UFOs? No! .... Long exposure shoots

I decided to write this thread as it's a recurrent topic here, on the Aliens and UFO subject and as it's a classic cause of misidentification.
For example, in the MUFON CMS database today there's a new photographic "case":



Nice picture, heh!? .... But definitely not a UFO!

It's very likely just a plane or a helicopter passing in front of the moon:

What our eyes see:


What the camera sees, with a long exposure:


Similar examples:



Source

A helicopter flying over the coast with its searchlight on, taken with a 10s. exposure.







From this ATS thread

Long exposures can also be done with astronomical objects, such as Venus, the Moon, etc...

For example, the old photo below, taken from the Condon report is just the moon:

The above is a time exposure of the moon, showing trailing due to the earth's rotation. The explanation of such a photograph of the moon is obvious to anyone familiar with astronomical photographs. Yet a similar picture showing the trails of the moon and Venus was widely printed in newspapers across the country in March 1966. The trails were described as two UFOs.

...Or a meteor:





It can also be done with ordinary objects, always with a long exposure and the camera mounted on a tripod:

The light source in the image is simply an LED flashlight carried by my good friend, Joe Stieber, who walked through the image during one of the 30-second exposures checking the ground to be sure no eyepieces or equipment was left behind when we packed up. Joe was sweeping the light back and forth, which accounts for the sinuous light path on the ground and the gaps in the light above the ground as it faced away from the camera.

Source

You can even obtain more strange results when moving the camera down while the shutter is still open:



This is a streetlight.

The camera took a 2s. exposure shoot, with the flash on, then impress the whole landscape scene on the CCD, but the OP did not wait for the 2s. exposure to end and took its camera down, producing this dotted trail.

Great thread for those who do not know about.
S&F

Some examples of long exposure art:

Nice thread!

Hopefully this will go some way to separating the wheat from the chaff and we can see more plausible pictures.
You will still have those who will believe they are ufo's no matter how much evidence you present to the contrary.

S&F

Love the long exposure art.

Great thread, and might I just add WOW to the long exposure art, that just looks beautiful

Superb thread! Must admit if you had not explained the long exposure 'what the camera sees' bit I would have looked at some of those photos and been sucked in to the possibility that they were real ufo's.
Makes you wonder how many of the ufo pics around today have been deliberately done like this by the authorities to keep the veil of deception and confusion going.
S&F for you!

Great examples!

This is why photos and videos are becoming moot when showing "proof" of anything.

Back when photography was in its infancy, a photo or video held more ground as evidence of an event.

Now, with the amount of editing software readily available. the only way that aliens/UFO's can be proved to exist, would be a live news broadcast or mass sighting.

My friends,

Great thread

I hope I'm not to much off topic when I share some of my long exposure art. One of them was to try and replicate a UFO in the woods lol

UFO >



My Name/ or UFO taking off lol >



The Aliens have landed with one holding a Guitar lol >



Be safe be well

Spiro

reply to post by Spiro


Just astounding !

My friend,

Originally posted by mc4denmark
reply to post by Spiro

 

Just astounding !

Thank YOU

I have more that would fit right in to this discussion as they are mostly to do with UFO's/Aliens etc.

Must locate them and share

Thanks again,

Be safe be well

Spiro

reply to post by Spiro


Please do ! I am really intrigued by this art, I don't have a clue why I never seen it before

Peace to you to my friend

Originally posted by CthulhuMythos
Superb thread! Must admit if you had not explained the long exposure 'what the camera sees' bit I would have looked at some of those photos and been sucked in to the possibility that they were real ufo's.
Makes you wonder how many of the ufo pics around today have been deliberately done like this by the authorities to keep the veil of deception and confusion going.
S&F for you!

The authorities you people make we laugh what about sites like mufon which show this cr4p all the time, and the ufo believers get sucked in.

In the first picture of the OP a couple of things about the Moon give away it's a long exposure shot , the crescent part of the Moon is over exposed and the other part of the Moon is lit by Earthshine any photographer would spot that in the picture.

That's why it's good if we get the exif data on a picture if it's a digital photograph you can see time,date exposure details sometimes the location if the camera has GPS.

Fantastic topic. Thanks for sharing.

Sadly, there will still be people who read this thread and think that all of those pictures ^ ^ ^ are real.

Originally posted by elevenaugust


Nice picture, heh!? .... But definitely not a UFO!

It's very likely just a plane or a helicopter passing in front of the moon:

In all due respect elevenaugust (because I usually like what you post) how can you use the words "Definitely not" and then "very likely" in the same breath?

Since when did "Very likely" outrank "Definitely not"?

In order to have a 'Definitely Not" you must have an "Absolute" conclusion in its place.
A 'very likely' still keeps the proverbial door ajar for another conclusion. Ya know?

reply to post by elevenaugust


Thanks! I was looking forward for that kind of information.

My friend,

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by elevenaugust


Nice picture, heh!? .... But definitely not a UFO!

It's very likely just a plane or a helicopter passing in front of the moon:

In all due respect elevenaugust (because I usually like what you post) how can you use the words "Definitely not" and then "very likely" in the same breath?

Since when did "Very likely" outrank "Definitely not"?

In order to have a 'Definitely Not" you must have an "Absolute" conclusion in its place.
A 'very likely' still keeps the proverbial door ajar for another conclusion. Ya know?

Please stop being pedantic. Firstly they were not being used in the same breath, they are being used in two separate sentences and secondly, definitely was being used to define it NOT being a UFO and very likely was being used [in a separate sentence] to define it being a plane of helicopter.

You blew this out of proportion HA

Be safe be well

Spiro

Thanks everyone! Glad you appreciate this thread.

I would like to submit you two "UFO" photo that I hesitated to post here at first. While it could be classified as "long exposure shoots", I haven't succeed yet to really find what's all about...

1- The first one was submitted to me by Whitley Strieber some years ago:



It was resized by Strieber's team under Photoshop to fit within Unknow Country, as for the original photo, in spite of my several requests and Strieber's promise to disclose it, I never received anything:

"It has been saved in Photoshop by us, and its size and dpi reduced for use on our website. It has not been altered, and I believe we do have the original as it was created in the camera, or can get it. I will find out if the family made any attempt to reduce its size before sending it to us. If not, I will send you what we have. Otherwise, I will get it for you."

Source with the description below:

This image of a UFO on the ground was shot in south Texas onthe night of January 11, 2009. It was shot near Harlingen,Texas. The photograph was taken by a young woman known to a contributor to this website and is entirely authentic. The object remained on the ground for only a few seconds. It was less than 200 yards from the witness. It made no sound and shot off into the sky at extreme speed.

Looks like a long exposure shoot of some headlights, what do you think?

2- The second one was submitted by myself here, on ATS:

This picture was sent by the mother of the little 11 years-old girl that took it almost two years ago to the GEIPAN (which is a unit of the French Space Agency CNES whose goal is to investigate unidentified aerospace phenomena (UAP aka UFO) and make its findings available to the public.)



Could be just a plane (with the green and red lights on the wings [3 and 4 on the picture below]) view under certain circumstances that give to it a strange aspect. I was especially thinking of the "long exposure" effect.



The exposure time here was 1/4s and the flash did not fired. The original photo can be found here

That was the 26th October 2010, 10.30PM and the little girl haven't noticed anything unusual while taking the shoot, except a very bright flash at the exact moment of the shoot. There was no sound at the moment (but the window was closed).

I was wondering if a 1/4s exposure shoot would be enough to impress this way the ccd sensor and artificially create this (flat) triangular black shape.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by CthulhuMythos
..
Makes you wonder how many of the ufo pics around today have been deliberately done like this by the authorities to keep the veil of deception and confusion going.
.

LOL, I'd be more worried about the hoaxers/pranksters doing it, than the authoritahs doing it.

Just sayin'..

Originally posted by elevenaugust
I decided to write this thread as it's a recurrent topic here, on the Aliens and UFO subject and as it's a classic cause of misidentification...

Very illustrative pics, thx!

I remember a while back a bunch of UFO'S wear seen in day light in new york. The media tried to dismiss them as balloons.

Any ways after that a bunch of people started watching the live city cams and wear posting pictures just like the ones you did.

Originally posted by Infi8nity
I remember a while back a bunch of UFO'S wear seen in day light in new york. The media tried to dismiss them as balloons.

Any ways after that a bunch of people started watching the live city cams and wear posting pictures just like the ones you did.

Yeah thing is, they were balloons, and most of us on ATS came to that consensus, heck they even found out where the balloons most likely where released from if i remember.

The live city cam was just NY airport planes coming into land... although im sure there are a few who still refuse to see that.

One other thing the OP could mention is high exposure when taking pics of stars with a hand held camera. It gives the 'trail that wasnt there' effect you sometimes see in UFO pics. Someone seeing a bright star or planet like Jupiter and not know it is one of those things might take a quick night shot then look at the photo and say wow where'd that trail come from, in the old days when you had to wait a day or so to get your photos developed the trail could be (as it often was explained) the UFO doing a quick burst of speed in the space of a single frame. With insta viewing of your pictures with digital cams it obviously comes back to a long exposure and an unsteady hand... even a tiny twitch or sway can make an elaborate trail during high exposure shots.

Ive done a few myself over the years and theirs no way of stopping it without using a tripod.

Originally posted by elevenaugust
1- The first one was submitted to me by Whitley Strieber some years ago:

Was it?... if it is then Strieber has gone Billy Meir, although I think he did that years back personally (hey you become a sensation you gotta keep the cash flow coming in even if your genuine experiences have stopped). Light areas above look like a window reflection of the bright light near the 'road' (including the lesser reflection of the lights from off the road surface itself), lights at back are city or town street lights I guess and the bottom bright light/s could be from a passing cars headlights... but who knows.

For me its comes to this... most if not all digital cameras are crap at doing night shots without having them on long exposure with a tripod and any type of exposure that isnt more or less instant makes an untrustworthy picture in the long run since your not getting a representation of what was actually being seen at the time.

Originally posted by elevenaugust
That was the 26th October 2010, 10.30PM and the little girl haven't noticed anything unusual while taking the shoot, except a very bright flash at the exact moment of the shoot. There was no sound at the moment (but the window was closed).

I was wondering if a 1/4s exposure shoot would be enough to impress this way the ccd sensor and artificially create this (flat) triangular black shape.

Thoughts?

One thing i was thinking is, how do digital cams do long exposure? since looking at that, there appears to be ghosting of the photographer in the window reflection to the left and i count 4ish of them? Do digital cams take multiple regular images over the exposure time then simply stack them to get the final frame? With old cameras it was just simply the iris being left open to allow more light to hit the film which would create blurring with movement rather than a stuttering image id assume.

Digital camera pics also seem to be a hell of alot more grainy with night shots compared to old non-digital pictures. Which is what could be causing issues with that girls pic to much detail is being lost on the 'object' with graininess causing its shape to become weathered. Although the lights follow the long exposure pattern, I mean you have a group of 2 red a green then 2 red again and a green... not sure how it would work with a dark object though.

Then it comes down to the old question... why where they taking a poorly framed shot while peaking from behind their curtain, of the street outside their window at the moment in time if they saw nothing? if it was to test a new camera then they sure got lucky with their timing. Not impossible, but still makes you question their account of events. I say they did see the object and were taking a lazy shot of it, which means they most likely knew what it was to begin with, so it probably is a plane.

edit:- I take it back for Streibers (supposed) image since a cars head lights couldnt come out like that (wheres the dark car body blur for starters) looks like possibly 4 bright lights in a line with a large less distinct light behind it (unless that is caused simply by the blowing out effect of the 4 lights trails overlapping near the middle). Im simply basing this on what i think are the 'car window' reflection of the lights which appear to show what the lights look like with alot less glare.