Starship Asterisk*

Ed in Oregon wrote:Victor,
I can't find it now (in this horribly long thread. Is there a way to search the thread?) but I believe I saw a confirmation from the photographer that the camera flash was intentionally on to force the 1/20 second exposure to get the clouds right.

I wish that all the other images he took that night were available, so we could search for other bugs in those images. They've got to be there. I've looked at the three we have and am starting to see things. (As you have noticed.)
Ed

I've asked him for them, but he hasn't responded. He states he also made an animation out of the entire sequence.

Ed in Oregon wrote:Victor,
I can't find it now (in this horribly long thread. Is there a way to search the thread?)

Yes. There is a search button at the top of the page.

Okay.....I will rescind my last comment about the trail being visible in the before picture as well....soon after I posted it I realized that it was just an optical trick of the animation.

As for my second question.....yes, you can quite clearly see that that one side of this "bug" is highlited more than the other. If we assume that the bug is facing the camera pretty dead on with it's top facing up and left, then the bottom side of the bug is clearly brighter. There are very clear dark spots in the outline where the white meets the yellow. Plus, why is the center of the bug not white? I understand that this may be an iridescent bug, but the reason that you see edge highlites on a bug is because of very low angle of incidence ambient light reflecting off the black surface and not being absorbed. There is no light from the flash that would have a low angle of incidence and be reflected back to the camera. If anything, the center of the bug should be the brightest thing since that is where the curved surface would reflect light straight back. Clearly you can see that the center of the bug is dark. This bug looks as though he is backlit from the bottom right, which does not work for the flash theory.

My second question is this: We have established that the flash is clearly off center from the black trail. How is this possible with the bug theory then? I can't see how the dark line would be offset from the flashed bug if that is the path it took to get there, or is the path it is about to take. This would mean that at the moment of flash the bug instantaneously shifted over? I could see that perhaps the bug was lit by ambient light on one side and caused the trail to lighten asymmetrically, but it is clearly darker above the flash so the bug would have to have been lit from the bottom.

I do agree that the flash looks remarkably like the bugs that have been presented, but I believe that these are things about that theory that just don't add up. I don't have a good theory myself, and I don't want to say hoax yet, but I can't go with the bug given these things.

-z

I once found wierdness like this on some film I shot in the late 70's. It was ultimately diagnosed as static electricity discharging between the layers created when the film was rolled up into the cassette. The Kodak customer service team that arrived at this verdit said it was not all that uncommon, but very under-reported. The fact that the event appears to terminate on the lamp post is (possibly) a coincidence.

Eric Lindstrom wrote:I once found wierdness like this on some film I shot in the late 70's. It was ultimately diagnosed as static electricity discharging between the layers created when the film was rolled up into the cassette. The Kodak customer service team that arrived at this verdit said it was not all that uncommon, but very under-reported. The fact that the event appears to terminate on the lamp post is (possibly) a coincidence.

Read the thread, please. It was a digital camera.

A person lurking around by a car parked in trees. A person on the dock. A boat just floating near the area for no reason. Strange?

Government project.

Dickison wrote:Is the flash really a flash or is it a plume of water from whatever it was hitting the water directly in back of the pole? The apparent smoke may be merely coincident.

A plume of water should make waves or ripples on the surface. On the "after" image there are no obvious ripples, and the movement of ripples should have shown up in the diff images that have been posted. There would be concentric rings of waves moving outward from the point of impact.

This, together with the need for a coincidence to explain the "smoke" probably rules out anything hitting the water.

Has anyone checked to see if the color of the flash coincides with that expected from a sodium lamp flash?

We could probably eliminate/support the "light explode" theory with one quick color analysis!

Anonymous wrote:

Eric Lindstrom wrote:I once found wierdness like this on some film I shot in the late 70's. It was ultimately diagnosed as static electricity discharging between the layers created when the film was rolled up into the cassette. The Kodak customer service team that arrived at this verdit said it was not all that uncommon, but very under-reported. The fact that the event appears to terminate on the lamp post is (possibly) a coincidence.

Read the thread, please. It was a digital camera.

Point taken. However, I still favor the idea of a static discharge of some sort. I am not certain whether or not the kind of photo sensitive surfaces found on digital chips respond to over exposure in a way that produces solarization phenomena; but if they do, that might explain the dark line. I'm also intrigued with the "omega" shaped flare that extends diagonally in both directions from the highlight. One way or the other, I am pretty convinced that the image is the artifact of some physical process involving the photo-sensitive material itself, rather than some event in the scene.

Here is my conclusion...

I think my original thought that the "trail" is actually a shadow from the head of the lightpost projecting upward and that the light burned out in a flash of light that was bright enough to cast an upward shadow. The shape of the light, especially after some analysis, looks like it is emanating from the lightpost and not a moving object. Even if the shutter was 1,000 speed, there would be some light trailing if the object was dropping from the sky. Especially since the bulb was burned out, thats my conclusion.

See pics analysis here:
http://www.brcnet.com/apod/

-m

mattbult wrote:Here is my conclusion...

I think my original thought that the "trail" is actually a shadow from the head of the lightpost projecting upward and that the light burned out in a flash of light that was bright enough to cast an upward shadow.

That's what I've tried to explain but here in other words

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... ight=#1275

victorengel wrote:

PassingBy.za wrote:Also, there seems to be a curve up top left side...

Can you give some context for this image? I can't identify what it corresponds to.

The image is the difference between current and after (or before) image, zoomed in to the streak furthest from the “flash”, then some additional enhancements in Photoshop, saved as 2 gif images and made into an ani, the second images for the ani is just an “overlay” with a hand drawn brush to indicate what I see in the first.
I have played with these images and read this long thread since the APOD release.
Any chance of getting the other 30+ images?

I think the the photographer has his time stamp wrong. If this is the case and it is actually earlier than it says, Then the crepuscular shadow may well be right. All clues so far have not ruled out this and the reflection of the cloud in the backgroud shows this could be possible. A copy of the photo of the setting sun may prove this. I(f he has stood in one spot to take a phot of the cloud I bet he has a photo of the setting sun. this would show if indeed there was a cloud possible to cause a shodow. If he has any credability he should come forward with all the information and photos he has that may be relevant. And check that time stamp.

The streak seems to be very straight for something that appears to span such a large distance. If it was the trail from some sort of smoking debis from the lamp post then it would almost certainly have curved at least a little. It seems too straight even for a jet contrail or even lightning (How many times have you seen a perfectly straight lightning bolt?) Also, to me anyway, the streak appears to occur far behind the lighting bolt and to be unrelated (check the narrow strip of water between the top of the light post and the far shore. There's no hint of the streak.) I think that the simplest and most probable explanation is a tiny flaw or wrinkle in that one frame of film. That would explain why it does not appear at all in the other frames.

Winston S.
Guy who's interested in astronomy
Santa Cruz, CA

could it be due to the readout of the ccd chip? The line appears to be directly in line with the bright point source. Possibly the light post was caught in the act of burning out. It is dusk, the light probably just came on, pretty common time for a light to pop. The bright point source which saturates the pixels in the chip at that position then causes a sort of depletion of the electron wells. the shadow we see.

The only doubt I have is I have never seen these "shadows" diagonal on a digital picture. I have seen where the readout of the chip is either to the top or side. Could the diagonal nature be caused by interpolation of the chip.

Someone should ask the manufacturer of the camera.

That is my guess, it has nothing to do with the environment, it is a curiosity of digtal imagery and resides in the camera.

Apologies if someone else came up with this idea already, I did not have the patience to read 80 pages of discussion.

g

geomic wrote:could it be due to the readout of the ccd chip? The line appears to be directly in line with the bright point source. Possibly the light post was caught in the act of burning out. It is dusk, the light probably just came on, pretty common time for a light to pop. The bright point source which saturates the pixels in the chip at that position then causes a sort of depletion of the electron wells. the shadow we see.

The only doubt I have is I have never seen these "shadows" diagonal on a digital picture. I have seen where the readout of the chip is either to the top or side. Could the diagonal nature be caused by interpolation of the chip.

Someone should ask the manufacturer of the camera.

That is my guess, it has nothing to do with the environment, it is a curiosity of digtal imagery and resides in the camera.

Apologies if someone else came up with this idea already, I did not have the patience to read 80 pages of discussion.

g

It is a digital camera. ever tried folding one?

In the opinion of a few science and aerospace hobbyists and myself this appears to be a high-speed piece of space junk a moment before hitting the water. There is a ring of compressed air around the object similar to that just before a jet aircraft crosses the sound barrier (ever see the famous picture of the F-16 Tomcat surrounded by a ring of moisture?). The so-called shadow is a contrail or debris from the burning object. The object appears to be beyond the dock but closer than the boat to its right. The light pole is in the foreground. In a coastal area where the humidity is high these visuals effects seem likely.

Guest wrote:It is very clear this image is NOT of a "bug", nor of a flare in the water, nor of a great number of other things.

I still see a bug.
Why?
Cause it is one.

Dear Mr Pryde and list,
I saw the picture on the Astronomy picture of the day and since I have followed the discussion on several e-mail lists I scanned a picture taken by myself showing a contrail with a shadow (which have been suggested as an explanation by some) on: http://www.ufo.se/english/ (click on "News").
I do not say that the picture shows the shadow of a contrail but just want the list to see the picture since the discussion mentioned above.

All the best from
Clas Svahn
Chairman of UFO-Sweden

I am far from an expert in this field, but i have seen a streak like this. I was travelling in western queensland and the same type of streak appeared in front on our vehicle - it seemed about 2 klm away. My husband and I saw it at the same time and where quite awstruck.

We put it down to a type of evaporation, as it was a hot day and the streak went up into the clouds. it was not lightening, it was a steady streak which was visible for about 10 seconds.


OK... i don't think that helped at all, but there you go!

seeya

victorengel wrote: I do have another suggestion. Do the same thing (FFT sum) for a strip near but not intersecting the putative wing path. Use this as a baseline sum and subtract it from the other sum. This would subtract any pattern noise and possibly reveal an underlying pattern.

Ok, that'd certainly reveal any deviation from 1/f noise.

Here'd the 3D result - as before, front-to-back is a 200-pixel line perpendicular to the trail and left-to-right is frequency:-

(click image for larger version)

As before, nothing too obvious, note that as expected the general 1/f curve has been removed.

Here's the result of summing the FFT's:-

(click image for larger version)

Nothing pops out, at least to me. There appears to be a roll-off at low frequencies in excess of 1/f, but I don't believe that's significant - it's probably just the baseline FFT happens to have a slight rise at low frequency (due to background clouds, maybe).

I'll add these results to my reference page later today, with additional background info.

Hi I posted back on Page 61 (please see) , wanted to say thanks for the response but that pink spot is a sparkle of sunlight and there is a spot visible in the sky that looks like a white star in the big high def pics directly above in the sky, above Flash- this is not in my opinion a stuck pixel... speaking of UFO'S there was a UFO seen on December 4 in Darwin (has anyone posted this already?). Go here and listen to the audio of the Linda Howe report (Dreamland-Deep Secrets about Who We Are December 11, 2004) at 58:90 minutes.
http://www.unknowncountry.com/media/

go here if the Above link times out- See Radio Programs top right.
http://www.unknowncountry.com/
-to understand better the history of this Phenomenon.

" Flashing lights hover over city
December 6, 2004

EVEN the sceptics are questioning the origins of a strange light that hovered over Darwin on Saturday night.
Several readers phoned the Northern Territory News late on Saturday night to describe the unidentified flying object that captured their attention.
But neither the RAAF or the airport were able to shed any light on the flashing green, blue and red lights witnesses saw.
Laboratory technician Julie Lynn was relaxing on the balcony with husband Nigel at their Leanyer home when they noticed the UFO about 8.30pm.
A self-described sceptic, Mrs Lynn believes there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the UFO hovered above Darwin - she just has no idea what it could be.
"It was fascinating to watch," she said.
"I was quite looking forward to curling up on the couch and watching a movie but it had our attention until we went to bed after midnight.
"It hovered in the one place for at least two hours but had moved significantly when we checked on it again before we went to bed.
"I can't believe there are UFOs or little green men out there - there must be an obvious explanation.
"And we weren't drinking so it wasn't something we imagined."
The UFO was described as being shaped like three connected ball-shaped spheres that flashed blue, green and red from as many as six different light sources.
It first appeared in a south-easterly direction and was moving northeast.
" Department of Defence spokeswoman Kelly Cooper said the UFO was definitely not a secret military aircraft or RAAF-related.
The airport also denied the UFO could have been a plane waiting to land in Darwin. "

Source-

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_pag ... 62,00.html


" Several years ago, astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins, former Chairman of the astronomy department at Boston University, noticed that some of the most visually striking of the crop-circle patterns embodied geometric theorems that express specific numerical relationships among the areas of various circles, triangles, and other shapes making up the patterns (Science News: 2/1/92, p. 76). In one case, for example, an equilateral triangle fitted snugly between an outer and an inner circle. It turns out that the area of the outer circle is precisely four times that of the inner circle.
Three other patterns also displayed exact numerical relationships, all of them involving a diatonic ratio, the simple whole-number ratios that determine a scale of musical notes. "These designs demonstrate the remarkable mathematical ability of their creators," Hawkins comments.
Hawkins found that he could use the principles of Euclidean geometry to prove four theorems derived from the relationships among the areas depicted in crop circles. He also discovered a fifth, more general theorem, from which he could derive the other four (see diagram, left). "This theorem involves concentric circles which touch the sides of a triangle, and as the [triangle] changes shape, it generates the special crop-circle geometries," he says.
Hawkins' fifth crop-circle theorem involves a triangle and various concentric circles touching the triangle's sides and corners. Different triangles give different sets of circles. An equilateral triangle produces one of the observed crop-circle patterns; three isoceles triangles generate the other crop-circle geometries. "
-Read On with Illustrations at Source,

Source
http://www.lovely.clara.net/hawkins.html

Anonymous wrote:Point taken. However, I still favor the idea of a static discharge of some sort. I am not certain whether or not the kind of photo sensitive surfaces found on digital chips respond to over exposure in a way that produces solarization phenomena; but if they do, that might explain the dark line. I'm also intrigued with the "omega" shaped flare that extends diagonally in both directions from the highlight. One way or the other, I am pretty convinced that the image is the artifact of some physical process involving the photo-sensitive material itself, rather than some event in the scene.

Note that the "explosion" was not bright enough to saturate any of the color channels on the sensor- all are still in their linear range. The only saturated pixels in the images are in the brightest areas of the clouds. There is no evidence here that we are seeing any kind of optical, electronic, or software artifact.

mattbult wrote:Here is my conclusion...

I think my original thought that the "trail" is actually a shadow from the head of the lightpost projecting upward and that the light burned out in a flash of light that was bright enough to cast an upward shadow. The shape of the light, especially after some analysis, looks like it is emanating from the lightpost and not a moving object. Even if the shutter was 1,000 speed, there would be some light trailing if the object was dropping from the sky. Especially since the bulb was burned out, thats my conclusion.

This is inconsistent with the images. You don't cast a shadow, you cast light and the shadow is the place where the light isn't. So the explosion would be lighting up the sky in order for the shadow of the post to appear. But you can examine all three images and see that the sky brightness is the same, while the trail measures darker than the same area in the before and after images. Furthermore, it is hard to explain how you could have a bright enough flash at the wharf to light up the sky, and not have enough light to even saturate the pixels at the point of the flash, or to light up structures around that area of the wharf.

The evidence from the images doesn't completely discount the possibility that the flash is some sort of explosion near the wharf, but it does demonstrate that the dark trail can't be a shadow from such an explosion.

rob wrote:I think the the photographer has his time stamp wrong. If this is the case and it is actually earlier than it says, Then the crepuscular shadow may well be right. All clues so far have not ruled out this and the reflection of the cloud in the backgroud shows this could be possible. A copy of the photo of the setting sun may prove this. I(f he has stood in one spot to take a phot of the cloud I bet he has a photo of the setting sun. this would show if indeed there was a cloud possible to cause a shodow. If he has any credability he should come forward with all the information and photos he has that may be relevant. And check that time stamp.

If the time stamp is wrong, it isn't wrong by much. The photographer has stated that the images were made around sunset, and this is supported by the lighting of the clouds and surroundings, and by the time stamp.

It is easy enough to look at a map of Darwin and see where the images were made. The camera was pointed approximately south, and the Sun was just below the horizon to the right of the camera. The Sun was perfectly positioned to produce crepuscular rays, but that can't be what the image shows. Crepuscular rays always appear to point towards the solar or anti-solar point, which this streak doesn't. The theory that we are seeing a crepuscular ray (really, a crepuscular shadow) can be completely discounted on geometrical grounds.