Strange streak discussion: 2004 Dec 7 APOD

[Dorene]

A dark laser beam? Is that like a darkness sucker? I learned in school that lamps don't emit light, they suck up darkness. That's why lamps in circuit diagrams are designated with the letters DS.

[Jaredzanpuk]

TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING WAS SHOT OUT OF THE OCEAN, AT JET LIKE SPEED AND THE SHOT BARELY CAUGHT THE FLASH AND THE JET STREEM....

[lstrauss]

** leppy **
while you're oot & aboot, could you also let us know what types of flying insects are most common in this harbor area and give us an idea of their dimensions if possible?
thanks mate
(and yes, uku: All us thread-readers are feeling your pain...)

[RicKK]

Ok, The lights are on left and to the right for the sake of those you can't see the little bright balls on top of the poles..
The so called smoke is the negative of the flash when the bulb burnt.
If you notice the round bulb area in the middle and then the line which is the post. Reason it's on that side is because the buld is hanging out towards the water or off center from the pole and 180 degrees from the long shadow into the sky.
Rixster

[Cal]

The light pole illumination was just a coincidence. The shadow trail trajectory was quite a distance behind the light pole.
The path of the shadow indicated that the event was about 1 to 2 hours after sunrise or before sunset. Data about the time of day or direction of the view depicted are not provided. Additionally, we don't know if the image was magnified or compressed.

Dense small clouds sometimes produce this shadow affect, but not this distinctly. I believe that some large passenger aircraft made a brief shadow that was recorded in this image. I have seen shadows like this before.
Cal

[trigger]

Although the streak resembles contrail shadows I have viewed, in order for that to expain the image, the sun would have to be off to the top left of the frame. The image looks like the sun is off the upper right.

[ukuleledre]

y'all are all suckers. it's a reflection on the window! you're trying too hard! i reckon there'll be no consensus for APOD from this list.

[DNI/27]

It is a prototype jet laser camo... it was caught on film just as it flew down from space.

[JRinOKC]

Here are a couple of shots of a contrail shadow I took in August of 2002 you can use for comparison:
http://www2.okstorms.com:8080/images/20020822_15.jpg
http://www2.okstorms.com:8080/images/20020822_16.jpg

[Robert Swafford]

Possibly the gray streak is un-related to the flash. Was it on any other frames before or after the flash? As I zoom in, it seams to end at the horizon.
The smoke area appears as reflection on the water beyond the light pole. I believe the light bulb burned out with a flash as they often do.
I don't believe it was balled lightening having observed it more than once through the years. It has always been during very damp humid warm nights.
Masonbob32

[hashar]

Can't it be a bug in the jpeg / raw digital camera ?

The whole scene is dark but the flash lamp could have puzzled the digital camera sensor. It then created the shadow.

I believe the shadow never existed, only the lamp flash.

[James]

Although the streak resembles contrail shadows I have viewed, in order for that to expain the image, the sun would have to be off to the top left of the frame. The image looks like the sun is off the upper right.

As has been mentioned MANY times ... why would a contrail (or anything similar) appear and then disappear within 15 seconds?

I'm concerned by the date time stamps on the before and after photos, which appear to show that both were taken BEFORE the actual shot? Wayne, care to explain?

[Hunter555]

To answer some peoples questions above: The common species of Australian fly range from between 8mm and 12mm in length. They can fly up to 58km/h.

[LookinOnInLaughter]

Gee, while so many people point out that this non-bug related contrail is caused by film defects in the pictures that were taken and developed sometime that we weren't told, at a location that was unknown, but obviously under alien/meteor attack, I have only a couple of questions.

When the tintypes were made, did they use enough flash powder? And did anyone move at all while they were being made?


(Seriously, Please read ALL that has been posted before posting yourself. We would all appreciate it!)

[victorengel]

My objection to the bug is not based on the straight line, that makes sense to me. For me it's the lack of detail in the body, the brightness of the back end. I would think that there would be some body parts visible, not just the ethreal reflection of the light. If this is a bug, surely someone, somewhere has captured a similar picture. I'd like to see another picture to compare it too. Space junk or meteors may be uncommon, but everyone has a digital camera these days.

Bear in mind that the camera has been set up to take a proper exposure without flash (otherwise the background would be dark). Hence, the intensity of the flash is very weak, otherwise it would tend to overexpose the picture.

I may not be easy, but can't we get an approximate size on the bug by using the shutter speed to determine the distance the black line encompases (using a reasonable speed for a bug), or the width of the black line as the body width for a distance comparison. Is there an entomologist in the house.

You'd need to know how far away the bug is. But maybe we can get some idea by using some depth of field calculations. That would require knowing something about the lens (focal length) and sensor of the camera.

[victorengel]

Here's what I think I'm seeing:
1) It's not an insect. Regardless of when the flash went off, the dark trail is never as wide as the white puff around the lighted object. If it were an insect, you'd expect to see some parts of the trail being that wide as the insect flies.

That's because the white puff is the wings, which, being transparent, don't block out the sky. However, they do reflect the flash.

[sam]

I'm in the area. I just went down and took some photos of the area, but couldn't find the vantage point he used.

I also couldn't get a close picture of the lamp post because the warf is a restricted area.

If someone wants to mirror them (about 11MB in a zip) shoot me a line at sam - at - samhaddow.com and i'll getthem to you. Only email me if you're prepared to mirror, becuase i'm on a dialup connection and the email will take forever for me to send.

[interlocutor]

i wish i could say "before we get out of hand here..." but it seems to be too late for that. is it a bug? is it a plane? no! its your limited perception!!

[Axle]

The astromonical odds of the insect theory, I suppose, fit into the theme of Astronomy Picture of the Day. Although the insect flight coinciding with the failure flash of the bulb appears to fit the image, the statistical odds of actually capturing this image at a point in time are just, well, astronomical.

The coincidence not only involves the flight of the insect timed with the bulb failure and the camera shutter, but also several other variables which several writers here have mentioned. One complex variable is the exact three-dimensional physical position of the insect. Also, the velocity of the insect creates the perfect streak that intersects with a flash failure of the bulb. Are the odds so great to say it is impossible? Or, is this a one in a ten to the twentieth occurrence?

Clearly the before and after images demonstrate that the streak and flash is an instantaneous, short-lived event such as a meteor or lightning strike, both of which have been logically eliminated. But, both of these phenomenon, it intuitively seems, have more favorable odds with regards to the type of image that would be captured. But, certain elements are missing.

The insect hypothesis is certainly intriguing, but I think it would be very difficult to reproduce. Also, the dark streak seems too well-defined to be a close-up, flying insect (in my opinion). I wish I could offer up some kind of explanation, but sometimes it seems easier to refute.

[lstrauss]

** RJN **
I think we're done.
The only hypothesis with any support is a flying insect, as seen in enhanced images provided by multiple different collaborators. We can't estimate its speed, dimension, or distance from lens (although we may constrain some of these variables).
great demonstration that "Many minds make quick work of uncertainty."
Lewis

[jetfuel]

working for an aerospace company I have seen this quite a few times. when Jet fuel ie: kerosene burns in an extreamly cold environment the moisture formed causes a vapor trail. In the way the light is diffusing as sunset nears causes vapor trails to take on strange cofigurations

[eric gibson]

could it be the result of a sonic boom. The curve is the compression at the time of impact which caused a vibration of the filament causing it to surge and fail.

There was a large meteor on the east Australian coast on 7 dec. This could have caused a shockwave?

[B1gDaddy0Wizard]

Without the aid of seeing more before and after photos, my first reaction is to just say the the light bulb blew coming on for whatever reason,
and that the movement of the handheld (? it was handheld wasn't it) camera caused in some fashion the streak to appear on the film of imaging plate if the camera was a digital cd type. The fact that it does not appear before nor after according to the article must lead us to believe that it is a phenomena strictly with the camera, the holder of same, and the imaging film or electronics inside for just a moment exhibiting some property not expected which made the streak. It would seem that it would have to be with the imaging device and the holder somehow combined together.

[Castle1987]

If you sharpen the "after" image, the streak can still be seen just to the right of its original position....

[Guest]

I like the insect theory because it fits the picture so well, but the straightness of the streak puts me off a bit. I adjusted contrast up and brightness down, then put this picture of a fly beside it...


...

The enhanced photo is very interesting, since there is a halo visible around the light. Whatever is going on, the dark streak and the bright line against the water are the result of the light blowing out and not the other way around.

I go along with the theory of the light bursting and hurling something at a great speed in the direction of the streak. Perhaps it could be determined if the streak is in fact bent slightly downwards towards the left? If so, the light is the source of the object. If it is the other way around, then there is evidence for a meteor. If neither, then the streak is not due to a moving massive object.

EMS