Celestial Being Caught on Camera? WTH is This?!!!

reply to post by rocktsar


Great suggestion!
I don't think my camera has a timer; I can't find it. But with all the other settings it has, surely it does.
I'll have to get someone who knows more about it to show me where it is.

Now, where did I put that book that came with this thing?!

reply to post by sled735


I'm sure it has one. I bet you can find a pdf of your manual online.

reply to post by rocktsar


Ha! Another GOOD idea!

Thanks! LOL

reply to post by sled735


This almost shocked me to see. For the past 2 weeks, at a friend's house, I have seen almost the exact same thing, only this orange light looks more like it is in the woods at the skyline. This is also in East Tn. I have no explanation as to what it could be but I'm going to try to walk to it and take pictures.

what ever it is ...... its big..

Quietwhisper
what ever it is ...... its big..

Please explain how you worked that out ?

reply to post by sled735


Is it a possibility that it might be a reflection in the atmosphere of lights on the ground? I have seen instances where the shoreline at the beach was reflected out at sea making it look like there was a city out at sea where it did not exist. I have to wonder whether conditions high in the atmosphere could also exhibit this property. This would also explain why the light appears to shift and stream. Just a thought.

reply to post by takeindecision


Awesome! Be careful out there in those woods. All kinds of creatures lurk around in there!

Please post anything you get.

reply to post by saturnsrim


Thank you for your feedback, but, no, it isn't a reflection. I saw this all the way from my house to my workplace, which is almost twenty miles.

We have it figured out, I think. It's just something caused from shaking the camera.

But, wait until I get a picture of the one flashing red and green lights. That will really give you all something to debunk. LOL It keeps hiding on me when I have my camera, but I'll get it one of these days!

reply to post by sled735


I just wanted to point out that thermal layers in the atmosphere can cause this effect and can be observed up to 50 miles depending on how high the layer forms. These layers can form a almost any altitude and these reflections can account for many sightings thought to be UFO's. I have been witness to two sightings that did not exhibit this trick of light. One was back during the sixties and is one of the most well known of sightings. This was the one of a circle of lights with two lights toward the center and has been shown on many specials about UFO's. The lights were all in a fixed position around the center light and did not change position in relation to the center as it moved across the sky. If you have ever observed a satellite when it moves across the sky then you have noticed how clear and steady the light is as it travels from horizon to horizon. Light refraction on the atmosphere does not exhibit these properties and can appear to be fading in and out or dancing around as the layer shifts. My second observation was in Miami FL. in broad daylight and consisted of three objects in formation at about 1000 feet in altitude and they were very clear images. I hope you can get your next photo's with a zoom lens or possibly a telescope mounted camera. The greater the detail with your image the better. Good luck.

lovebeck
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

I do.

You can create some amazing celestial beings with camera shake and hot pixels.

That's going above and beyond. You can literally take a picture of your own shadow and someone on this site will say it's a demon sasquatch hybrid.

To my eyes, without reading to much into it, it looks like you attempted to hand hold a night time sky shot, with a point and shoot digital camera (Kodak Easyshare M1033). The camera did it's best to bring out details from the dark. In doing so, it revealed its limitations, or hot pixels. The "stars" you see in the background area are probably hot pixels. Hot pixels are on the camera sensor, and don't reveal camera shake because they move with the camera. On the other hand, the bright light you were focused on, was actually a brighter light source in the sky than the usual stars. When you took the photo, either the camera moved during the exposure, or the object moved, creating the "trail" effect. The camera may have been resting on a car that was running, which would certainly translate vibrations, into light patterns. Hmm, creative idea! [Note to self]

I have used this trail effect in my photography. Purposely moving my camera, to reveal the colors of a scintillating star, for example.



MY PHOTO OF A SCINTILLATING STAR




In your photos, the object was not scintillating, at least in colors. It remained a steady color during the exposure, although it's intensity appeared to fluctuate a bit.

That's my take on it, but I would love to learn more details on how you took the shot. What did it look like to the naked eye? A dot, a streak, steady, blinking, changing colors, flashing...etc? I will now go back and read the thread to see if I can learn more.

misskat1
This may have been covered, but Mufon and Linda Howe, have been talking about the orange balls of light or orange meteors. They have asked anyone with a sighting or with pictures to contact them with your information.

Hello did you read the thread? It wasn't covered you know why? Because that's not what it is.

I'll refer you and the OP to Eriktheawfuls posts. He nailed it.

Sheesh people.

hi i know im a bit late to this thread but i have on;y just seen it, as soon as I looked at the image in the OP I noticed a striking similarity to some of the hessdalen lights phenomenon photos.






www.hessdalen.org...

a reply to: kamatty

It's never too late to post more information.
Thanks, I'll have a look when time permits.

a reply to: sled735

Well here is some new and some old info the camera is a KODAK EASYSHARE M1033 DIGITAL CAMERA according to the exif data on the shots, the pictures were long exposures on a POOR quality camera, to prove the point here is a link to quality at various iso settings in GOOD light not at night!!!!

asset2.cbsistatic.com...

The pictures were taken at iso 64 at 15.1 mm which is near the top range of the 3x optical zoom (18mm)
The Sensor size 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) TINY little sensors like that do not perform well with night shots, sensor noise is a real problem.

It struggles to take a good image in normal light then in the dark you have no chance and if no remote release or self timer was used then the shape of the light source is caused by movement of the camera as you press the trigger and this movement would be magnified by the amount of zoom and distance to object plain and simple.

originally posted by: sled735

The third picture looks like a celestial being of some sort. I can see a head with eyes, a body with arms over it's torso, and legs.

What are your thoughts?

My initial thoughts are "what the Hell is a celestial being and how many different sorts are there?".

a reply to: draknoir2

"The word celestial is primarily used to describe things that have to do with the heavens such as angels, spirits, stars and planets. It does not come from words meaning God or soul though, but from the Latin word for sky caelestis, which also gave rise to the word ceiling."

A dictionary could be your friend.

originally posted by: sled735
a reply to: draknoir2

"The word celestial is primarily used to describe things that have to do with the heavens such as angels, spirits, stars and planets. It does not come from words meaning God or soul though, but from the Latin word for sky caelestis, which also gave rise to the word ceiling."

A dictionary could be your friend.

I didn't ask for the definition of the word "celestial".

It struggles to take a good image in normal light then in the dark you have no chance and if no remote release or self timer was used then the shape of the light source is caused by movement of the camera as you press the trigger and this movement would be magnified by the amount of zoom and distance to object plain and simple.

the photos I showed from the hesdalen project are from a camera mounted on a tripod, yes the shutter speed is slow as it needs to be to capture the small light source at night, however its not the camera moving that has caused these photos to look how they do, its the light moving incredibly fast.


sled735 did you have time to look into my post further?