Photo of Object Posted on Mufon I Want Everyone's Opinion

For the curious, here is a website of a guy who plays around with electricity. On his website he plays with strobe LED lights and a 5 second exposure time on his camera.


tesladownunder.com...

tesladownunder.com...






[edit on 2-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Interesting but why is the bottom of the craft not lit up like the bottom of the moon by the sun? Looks like there is a grain overlay on the image as the edges of the moon look very soft.

nothing new to add by me, i see the plane explanation as a very very logial and explanation.

i only saw one person mention the rod theory. which is what i was first thinking as well. that looks like a rod with lights.

Originally posted by ANTHONY33
Interesting but why is the bottom of the craft not lit up like the bottom of the moon by the sun? Looks like there is a grain overlay on the image as the edges of the moon look very soft.

The bottom of the jet is not lit up by the Sun because the jet is flying at night. The Earth is blocking the Sun rays from hitting the jet. Since the moon is about 384000 km away from the camera, and the jet is incredibly closer, there would be no Sun hitting the jet.

I believe the edges of the Moon are very soft because the moon is not stationary. Since the entire picture is showing 4 seconds in 0ne image, this means the Moon moved across the sky. So did the Stars, that is what the white streaks are that you see.

The Moon, and the Stars moved in a period of 4 seconds, which was recorded onto the camera CCD.

Here is an image that was taken at night with a long exposure time. You can clearly see the Stars made streaks in the sky.



[edit on 2-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]

After looking closer at the edges of the Moon, it appears the person edited the edges of the Moon. The pixelation on the edge of the Moon does not match the pixelation of the rest of the image. But I could be mistaking, and it all could just be the exposure time, and the movement of the Moon playing tricks on the camera CCD.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Ah ok I see now what I am looking at lights of a jet flashing captured over 4 sec lol waist of alot of peoples time

[edit on 2-7-2008 by ANTHONY33]

Interesting pic.

That said, it looks to me (a non-expert) like a b-2 with lots of lights.

Look at the shape and then think of a B-2 at that angle...

I commend the original poster for wanting to get everyone's opinion and observation on this MUFON submitted photo/report. And I applaud everyone that has participated offering their views.

One thing that a ufologist, analyst or researcher "HAS" to do when considering any case that may be submitted to him/her is try and prove out all other possibilities of what this may or may not be without letting their own thoughts or suspicions get in the way. It's really the only credible way to perform an accurate analysis. One has to ask, is there some way to duplicate this type of photograph or video. This is another reason why we really like to get as much information as we can about the event, the witness, the camera etc. Obviously there are a number of other questions one must ask, but we'll deal with this one particular factor since it is the most prominent.

If a sighting can be easily duplicated then one must weigh the scale of balance (regardless of how bad you may want this to be a UFO) towards this being a natural or man-inspired/induced anomaly.

This happens to be one of those cases which a number of members like "ignorant ape" and "internos" have done a fine job in pointing out why this could only be an object like a commercial jet airliner with it's strobes firing and being captured in a long exposure. The longer one has the cameras shutter open, the longer a object moving has to travel. With the firing of the strobes which would obviously be bright, would appear as solid versus as to streaking light. Another clear and obvious account for the longer exposure is the streaking of the stars themselves. And because the "Jet" would obviously be much closer to the the camera-persons POV (point-of-view), it would appear to move at a faster rate/pace than say the Moon or stars.

I had the opportunity to help debunk a similar supposed Arizona timelapse capture that was posted up in UFO Magazine (see link) and I'm including one of my many timelapse photos to illustrate how anyone with a camera that has a tripod and a camera with the capacity to have it's shutter stay open for several seconds could easily create the same type of photo, in fact I encourage you that have cameras to try that simple experiment yourself.. it will help you become better as a "armchair analyst".

Why the photo in UFO magazine is not a UFO



Johnny Anonymous
Amateur Field Ufologist


[edit on 7/2/2008 by JohnnyAnonymous]

Originally posted by JohnnyAnonymous
I commend the original poster for wanting to get everyone's opinion and observation on this MUFON submitted photo/report. And I applaud everyone that has participated offering their views.

One thing that a ufologist, analyst or researcher "HAS" to do when considering any case that may be submitted to him/her is try and prove out all other possibilities of what this may or may not be without letting their own thoughts or suspicions get in the way. It's really the only credible way to perform an accurate analysis. One has to ask, is there some way to duplicate this type of photograph or video. This is another reason why we really like to get as much information as we can about the event, the witness, the camera etc.

If a sighting can be easily duplicated then one must weigh the scale of balance (regardless of how bad you may want this to be a UFO) towards this being a natural or man-inspired/induced anomaly.

This happens to be one of those cases which a number of members like "ignorant ape" and "internos" have done a fine job in pointing out why this could only be an object like a commercial jet airliner with it's strobes firing and being captured in a long exposure. The longer one has the cameras shutter open, the longer a object moving has to travel. With the firing of the strobes which would obviously be bright, would appear as solid versus as to streaking light. Another clear and obvious account for the longer exposure is the streaking of the stars themselves.

I had the opportunity to help debunk a supposed Arizona timelapse capture that was posted up in UFO Magazine (see link) and I'm including one of my many timelapse photos to illustrate how anyone with a camera that has a tripod and a camera with the capacity to have it's shutter stay open for several seconds could easily create the same type of photo, in fact I encourage you that have cameras to try that simple experiment yourself.. it will help you become better as a "armchair analyst".

Why the photo in UFO magazine is not a UFO

Johnny Anonymous
Amateur Field Ufologist

I guessed it too

There is definately something there.... How close Wright-Patterson was this sighting?

Originally posted by roadgravel
Some parts look like strobe lights. Seems to be a definite repeating pattern. May be some type of aircraft passing.

It couldn't be anything we know of because it has too many lights on it. Looks to me like it could be a glimpse of another galaxy (Being just the stars) You never know, we know nothing realy about this universe especially earth. We are missing so many things thanks to the government, and other secret societies and media.

Its a plane. I have done many time elapsed exposures of the ISS and planes at night. The sequence of lights repeat themselves in a pattern. The lights themselves are not blurred like the stars and moon in the image, indicating the lights flashed quickly as the plane kept in motion.

reply to post by Ryan Lloyd


I guess I should retract my thoughts of a simple explanation of a passing aircraft. It is way to simple and common place to have happened.

A UFO refueling station or distant galaxy of stars when very few other stars are appearing in the photo does make more sense.

I wont lie,when i first saw the picture i was thinking that either the photo was photoshoped or that indeed we were looking at something pretty good and "uknown".
The guys here made an excelent job though and i have to agree that the plane version makes alot more sense.

reply to post by LateApexer313


Great picture either way,if it's not a UFO than the picture can still be used to show how easily common things can be mistaken for UFOs.

Where I live, there's usually a once a year event in which sailboats will string lights on their masts. So it may be the mast of a ship or a smoke stack. This appears to be a much more civil interesting and informative thread than usual.

Originally posted by ANTHONY33
reply to post by ALLis0NE

 

Ah ok I see now what I am looking at lights of a jet flashing captured over 4 sec lol waist of alot of peoples time

[edit on 2-7-2008 by ANTHONY33]

Not a waste of time at all. The OP wanted help identifying the object in a pic he saw, and everyone participating put their combined knowledge and talents together to get to the bottom of it.

Not the first time a pic of something mundane was debunked in exactly the same way, but it adds to the database that this website is.

People learned things from each other in this thread, and also got a chance to hone their sleuthing and research skills.

Even with the continuing posts by people who still think there's something 'unexplainable' in this pic, I think this thread has been a very good one. Thanks, LateApexer313!

OMG, what is going to happen is the messiah back do we have somting to worry about? its botherd me, really has. i think have done somting i shundt of done.

No doubt it's a plane.

As many posters have stated above, the large substantial body in the center is the streaking from the plane, and the lights are strobes on the side. No UFO here, but it's a really sweet picture. Thanks to the OP for sharing!

Definately an aircraft. I've replicated this effect many times experimenting with night photography and long exposure settings. Does have a kind of "Third Encounters" vibe though...hehe