Odd object in astronomical photo - Need advice!

To definitely close this story, please take a look at this animated GIF:



This composited picture is made with the second photo provided by the witness (which was taken in the same sky area than the first one where the "UFO" stands) and a small sky portion.

The brightest stars are exactly the same (position and apparent magnitude) in both images.

It is absolutely impossible for this to be a coincidence and in conclusion, this "UFO" turns out to be the star Iota Herculis otherwise called ι Her (Rijl al Jathiyah) or HIP 86414.

Many thanks to Chrlz for this brilliant idea.

Originally posted by elevenaugust
To definitely close this story, please take a look at this animated GIF:

Absolutely confirmed.
Just out of curiosity, what did you use to find the field of view in question here? I know there is automated software to match any photo to stars... but did you just take the time to find this one by hand?

And yes, do expect to find more posts from people who dont read the thread before posting "its the ISS".

looks like a flying squirrel to me

Originally posted by alfa1
Absolutely confirmed.

Yes, absolutely, definitively, 100% confirmed.

Just out of curiosity, what did you use to find the field of view in question here? I know there is automated software to match any photo to stars... but did you just take the time to find this one by hand?

Alfa1, I think I can lay claim to being the one who found the matching starfield (I then passed the info on to Qumulys and Elevenaugust).

Here's how, (in excruciating detail...)
First up, unless the starfield shown is of a readily recognisable star pattern (or asterism), like Scorpio, the Big Dipper, Orion, etc, it's going to be quite difficult to find a matching area of sky because the view can be anything from a very wide to a very zoomed in view. And of course the image can be rotated to any angle depending on the telescopes optics and mount. And of course if there is intended deception (see below for example), the information supplied may be wrong, or the image may have been deliberately rotated to throw any investigators off the trail.

In this case, there was no obvious pattern (to me), and a quick look around the Polaris area didn't turn up anything promising, either. So I gave up that approach. But then, as you note, there is help at hand... ASTROMETRY. Astrometry is a scientific discipline that , essentially, means you can identify any image containing stars by comparing it with a database of the sky.. A computer program is used that examines the image, looks at the relative brightnesses of the stars (or star trails) in the image, along with their relative distances and angles from one another, and then looks for a match in the database.

There are three particularly wonderful aspects to this science...
1. It is available to anyone to use.
2. The programming is Open Source, so you can examine the way in which it is done.
3. The software is VERY clever, and will not give a 'false match' - if there is any doubt in the results it will not give a match.

If anyone wants to try it out, take a look at the Wiki for Astrometry. Or you can register at astrometry.net and post an image for analysis (please don't overdo it!), and there is also a Flickr group where you can do the same thing.

This approach has been used before on ATS and other forums to bust people falsely representing images, like this disgusting display of deception by JCattera (aka LX200GPS_3).

And yes, do expect to find more posts from people who dont read the thread before posting "its the ISS".

[rant]What I would LOVE to see, is those folks who leapt onto the ISS idea (or other equally unsupported suggestions) and who definitively claimed their 'solution' was right - to come back to this thread and tell us what they have learned, and whether they will make the same leaps in future.

I'm tempted to name names!

I'm sometimes wrong too, but if it happens - I admit it, apologise and learn from my mistake... That way I don't make it twice...[/rant]

I think I might know exactly what it is.
I was searching stuff on the web yesterday and I came upon this: en.wikipedia.org...
Tell me what you think but it looks pretty similar to me.

reply to post by psyan

Tell me what you think but it looks pretty similar to me.

I think you should check the thread before posting
The explanation is Here as well as other places throughout the thread .

reply to post by gortex


Yea, I have never seen a star or planet, with defined wings and a fuselage... but ok

I have been following the ufo fields for about 2 or 3 years now and due to this people come to tell me their stories about seeing strange things in the sky. Recently a friend of mine and her sister were driving down the road and saw four orange orbs flying in the sky a filmed it.

this is the original video
They sent the video to me thinking I would be able to give them some insight on the matter, telling them all i could about what I saw, I thought it would be a good idea to get some other peoples opinions on this video. Thanks for the help and input.
this video is the same except I used the brightener on youtube.

Epilogue: I'm surprised that nobody thought of this before as it was the subject of many discuss pages here, on ATS, some years ago.

See here -----> John Lenard Walson: Biggest discovery ever?
And here------> Alleged spacecraft/objects on moon

It seems that this kind of 'structure' was the main subject of John Lenard Walson' claims.
Pay especially attention to waveguide3, ngchunter and Chrlz posts.
Here's what waveguide3 said here for example:

Yes, bright stars and shaky optics are favorite methods for creating 'extraterrestrial lights'.....
Remember, in that video you see Sirius at around 300x magnification, so the focused light spot is pretty big, but you can see the effect of scintillation on the images. I had to thump my weighty Meade scope to make it vibrate in an attempt to duplicate the hand-held effect. A cameraman's heartbeat also affects it.

So, we have the same explanation for both effects (Here, OP's thread, and Lenard Walson's alleged 'spacecraft')...



See more examples here

And our 'French spacecraft':

hey guys
don't want to be a contrary cow here
especially after such a nice epilogue [those photos are what i thought of when i read the op]
and yes, i have read every single post because that's how i roll

but i am totally not going for the star-jiggle explanation
mostly because i am a terrible photographer
and if there is anything i know about
it's camera shake. especially applied to bright lights in darkness.

the second photo, now that is camera shake.
i am assuming people know how that works? the way the camera tracks the light at every point in it's motion across the lens? so that what you end up with is a trail of light directly related to the motion of the camera.
you can do some pretty rad stuff with this
it's like scribbling with a texta made of light.
i've composed entire sketches in long exposures
and you can get a whole lot of weird stuff happen
but one thing i have never ever seen is edges like that..
it looks for all the world like a real object
it even seems to have sides! and it.... makes a kind of sense... as a shape, i mean. there are no totally incongruous walls for example.
i mean, we've had people here saying it's definitely the ISS, no doubt about it...
to re-use my texta analogy
this would be like somebody scribbling with a single texta for five seconds [or one? is anyone clear on that yet? and while we're at it, 80iso? f'real?] and having it mistaken for a photograph.

yet those stars correspond exactly
and are even the right tonal values
and nothing else makes sense [it's not the iss...]
so i am left perplexed.


how on earth did this happen?
what is going on here?

Originally posted by decepticonLaura
but i am totally not going for the star-jiggle explanation
mostly because i am a terrible photographer
and if there is anything i know about
it's camera shake. especially applied to bright lights in darkness.

Thing is, how much experience do you have with optics generally?

Can I ask some simple questions of you -
What if the lens was being *focused* during that 5 second exposure? What effect would you expect to see?
What if an element of the lens/telescope was just beginning to mist up? (you must know that this is a common issue with astrophotography..?) Again, what would you expect to see?

It's a 5 second exposure - that is quite a long time, especially if the camera was caught autofocusing and the image was being racked back and forth - one moment you will have a sharp-ish image, the next it will be blurred blob, all the while tracking a crazy dance as the camera and/or telescope jiggled. Alternatively, the lens being *manually* focused could have easily been the *cause* of the motion... As eleven points out, very similar effects were used by John Lenard Walson in his hoax images.

the camera tracks the light at every point in it's motion across the lens? so that what you end up with is a trail of light directly related to the motion of the camera.

Yes, of course it does.... Which is why the artefacts are repeated identically across the image:
- EXACTLY where the stars are
- EXACTLY matching the brightness (not just the colour) of every star
- EXACTLY matching the trails of EVERY other star - the motion trace is identical

The positions of the stars in question can easily be checked from innumerable public sources - that pattern of stars cannot possibly be faked or wrongly identified.

Given all that, how can you possibly think that the 'object' is not a star? Is it a UFO that was precisely positioned over Iota Herculis, at exactly the same brightness and colour? Note that even if that was the case, parallax ensures that any such ufo would NOT be in the right position for any other observer outside the region where the image was taken.

What's even more damning is that none of the above requires anything but an error on behalf of the person who took the image. If he were deliberately faking it, then any number of simple techniques could create the halo/blur effect - from a sheet of crumpled cellophane through to a slightly smudged lens. And if he took several attempts, then he could have simply picked the one with the coolest looking motion track..

i mean, we've had people here saying it's definitely the ISS, no doubt about it...

And those folks had nothing to back that up, except a vague claim about the shape.

But you've now been shown definitive, verifiable, irrefutable references to show that the locations of those trails are exactly the same as the starfield identified, right down to EVERY detail.

to re-use my texta analogy

A bad analogy is like using a left handed screwdriver on a nail..

and while we're at it, 80iso? f'real?

What do you mean by f'real, exactly? Are you saying that ISO 80 images never have noise levels like that, even when shot at extremely low light levels and long exposures, and with their gamma/brightness adjusted? Can you tell me how you have determined what the image *should* look like?

how on earth did this happen?
what is going on here?

I'm sorry, but what is happening here is that your puzzlement appears to relate to a lack of experience. There are some topics where mine is sorely lacking too, but this isn't one of them.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by decepticonLaura
but i am totally not going for the star-jiggle explanation
mostly because i am a terrible photographer
and if there is anything i know about
it's camera shake. especially applied to bright lights in darkness.

Thing is, how much experience do you have with optics generally?

Can I ask some simple questions of you -
What if the lens was being *focused* during that 5 second exposure? What effect would you expect to see?
What if an element of the lens/telescope was just beginning to mist up? (you must know that this is a common issue with astrophotography..?) Again, what would you expect to see?

i will admit candidly i have little expeience of astophotography
i've played around with telescopes and various cameras before, but nothing particularly serious
i haven't seen anything that would lead me to expect movement/focussing could cause an effect like that though

yeah, let's say it's focussing
let's also say it's beginning to mist up
what both of things should do - generally do - in the real world -
is to blurr the light source. or disperse it. or make it bloom. or funky combinations of those.
all of which do trippy things
but come on
that thing has CORNERS
light and dark spots consistent with an illuminated object
even fins! by the look of it!

to re-use my texta analogy

A bad analogy is like using a left handed screwdriver on a nail..

I'm sorry, but what is happening here is that your puzzlement appears to relate to a lack of experience. There are some topics where mine is sorely lacking too, but this isn't one of them.

gosh, and thanks for being such a sweetheart about it.
hey tell you what, since you're so smart and i'm so lacking in experience
could you do me a favour and take some shots replicating this effect?
i mean seriously
if this really is just an effect created by blur and focus of a single light point
imagine the things one could draw in the sky with a little practice.

First up, I note you didn't answer the questions I posed. So it is not all that surprising when you say:

Originally posted by decepticonLaura
i will admit candidly i have little expeience[sic] of astophotography[sic]

Right. That much is quite clear. Now.. what is this thread about?

As another analogy... I have little experience of neurosurgery. So.... I don't post confident rebuttals of things I do not understand at neurosurgery forums, as I know I will almost certainly be wrong...

i haven't seen anything that would lead me to expect movement/focussing could cause an effect like that though

But given what you 'admit' above, why is that worthy of note?

Let's focus on the issue at hand. The image very clearly shows a fully identified starfield in the constellations of Hercules/Draco. The star trails are ALL indicative of the camera/scope being moved during the time of exposure. That movement may have been deliberate or accidental - I would suggest the former, but frankly that is irrelevant (except in determining if the claim was a hoax or simple misidentification - the behavior of the person who took the image (not the OP) at the French forum strongly suggests the former.)

And let's repeat - IT WAS THE MOVEMENT OF THE CAMERA/SCOPE that caused the jagged trail that looks vaguey like an aircraft. The slightly blurred/doubled appearance of the trail is likely due to misfocussing or other optical issues.

yeah, let's say it's focussing

Yeah let's do that, shall we? But let's NOT confuse the two issues. Focus may be responsible for the blur - NOT the jagged shape.

let's also say it's beginning to mist up

We only need ONE of those to explain the blurriness of the trail.. but yes, lets...

what both of things should do - generally do - in the real world -
is to blurr the light source. or disperse it. or make it bloom. or funky combinations of those.

Yes, you are correct... how funky!

but come on that thing has CORNERS

The CORNERS come from CAMERA/SCOPE MOVEMENT. Will that ever sink in? NOBODY said that misfocus or misting caused the shape of the trail. If you had done any time exposures of, say, city lights, you must have seen this effect.

light and dark spots consistent with an illuminated object

As the movement is erratic in both direction and speed, of course the trail is going to have light and dark bits. As you like challenges, show us an example of an 'illuminated object' that looks like that..

even fins! by the look of it!

Looking like something doesn't make it into that something..

I'm sorry, but what is happening here is that your puzzlement appears to relate to a lack of experience. There are some topics where mine is sorely lacking too, but this isn't one of them.

gosh, and thanks for being such a sweetheart about it.

No problems, but try not to take it personally. I'm just pointing out all the holes in your posts.

If this was me at that neurosurgery forum, I'd be starting to realise by now I was out of my depth, and I wouldn't take that personally...

hey tell you what, since you're so smart and i'm so lacking in experience
could you do me a favour and take some shots replicating this effect?
i mean seriously

Your sarcasm is misplaced. No, I won't 'take some shots'. Why? Many reasons:
- I already have many images showing the individual effects
- replicating that shot would require the same type of camera, the same scope, the same GoTo drive, and a knowledge of exactly what he did - you supply me with all those and I'll do it..
- doing so would encourage laziness - why didn't you Google it and find these *yourself*?
Handheld star trails:

Deliberately shaken image:

Defocussed star trails:

If anyone else can't put two and two together and see how the effect was generated, please point out what it is you are having difficulty with.

imagine the things one could draw in the sky with a little practice.

Yes, a little practice goes far (and it's the same effect whether the camera is moved, or the scene..):


And if you perhaps have a GoTo controller with skew control arrows, you could...

Oops, might I have given away a secret???? (Yes, I have a theory about how he got the aircraft shape, but I'm pretty sure we will never find out for sure and I'm over this, so I'm going back to the occasional lurk...)

reply to post by elevenaugust


i believe he captured a 'squiggle star', as evidenced by the similar pattern distortions on the smaller starlike objects. i was once abducted by a squigglestar, but the memory has been erased. i only have flashbacks. but even that doesnt explain those big-eyed smallish clone creatures that think ima chimp and inhabit my subconsciousness. its alot to think about. alot.

Hi, folks, just passing, decided to make a rare visit.. I thought of this thread after I was out doing some tests of a new camera, and one of my images got a bump during the exposure...

The bump was me going into the menu system, not realising I was taking an image at the time. And I seem to have created half an aircraft silhouette entirely by accident.. No, it's not exactly the same as the image being discussed, but when you add all these effects together and consider the perfect match to a region of stars..

Game over. The fact that the claimant tried to pass this off as being in the direction of Polaris makes it very likely to have been a deliberate hoax - he tried to throw us off the trail, and failed..