a second apart, but the plane was flying through fast and those were the only two that registered. It's not like they HAD to take all three minutes to flash and be recorded.

originally posted by: recrisp
Tommy Jo has solved this.

What I am now thinking is that the photographer 'knew' this was a jet and inserted the shots of the plane anyway, but, without the wings.
By that I mean that he would have to have deliberately 'brushed in' the lights 'only' in either LightRoom or Photoshop.
I do that all of the time but not on UFO's of planes, but wildlife.

TommyJo's shot explain how the jet engines and the flaps are exactly what he says they are.

EDIT to add:
The photographer may not have done it on purpose actually, he may have just "brushed in" the galaxy to show it that is to the right of the jet in the original shot. Every night sky photographer I know (and I know a lot) do this, they work on parts of the sky and use Layers in Photoshop to bring them back in and it makes it look like it is one shot in the end result.

I’m not really clear what exactly u think the guy changed in the photo?

It is presented as an untouched photo of the night sky. He had a camera attached to his telescope so he was taking pics of a couple specific galaxies.

One photo showed that red UFO (twice).

It is definitely ONE photo only. It’s NOT a composite of multiple photos. It’s only one photo with a 3-minute exposure, and it showed that thing twice, meaning it flashed twice during the 3-minute exposure.

Also have u guys seen the photo itself? It’s linked in the YouTube video. The link goes to the photo on the MUFON website. Then u can open the full photograph on your computer. Open the pic to fill ur screen, and zoom in and out.


The photo shows THOUSANDS of stars!! It’s like one of those amazing Hubble photos.

So saying he-retouched it is like saying that maybe a Hubble photo is retouched. Not that it’s impossible, but why would someone retouch a photo of 100,000 stars, which is already so amazing, without retouching it?

Also now that I think about it, a retouched photo wouldn’t even be a real photo anymore lol, because it wouldn’t show the real sky anymore. So really I wouldn’t think any photographer would be editing and swapping galaxies around. It’s such a small spot that it’s pointless for the huge photo, plus it would invalidate the photograph itself. I can’t imagine anyone doing that, even just for a hobby lol.

a reply to: Blue Shift
Had it been flying that fast it would have streaked. When something fast is caught on camera it will streak if the shutter-speed is slow enough. If the shutter-speed is fast enough it will freeze the action.
If the photographer caught this on camera with a high shutter-speed he would have been able to take the shot.
You cannot use a high shutter-speed on these type shots because all you will get is a black sky, no stars at all.

a reply to: recrisp

Lol I understood what photoshop is, and sure anyone can copy/paste images.

If that’s your point, then you just don’t have any point at all.

Sure anything can be a fake hoax, but that doesn’t mean we should assume that every strange photo is a deliberate hoax.

I’m interested in the photo, because it is presented as a real photo of the night sky.

It’s presented as one photo with a three-minute exposure.

a reply to: peacefulpete
I already can tell that you aren't familiar with Photoshop and Layers. If you did you would know that you can do ALL of the above.
One thing, you do not know for certain that the image is only made from one shot, he may say that it is, but if that is an airplane, and I think it is, it is made from several shots.
I can't prove this because I don't have access to his shots, but I can safely say that he knows what is going on, he is either trying to hoax people or he's just pulling your leg.
Tell me this please...
Do you think that TommyJo's picture that he posted looks exactly like the original image in the video?
The reason I ask is that it looks exactly like the one in the video, if you can't see that then you can't be convinced that what we are seeing is a Photoshop image that is not showing ALL of the images that this guy took.

I used to do Photoshop for a living, I am also a photographer, I have taken night sky shots, I know what makes or doesn't make this type of shot.
When I used a 35mm camera years and years ago I took night sky shots with airplanes in them and they left a dotted line.
If something is so fast that it is in one place one second and in another place on the opposite end it will be blurred, no matter what shutter-speed you use.
If the guy had several shots (as I am fairly sure of) and he uses many shots to create his sky shots then he could easily place 'only two' shots of the plane in it where he wanted to.

I hope that this makes sense, I am not against you, I am only trying to 'help you' understand that what you are seeing is not anything but a jet.

a reply to: peacefulpete
Never mind, I see that you will not understand in a million years, carry on.

Do yourself a favor and read about photography, night sky photography, see what you can, and can't do, then come back and tell me from experience what you are sure of.
You don't know the procedures so how can you argue this point?

That is all from me, have a groovy day and watch out for spacemen that come from je, I mean, flying saucers.

still think its a plane, probally military for that weird flashing pattern

originally posted by: recrisp
a reply to: Blue Shift
Had it been flying that fast it would have streaked. When something fast is caught on camera it will streak if the shutter-speed is slow enough. If the shutter-speed is fast enough it will freeze the action.
If the photographer caught this on camera with a high shutter-speed he would have been able to take the shot.
You cannot use a high shutter-speed on these type shots because all you will get is a black sky, no stars at all.

I don’t believe the last statement.

It’s not possible to take a 3-minute exposure shot of the stars, with high shutter speed?

The sky would be black?!

You’re dead wrong on that one. That doesn’t make sense at all lol.


We’re talking a three minute exposure. The stars don’t even move (visibly) in three minutes but ur saying high shutter speed would magically make them disappear lol.

No, stars photographed in high shutter speed would look like any photo of stars. Sheesh.

Actually if what u were saying was true, then any video with high shutter speed would be unable to show stars. I wonder if any movie EVER showed stars in the sky? Hmmm

And re: the photo in the OP: I’m not a photographer but if it’s a 3-minute exposure... I would have thought there is zero shutter speed, because the shutter is... open for three minutes...

This was already covered here - www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: recrisp


I understand Photoshop just like everyone understands Photoshop.

There is nothing mysterious about copy-pasting something.

And yes you DO have access to the original photo. It is linked in the YouTube video.

Please do look at his original photo.

There’s nothing compelling about arguing that a strange photo is fake, just because it’s a strange photo lol.

Re: blur: it wouldn’t blur if it was an extremely fast flash of light.

a reply to: recrisp

Hilarious, he talks about Photoshop and then tells me to study photography lol. Those are two different topics lol.

And neither photography nor Photoshop says that any strange photo is a deliberate hoax, which seems the leap ur making...

originally posted by: Notional
This was already covered here - www.metabunk.org...

Well then you still need to explain the odd pattern of flashing: 2x in 3 minutes. And if the one light is so bright and clear, then the wings’ lights should also be just as clear.

And that website is mentioned in the OP’s video.