Some UFO Pics

a reply to: andr3w68
This is, as others have said, a result of motion of either the camera and or the light while the shutter is open. It's the basis for this hoax:

Capturing the Light, The Story Of Dorothy Izatt (2007)

The images themselves in that thread and in this thread are not hoaxed, they are real images. The hoax part of the Izaat story was claiming the lights were evidence of aliens as in this ludicrous image:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dc5e3b3467f7.jpg[/atsimg]
Yeah you can say they're aliens but no that's just where the camera stood still a little longer, We see dots like that in the OP images too which also aren't aliens.

When you have more than one light in the image, it becomes clear (to anyone with a smidgen of cognitive ability which unfortunately doesn't include everybody) that they are all tracking the camera movement. Here is an example of that from Izatt video:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a23a7e0cfe66.jpg[/atsimg]

originally posted by: andr3w68

This image confirms it's at least partly camera motion, because it shows a double tree line with spacing that correlates with double dots in the light streak at points where the camera was briefly still during the exposure. Aside from the bright dots, the camera was moving so as not to record additional treelines or bright dots.

a reply to: andr3w68

Thanks. You have for all practical purposes solved the mystery. I do, however, stand by my assertment that this was something unusual. Next time, if there is one, I get a chance to photograph one of these things, I will make a point of setting up a fast aperture speed.

But what IS that object he was trying to capture? even motion burred....theres a light there....

a reply to: stirling
Here's a good thread to read to help answer that question:

Is it a star, planet, aircraft lights, satellite or.........a UFO? Find out here!

a reply to: stirling

I can't say they appear regularly, but definitely more than once.

originally posted by: skunkape23
a reply to: andr3w68

Thanks. You have for all practical purposes solved the mystery. I do, however, stand by my assertment that this was something unusual. Next time, if there is one, I get a chance to photograph one of these things, I will make a point of setting up a fast aperture speed.

Make sure the camera is not on auto. Pump up the ISO to compensate for the faster shutter speed. Also is you have exposure compensation put that up 2 stops.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Complete BS, and the problem is you continue running with one narrow idea, and no matter how many others speak up and show elements of the case that blow your one narrow idea out of the water, you deflect the full evidence, and only see what supports your one narrow idea, but post as though you are the rational one.

Her case was remarkable. Experts studied it. She even borrowed the camera of the tv producers following it with the same results. While a documentary was made, her family that was not really on her side, got quite an eye opener themselves, for a ufo appeared just behind the daughter being interiewed, outside the window, moving from side to side.

Now here are some posts in that thread:

from jritzmann :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's a large leap when someone of the films spell out letters with the light (keep in mind how big the physical frame in-camera is) and does it all in one frame, *and*, returns to perfect registration after the 1-frame light anomaly (that has no bleed on adjacent frames).

To suggest camera stop/frame open/bump is really not any sort of answer that makes sense with this camera, and, she's been given multiple make cameras to use as controls. They all exhibit the same thing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is all well and good when you're talking about one sense of the Izatt material. Delay exposure. But delaying or jamming the single frame in question, then overexposing it to that degree - why no bleed over to any other frames?

And, we mean to say this woman can defeat any number of the different makes she has been given as test cams?

Yes, that's one of the writing frames. Is it clear? Hell no. Is it in the shape of a cursive script of "Dorothy" complete with capital D? Yes it is. How ridiculous a coincidence would that be for an old lady faking this?

Continued from the link to Dorothy Issat's case above:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
LordThumbs

the fact that dorothy was able to film the objects using 3 different cameras by picking up and puting down and picking up and puting down etc. showed the same object in each camera. its hard for me to believe that her main camera is faulty in anyway. its been clearly discussed that the squiggled light in one frame could NOT be produced by a shaky old grandma arm. period.....

in the movie you will see that dorothy went through a big depression due to information that you provided in the quote and her own family's disbelief.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Really good post with links to the pictures. And some of the pictures embedded.

Also don't know what picture of ET you are trying to smear with your brief analysis, seems more like you're trying to jump in and use fake illustrations to set a mood and influence those who haven't heard of the case, and that is a technique done by professional skeptics.....

Here is the picture in question, the real ET one she captured along with her light trails:

www.abduct.com...

Dorothy Izzat was interviewed by ATS, and in the research concerning capturing light photos, and ufology, this should be examined.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
ATS.MIX: SE03 – Dorothy Izatt and Director Frank Longo "Capturing The Light" - See more at:

The photos you took very much resemble some of what Dorothy captures/captured.

edit to add: this is one of the best threads on Dorothy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Debunk this documentary. You can´t. ET Contact DOES occur.

Pictures of the ufo filmed behind the interview subject that surprised the entire family when it was played back to them, and some interesting expressions on their faces:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And this excellent post in the thread by JohnnyAnonymous

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Those who have a tendency to simply say, its out of focus, or imply it was deliberately over exposed, and try to suggest that this is common in auto mode, ignoring the reports by the photographer, are presenting a sliver of possibilities.

And there are very famous cases, with extensive study, that don't fit any of those criteria, such as Dorothy Izzat, who's photos are much the same.

a reply to: skunkape23

I am only interested in intelligent replies that are not implying that I am perpetuating a hoax. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

well a little more detail would come in handy then.

The object in these photographs appeared to me as an oddly large flickering light that changed position instantly. I did not observe the streaking that appears. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Changed positions?

Where was it in the sky in the first place, which direction were you facing, how many degrees in the sky would you say this light moved without you seeing the streaks that show up in the pics?

I got out of bed in the wee hours to see this one. It is not normal to get out of bed a 3 or so in the morning and go outside with a camera. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Exactly what time was it and what direction were you facing when taking the pics?

It seems later than 3 am and closer to dawn, I suspect it was Venus depending on direction but from the pic with clouds where the sky get lighter blue closer to the horizon seems like pre dawn and you caught Venus,

Camera movement with a longer exposure due to the auto setting is what makes the pic s look as such and Venus being as bright as it can be with the eyes adjustment to light just after we wake is what might have made it look like it was moving.

This is just a off the top of my head scenario to explain, depending on how much you say it changed position and what time and direction exactly then its all just blind speculation without more details from you.

originally posted by: skunkape23
a reply to: andr3w68

Thanks for the imbed...ha...that's what she said. No, really thanks. These are in no way faked.

seriously....

That has to be a joke...

a reply to: InhaleExhale

It would have been to the east I believe. It definitely was not Venus. Planets don't flicker and change location. I could probably make a ring with my thumb and finger that would contain the area it moved within. After a few minutes of observation, it just disappeared. It was a few hours before dawn. I'm guessing between 3 and 4. I would normally have been sound asleep. It was out of the ordinary for me to wake up go outside at that hour.

originally posted by: Unity_99
Dorothy Izzat was interviewed by ATS, and in the research concerning capturing light photos, and ufology, this should be examined.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
ATS.MIX: SE03 – Dorothy Izatt and Director Frank Longo "Capturing The Light" - See more at:

The photos you took very much resemble some of what Dorothy captures/captured.

Yes they do resemble what Dorothy captured! I'm glad you noticed. But this kind of blows holes in the arguments that what she captured are not time exposures since these are time exposures.

We know these are time exposures and that this is what lights look like in time exposures so given the similarity I don't understand the denial that the similar looking pictures by Dorothy have a similar cause. All the excuses why they supposedly don't are just that, excuses. People assume it's impossible, when it's obviously not impossible, but they then stop trying to figure out how the time exposures could have happened, except for the camera repairman who said he's seen this before in film movie cameras he's repaired. Here are some other examples, the first image from the link you provided:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/792fd9077705.jpg[/atsimg]
That image also figures prominently as a backdrop image for the interviews in her "Capturing the light" video as seen here from 34m59s in the video, on the left (and in other interviews too):


Now compare that time exposure to this time exposure:
www.obxconnection.com...

I thought I would play around a bit with long exposure photos of some of our Christmas lights. They came out kind of cool, so I thought I would share them with the forum members.

If someone can see the similarity, they can see it. If they can't, well I'm not going to try to convince someone who lacks the cognitive ability to see the similarity...they can believe whatever they want.

Now as for what the other blurry hazy images are, I have no idea except they are blurry hazy images. I'm only pointing out that her time exposure streaks look like the OPs time exposure streaks and the time exposure streaks above, and even you pointed out the similarity!!! So listen to yourself!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Actually it doesnt. And it merely makes the idea of time exposures, that you're promoting, your opinion.

Full list of links there to examine, including of a captured object. Including analysis, and interview by ats.

What you're stating as if factual is but an opinion.

a reply to: skunkape23

Similar effect to THIS

Explanation HERE

a reply to: skunkape23

I could probably make a ring with my thumb and finger that would contain the area it moved within.

and how far away from your face would you be looking through this ring you make with your fingers?

You make a ring with your fingers and place it against your eye the hole will be big enough to see most of the sky, you place it as far away as you can and it makes the viewing area a lot smaller.

I would normally have been sound asleep. It was out of the ordinary for me to wake up go outside at that hour.

Which is why I suggested that when you woke and went out side a change in blood pressure when one wakes can affect their balance and how they view things for a short time after they wake.

The moving could have been you not used waking at such a time and that moving showed up on camera because of camera movement and a slower shutter speed.

It was a few hours before dawn. I'm guessing between 3 and 4.

with you guessing and believing it was East I cant accept your word that this quotes below is a definite

It definitely was not Venus.

Well East does fit and if its between 4 and 5 am and 3 to 4 like you're guessing it certainly would fit if your from Texas and it was the last couple days.

originally posted by: Unity_99
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Actually it doesnt. And it merely makes the idea of time exposures, that you're promoting, your opinion.

Full list of links there to examine, including of a captured object. Including analysis, and interview by ats.

What you're stating as if factual is but an opinion.

OP can probably give us the actual shutter speed if he/she wants to, which might be in the EXIF data. The picture in the OP no longer has the original EXIF data, but I can guarantee you that this statement by the OP:

originally posted by: skunkape23
I was using a Minolta Z1 set on auto. I was not using a tripod. I did lean against a tree for a steady rest.

Means that it's a time exposure under these lighting conditions. You can ask 100 different experts and if they are really experts who understand Minolta Z1 auto setting and how it behaves in these lighting conditions, they will all confirm it. Or if OP doesn't know how to read the exif and wants to upload the photo to a site that preserves EXIF data, I could read it for him to get you the actual exposure time but it's most assuredly a time exposure.

a reply to: Unity_99

Actually it doesnt.

What doesn't it?


Resemble what you said earlier it does?

Just a bit confused by your reply

This bit as well

What you're stating as if factual is but an opinion.

Where was it said to be factual or is that it basically too logical what they have said that all you can say its your opinion, well yes it is an opinion of observation that this effect can easily be recreated.

You even said the photos resemble and these pics taken on an auto setting could have had an exposure time of 2 seconds.

So again what doesn't it, resemble as said it did or that it can be shown to easily replicate these types of images?

I will see if these can be duplicated by photographing Venus with the same camera, but I hold fast to my assertion that this was not Venus. I have heard Jeff Ritzmann say something along the lines of the UFO phenomenon being self negating. I think this may be the case here. Trust me, I have nothing to gain by posting shaky pictures of Venus, but it would appear that there is no real way of proving otherwise. I do appreciate those who took the time to examine them. Sorry if it was ultimately a waste of your time. Oh, well. We now return to your regular program. Tune in next week. Same time, same channel.

originally posted by: skunkape23
I will see if these can be duplicated by photographing Venus with the same camera, but I hold fast to my assertion that this was not Venus. I have heard Jeff Ritzmann say something along the lines of the UFO phenomenon being self negating. I think this may be the case here. Trust me, I have nothing to gain by posting shaky pictures of Venus, but it would appear that there is no real way of proving otherwise. I do appreciate those who took the time to examine them. Sorry if it was ultimately a waste of your time. Oh, well. We now return to your regular program. Tune in next week. Same time, same channel.

Didn't mean to imply that it was Venus, or anything in particular... just that the effect of photographing a point source at night with an unsteady hand yields the same results.