Some intriguing images snapped by a photographer in Colorado ..,

Thanks Cripmeister!

Well, as I strongly suspected it, it was only a lens flare effect:



The photos showed in the original source site was a cropped version without the light sources in the foreground.

I've created last month a thread here that explains the effect, but here's an extract on how it works:

The flare is generally due to the presence of a protective filter in the camera, after the lens. The flare is a mirror ghost of the original bright object, with the image center serving as a point of symmetry (or point reflection).



All dimensions are, most of the time, perfectly preserved, which suggests that reflections at planar surfaces are responsible.



Let's see how it works with the figure below:



Black arrows indicate the light rays of a distant bright light source that form a regular image point on the film (1). Values for the reflectance of undeveloped photographic film vary from 15% to 40% [see sources 1,2], which makes the film a much stronger reflector than any optical component in the lens.

So, a significant percentage of the light is reflected off the film, partly specular and partly diffuse. (For convenience, we will consider that paths of the reflected light are the same and thus are already drawn for the incident light).
Thus, the blue arrows indicate light reflected from the film. This light encounters the filter, which specularly reflects a small fraction (red arrows). The red rays are parallel and consequently focused onto a point on the film. (2)

The virtual source of the mirror point is traced by the dashed black lines. Note that the blue rays reflected by the film seem odd from the viewpoint of specular reflection; they merely illustrate the fact that all light rays that originate from a single point on the film, and which are collected by the lens, emerge parallel at the filter.






Here, the filter that was used is curved, thus the difference in the distance between the central point and the light source and its ghost image

Not all light reflected off the film makes it back to the mirror point. The presence of an aperture stop further reduces the number of rays allowed to return to the film.

The risk of being confronted with filter flare reduces with a smaller focal length, a smaller aperture (larger F-number), an increased separation of highlights from the image center, and with a better filter quality. However, by far the most secure way to avoid this type of flare is to omit the filter altogether.

People who want to try their luck with UFOs may improve their chances by using a tele lens at a large aperture. I guess that, instead of a filter, a lens element with a flat face could also give rise to mirror ghosts.

[1] SPSE handbook of photographic science and engineering, edited by Woodlief Thomas Jr., John Whiley & sons, p. 204 (1973).
[2] Sidney F. Ray, Applied photographic optics, 3rd ed., Focal Press, p. 139 (2002).

Originally posted by SoulVoid

Right. He called NORAD.

reply to post by Phage

 

RIGHT. I have to believe in everything you say..cause

Why doesn't he just provide the RAW images?

Why you don´t ask him??..

And as i know you maybe be a respected member in Ats but you have been right so many times like you have been wrong.
And if i recall some threads where you get your ass handed to you, you just back out without no response.

So i thank you for your opinion, but please

I've noticed you have been on ATS after this has been debunked, but you haven't been back to respond. Is it hard to type with your posterior in your hands?

Originally posted by elevenaugust
Thanks Cripmeister!

Well, as I strongly suspected it, it was only a lens flare effect:

The photos showed in the original source site was a cropped version without the light sources in the foreground.

So, yet again, as always, it turns out it was just lens flare.
Thankyou elevenaugust for all your work in posting comparison photos in the interest of denying ingorance and getting at the real truth of the matter.

I'm curious in regard to posters that actually believed this photo might be aliens, and even got a littl floamy at the mouth about it, what they have to say now?

Hopefully, for some, a lesson has been learned here; don't invest so much emotional bank in ambiguous lights in the sky that have much more sensible explanations other than aliens.
Usually, the truth is much more boring than any speculation.

Bores Law: When presented with fantastic evidence that could indicate fantastic events, the most boring explanation is likely the most correct.

I just made that up as a slant on Occam's Razor.

So it was a digital camera and he wasn't using a filter so that's that part of the "explanation" dealt with. Just alittle matter of as well...

I would like everyone to keep in mind, I saw these lights with my set of eyes. If someone can manage to align the lights in the foreground (excluded from the cropped images) then you can call me crazy. These lights appeared to me as the brightest lights in the sky that night. I agree, they are much harder to see in the RAW image. Obviously the point of RAW images is the ability to manipulate the light conditions. The second picture of the lights, as pointed out by roger D – and I acknowledge this, was taken at a different angle; however, the lights remained in the same position in the sky.

Greg Archer


Now, I don't know if the guy is just spinning a yarn, he could well be, then again, so are some on here when they proudly announce, case closed. with the same amount of slapdash conclusions based on falsehoods they spend half of their spare time accusing others of.

Personally, I have my suspicions about the veracity of the picture, that said, so far, I've yet to be convinced by anyone's prosaic explanation for them. We still have photos of "unknown lights in the sky", nothing more nothing less, no aliens, no spaceships just unknown lights. Maybe it says much of certain people's absolute desperation to explain them, no matter how much they choose to ignore the given evidence, as it does about other's desire for them to be from Zeta Reticulae .

reply to post by Druscilla


well...there still remains the possibility of orbs "acting" like lens flares. They are pretty tricky ya know.

reply to post by Druscilla



Rather than sit here pontificating, why not nip over and tell Greg, on the forum he's posting on, he's a liar?

Many people have mentioned reflections, which was easy for me to rule out, because I saw the lights in the sky that night with the naked eye. It definitely irritated me that some were willing to question my credibility. Greg Archer

Now, I don't know if the guy is just spinning a yarn, he could well be, then again, so are some on here when they proudly announce, case closed. with the same amount of slapdash conclusions based on falsehoods they spend half of their spare time accusing others of.

Personally, I have my suspicions about the veracity of the picture, that said, so far, I've yet to be convinced by anyone's prosaic explanation for them. We still have photos of "unknown lights in the sky", nothing more nothing less, no aliens, no spaceships just unknown lights. Maybe it says much of certain people's absolute desperation to explain them, no matter how much they choose to ignore the given evidence, as it does about other's desire for them to be from Zeta Reticulae .

which part of the explaination don't you agree with? from the "given evidence" it seems to me it was proven to be lens flares...sorry, case closed.

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Rather than sit here pontificating, why not nip over and tell Greg, on the forum he's posting on, he's a liar?

Many people have mentioned reflections, which was easy for me to rule out, because I saw the lights in the sky that night with the naked eye. It definitely irritated me that some were willing to question my credibility. Greg Archer

edit on 23-7-2012 by FireMoon because: add information

To me whether or not Greg "lied" is not the issue. The fact of the matter is that the photo he presented showed a lens flare effect. Maybe he saw something, maybe he hallucinated, maybe he lied....whatever...bottom line is that this was an orb-less photo.

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Rather than sit here pontificating, why not nip over and tell Greg, on the forum he's posting on, he's a liar?

Many people have mentioned reflections, which was easy for me to rule out, because I saw the lights in the sky that night with the naked eye. It definitely irritated me that some were willing to question my credibility. Greg Archer

edit on 23-7-2012 by FireMoon because: add information

His enormously tacky company logo is such a gigantic beast on the first photos out, it was evident right away this guy was anything but a professional photographer though he claimed to be one.
Most real professional photographers will use much much smaller watermarks, if any are used at all.

If someone is going to lie about being an actual professional photographer just because they have an over inflated idealized image about themselves, and because they think having a company logo on their photos automatically makes them a Pro, then, it's not too far a stretch to consider other deceptions might be at play.

Of course he lied and I suspected from the start he was lying, not because of any lens flare effect simply because. I was pretty sure, I'd seen hose particular lights before in a video from a totally different country to the USA.

In my opinion, the guy might have seen something, been frustrated he couldn't take a picture that showed them. Came home, went online found,something that looked similar and then hoaxed the picture and used one of several programmes that allow you to screw around with the EXIF data. I suspect, someone has quietly emailed him and told him as much and gave him the chance to own up in his own way rather than, be exposed as an outright hoaxer.

As such, I believe this thread belongs in the hoax files

reply to post by FireMoon


Thank you Ats members for solving this mistery

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Rather than sit here pontificating, why not nip over and tell Greg, on the forum he's posting on, he's a liar?

Many people have mentioned reflections, which was easy for me to rule out, because I saw the lights in the sky that night with the naked eye. It definitely irritated me that some were willing to question my credibility. Greg Archer

edit on 23-7-2012 by FireMoon because: add information

His enormously tacky company logo is such a gigantic beast on the first photos out, it was evident right away this guy was anything but a professional photographer though he claimed to be one.
Most real professional photographers will use much much smaller watermarks, if any are used at all.

If someone is going to lie about being an actual professional photographer just because they have an over inflated idealized image about themselves, and because they think having a company logo on their photos automatically makes them a Pro, then, it's not too far a stretch to consider other deceptions might be at play.

He explained to me (via email) that the logos were put there because he initially posted the photos on Facebook and he wanted to make sure he got credit for them. As far as I am concerned the case is closed on the lights in his photos, now if he saw something that evidently wasn't captured on camera that's another story, another discussion.

reply to post by cripmeister

that's another story, another discussion

The word confabulation comes to mind.

reply to post by SoulVoid


See the problem is with hoaxes is this. If you explain actually the full mechanism for the hoax you are, in effect, giving everyone a 101 on how to fake a picture. As you can imagine that does no good in the long run and people posting details of certain applications and programmes just acts as encouragement to others to do exactly the same.

I phoned someone yesterday and asked them had they seen these photos, as they've been receiving a fair bit of publicity.They had and they also said I wasn't the first person to point out that the "lights" looked like those from a video posted on youtube some time time ago. The fact is, I suspect those who actually do keep a weather eye out for photos and videos elsewhere, saw these particular photos and thought the same and that someone quietly did the requisite work on them sent their thoughts and work to the guy and said.."Choice is yours, withdraw and bow out with a modicum of your reputation still intact, or be exposed as an outright hoaxer".

It's a delicate balancing act, as I said, would it be sensible to post a virtual 101 on how to fake a photo and how to screw with the EXIF data and leave no trace? Then there's the issue of the hoaxer them self. There are those who do it "just for a laugh" there are those who do it for far deeper reasons and there is a certain desperation involved in the hoax. If you just go steaming in their shouting the odds you could, quite possibly, cause something of a disaster on a personal level. Now, I'm all for exposing fakes, on the other hand, I also don't believe in kicking someone when they are down. In the current economic climate there are whole professions going to the wall where, only 5 years ago, they felt relatively secure in their work. In the light of that, simply charging in all guns blazing shouting HOAXER!!!, would seem to be the wrong tactic. In fact, doing so is often totally counter productive as it sees the hoaxer simply dig their heels in and defend their position even harder.

The problem with boards like these is that, they are full of people who are about me me me me me... the sort of people who think empathy is a coastal resort in Italy.

most actual professional photographers don't need to put their company logo on their pictures so large it fills up 1/4 the photo.

Professional photographers don't cover 1/4 of their photos with gigantic logos either.

reply to post by Druscilla


That´s all you have to say in your posts??

Thanks anyways





Now I am just saying, I fit 13 of the pics on this one.....Doesn't quite seem like a quarter of the picture to me, unless I am missing something?

Oh, maybe I am missing the credibility of the photographer because he or she has a logo on their pic..

.Picture HERE[

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein

most actual professional photographers don't need to put their company logo on their pictures so large it fills up 1/4 the photo.

Professional photographers don't cover 1/4 of their photos with gigantic logos either.

reply to post by Druscilla

 

That´s all you have to say in your posts??

Thanks anyways

edit on 20-7-2012 by SoulVoid because: (no reason given)

Now I am just saying, I fit 13 of the pics on this one.....Doesn't quite seem like a quarter of the picture to me, unless I am missing something?

Oh, maybe I am missing the credibility of the photographer because he or she has a logo on their pic..

.Picture HERE[

For the sake of accuracy, this was not a "lens flare effect"': It was an internal reflection. And it was not a reflection on a flat UV filter: The reflected light pattern is about 7% smaller than the source, so it was a reflection from a curved lens element.

On the intrepidmag.com board, I asked Greg Archer for copies of the originals and he sent them to me Sunday morning. It didn't take long to confirm that these were internal reflections, and I sent him back some animated gifs that conclusively proved that (which are now posted on that board, if you want to see them). It didn't take Greg very long to post that he now believes that explanation.

I've considered myself an amateur debunker for many years, ever since doing my own "pyramid power" experiments back in the 70s, and I freely admit that I began looking at these photos with the intent of finding a mundane explanation. But if I can't find an explanation that I can support with evidence and sound logic, I don't bother posting unsubstantiated speculation. I have to say that this case produced some of the sloppiest, laziest "debunking" I've ever seen. Virtually every explanation that was offered could have easily been ruled out with a little actual work and some actual objective thought. And it should have been. I found this thread because the Anomalist site had a link to it today, claiming that "hot pixels" was a credible explanation. No, it was not, as proved by simply noting that the camera had been rotated between the two shots, but the dots stayed parallel to the horizon, not the image frame.

Those of you who can't keep your fingers off the keyboard with the first half-baked thought that pops into your head aren't doing anyone any good.

reply to post by RogerD


I wish to thank you for joining ATS, and perhaps you'd like to post in the Introduction Forum, to formally introduce yourself.

However, member elevenaugust has debunked this series of pictures, HERE.

I will also state for the record, that all UFO pics wind up here. We also explain them.

I'm sorry you don't agree, but RAW images don't lie. You can't deny ignorance without accepting facts.

A different standard from what you are used to? Yep. That's what we do here.

Certainly no offense intended to you or elevenaugust, Druid42, but it would appear that you didn't read my post carefully. As I had already demonstrated to Greg Archer and had posted on the intrepidmag.com board (before elevenaugust's post, because I got my copy of the raw files first ), elevenaugust is (almost) correct with his explanation. I was objecting to the use of the term "lens flare" to mean an internal reflection. Our language is imprecise enough without using the same term for two rather different things, especially when one of those things already has a perfectly good, self-explanatory name. Hopefully, one small nuance I added to the understanding of that particular photo is that, contrary to speculation, it was not an internal reflection from a flat UV filter. Although that's the most common cause, it isn't necessarily the case; with bright enough lights and long exposures, you can get them from lens elements, too.

However, that was a rather minor point of my post. Did you have any comment on the rest?