NEW UFO Photo: Red UFO in Aztec, NM, May 8th, 2018

I don’t believe the last statement.

It’s not possible to take a 3-minute exposure shot of the stars, with high shutter speed?

The sky would be black?!

You’re dead wrong on that one. That doesn’t make sense at all lol.


We’re talking a three minute exposure. The stars don’t even move (visibly) in three minutes but ur saying high shutter speed would magically make them disappear lol.

No, stars photographed in high shutter speed would look like any photo of stars. Sheesh.

Actually if what u were saying was true, then any video with high shutter speed would be unable to show stars. I wonder if any movie EVER showed stars in the sky? Hmmm

And re: the photo in the OP: I’m not a photographer but if it’s a 3-minute exposure... I would have thought there is zero shutter speed, because the shutter is... open for three minutes...

Look, you admit that you don't know photography, so how can you argue that I am wrong? Because you BELIEVE that this is a spacecraft!

Yes, you absolutely can take a fast shutter-speed shot and it will be black. You know why?
If you have a fast shutter-speed the shutter is on open for say, 1/2000 of a second, that means the shutter is VERY quickly opening and shutting.
If you take a SLOW shutter-speed like he is (supposedly) using he is using what is called, the "BULB" setting, or he is letting the aperture stay open for 3 minutes.
Fast shutter-speed, slow shutter-speed, there is a HUGE difference.

Photographers use a wide angle lens that allows for a large aperture, that allows light to be light in for a longer time if it is on a tripod.
If this photographer uses a fast shutter-speed to take a shot of an airplane at night he needs to have a longer shutter-speed and a larger aperture to allow him to catch the fast action. If he uses the same 3 minute setting that he uses for stars the airplane, even a slow one will be a blurred streak.
If he uses a fast shutter-speed of 1/1000 or so and a REALLY large aperture of 1.0 he could catch a static looking shot or a shot that appears to be still. That is because he is taking it so fast it catches a quick glimpse of it and it will look like a still shot.

I take shots of the ISS, if I took a longer shot of it it wouldn't show up as a good shot at all.

I know photography some, you apparently don't, so why are you so dead set against arguing that you know what a guy did that you don't know, and have no idea how he did it?

If you can't understand this, I am sorry.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Hey, I really apologize, I had no idea that you are young.
Had I know that you are a teenager I wouldn't have brought it up.

Photography and Photoshop are not two different topics, at all, they are what the guy processed his shot with more than likely, either that or LightRoom, and he stacked the shots in a program that is free to the public. (More than likely)

All I am saying is if you want to argue, know what you are arguing about, you admit that you don't know photography, so...

Not taking a swipe at you or anything but how about some evidence of it NOT being an aircraft flashing light. I use to go out late in the middle of the night and living close to some major airports and living under a major 'highway' for air traffic I've seen lots of various light patterns given off by aircraft. Some blink at a high rate other blink at a slower rate. Now I cannot say it was an aircraft as I have no evidence but from the images posted by other users I'd have to say this is just an aircraft.

One thing I will add is, when I was camping out in the mountains of Scotland I was doing my own bit of night time photography while my camera was taking it long exposure of the night sky I happen to be start gazing until I heard my camera click to tell me it had finished taking the photo I was looking at a completely different part of the sky. I suddenly saw a red flash. Never had I seen anything like it before. Reading up on it what I saw was what I believe to be an iridium flare, a source of light reflecting off a satellites solar panels. I only saw the flash once but maybe this is what the guy caught in his photo. Maybe a satellite was manoeuvring its solar panels and caused the two flashes of ref light

originally posted by: Notional
This was already covered here - www.metabunk.org...

dude...you are fast....how'd you do that so fast....nailed it....nav light were washed somewhat....makes sense

originally posted by: peacefulpete


However, it was the odd pattern of flashing that I found so mysterious. The photo is showing 2 flashes in a 3-minute exposure. That much is undeniable because that’s just exactly what the photo shows, 2 identical flashes in a 3-minute exposure. We can interpret it in different ways, but there’s no ambiguity that it’s showing 2 flashes in a 3-min. exposure.

Yeah, but the question is (as 'DexterRiley' and others have pointed out) how long was the plane in the field of view of the 3-minute exposure? It may not have been in the frame for that long.

It might have been in the field of view for 15 seconds, and the light blinks were 5 seconds apart. So during that 3-minute exposre, we might have seen only 2 blinks.

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: peacefulpete

It is just a commercial aircraft. It can be matched to a particular flight. The question is why are some people fooled by such things?

just like you've been fooled into thinking it's an airplane, right??

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

2.2 seconds....yes

originally posted by: gunshooter

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: peacefulpete

It is just a commercial aircraft. It can be matched to a particular flight. The question is why are some people fooled by such things?

just like you've been fooled into thinking it's an airplane, right??

you're right, we see no strobes...they're white like a mother bear

triple seven got strobes

originally posted by: DexterRiley
Is it possibly a reflection on the objective lens of the telescope? Like a car's headlights or running lights? Or a neighbor's porch light?

Is it possibly 2 separate but identical objects appearing at the same time?

If the photographer is capturing 3 min exposures, he's got to be using a sky tracker to synchronize his exposure with the changing position of the stars. Is it possible that stationary, or very slow moving, near-field objects would present as a smear in a long exposure like this?

Just throwing a couple of suggestions out there for terrestrial explanations of this phenomenon. You have to rule out all of the obvious and simple stuff first before moving on the more "fantastic" explanations.

-dex

Is it a reflection? Well sure, anything seen in ANY photo or telescope could maybe be a reflection lol.

Re: the 3-minute exposure: Yes, if something was slow-moving, but it also moved enough to be noticeable (in 3 minutes), then yes, it would appear as a smear of light (in a 3-minute exposure).

Not sure if you meant anything else specific, but thanks for the good ideas.

originally posted by: recrisp
a reply to: Blue Shift
Here's what a jet at night looks like.
The image in question doesn't look at all like any jet/plane I have seen, I don't know what it is, but it doesn't look like a plane.
wwwcdn.skyandtelescope.com...

^Nice, I wanted to post your image directly into my post, but the photo-embedding thing is working strange for me, right now.

But anyway, the image (at your link) is EXACTLY what I would expect a time-lapse of plane light to look like.

The steady-shining lights created the solid-looking streak, as the main feature of that image.

And the streak of light contains little red flashes to show the strobe lights, every few seconds.

That image makes perfect sense, as a time-lapse of plane lights.

That image also could not be more different than the photo in the OP, which remains mysterious, despite all the bantering responses so far lol.

originally posted by: Dr UAE

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Anybody got any other photos of airplanes captures in long night sky exposures to actually compare it to?

here you are from my camera

Awesome! Your photo is different from the other photo which was linked in this thread. Yet, both unique photos BOTH make sense as time-lapse airplane lights.

Your photo shows the same principles of a long solid streak created by the steady-shining lights. And strobe-lights showing up as small dots along the sides.

It makes perfect sense as time-lapse plane lights, and like the other linked photo: It's still quite different from the photo in the OP, which remains unexplained.

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: peacefulpete
a reply to: tommyjo

No. It's not a plane. Because the flashing does NOT correspond.

The photo is a 3-minute exposure showing an object flashing TWICE IN 3 MINUTES.

Planes flash every few seconds.

It's not the same thing at all.

It is simply an aircraft. So just a coincidence that a commercial aircraft passes over. Just a coincidence that you can see that the strobe is reflecting off the inside of the engine nacelles? That is what you see either side of the strobe.

A Boeing 777 landing showing how the strobe reflects off the inner sides of the engine nacelles.

From (Slow the video down to 0.25 to see the effect.)

Look, I've acknowledged that the SHAPE of the lights might seem to resemble the light on the belly of a plane. And the two side "reflections" do seem to match up with the reflections on a plane.

HOWEVER, these are the problems with explaining it as a plane:

1. It doesn't look at all like the 2 photos which were contributed to the thread, as actual time-lapse plane lights. Both those pics show the same basic principles: A steady streak for the steady lights, and dots for the strobe lights. Yet OP's pic bears no resemblance to either of these photos, which actually represent people trying to find the closest thing, and failing to find anything that looks very similar to OP's pic.

2. Although there might be similarities to the belly-light of a plane: That comparison only emphasizes the total LACK of other corresponding lights, such as the LACK OF WING LIGHTS. It really ruins the idea of the UFO being a belly-light, because in that case, ALL OTHER PLANE LIGHTS ARE MISSING. Which means that it's not a pic of a plane, after all.

3. I've been thinking about the pattern of flashing. Like I said when I made this thread: The pic is undeniably showing 2 flashes that happened during the 3-minute exposure. That's undeniable, but it leaves us to interpret what made those flashes.

Like the video states: I was considering OP's pic to be lacking in the DOZENS of lights that would be expected from a plane's strobe lights. (And this thread's linked photos show what I mean: The submitted pics do indeed show dozens of dots that correspond with a plane's strobe.)

However, I've also been considering that maybe, just maybe, the telescopic magnification, and the distance of the plane, just MIGHT produce this trick of perspective, so that a normal plane would fly by the frame, so fast that it would only show 2 flashes.

It's a bit difficult to conceptualize, but I'll just say yes, it MIGHT be possible, though very unlikely, we MIGHT be seeing a simple trick of perspective, with a strange combination of factors that led into a very strange photo.

OK, but even assuming that THAT much is possible: We're still left MISSING ALL THE OTHER PLANE LIGHTS, which would be expected to show up, along with that center-light. Because if that one light is so visible, then all the other lights should be visible too. The steady running lights, and especially the STROBE-LIGHTS OF THE WINGS.

And the lack of other corresponding lights, is a HUGE argument against the one light being from the plane belly.

We can't have perfect visibility of ONE LIGHT, while the other lights are totally missing.

originally posted by: recrisp
What could have happened is that the guy that took the photograph was taking, 'photographs', plural.

That is common when doing night sky photography, that would explain why it is not a dotted line as in my above link.
Some photographers that don't have a tracker to shoot long exposures will take maybe 10 or so images and combine them digitally afterwards. That gets rid of noise and makes the image look like one shot that is REALLY way better than one shot will do.

In other words only TWO shots of the plane were in it, the other shots had the plane but the lights were blinked off at that exact time.

TommyJo is 100% correct on this, his pictures prove that without a doubt.

I responded to this earlier, but without quoting your actual quote, so I'm doing that now, for more clarity.

There is no possibility of multiple photos.

OP's pic is ONE PHOTO. That's it. It is NOT made of multiple photos. It's one photo. This is explained in the case description on MUFON's site, which is clearly shown in OP's video.

originally posted by: DexterRiley

originally posted by: peacefulpete
a reply to: tommyjo

No. It's not a plane. Because the flashing does NOT correspond.

The photo is a 3-minute exposure showing an object flashing TWICE IN 3 MINUTES.

Planes flash every few seconds.

It's not the same thing at all.

Just because the exposure is 3 minutes doesn't necessarily mean that the event unfolded over that 3 minute period. If an aircraft were crossing the imaging field at a rapid rate, it might take only a few seconds between the time it entered the image on one end, and exited on the other. Thus, it's possible that the camera may only capture 2 light strobes in the few seconds it took to cross the field.

-dex

Agreed. The object could have passed through quickly while making those two flashes, in just an instant!

OR the flashes could have been as much as 3 minutes apart, actually (if they happened at the start and then the end of the exposure-time of 3 minutes).

originally posted by: DexterRiley
I watched the video, but I don't recall if they matched up the recorded flight path of the proposed aircraft with the orientation of the astro-photograph's strobe events. That would be a crucial piece of evidence to verify their claim.

Also, I would think that someone knowledgeable could determine the field of view of the image and use that as a scale. Then, using the standard timing between strobe events, determine the arc length of travel of the aircraft for that time interval. Then using the altitude of the proposed aircraft, determine its airspeed. If the airspeed of the object is similar to the airspeed of the proposed craft, then that's another nail in the coffin for the UFO.

JMHO.

-dex

I agree, and these are good ideas.

I don't think anyone has tried to match up known flight-paths. However, now that I'm thinking about that: If someone checks flight paths and the UFO did NOT match up, then the next argument could be that it's a plane which is simply not following the flight path lol. So really, checking flight-path is interesting, but will not be definitive proof of anything.

You're right that in theory, some genius out there should be able to calculate the telescope's magnification (especially that the UFO shows a galaxy next to it), plus the genius would calculate a plane's size in that magnification, according to the plane's distance, and its speed, etc.

Yes it should all be possible, but I'm doubtful that we're going to get a modern-day Einstein to check out our thread and do all these calculations for us lol.

Like I've said in other posts: Even if I assume that the UFO is the center-light of a plane, THAT leaves us lacking all the other plane lights that would be expected to show up, if it was a plane.

In other words, we can't only have one crystal-clear light, and NO other lights, and call it a plane lol.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Could this maybe just be a regular aircraft with a red port side light? I didn't have audio for the video so I dont know if that was addressed.

On a somewhat related topic, I saw a giant light pass over my late flight arriving at 1130 PM ct into des Moines on April 19th approximately 20 minutes before landing while in descent from 32k feet. It looked huge at first as it crossed the top of my aircraft flying somewhat perpendicular to us. It started out as a huge light that only took about 3 seconds to shrink down to the size of a pin as it flew away. Was pretty crazy and I still cannot explain it except I later read there were stealth fighters up in Minneapolis that night, but I cannot confirm that's what a saw.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: tommyjo
A Boeing 777 landing showing how the strobe reflects off the inner sides of the engine nacelles.

That's pretty damn close. Could be the lights were strobing at the usual rate, but it moved across the field of vision fast enough that it only registered twice during the three minutes.

Yes, EXCEPT we're missing all the other lights, that should be there, if it's a plane. Even your quoted photo shows this, with a blaring huge "headlight" at front, which is MUCH BRIGHTER than the center red light, plus two white lights on either side of the wings' base.

So that photo is more of an argument AGAINST it being a plane.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
still think its a plane, probally military for that weird flashing pattern

Secret government craft is actually one of the most plausible explanations.

It's about a million times more plausible than saying it's a normal airplane lol, that just happened to cause this freak-accident photo that looks really mysterious.

And I'm saying that, assuming that the secret craft would not have normal lights or light patterns.

originally posted by: recrisp

I don’t believe the last statement.

It’s not possible to take a 3-minute exposure shot of the stars, with high shutter speed?

The sky would be black?!

You’re dead wrong on that one. That doesn’t make sense at all lol.


We’re talking a three minute exposure. The stars don’t even move (visibly) in three minutes but ur saying high shutter speed would magically make them disappear lol.

No, stars photographed in high shutter speed would look like any photo of stars. Sheesh.

Actually if what u were saying was true, then any video with high shutter speed would be unable to show stars. I wonder if any movie EVER showed stars in the sky? Hmmm

And re: the photo in the OP: I’m not a photographer but if it’s a 3-minute exposure... I would have thought there is zero shutter speed, because the shutter is... open for three minutes...

Look, you admit that you don't know photography, so how can you argue that I am wrong? Because you BELIEVE that this is a spacecraft!

Yes, you absolutely can take a fast shutter-speed shot and it will be black. You know why?
If you have a fast shutter-speed the shutter is on open for say, 1/2000 of a second, that means the shutter is VERY quickly opening and shutting.
If you take a SLOW shutter-speed like he is (supposedly) using he is using what is called, the "BULB" setting, or he is letting the aperture stay open for 3 minutes.
Fast shutter-speed, slow shutter-speed, there is a HUGE difference.

Photographers use a wide angle lens that allows for a large aperture, that allows light to be light in for a longer time if it is on a tripod.
If this photographer uses a fast shutter-speed to take a shot of an airplane at night he needs to have a longer shutter-speed and a larger aperture to allow him to catch the fast action. If he uses the same 3 minute setting that he uses for stars the airplane, even a slow one will be a blurred streak.
If he uses a fast shutter-speed of 1/1000 or so and a REALLY large aperture of 1.0 he could catch a static looking shot or a shot that appears to be still. That is because he is taking it so fast it catches a quick glimpse of it and it will look like a still shot.

I take shots of the ISS, if I took a longer shot of it it wouldn't show up as a good shot at all.

I know photography some, you apparently don't, so why are you so dead set against arguing that you know what a guy did that you don't know, and have no idea how he did it?

If you can't understand this, I am sorry.

For goodness' sake, I think I'm realizing who are debunkers, or trolls, or just belligerent people who are not having an honest conversation.

Look, you admit that you don't know photography, so how can you argue that I am wrong? Because you BELIEVE that this is a spacecraft!

Look, I didn't say that I "don't know photography." I said that I'm not a photographer, which would normally be taken as meaning that I'm not a professional photographer, nor am I serious hobbyist of photography. And neither of those statements means that I "don't understand photography." I understand it just as well as any lay-person understands photography.

And let's face it, photography isn't rocket science lol. The BASICS of photography are easy to understand. Light enters the lens and it's captured to create the image. There, I just explained photography in one short sentence lol.

I didn't really say you were "wrong" about anything, and actually, I responded quite specifically, to different specific things.

And finally, I never called it a spacecraft. I believe the only person to call it that, is... you...

......................

Re: Shutter-speed: This is a completely off-topic tangent, that I believe is just meant as a distraction from the actual topic.

OP's pic has NO shutter-speed, because it's a 3-minute exposure. That means the shutter stays open for 3 minutes.

There is nothing complicated about this, at all.

You and I both know that a 3-minute exposure obviously has no shutter-speed (unless you want to call it a 3-minute shutter-speed).

It's all a lot of off-topic nonsense, and distraction from the real topic.

Maybe the UFO is really something special, after all, to be able to get trolls posting lengthy off-topic garbage about shutter-speeds, that we all know is irrelevant lol.

....................

The photo is a 3-minute exposure, with NO shutter activity, and it shows 2 flashes that happened in those 3 minutes. That's it.

originally posted by: recrisp

I don’t believe the last statement.

It’s not possible to take a 3-minute exposure shot of the stars, with high shutter speed?

The sky would be black?!

You’re dead wrong on that one. That doesn’t make sense at all lol.


We’re talking a three minute exposure. The stars don’t even move (visibly) in three minutes but ur saying high shutter speed would magically make them disappear lol.

No, stars photographed in high shutter speed would look like any photo of stars. Sheesh.

Actually if what u were saying was true, then any video with high shutter speed would be unable to show stars. I wonder if any movie EVER showed stars in the sky? Hmmm

And re: the photo in the OP: I’m not a photographer but if it’s a 3-minute exposure... I would have thought there is zero shutter speed, because the shutter is... open for three minutes...

Look, you admit that you don't know photography, so how can you argue that I am wrong? Because you BELIEVE that this is a spacecraft!

Yes, you absolutely can take a fast shutter-speed shot and it will be black. You know why?
If you have a fast shutter-speed the shutter is on open for say, 1/2000 of a second, that means the shutter is VERY quickly opening and shutting.
If you take a SLOW shutter-speed like he is (supposedly) using he is using what is called, the "BULB" setting, or he is letting the aperture stay open for 3 minutes.
Fast shutter-speed, slow shutter-speed, there is a HUGE difference.

Photographers use a wide angle lens that allows for a large aperture, that allows light to be light in for a longer time if it is on a tripod.
If this photographer uses a fast shutter-speed to take a shot of an airplane at night he needs to have a longer shutter-speed and a larger aperture to allow him to catch the fast action. If he uses the same 3 minute setting that he uses for stars the airplane, even a slow one will be a blurred streak.
If he uses a fast shutter-speed of 1/1000 or so and a REALLY large aperture of 1.0 he could catch a static looking shot or a shot that appears to be still. That is because he is taking it so fast it catches a quick glimpse of it and it will look like a still shot.

I take shots of the ISS, if I took a longer shot of it it wouldn't show up as a good shot at all.

I know photography some, you apparently don't, so why are you so dead set against arguing that you know what a guy did that you don't know, and have no idea how he did it?

If you can't understand this, I am sorry.

For goodness' sake, I think I'm realizing who are debunkers, or trolls, or just belligerent people who are not having an honest conversation.

Look, you admit that you don't know photography, so how can you argue that I am wrong? Because you BELIEVE that this is a spacecraft!

Look, I didn't say that I "don't know photography." I said that I'm not a photographer, which would normally be taken as meaning that I'm not a professional photographer, nor am I serious hobbyist of photography. And neither of those statements means that I "don't understand photography." I understand it just as well as any lay-person understands photography.

And let's face it, photography isn't rocket science lol. The BASICS of photography are easy to understand. Light enters the lens and it's captured to create the image. There, I just explained photography in one short sentence lol.

I didn't really say you were "wrong" about anything, and actually, I responded quite specifically, to different specific things.

And finally, I never called it a spacecraft. I believe the only person to call it that, is... you...

......................

Re: Shutter-speed: This is a completely off-topic tangent, that I believe is just meant as a distraction from the actual topic.

OP's pic has NO shutter-speed, because it's a 3-minute exposure. That means the shutter stays open for 3 minutes.

There is nothing complicated about this, at all.

You and I both know that a 3-minute exposure obviously has no shutter-speed (unless you want to call it a 3-minute shutter-speed).

It's all a lot of off-topic nonsense, and distraction from the real topic.

Maybe the UFO is really something special, after all, to be able to get trolls posting lengthy off-topic garbage about shutter-speeds, that we all know is irrelevant lol.

....................

The photo is a 3-minute exposure, with NO shutter activity, and it shows 2 flashes that happened in those 3 minutes.