Ok this UFO sighting looks interesting - skies over Arizona

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Miccey
So, if you have ruled out Aliens, alien craft or some kind of ET craft.
And you cant put it in any Terrestrial category, what could it POSSIBLY
be?!?!?

Well, if you could prove that aliens even exist, we could move it from the perfectly good "don't know" category into "aliens." Although we would still have to establish a connection between the aliens you prove exist and the sighting. Just because there might be aliens, and just because we don't know what something is, doesn't automatically mean it's aliens. That's just logical.

Go ahead.

Are you seriously saying that, that was what i wrote?!?!?
Go back end read again...NOTHING IN BETWEEN...Just
read what it says...

NOTHING, that i wrote said it IS! aliens...
I said if you cant identify it and its flying
it IS!! UNIDENTYFIED..alas UFO...
NOT ALIENS... UFO...
So...
Reread, or learn to read, then comprehend WHAT you read...

As I already said on my social channels, those lights are illuminating (military) parachute flares like the previous event occurred in Arizona in 2015.



Source: i.imgur.com...

the exposure time is 20 seconds long.. so the camera shutter was open for a full 20 seconds. you can see the motion blur so what ever it is he got looks bigger.. what ever it was moved or he moved the camera to make it blur. kind of like light paining photography. if the camera is still long enough you would still get a solid image but the lights would blur if you moved it at the last second..

my guess is there were some lights in the sky ( air planes, towers with lights on them ) and the lights were blurred by the camera moving right before the shutter closed.

her is how you light paint. it looks like this to me being a photographer and all that is my opinion, my point being what we are seeing in the photo is not what it looked like in the sky.. that is if the object moved or camera moved it would have been captured with motion trails.

originally posted by: dannylightning
the exposure time is 20 seconds long.. so the camera shutter was open for a full 20 seconds. you can see the motion blur so what ever it is he got looks bigger.. what ever it was moved or he moved the camera to make it blur. kind of like light paining photography. if the camera is still long enough you would still get a solid image but the lights would blur if you moved it at the last second..

my guess is there were some lights in the sky ( air planes, towers with lights on them ) and the lights were blurred by the camera moving right before the shutter closed.

her is how you light paint. it looks like this to me being a photographer and all that is my opinion, my point being what we are seeing in the photo is not what it looked like in the sky.. that is if the object moved or camera moved it would have been captured with motion trails.

If they were moving planes, then the effect on a 20 second exposure would be more pronounced as a trail of light and possibly not as bright and also the light from the planes would be intermittent and if they were fast moving, then totally different again from what he has produced. Lights on towers? Why can we not see the structures underneath the lights?

I agree, the light-sources will be much smaller than the images we see, due to motion blur but if he set the shutter for a 20 second exposure, on a tripod, why would he move the camera before the shutter closed? Unless you think that maybe the action of the shutter closing was enough to cause the movement.

I'm no expert photographer, purely amateur...so I am not being contradictory, but just trying to understand what he saw. Again, if they were flares wouldn't a 20 second exposure leave a long trail of light?

originally posted by: ufoofinterest
As I already said on my social channels, those lights are illuminating (military) parachute flares like the previous event occurred in Arizona in 2015.

Source: i.imgur.com...

In the images, the parachute flares are falling downwards, hence a bright light with a fine light trailing groundward behind them, while the alleged UFOs are more random and not trailing to the ground. If they are flares, they must have been on sky divers, surely?

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

originally posted by: dannylightning
the exposure time is 20 seconds long.. so the camera shutter was open for a full 20 seconds. you can see the motion blur so what ever it is he got looks bigger.. what ever it was moved or he moved the camera to make it blur. kind of like light paining photography. if the camera is still long enough you would still get a solid image but the lights would blur if you moved it at the last second..

my guess is there were some lights in the sky ( air planes, towers with lights on them ) and the lights were blurred by the camera moving right before the shutter closed.

her is how you light paint. it looks like this to me being a photographer and all that is my opinion, my point being what we are seeing in the photo is not what it looked like in the sky.. that is if the object moved or camera moved it would have been captured with motion trails.

If they were moving planes, then the effect on a 20 second exposure would be more pronounced as a trail of light and possibly not as bright and also the light from the planes would be intermittent and if they were fast moving, then totally different again from what he has produced. Lights on towers? Why can we not see the structures underneath the lights?

I agree, the light-sources will be much smaller than the images we see, due to motion blur but if he set the shutter for a 20 second exposure, on a tripod, why would he move the camera before the shutter closed? Unless you think that maybe the action of the shutter closing was enough to cause the movement.

I'm no expert photographer, purely amateur...so I am not being contradictory, but just trying to understand what he saw. Again, if they were flares wouldn't a 20 second exposure leave a long trail of light?

if the objects were moving up, down, left or right at a descent amount of speed you would have long blur trails just like you were thinking you would see. but if that object was moving towards him or away from him and it stayed around the same altitude you could easily get that type of effect from the long shutter speed.

we are definitely seeing something that was in the air and possibly flying but i am positive what we see in the photo was distorted by the long shutter speed so we are not seeing the object as the photographer saw it.

problem with low light photography is that if your lens is not something like a f/1.8 you need a long shutter speed which is not ideal for something that is moving. if its really dark and the object your are photographing is not very bright you still need maybe a few second long shutter speed even if the lens is good in low light... if the the object is too bright and the background is pitch back it washes out and all you get is washed out photo where you seea lit up image of something with no details and you cant tell what it was., low light photography can be very tough

originally posted by: Miccey
Reread, or learn to read, then comprehend WHAT you read...

Thanks for the input!

a reply to: olddognewtricks

This is VERY similar if not the same type that I see in my town all the time over the mountains. Every time I see them they seem to dim and teleport in different triangle positions then exit by teleporting/dimming away but in either a straight line or spiral eachother away. Hard to explain but if you talk to anyone in this town they'll know and tell you all about them. Just recently a few friends of mine told me of a close encounter with one. said it was almost bell-shaped and was really close and steady. All of them are bright orange or look almost white.

PS I live in southern Arizona around some pretty untouched/unexplored land and mountains, hear of a gov base nearby but doubt it.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Miccey
Reread, or learn to read, then comprehend WHAT you read...

Thanks for the input!

Your welcome..
Hope it helped

a reply to: dannylightning

I have tried low-light shots and not with any success at all...but I see what you mean about the light source and direction relative to the camera.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Playing that video backwards, allows the viewer to see the flares slowly rising,
Which means when played normally, the flares are in a constant descent.
I'm going to have to say flares as well.

If there was a stop and hover at any point, I would argue the flare conclusion.
However that does not seem to be the case.

I'm of the same mind it's flares.

However you have to give this guy massive credit for not only stopping and taking pics, but having decent equipment to do it with AND using a tripod so no shakey-blurry light blobs.

Really, it's all we here at ATS hope and dream for!!!

a reply to: olddognewtricks

Have to say, looks like good quality shots of either flares or some sort of fireworks. Very similar to what I have taken of these flare-type firework things, with the chutes, but this guy has a much better camera. You can even see smoke above the lighted areas.