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

originally posted by: recrisp

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...

Look, you admit that you don't know photography, so how can you argue that I am wrong? Because you BELIEVE that this is a spacecraft!

Yes, you absolutely can take a fast shutter-speed shot and it will be black. You know why?
If you have a fast shutter-speed the shutter is on open for say, 1/2000 of a second, that means the shutter is VERY quickly opening and shutting.
If you take a SLOW shutter-speed like he is (supposedly) using he is using what is called, the "BULB" setting, or he is letting the aperture stay open for 3 minutes.
Fast shutter-speed, slow shutter-speed, there is a HUGE difference.

Photographers use a wide angle lens that allows for a large aperture, that allows light to be light in for a longer time if it is on a tripod.
If this photographer uses a fast shutter-speed to take a shot of an airplane at night he needs to have a longer shutter-speed and a larger aperture to allow him to catch the fast action. If he uses the same 3 minute setting that he uses for stars the airplane, even a slow one will be a blurred streak.
If he uses a fast shutter-speed of 1/1000 or so and a REALLY large aperture of 1.0 he could catch a static looking shot or a shot that appears to be still. That is because he is taking it so fast it catches a quick glimpse of it and it will look like a still shot.

I take shots of the ISS, if I took a longer shot of it it wouldn't show up as a good shot at all.

I know photography some, you apparently don't, so why are you so dead set against arguing that you know what a guy did that you don't know, and have no idea how he did it?

If you can't understand this, I am sorry.

For goodness' sake, I think I'm realizing who are debunkers, or trolls, or just belligerent people who are not having an honest conversation.

Look, you admit that you don't know photography, so how can you argue that I am wrong? Because you BELIEVE that this is a spacecraft!

Look, I didn't say that I "don't know photography." I said that I'm not a photographer, which would normally be taken as meaning that I'm not a professional photographer, nor am I serious hobbyist of photography. And neither of those statements means that I "don't understand photography." I understand it just as well as any lay-person understands photography.

And let's face it, photography isn't rocket science lol. The BASICS of photography are easy to understand. Light enters the lens and it's captured to create the image. There, I just explained photography in one short sentence lol.

I didn't really say you were "wrong" about anything, and actually, I responded quite specifically, to different specific things.

And finally, I never called it a spacecraft. I believe the only person to call it that, is... you...

......................

Re: Shutter-speed: This is a completely off-topic tangent, that I believe is just meant as a distraction from the actual topic.

OP's pic has NO shutter-speed, because it's a 3-minute exposure. That means the shutter stays open for 3 minutes.

There is nothing complicated about this, at all.

You and I both know that a 3-minute exposure obviously has no shutter-speed (unless you want to call it a 3-minute shutter-speed).

It's all a lot of off-topic nonsense, and distraction from the real topic.

Maybe the UFO is really something special, after all, to be able to get trolls posting lengthy off-topic garbage about shutter-speeds, that we all know is irrelevant lol.

....................

The photo is a 3-minute exposure, with NO shutter activity, and it shows 2 flashes that happened in those 3 minutes. That's it.

originally posted by: recrisp

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...

Look, you admit that you don't know photography, so how can you argue that I am wrong? Because you BELIEVE that this is a spacecraft!

Yes, you absolutely can take a fast shutter-speed shot and it will be black. You know why?
If you have a fast shutter-speed the shutter is on open for say, 1/2000 of a second, that means the shutter is VERY quickly opening and shutting.
If you take a SLOW shutter-speed like he is (supposedly) using he is using what is called, the "BULB" setting, or he is letting the aperture stay open for 3 minutes.
Fast shutter-speed, slow shutter-speed, there is a HUGE difference.

Photographers use a wide angle lens that allows for a large aperture, that allows light to be light in for a longer time if it is on a tripod.
If this photographer uses a fast shutter-speed to take a shot of an airplane at night he needs to have a longer shutter-speed and a larger aperture to allow him to catch the fast action. If he uses the same 3 minute setting that he uses for stars the airplane, even a slow one will be a blurred streak.
If he uses a fast shutter-speed of 1/1000 or so and a REALLY large aperture of 1.0 he could catch a static looking shot or a shot that appears to be still. That is because he is taking it so fast it catches a quick glimpse of it and it will look like a still shot.

I take shots of the ISS, if I took a longer shot of it it wouldn't show up as a good shot at all.

I know photography some, you apparently don't, so why are you so dead set against arguing that you know what a guy did that you don't know, and have no idea how he did it?

If you can't understand this, I am sorry.

For goodness' sake, I think I'm realizing who are debunkers, or trolls, or just belligerent people who are not having an honest conversation.

Look, you admit that you don't know photography, so how can you argue that I am wrong? Because you BELIEVE that this is a spacecraft!

Look, I didn't say that I "don't know photography." I said that I'm not a photographer, which would normally be taken as meaning that I'm not a professional photographer, nor am I serious hobbyist of photography. And neither of those statements means that I "don't understand photography." I understand it just as well as any lay-person understands photography.

And let's face it, photography isn't rocket science lol. The BASICS of photography are easy to understand. Light enters the lens and it's captured to create the image. There, I just explained photography in one short sentence lol.

I didn't really say you were "wrong" about anything, and actually, I responded quite specifically, to different specific things.

And finally, I never called it a spacecraft. I believe the only person to call it that, is... you...

......................

Re: Shutter-speed: This is a completely off-topic tangent, that I believe is just meant as a distraction from the actual topic.

OP's pic has NO shutter-speed, because it's a 3-minute exposure. That means the shutter stays open for 3 minutes.

There is nothing complicated about this, at all.

You and I both know that a 3-minute exposure obviously has no shutter-speed (unless you want to call it a 3-minute shutter-speed).

It's all a lot of off-topic nonsense, and distraction from the real topic.

Maybe the UFO is really something special, after all, to be able to get trolls posting lengthy off-topic garbage about shutter-speeds, that we all know is irrelevant lol.

....................

The photo is a 3-minute exposure, with NO shutter activity, and it shows 2 flashes that happened in those 3 minutes.

originally posted by: recrisp
a reply to: Blue Shift

You cannot use a high shutter-speed on these type shots because all you will get is a black sky, no stars at all.

Do you realize you're saying that any photography or video with a high shutter-speed, would be unable to film the stars, and would only show a black sky?

Do you realize that's what you're saying?

Do you realize that every nature documentary, ever made, which happens to have high shutter speed, and which also happens to show the night sky, DOES SHOW THE STARS?!

Haven't you ever seen a video of the night sky in Africa, for example, on Discovery Channel?

originally posted by: recrisp
a reply to: peacefulpete

Hey, I really apologize, I had no idea that you are young.
Had I know that you are a teenager I wouldn't have brought it up.

Photography and Photoshop are not two different topics, at all, they are what the guy processed his shot with more than likely, either that or LightRoom, and he stacked the shots in a program that is free to the public. (More than likely)

All I am saying is if you want to argue, know what you are arguing about, you admit that you don't know photography, so...

Hey I really apologize, I wasn't sure at first that you are a troll. It became clear soon enough, though lol.

Photography and Photoshop are not two different topics,

Well, they ARE two different topics lol.

And you have absolutely zero reason to assert that the photo is a Photoshop job. Except that it's a strange photo, so it would seem that you think every strange photo is always a Photoshop. So your logic is fundamentally false.

Darth Vader's Tie Fighter ? ... just sayin

Not debunked unless someone started out as a hoax
UFO - Unidentified Flying Object
Now , it is an
IFO-Identified Flying Object.

originally posted by: ThePeaceMaker
Not taking a swipe at you or anything but how about some evidence of it NOT being an aircraft flashing light. I use to go out late in the middle of the night and living close to some major airports and living under a major 'highway' for air traffic I've seen lots of various light patterns given off by aircraft. Some blink at a high rate other blink at a slower rate. Now I cannot say it was an aircraft as I have no evidence but from the images posted by other users I'd have to say this is just an aircraft.

One thing I will add is, when I was camping out in the mountains of Scotland I was doing my own bit of night time photography while my camera was taking it long exposure of the night sky I happen to be start gazing until I heard my camera click to tell me it had finished taking the photo I was looking at a completely different part of the sky. I suddenly saw a red flash. Never had I seen anything like it before. Reading up on it what I saw was what I believe to be an iridium flare, a source of light reflecting off a satellites solar panels. I only saw the flash once but maybe this is what the guy caught in his photo. Maybe a satellite was manoeuvring its solar panels and caused the two flashes of ref light

I wasn't sure what you meant at first glance, but since "iridium flare" apparently just refers to sunlight glinting off a satellite: Well, sure, that is a possibility, albeit a very unlikely possibility.

I've seen at least 2 or 3 objects (in real life) that appeared to be satellites reflecting sunlight.

However, that happened on days that were extremely clear sky, and extremely bright sun, as the extreme factors that a satellite might actually glint sunlight in your eye.

And of those 2 or 3 objects that I've seen, and chalked up to that effect: The glinting light was a repeating effect, as if the satellite was rotating every couple seconds, and producing that glare every couple seconds, for example.

Also, in my experience, and in common sense: Obviously reflected sunlight looks golden, like sunlight. (I.e. glinted sunlight doesn't look RED like the UFO in OP's video). So the red color (instead of a gold color) is an obvious knock against the idea that it's a satellite reflecting sunlight.

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: peacefulpete

Could this maybe just be a regular aircraft with a red port side light? I didn't have audio for the video so I dont know if that was addressed.

On a somewhat related topic, I saw a giant light pass over my late flight arriving at 1130 PM ct into des Moines on April 19th approximately 20 minutes before landing while in descent from 32k feet. It looked huge at first as it crossed the top of my aircraft flying somewhat perpendicular to us. It started out as a huge light that only took about 3 seconds to shrink down to the size of a pin as it flew away. Was pretty crazy and I still cannot explain it except I later read there were stealth fighters up in Minneapolis that night, but I cannot confirm that's what a saw.

Thanks for the description of your own sighting. Always interesting to hear personal sightings stories.

To answer your question: No, there's no way for the red UFO to be one light from a plane, while ALL THE OTHER LIGHTS ARE MISSING.

So the issue is NOT whether the UFO can be compared as similar to one specific light on a plane. Yes, the SHAPES seem similar (to that light on the belly of a plane), but that leaves us MISSING all the other lights, especially the wings' flashing strobe lights.

There's no way for only one light to be crystal clear, while ALL other lights are missing!

............


MODS: I realized afterwards, that my one post somehow got posted multiple times. I think the screen must have been frozen or something like that. Definitely not on purpose; please just delete the repeated posts. It won't let me delete them now.

could it possibly be a normal photo labeled as long exposure ?

a reply to: peacefulpete

Well, no matter what anyone says you will not understand, so I am out of here, I have better conversations with a wall.

I ain't hatin', and really, I have been wanting to see a flying saucer since the early 50's, (I have seen UFO's) so when I say I wish that you were right, I actually mean it. (I realize that you are not saying it is not a "flying saucer")
I am not a troll at all, I have been a professional photographer in my life, I have been a professional Photoshop guy, I know how things work in the sky when any of that is applied, that is all I am saying.
There is much more to photography than light entering a lens and it making an image, it's that stuff that is in-between, that's the part that you don't understand.

Oh well, good luck on this, I hope that you find what you are looking for.

originally posted by: peacefulpete
So that photo is more of an argument AGAINST it being a plane.

You keep thinking that.

originally posted by: recrisp
a reply to: peacefulpete

Well, no matter what anyone says you will not understand, so I am out of here, I have better conversations with a wall.

I ain't hatin', and really, I have been wanting to see a flying saucer since the early 50's, (I have seen UFO's) so when I say I wish that you were right, I actually mean it. (I realize that you are not saying it is not a "flying saucer")
I am not a troll at all, I have been a professional photographer in my life, I have been a professional Photoshop guy, I know how things work in the sky when any of that is applied, that is all I am saying.
There is much more to photography than light entering a lens and it making an image, it's that stuff that is in-between, that's the part that you don't understand.

Oh well, good luck on this, I hope that you find what you are looking for.

You just haven’t contributed anything at all. “Photoshop blah blah blah and other people don’t understand.” Lol.

Have a good day.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: peacefulpete
So that photo is more of an argument AGAINST it being a plane.

You keep thinking that.

How about responding to what I actually said? A red light by itself, without a trace of surrounding lights for wings, headlight, tail etc. really does not suggest a plane at all.

Yes a solitary red light is more suggestive that it’s NOT a plane.

Also how about blaming it on a helicopter or something lol. Then it’s at least a small object that might conceivably only show one light, maybe.

Is there a limit against imbedding pictures or something? Anyway here is the link to the full huge image, thousands of stars:
www.mufoncms.com...

originally posted by: peacefulpete
How about responding to what I actually said?

Because you've already made up your mind.

Hard to judge without a video and just a photo. It may or may not be a real UFO. a reply to: peacefulpete

originally posted by: gunshooter

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: peacefulpete

It is just a commercial aircraft. It can be matched to a particular flight. The question is why are some people fooled by such things?

just like you've been fooled into thinking it's an airplane, right??

If you can't see that it is an aircraft then that is simply your mindset.

The question is why are some people fooled by aviation and especially aviation lights?

It not only matched the strobe reflection off the engine nacelles but also the large air ducts on the belly.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sadly the UFO Community is full of hoaxers and people who simply want to believe. For example this guy who lives about 30 miles east of me in the UK. All he does is film the military aircraft night flying and re-labels them as he sees fit. His subscribers lap it up.

Be astounded at the footage of the Antaran Batwings

. a reply to: peacefulpete

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: Blue Shift

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.

Yes, EXCEPT we're missing all the other lights, that should be there, if it's a plane. Even your quoted photo shows this, with a blaring huge "headlight" at front, which is MUCH BRIGHTER than the center red light, plus two white lights on either side of the wings' base.

So that photo is more of an argument AGAINST it being a plane.

What other lights? The aircraft is up at cruising altitude and running with strobe and navigation lights. If you are referring to other picture and videos posted these will be in landng take off configuration.

You can see when the image levels are boosted that there are three thin lines of light.

The arrows point to the third light trail when the levels are boosted.



So just a coincidence that they match up with standard aircraft navigation lights? Red on the aircrafts port wing (left wing) and Green on the aircrafts starboard wing (right wing)

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: peacefulpete
How about responding to what I actually said?

Because you've already made up your mind.

Nope. I haven't made up my mind about anything, besides how disingenuous a lot of posters are in this forum. (I don't think the site was flooded with trolls like this, back when I started visiting the site to read the forums, some years ago.)

My statement (i.e. the topic that you were supposedly responding to) is that a single floating red light, does NOT suggest a plane, BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF ALL OTHER PLANE LIGHTS.

You didn't respond to that because you can't argue against such obvious, logical observations.

Saying sarcastic stuff just makes you sound like a miserable girlfriend lol.