It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Crayfish
Originally posted by tetsuo
Tearman, your gif, I just realized, shows the hot pixels as moving position within the image. This is not possible if they are actually hot pixels. Did you stretch out one of those two images? What about the 3rd frame in your animation?
The hot pixels are moving because Tearman centered the frame upon the object to make it stationary. In the original photos the hot pixels were staying in a fixed position and the object was moving, in Tearman's animation the object is staying still and the hot pixels are moving. That allows us to see what else is staying still in relation to the object and identify those as stars and not hot pixels.
Where was Jupiter in relation to this light?
Originally posted by sugarcookie1
this was not the planet Jupiter i know were Jupiter was in the sky
The problem is that your photos show us a fixed light in the sky, not a light shooting up into the sky.
planets dont shot up into the sky with in mins..thanks for the reply
Originally posted by sugarcookie1
reply to post by moldy4
hi moldy4
thanks for the reply..If you look back on the posts you will see there is no phoptoshoping invoved with these pics that was a proven fact ..
The object in your photos looks like some kind of metallic sheet twisting in the wind, the photos in this thread are from what looks like a planet, affected by camera shake during a long exposure.
Originally posted by cygnusX
Dude comparing the pos that it may be the same object but at night ....
Sure, it was a suggestion, but, in my opinion, an inapplicable suggestion.
not sure whats up with ATS and all these people who get real uptight about everything posted. It was a suggestion!