so ufos are real, it turns out

How's life?
DEyncourt
Posts: 18546
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Post by DEyncourt »

"Don't you know that ALL of those cameras AUTOMATICALLY remove EVERY errant artifact?"

I'm sure that argument has been made.

User avatar
jkahless
Posts: 6621
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Title: Custom Title

Post by jkahless »

I did find some posts on reddit with camera wiggles, but they're not hard to identify if you turn up the brightness and zoom in and see there's trails on every star over a certain magnitude.

DEyncourt
Posts: 18546
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Post by DEyncourt »

Links please?

User avatar
jkahless
Posts: 6621
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Title: Custom Title

Post by jkahless »

https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/e ... sure_ufos/

Weird that every bright star has the same artifact, eh? ;)

DEyncourt
Posts: 18546
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Post by DEyncourt »

jkahless wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 2:18 am

https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/e ... sure_ufos/

Weird that every bright star has the same artifact, eh? ;)

Actually not really.

Y'know how in astrophotography SOME stars appear with spikes:

Image

Those spikes are called diffraction spikes. They are caused by how in reflecting telescopes the light from the main mirror is redirected by another mirror to the recorder/instruments off in some direction. That secondary mirror is held in place by supports. It is the light that wraps around those supports AND gathered during long exposures that creates diffraction spikes. Actually ALL the stars in my example pic have diffraction spikes but the exposure time wasn't long enough to reveal those spikes for the dimmer stars. This phenomenon is such that some people EXPECT diffraction spikes:

This is not a star. Stars have pointy bits!

WonderDome visitor, age 7

To be sure, diffraction spikes do not explain your pic. Chances are that pic was taken with the assistance of a telephoto lens which most often are NOT reflecting telescopes (so no supports for a secondary mirror). On the other hand, flaws within telephoto lenses and within the cameras themselves are not unknown. As above, a longer exposure might have revealed that all the stars shown have that odd addition. A simpler test would be to have that astrophotographer take another pic with the same gear and exposure time but of a different region in the night sky though with similarly bright stars.

So...UFO or lens/camera flaw?

You probably will not see diffraction spikes nor lens flaws when taking any daytime pics using the same gear. The MUCH shorter exposure time in combination with light from all sources within a daytime pic usually will overwhelm such artifacts. Astrophotography has a tendency to expose all such problems in part because usually there isn't anything else in astropics to cover up flaws.

User avatar
jkahless
Posts: 6621
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Title: Custom Title

Post by jkahless »

If you look closely at the high magnitude stars in the linked photo, you'll see the same _| shaped squiggle. It's most prominent on the brightest stars, and fades away as the stars get fainter ones. To me that looks exactly like a small camera shake from depressing the shutter release on a long exposure.

DEyncourt
Posts: 18546
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Post by DEyncourt »

So you cited this Reddit posting as a GOOD example of suspicious UFO pics?

User avatar
jkahless
Posts: 6621
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Title: Custom Title

Post by jkahless »

I think we have a communications breakdown, I was doing the opposite!

User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 46649
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: Screen toucher
Contact:

Post by ukimalefu »

jkahless wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 11:24 pm

I think we have a communications breakdown, I was doing the opposite!

https://youtu.be/452XjnaHr1A?t=20

User avatar
jkahless
Posts: 6621
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Title: Custom Title

Post by jkahless »

ukimalefu wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 1:43 am
jkahless wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 11:24 pm

I think we have a communications breakdown, I was doing the opposite!

https://youtu.be/452XjnaHr1A?t=20

:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2atkj_KWLl0

DEyncourt
Posts: 18546
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Post by DEyncourt »

But are there any cases which make you say: "Huh, lookathat."

Or maybe don't bother since we will just be at the place of wondering if anything is valid.

--

BTW the folks at BoingBoing.net recently published a link to a database of alleged UFO reports from around the US. I mention this here only because it is related, but the actual descriptions of each incident and the details are so sparse that you aren't at all tempted to say: "Well, looks like someone got a nice high recently."

User avatar
jkahless
Posts: 6621
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Title: Custom Title

Post by jkahless »

DEyncourt wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 4:47 am

But are there any cases which make you say: "Huh, lookathat."

Or maybe don't bother since we will just be at the place of wondering if anything is valid.

--

BTW the folks at BoingBoing.net recently published a link to a database of alleged UFO reports from around the US. I mention this here only because it is related, but the actual descriptions of each incident and the details are so sparse that you aren't at all tempted to say: "Well, looks like someone got a nice high recently."

None that I've been able to find.

I'm a giant skeptic of human observation. Just yesterday I misread something and I swear I actually saw the wrong word, I have a vivid memory of the page. When I said "If I was a UFP true believer" it's because I'm really not.

Post Reply