another Stephenville UFO sighting w/pictures November 13

another UFO sighting in the Town of Stephensville Texas and these photo's are very interesting.

what's going on in Texas and why would UFO's be so interested in this area ?








aliencasebook.blogspot.com...
www.theufochronicles.com...



[edit on 15-11-2008 by easynow]

Looks like long exposure shots of a firefly or something similar.


Similar to this:


And this:
www.flickr.com...



[edit on 14-11-2008 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by Chadwickus


good examples

might be that i don't know but others have photographed similar things and they were not long exposures.

here are some from Dorothy Izatt and the first one is on one frame of the film.




here is one from the 1978 Kaikoura UFO filmed by a Tv crew


www.abovetopsecret.com...


here is a photo taken from the previous Stephensville sighting



what are the odds that everyone is making the mistake of getting long exposure shots ?




[edit on 14-11-2008 by easynow]

Pink Floyd laser show?

reply to post by easynow



Maybe these are the critters that I've read Zorgon mention in a few threads

One of the recent UFO shows (can't remember which one) had an airplane photography expert try to duplicate the Stephenville lights. His pictures looked similar, but only showed lights consistent with typical airplane colors and not the rainbow effect of the Stephenville lights. The expert was using long exposure shots in his photos.

Originally posted by easynow
what are the odds that everyone is making the mistake of getting long exposure shots ?

Most standard store-bought cameras these days automatically adjust their exposure according to how much light they're taking in. I found an example of this with my own fairly average digital camera simply by turning off the flash, and noticing how much fuzzier my images were unless I held it perfectly still.

So it seems to me that people are taking pictures of these UFO's, but with handheld cameras, so the shakiness combined with the long exposure creates these patterns. This is why you won't find a single UFO picture that's all stringy like that, but is taken during the day.

Another thing I've noticed recently is that, when zoomed in on a small point of light, cameras tend to have trouble picking a single color, so the result is a flashy multitude of rainbowy colors. A perfect example of this was seen during the recent UFO Hunters episode: At one point, the team was examining night-time footage of a small, hovering spot of light in the sky, which seemed to be flashing several colors when zoomed in. Then, a second light moved across the screen, which turned out to be a passing car (the UFO witness himself assured that this is what it was). But sure enough, when the footage was zoomed in, the car's headlights were ALSO flashing several colors. So it's definitely an effect of the camera, to get those colors. Anyway, the UFO Hunters didn't even seem to be interested in the colors of this footage to begin with... they were more interested in the fact that it seemed to be hovering in one spot.

Anyway, my current conclusion is: I personally see little reason to get excited over most of these images.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Magnus47]

reply to post by Magnus47


thanks,

i agree with your explanation of the camera and the shakiness maybe creating these photo's appear the way they do, but i do have to take into consideration evidence such as Dorothy Izatt's photo wich shows the stringy lite on one frame of the film.

another thing is if your explanation is correct why don't we see more photo's like these then ?



[edit on 14-11-2008 by easynow]

reply to post by easynow


Well, if those Dorothy Izatt images are really three consecutive frames from video footage, then I must say that yes, that is pretty intriguing. Normally video will shoot at 30 or 60 frames per second; while cameras will sometimes slow this rate down during nighttime shots to increase exposure, I can't imagine anything that would produce three sequential images that look like those. Additionally, even nighttime video isn't THAT slow... often the image will be brightened by other means, such as a wider aperture for the lens.

However, let's not rule out "exposure" as a cause for that stringy frame, the so-called "Frame #2." What I mean to say is, it's probably not an image of a stringy object. On the contrary, I'd say it's perfectly conceivable that a UFO could produce that effect if it were to move really, really, REALLY fast out of the frame. In fact, if those three images are really consecutive video frames, I'd say that's a pretty strong case that it WAS a UFO, since nothing manmade could ever hope to accelerate that quickly.

As far as why more of these stringy images aren't seen: Well, there are plenty of night-time or other low-light photos that get this effect. They just aren't photos of UFO's. And as far as UFO photos are concerned, it could just be that people may tend to assume such lights are planes in the night sky, and so don't bother taking pictures of them, regardless of whether or not they are ACTUALLY planes.

They could be long exposure pictures of the actual craft, but maybe not. It could be a firefly or a star, but we don't know that. So these are basically inconclusive.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by GrayFox]

Long exposure is the most likely explanation I think.

But who's to say there isn't something more to it? We weren't there.

reply to post by slated


Slated, I'm doin some research on the very thing you just mentioned for WPRT Paranormal Radio.
I was just asked by the host Captain Jack to see if I can dig this up.

Do you remember when you saw the episode so I can try to track this lead down ?

reply to post by Magnus47

As far as why more of these stringy images aren't seen

well i may have jumped the gun when i asked why more people are not getting pictures like these. i found a couple recent cases that i would say are very similar.

this one was taken in Quebec Canada November 8th according to the report



and this one, November 6th, West Virginia



www.ufosnw.com...

yes they could be long exposure shots but how could we really know ? like you said if the UFO was moving really fast it could have occurred on the Dorothy Izatt Film. i agree

could the reason be part UFO and part over exposure at the same time ?

reply to post by easynow


That's my theory. It could be a UFO in a bad exposure shot. So it doesn't do us much good.

reply to post by GrayFox


yea that would make the most sense but i wouldn't want to miss a clue by just writing it off as over exposure shots.

if for some rare chance the camera is picking up what is really going on in the shot...what does it mean ?

gonna keep looking for answers is all i can do

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Looks like long exposure shots of a firefly or something similar.

Similar to this:


And this:
www.flickr.com...
[edit on 14-11-2008 by Chadwickus]

Hi there,

Good point.

Brumac took some photos of Mars with a "long" exposure time :



Now, remember this ? :




This was one of the Stephenville photos.

Your last photo seems to match a little more than with a planet or a star.


Cheers,
Europa aka Buck



[edit on 15-11-2008 by Europa733]

wait couldnt it be a c lock that the aliens have on thier ship mayb but dont think im stupid but maybe its a clock from photography i mean that crash in roswell and Aurora, Texas are you telling me no one took pictures. If you see dead alien bodies or crashed debris of a spaceship i think you would take a picture but it wont come out because of clokage