My UFO pictures - Opinions wanted

reply to post by Tephra

unless ur on the moon taking pics...lol have u ever noticed that every pic on the moon shows ZERO! stars in the background..u would think that a surface with no atmosphere would have a great shot of the stars?

reply to post by gmac10001

Unless they just filtered them out, like they do today with most cameras, i know it was sixties but i'll assume they had camera filters.

reply to post by -Sho-


I'm curious to see the original photos as well. Seems unusual that a 10 second exposure didnt pick up any other stars. There are examples of photos on Flickr that show a sky full of stars with even an 8 second exposure.

The lack of other stars could be because I've zoomed in so much on one particular area. Whether or not there are stars in the originals I don't know.

I'm just grabbing something to eat then I'll try to get the originals up before I go to bed.

reply to post by -Sho-


As one of ATS's resident photography experts I can tell you that one of 3 things caused the effects in these photo's. First, leaving the shutter open too long which cause an object to leave a trail (or the object was actually in motion), second, using a polarizing filter at night (many people leave these attached and forget the prism-like effect they have at night which can cause the "rainbow" effect seen in some of the photo's), third, and most important, the aperture was set wide open which reduces contrast and is why there is no detail in the sky, when the aperture is set at its wide open (lowest f-stop), the contrast is almost completely lost, so you get solid blacks in dark areas and very bright whites in bright area, both without much detail, hence the solid black background. To the OP, I am NOT saying that these are faked, I am trying to explain why the "object" looks the way it does because many people will point to the solid black background as being a fake photo, but in fact a wide open aperture can cause that. Also, if the rainbow coloring wasn't their when you looked with your eyes, that could have been caused by a polarizing filter if you had one attached. Overall, not much to go on, but interesting none the less.

Hi KevinB. It's nice to hear from someone with some photography knowledge! I can tell you that no filter was used and the object was definitely moving. But as it was so far away it was impossible to see the colours etc with the naked eye. You'll see what I mean when I post the originals. My wife is always going on about aperture settings and other things I really don't understand but I'll mention your points to her and see what she says.

Edit to add - Just asked my wife and she agreed with your 3rd point and said she thinks it was set at f4. Whatever the hell that means!

Ok it seems ATS doesn't like the originals as it's not uploading them, possibly due to the size so I'm going to upload them to photobucket or something and link externally. If that works I'll edit the links into this post.

I must warn you tho that it is pure black sky with the tiny object roughly in the centre of the image

Right, lets give this a try
www.zshare.net...
www.zshare.net...

Hopefully those two will be enough to give you guys a better indication

the thing i have a problem with on the 1st pic is the square pixals around the light as if it was cut and paste.
im not an expert so im not gonna jump right to saying hoax.

reply to post by -Sho-


Ok, yea from the originals I can see what you mean. No filter and it being in motion makes sense. Having the aperture at F(4.0) is most likely the widest (smaller number is bigger hole for light to come through) and would definitely cause the lack of contrast in the sky, especially given the very challenging light situation because it was night. On the good side, had you not shot at a 4.0 aperture you probably would have gotten a full black frame with no image of the object, so at least something is better than nothing. Next time you are using your camera at night, (I'm assuming you have a SLR (Single Lens Reflex) camera, the best thing you can do is to set the aperture to 4.0, set the shutter speed between 1/10sec and 1/30sec, and max out your ISO, which depending on your camera would be 1600iso or 3200iso or 6400iso. By setting the ISO high you are increasing the sensitivity the sensor has to light, which will increase the brightness of the photo so you can see more of the image even at night, however it will cause grain (I always say a grainy night shot is better then a solid black night shot because with photo enhancing you can get more clarity out of a higher ISO nightshot then a lower ISO nightshot. Feel free to U2U me if you have anymore questions about operating your camera, and be sure to include the model as well. Overall, very interesting and most certainly not a star because the color shifts into colors that stars don't emit, more like a rainbow. Also definitely not a plane for the same reason it is not a star. My guess would be some sort of atmospheric phenomena such as ball lightning behind a band of ice crystals that acted like a prism to turn the white light of the source into the prism effect showing a rainbow, or it could have been a UFO emitting a white light that hit some ice crystals in the air and prismed into a rainbow, OR it could gave been a UFO emitting the colors seen without any atmospheric interference but I'd bet my life that the colored effect was caused by ice crystals in the air, which still doesn't give us any hint as to what the light source moving around was. Whichever of these is the case, still a very rare phenomena to photograph, well done.

Originally posted by strafgod
the thing i have a problem with on the 1st pic is the square pixals around the light as if it was cut and paste.
im not an expert so im not gonna jump right to saying hoax.

After analyzing the photo's, I can assure you that they are not edited by any computer program. That type of pixelation is to be expected when a photo is taken at a low aperture (wide open) and at night and is cause by the sensor having a hard time determining what to place around the light source.

reply to post by KevinB


im glad i didnt start firing off the hoax word. and thanks for the reply.

Originally posted by Vandalour
I AM open minded....and the OP is just presenting long exposure pictures,

Which is exactly what he said he did, obviously you didn't read his post. Too bad when people with simple questions get jumped on like this. A question doesn't make it a hoax or a fake...

It was set on a long exposure to try and track the movement.

reply to post by KevinB


I agree. The EXIF info I'm seeing shows the flash fired, shutter speed was 1/20th sec. f5.6, at 250mm setting. That certainly explains why we're not seeing other stars in the image.

Exif data of the first original photo, from Jefferey's Exif Viewer.

Basic Image Information
Camera: Canon Digital Rebel XTi
Also known as: Canon 400D; Canon Kiss X Digital
Lens: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Shot at 250 mm
Exposure: Manual exposure, 1/20 sec, f/5.6, ISO 400
Flash: On, Fired
Focus: AI Servo AF with a depth of field of from 81.91 m to inf
Date: February 22, 2010 2:36:21AM (timezone not specified)
(1 year, 5 days, 20 hours, 17 minutes, 34 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)
File: 2,592 × 3,888 JPEG (10.1 megapixels)
1,514,623 bytes (1.4 megabytes) Image compression: 95%
Color Encoding:
WARNING: Color space tagged as sRGB, without an embedded color profile. Windows and Mac web browsers will treat the colors randomly.
Images for the web are most widly viewable when in the sRGB color space and with an embedded color profile. See my Introduction to Digital-Image Color Spaces for more information.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no photography expert, but this seems to be a very slow shutter speed, and it was manually placed there. Probably by personal preference over anything malicious, but if there are any photo experts out there, could you dig a little further?


reply to post by Kali74


A discussion forum just so long as the discussion doesn't involve ordinary things like long exposures or hoaxes, then?

Looks like simple long exposure pictures to me bud. So good luck with the pictures.

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
Exif data of the first original photo, from Jefferey's Exif Viewer.

Basic Image Information
Camera: Canon Digital Rebel XTi
Also known as: Canon 400D; Canon Kiss X Digital
Lens: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Shot at 250 mm
Exposure: Manual exposure, 1/20 sec, f/5.6, ISO 400
Flash: On, Fired
Focus: AI Servo AF with a depth of field of from 81.91 m to inf
Date: February 22, 2010 2:36:21AM (timezone not specified)
(1 year, 5 days, 20 hours, 17 minutes, 34 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)
File: 2,592 × 3,888 JPEG (10.1 megapixels)
1,514,623 bytes (1.4 megabytes) Image compression: 95%
Color Encoding:
WARNING: Color space tagged as sRGB, without an embedded color profile. Windows and Mac web browsers will treat the colors randomly.
Images for the web are most widly viewable when in the sRGB color space and with an embedded color profile. See my Introduction to Digital-Image Color Spaces for more information.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no photography expert, but this seems to be a very slow shutter speed, and it was manually placed there. Probably by personal preference over anything malicious, but if there are any photo experts out there, could you dig a little further?


reply to post by Kali74

 

A discussion forum just so long as the discussion doesn't involve ordinary things like long exposures or hoaxes, then?

The exposure of 1/20th is not that long, especially at night. The ISO is set way too low for nighttime, which is why the aperture is maxed at 5.6 (the lens has a max of 4.0 at 55mm and 5.6 at 250mm). The maxed aperture resulted in no contrast in the sky. The longer exposure time was on purpose to show the motion of the object (according to the OP), and the focus seems fine considering the object is very far away.

Thanks for the expert analysis KevinB. I'm glad you're on my side! And i'm glad you can tell that the originals haven't been edited too.

I think we did take a few shots first of all that came out completely black so had to adjust the aperture to get something half decent but we were pretty happy with them in the end. We just had no explantion of what it was.

I have to admit that the prism like effect has always confused me, especially since it doesn't happen in every photo. I still have no clue what it actually is.


Can we establish that the photos are genuine now please? And that I'm not some elaborate hoaxer?

reply to post by -Sho-


I've downloaded the photos as well and they certainly look genuine to me.

Ice crystals is a nice explanation Kevin.

I was thinking perhaps heat shimmer could cause that, but then again it is winter. The rainbow colors reminds me of looking at Venus when it is low on the horizon and the turbulence in the atmosphere causes it to blink different colors.

As for the movement captured in these photos, I have no explanation.

Thanks tsawyer2. It's nice to hear ideas from you guys since I have none.

Another thing to bear in mind is that this object appeared REGULARLY over the course of many months, just in slightly different areas of the sky. Would that still fit in with the ice crystals or shimmer ideas?


Also I have all the originals of the low res pictures from the first page. If anyone would like to request them as further evidence along with the two I've already linked then be my guest.

I had witness something more strange, bizarre and unusual events, but i won't tell you all, why? secret is always secret and it is your lifetime dairy...

hoax,prove,evidence,lies,propaganda,fake,debunk,CGI,conspiracy,anomalies,lens artifact,false,disinformation,misinformation,natural phenomenon, and what else?