Strange streak discussion: 2004 Dec 7 APOD

[Luis]

Hey Luis! You still there? How's the observing going? Figured out how to use that scope? Didja have a look at the moon? Found the Orion nebula yet? Wot about the comet?

Hey Wombat, still here but with cloudy weather for the last 3 nights! Managed to have a look at the moon, wow! it is great. But after that it's just been impossible. Today it's a clear morning here, I hope it will stay like that until night.

Cheers
Luis

[Luis]

Anyhow, I think victerengel's enhancements settle the "gap" question.
There is no gap at the end.
.

No? What is the missing section then? The shadow of the angel of death?

What I meant before was that the brightness of the ocean behind the beam, bleached out the polarizing effect.
The apparent gap at the left extreme of the beam is probably due to some optical effect of the cameras lens.

Oh! I see, you see the gap, but insist that is not there... Ah! Very scientific approach indeed.

An what do you exactly mean by a polarisation effect? Polarised light is invisible to a digital camera (and the eye) unless you use a polaroid filter. There is no evidence of such a filter having been used. All part of the secret way of setting up the "demo"?

I think that shock wave effect seen around the lamphead is the final proof of a micro wave beam weapon.

Apart from the fact that it missed the lamp, of course.

You can resist the evidence in front of you but I would guess that our competitors around the world have no doubts and have recieved the message loud and clear.

*Your* competitors? You and how many more?

I agree with the suggestion that you better go and play with your dog... It may help you.

[makc]

oh, come on! cut the crap!



it's a bee! what other proves you need?

[Guest]

This Trolling business is disturbing, I must say. http://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html

Oh, Please Stop

My sides are aching

I didn't know TROLLS could be so entertaining.

Hmmm,.....I didn't realize it was such a career.

[makc]

Remember, if you do follow up you are talking to an idiot. Treat them with the ill-respect they deserve.

[Guest]

Trolling is a clandestine effort, feigning interest in a subject with the
intent of dragging the participants into endless debate and comment.

Illuminating the absurd is the exact opposite.

[Guest]

This forum needs a moderator.

[nomore]

Okay... To end up this discussion, I've made an image where you can actually see the bee itself, but it seems victorengel was first to achieve this level of quality for bee shape...

Here are steps to re-produce image:

1. mix 50/50 before-after image, and filter it (Gaussian blur, 0.5 pix)
2. apply S-shaped Curves transform to bright-up bee (result)
3. put the result on top and swith to "lighter" layer mode (to remove lots of jpeg artifacts)
4. merge it with underlying layer copy to get it back to "normal"
5. now put the layer in the difference mode. it will be mostly too black to see anything, but don't be scared
6. select near-pitch-black color range (preview ON, GrayScale)

voila - there the bee is.

Hokum.
There is no logic to this process.
It is only a means to an end.
Why don't you just add a bee to the image?
That would bee just as scientific as this approach.

[victorengel]

DC only god knows what you're up to with those images.

Good question. I'm trying to find a way to bring out any hidden details in the event image that might help explain what it is. It is clear to me that whatever caused the most visible details also created a few more subtle details.

This is not clear at all. The noise introduced by the jpeg artifacts cannot be ignored. Whatever operations you apply to the images, should be applied to the full images. Then, when you are looking for details, you should compare to similar details elsewhere in the pictures.

Your item marked C, for example, is almost certainly just a jpeg artifact, perhaps exacerbated by in-camera sharpening of the edge of the pole. Similar artifacts are visible all over the images, most far removed from the event object.

[JK]

Early in the discussion someone reported being in communication
with the author of the photograph. Has he added anything further
or commented on the various theories?

[plusaf]

looking at the "just before" and just after" photos, i don't see any difference between the tops of the lamp post in both photos.

i think the chance of the questions about exploding lamps holds much water, because sodium or mercury-vapor lamps do not have high pressure in them until they've been on for several minutes. that's why they change color and intensity as they "warm up".

the image does look a bit like an insect near the lamp, and at least one of the photos seems to me to have some width to the dark band, which gives some credence to contrail shadow. unfortunately, while a contrail shadow might appear quickly as a jet passes overhead, and all the conditions are right, i don't think it would disappear as quickly. the contrail is "left behind" the jet, and would move or dissipate as a function of the velocity of the winds where the jet was flying, and to a much lesser degree, the motion of the cloud level that the shadow was cast on.

still an interesting one!
+af@+af.com

[Leyshon]

The other lights in the neighborhood are on, why would our lamp have been on also ?

When I first visited this site sveral days ago I thought this bee and contrail "theory" some kind of silly joke that had developed over these 136 pages of postings. Now I realize to my horror that people are actually taking that seriously.

I don't know what to say....

Well there's one thing to say I guess.....why am I wasting my time here ?

Bye bye

[PATODD]

After reviewing all the messages I have determined the average theory to be that the image represents an insect, possibly a bee, that was shot down near a light that did not work by a weapon or like device of unknown orgin. The weapon was in an air/space craft that either left a contrail or created a shaded ionized path that culminates at the junction where the beam/ray/energy source intersected with the insect.

This "average" theory can easily be duplicated by reading all of the messages while consuming a fifth of high quality distilled liquid.

Further study of the data indicate that the insect was likely a lighting bug rather than a bee. Flashing bees (pixelia buzillia) are generally not believed to be found in areas where digital cameras are located. The reason being that flashing bees have a highly developed pixel detection system and generally avoid areas where pixels are found.

Of course, the average theory concept is expandable and should include the possibility that the "insect" was actually a flying fish.

This has been a most interesting discussion that ranged from frivilous uninformed thoughts such as this, to far out intellectual idiocy. In some ways it is much like "The Blind Men and the Elephant".

[makc]

Okay... To end up this discussion, I've made an image where you can actually see the bee itself, but it seems victorengel was first to achieve this level of quality for bee shape...

Here are steps to re-produce image:

1. mix 50/50 before-after image, and filter it (Gaussian blur, 0.5 pix)
2. apply S-shaped Curves transform to bright-up bee (result)
3. put the result on top and swith to "lighter" layer mode (to remove lots of jpeg artifacts)
4. merge it with underlying layer copy to get it back to "normal"
5. now put the layer in the difference mode. it will be mostly too black to see anything, but don't be scared
6. select near-pitch-black color range (preview ON, GrayScale)

voila - there the bee is.

Hokum.
There is no logic to this process.
It is only a means to an end.
Why don't you just add a bee to the image?
That would bee just as scientific as this approach.

Disagree. What's illogical?
1 - we need a background w/o unknown something.
2 - we need to make pixels affected by something more "outstanding"; yes, the S-transform did affected background, too, but - there's step 3 - we keep only enhanced pixels affected by something (and, unavoidably, light jpeg artifacts)
4 - we just store the result of step 3 in separate layer
5 - by substracting background we see how each pixel is affected
6 - we select least-affected pixels that match background the best and, therefore, yield near-pitch-black in step 5

what we see on the final image is how close to black (zero) is the difference of images with something and without it: white marks pixels that going to be selected (which became black after step 5), and black marks pixels that ain't going to be selected - i.e., too different from black - that's merely the way photoshop works.

the fact that it shapes the bee is clearly explained by the theory about flash light reflection from the bee, and, on that basis, we can conclude that something is actually the light reflected from the bee.

what in God's name is wrong with that? the only assumption I took in the step 2 (and then used it in 3), is that something makes pixels lighter than background. but, I think it's pretty obvious without any shopping at all.

[Can't use my Bad Buoy]

I agree with bee theory. Do you?

If you can show that given a bee's body width is the width of the streak, would he have covered that distance in 1/20 sec.

AND, given the straight trajectory of his path we know he was not doing any aerobatics, stricktly a beeline for home by sundown [now]; hence he is in level flight. So we are looking at one side. 2 wings or 4? Would a bee in cruise mode have that wing pattern on one side?

It has already been demonstrated how easily a flash will reflect from only one wing.

[victorengel]

hence he is in level flight. So we are looking at one side.

Someone from the area noted that the bees actually live in nests on the cliff just beyond the camera's position, so the bee would possibly be veering downward to get there.

[Can't use my Bad Buoy]

... so the bee would possibly be veering downward to get there.

Even so, he is in descending flight with wings parallel to the horizon. The trail suggests that he is not rolling onto his back as that would have added a definite corkscrew to the flight path.

[Can't use my Bad Buoy]

Having read all the posts to date since inception on 7 December, I know there are enought individual statements in support of various elements to prove..

..the image represents an insect, possibly a bee, that was shot down near a light that did not work by a weapon or like device of unknown orgin. The weapon was in an air/space craft that either left a contrail or created a shaded ionized path that culminates at the junction where the beam/ray/energy source intersected with the insect.

And equally valid is his observation

This "average" theory can easily be duplicated by reading all of the messages while consuming a fifth of high quality distilled liquid.

HAPPY NEW YEAR Everyone !!!

Click the hyperlink

[Bob Peterson]

A Summary, as I see it, at this point, for what it's worth: (Ignore emoticons. They're appearing on the #7+1)

1) Possible legit photo
2) Possible hoax photo
3) Possible correct or nearly correct analysis of legit photo
4) Sincere people trying to analyze presented digital photos
5) Others
6) No input, apart from initial input, from the origin of photos, namely Wayne Pryde
7) A huge amount of digital analysis from people whose digital analytical expertise has not been established
8) Questionable EXIF information
9) Some HUMOR
10) Speculation about Wayne Pryde's motivation
11) Pyschoanalysis of posters on this thread
12) A claim that Wayne Pryde will answer questions about this matter at the beginning of 2005( if there is a legit person named Wayne Pryde who photographed and submitted the photos in question).
13) Alleged scientists posting on this thread
14) Possible homeless entomologist with access to a library computer
15) Always, the possibility of the totally delusional
16) Very heavily invested contributors on this tropic whom, I fear, would never let go. Then again, you may be correct
17) Some hoax photo presentations and Photoshop techniques, but there is a need for much more exploration in this territory and what can be done beyond Photoshop
18) Possible trolling
19) Handle hijacking
20) The Book: The Streak The Author: Wayne Pryde
21) Personally, I'm leaving Minnesota USA for Southern Florida USA for the month of January on I-2-2005. Have a good year. Bob

[wombat]

Having been shot down in flames on the 4-wing theory, I'm having a tilt at the the airspeed of this bug. By the simple expedient of adjusting the image size on my monitor so that the "bee" appears more or less life-size, I get that it flew a minumum of 18cm in the 1/20 second exposure; or in more standard units, 3.6m/s. Depending on the actual 3D trajectory, it could even be greater. And if you go back to the earlier postings, I thought it had been estabilshed that there was very little wind in the area and at the time. Which would suggest that that figure is indeed the minimum actual airspeed of our critter.

From wot I have googled, 3.6m/s seems to be much greater than the airspeed of most honeybees. Maybe a wasp? They fly very very fast; and out of focus might appear very similar to a bee.

I'm also amused by the referring to the bee as a "he". From Victor's pictures, if it is a honeybee, then it is almost certainly a worker bee, who I understand is a "she". Of sorts.

Luis: Don't give up on the comet just yet. It's naked-eye, if only just, from light-polluted Sydney. Even during last nite's fireworks.

[Guest]

From wot I have googled, 3.6m/s seems to be much greater than the airspeed of most honeybees. Maybe a wasp? They fly very very fast; and out of focus might appear very similar to a bee.

Did you see "Spy on the Wild" on Animal Planet? They clocked bumblebees at 30 mph, which is over 5 m/s. This was faster than expected, but can be considered an accurate measurement since the bees had radar transponders attached to their thoraxes. Their flight was a cosistent speed and direction despite the local wind conditions.

More information is available online. These bees maintain the same speed even with a 30mph cross wind. That means they can fly over 40 mph airspeed. But since it's the landspeed that's constant and relevant to the photo, this is irrelevant.

[wombat]

Thank you for that very quick update, Guest, you seem to have much more time to search the net than I do. Bumblebees at 30 mph, carrying transponders yet? Sounds scary, especially since has it not been well established that aerodynamics "prove" that bumblebees cannot fly at all? Maybe that's Canadian aero engineers.

Uhh, we don't have cable TV this year, so I didn't see that program. I'd love to see wot sort of transponder you could attach to a bumblebee. I can recall experiments I read about in the 1960s where they put insects in windtunnels to measure their airspeeds.

I had considered the airspeed/groundspeed issue. That's why I made the comment about the reported lack of wind.


So far, my mission to narrow down the categories of insects that it could or could not be has been a dismal failure. Such is life on the Internet.

[geon]

From page 1:

...at a shutter speed of 1/20s, it could be an insect flying by.

I told you so.

[Luis]

Wombat,

Luck at last! After an very windy afternoon, we got today a moon-less and clear sky. I manage to look at the pleiades, and Orion nebula. Wow. I could not find the comet, but I'll try again tomorrow.

Cheers
Luis

[ealdric]

In between bashin' each other upside the head, y'all seem to have decided that this image was some kind of insect.

Maybe it is, I don't claim to know.

But, If we set aside that idea for a moment, what are the next most likely possibilities? Meteor? Dolphin with a ray gun? (just kidding)

I noticed that on some of the early pages, some other people claimed to have seen similar streaks. Have these been verified ?
It seems that this may be the first time a government has admitted the existence of a literal UFO. ( i didn't say alien craft)

Insect . . . The guys at Skunk Works must be ROFL !