Starship Asterisk*

I've read almost all the pages and can't find anything better than the bug theory. The problems I have with other theories:

Contrail: the sun is too low to cast this shadow without the contrail also being visible
Light explosion: An explosion in the light casing would cast an arcing shadow, not just a single line. It might be of note to remark that the shadow would, even if it were of the light post, expand as it got farther away from the source. There is no possible way this could be a shadow from an explosion on the light. Also, at 1/20th sec, with as much ambient light, this shadow would probably not be visible.
UFO/Gov't Project: enough said.

Congratulations to all who first proposed the bug idea, and those who carefully analyzed it.

Peace,

Patrick
Georgetown University

Straub wrote:Has anyone noticed the ofset of the horizon on both before and after photos? They would appear to have been altered. unless the land in the distance is shifting. I don't think photos like this belong on the astronomy pic of the day.

What offset in the horizon?

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to be a reflection of the flash in the foreground water. Did anyone else notice it?

The biggest problem I have with the lamp exploding theory is the lack of local effects which should be obvious in the diff images. A bright flash should create a halo of brightness which decreases as a invrse square of the distance.

This fact completely eliminates the claim that the dark line is a shadow created by the flash.

Tony

Do not mean to be rude, but has anybody gone to that wharf to see what damage has occured to the object in question?

If you use CCDSoft or K3 CCD Tools the man (person) beside the car and the man (person) beside the water clearly shows up. These two programs are incredible in CCD astrophotography and are very sensitive. K3 CCD Tools can be downloaded.

sfarmer

nik wrote:Do not mean to be rude, but has anybody gone to that wharf to see what damage has occured to the object in question?

Earlier posts cited an examination of the lamp post by the photographer. He doesn't report at what distance he did this inspection, but I would assume he stood under it.

He reported no visible damage to post or lamp. The bulb itself is reportedly intact, but the light is not working. It's not known why, and to my knowledge the type of bulb has not been identified.

At the risk of starting another round of unsubstantaited speculation, a post in the last dozen or so pages referred to a newspaper article reporting damage to the post due to firearms, but I have seen no followup / confirmation of that. Nor was that report clear as to whether the damage was supposedly pre or post photograph.

sfarmer wrote:If you use CCDSoft or K3 CCD Tools the man (person) beside the car and the man (person) beside the water clearly shows up. These two programs are incredible in CCD astrophotography and are very sensitive. K3 CCD Tools can be downloaded.

sfarmer

Since the previous post about a man beside a car, actually since my response to it, I noticed that there are two cars and possibly a man beside one but not the other. And I don't see anyone crouching on the rocks. I still think what you are seeing is jpeg artifacts. Why don't you simply capture a screen of what you are seeing, and show us? That should not be so hard to do.

victorengel wrote:I think you missed my point. What I was suggesting was to get two data sets like this.

hazeii3 wrote:
(click image for larger version)

One would be taken from data in the putative wing trail. The other would be taken just outside that range. The curve I want to see is a difference between the two.

The reason you don't get any meaningful information is that you cannot use FFA., you must instead use the slow furrier transformation analysis rules. Instead of 1F/3[56]+23^... you have to use the rules invented by Stu Pedasso. After viewing the before, during, and after images, and subjecting all to a negation process wherein all images are summed and subtracted over a period of time, I see a clear answer. What has happened is that a 'rod' flew too close to the sun and burned its little helical wings and plummeting to Earth... striking the lamp. This image is clearly visible when imaging the monoscopic image stereoscopically while presing hard on each cornea with each thumb. After 10-20 seconds, images appears amd viola... you clearly can see what has occured.

Doug Huffman wrote:Victor- yes NOV 24 as opposed to DEC 4, I think I was suggesting that strange unexplained things had been happening in area- this picture certainly qualifies. The star is like those seen associated with crop circles and was there in the sky and photographed and is not just a pixel. See post page 61 for more pics to compare. I think crop circles are real at least some, and they are laid down over months clearly the circles at different locations and times are not unconnected events - what does one thing have to do with the other here- maybe nothing maybe a lot- depending what this is. I think this photo goes beyond the normal -easy, the shadow, the strike, the smoke behind pole and a possible star almost directly over the event (which is not even being acknowledged except by me and you). It appears as if a force in a that single moment appeared struck behind the pole (maybe the water) creating smoke behind the pole. The constant is that star sitting in a dark cloud in all three pics directly above the event location - that pink thing low our side is a sparkle on the water what I call ' a diamond dog' . This might be another form of communication (like the circles) or a once in a million natural event. The star is there though it deserves some attention. ANY light on the bridge you choose based on need can be called a stuck pixel (and you could explain) but its not and I think you are arguing from personal judgements (where we are equal) even if your technical expertise exceeds my own (I'm sure it does)- i.e. it can't be a star so I'll explain stuck pixels. Prove (don't just explain) 'the star' is a stuck pixel and not a real object caught by the camera in the sky if you can't there is another dimension to this that should be discussed- the audience can decide if this is so . Again you must use the high def big images to see it. In general when something can't be debunked its called fake or someone makes a judgement not based on the evidence that takes the heat off case closed reality is edited - that's happening here with more than just the star. Face it this could be the true unknown to be fair some may be already at this conclusion it says as much in the original posting.

This is without any doubt at all, a crop circle rod being from the Face on Mars.... BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you goobers!

After spending about 18 hours staring at this image, I do think it's a bug. Mothra. I think the bug people are right on here... there is just NO WAY that this could be anything other than Mothra maybe... Well, it could be straight line smoke lightning. I saw some of that last week, over my house. It was eerie. But then, I kind of like the sodium lamp blowing up.. that happens everywhere I go. What I don't understand though is how the exploding sodium lamp was triggered by those guys standing next to the car (you can see them in the pic if you look closely) - they're pointing something at the light. It looks like a ray gun. So, therefore, it must be government. Probably Korean or Sudanese. If it isn't, then is the start of a crop circle. Yes, I think it is. I can sense it. I just get so upset when some of these people want to go all scientific and stuff and say that the camera created the problem or that some guys faked it. I hate that. Especially because, there's no excuse for rational thinking and, well, I know that Freddie, the alien, was really in that tiny ship when it hit the lamp.

nik wrote:Do not mean to be rude, but has anybody gone to that wharf to see what damage has occured to the object in question?

Why sir, or madam... how dare you suggest that!!!! We DO NOT need to do that.. we already KNOW it was a bug or exploding lamp or secret missile. What do you mean... actually go and LOOK!!!! You heretic!!!!

Didja like that streak? I have three more left. You want to buy one?

Humanlings and Earthloids... I have arrived!
My landing was a bit rough.,.. and I didn't mean to strike that lamp on the wharf. But I am here.

Now. I will vaporub the Earth with my nucear atonement device if you do not send me all your money. Please exchange it to Gyuertiing Galactic Tokens first though. Strarting from now, you have ten quirdtons left...

the kuyrutgo is ticking.....

If you look at the cropped and enhanced picture on page 80, it is clear this is not a bug. Plus I can not see any bug causing a flash like that. The enhanced picture also shows the light area around the flash is more circular and a halo around the flash.

How about considering a water drop instead of a bug. A water drop could cause such a flash and a reflection around it. It could be much smaller than a bug and therefore closer to the camera making the streak actually very short in reality.

Just another option as this does not look like a bug to me.

There are some very inventive and entertaining proposals on these pages. Interestingly, we read from several "self-proclaimed" meteor experts here - some espousing the meteor idea, while others vehemently reject it. Personally, after reviewing the facts presented by the photographer and looking at the photo itself, I can see no other valid explanation. It is most definitely a meteor.

On Tue Dec 07, 2004 @ 8:35 am, Dave Sanders posted the following:

The streak is caused by a small meteorite. The apparently straight line lends credence to this.

The darkness of the streak is caused by light refraction. As a meteorite passes through through the air is creates a tunnel of near vacuum surrounded by a tube of compressed air. These layers of different air densities would cause background light passing across the tube/tunnel to be bent and sent in other directions, the camera would then see a line of slightly darker sky. This tunnel would collapse very quickly of course.

The flash is caused by the meteorite striking the water directly behind the light pole and exploding.

Since it is still daylight (or at least - dusk), there is too much ambient light around for the normal meteorite flash to be seen.

This basic premise is correct, to which I would add the following:

• Dave states: "there is too much ambient light around for the normal meteorite flash to be seen." I suppose by "meteorite flash" he's referring to the typical fiery streak of a meteor. The reason this is not shown in the photo is that the meteor has already splashed into the water. The dark line is all that is left of its once bright trail. Had the photo been taken a few seconds earlier it would have caught the meteor in all its brilliant splendor before hitting the water.

• The "flash" is not a flash at all. It is a splash, backlit by sunlight late in the day. The "vapor" surrounding the splash is simply a lens refraction of the sunlight.

• The burned out bulb (no damage to the bulb or post themselves) is simply a pre-existing condition that was coincidentally observed and noted in the aftermath.

• The dark line cannot be a contrail or cloud shadow as some have suggested because the photos were taken at 15 sec. intervals and there is no sign of the darkened line in the rest of the sequence.

. . . And there you have it.

the kuyrutgo is ticking.....

rhess wrote:There are some very inventive and entertaining proposals on these pages. Interestingly, we read from several "self-proclaimed" meteor experts here - some espousing the meteor idea, while others vehemently reject it. Personally, after reviewing the facts presented by the photographer and looking at the photo itself, I can see no other valid explanation. It is most definitely a meteor.

You mean AFTER you ASSUME for the sake of FUN that this cannot be a digital artifact or doctored up image in PhotoShop, I hope...

I will show you something. Ready?
Look at this:

1 + 1 = 3

You see it. I see it. One and One equals three. There it is. You cannot deny it. You actually DO see that one plus one equals three. Because there it is..

And, I will tell you that I am an honest guy. Reliable. Trustworthy. No really, I mean it. And when I tell you that one plus one is three, you must believe it. Because, you actually do see it, and I am an honest guy with no ill intentions. And when you look at the image with the streak... it has to be what you think it is.. whatever that is. It has to be. Because you see it. And just as you see that 1 + 1 = 3, so to does the streak HAVE to be a meteor, or sodium flash, or straight lightning, or square lightning, or ball lightning, or a bug, or spacecraft. It's just as true as 1+1 =3 ... you see both of them.

Mr. Askit Wrote:

You mean AFTER you ASSUME for the sake of FUN that this cannot be a digital artifact or doctored up image in PhotoShop, I hope...

NATURALLY. of course I don't believe it's doctored or I would of SO STATED.

Seriously though, I've read the photographer's statement and examined his credentials. I see no reason why he would be lying. If he is, all of this is mute anyway, RIGHT?

rhess wrote:...It is most definitely a meteor...And there you have it.

If I may summarise the reason why many of us believe it is not a meteor taking some information from the following metero FAQ

http://www.amsmeteors.org/fireball/faqf.html#12

"Meteoroids enter the earth's atmosphere at very high speeds, ranging from 11 km/sec to 72 km/sec (25,000 mph to 160,000 mph)...However, similar to firing a bullet into water, the meteoroid will rapidly decelerate as it penetrates into increasingly denser portions of the atmosphere. This is especially true in the lower layers, since 90 % of the earth's atmospheric mass lies below 12 km (7 miles / 39,000 ft) of height.

At the same time, the meteoroid will also rapidly lose mass due to ablation. In this process, the outer layer of the meteoroid is continuously vaporized and stripped away due to high speed collision with air molecules. Particles from dust size to a few kilograms mass are usually completely consumed in the atmosphere.

Due to atmospheric drag, most meteorites, ranging from a few kilograms up to about 8 tons (7,000 kg), will lose all of their cosmic velocity while still several miles up. At that point, called the retardation point, the meteorite begins to accelerate again, under the influence of the Earth's gravity, at the familiar 9.8 meters per second squared. The meteorite then quickly reaches its terminal velocity of 200 to 400 miles per hour (90 to 180 meters per second). The terminal velocity occurs at the point where the acceleration due to gravity is exactly offset by the deceleration due to atmospheric drag.

Meteoroids of more than about 10 tons (9,000 kg) will retain a portion of their original speed, or cosmic velocity, all the way to the surface. A 10-tonner entering the Earth's atmosphere perpendicular to the surface will retain about 6% of its cosmic velocity on arrival at the surface. For example, if the meteoroid started at 25 miles per second (40 km/s) it would (if it survived its atmospheric passage intact) arrive at the surface still moving at 1.5 miles per second (2.4 km/s), packing (after considerable mass loss due to ablation) some 13 gigajoules of kinetic energy.

On the very large end of the scale, a meteoroid of 1000 tons (9 x 10^5 kg) would retain about 70% of its cosmic velocity, and bodies of over 100,000 tons or so will cut through the atmosphere as if it were not even there. Luckily, such events are extraordinarily rare."

Anything small enough to impact without someone having noted the noise cannot be travelling faster than a falling rock. Anything travelling faster than a falling rock will have to mass several tons.

If the image is showing somethting way off in the distance it probably is haarp . That's what it appears to be .Yes , i think.

HomeAl0ne wrote:

rhess wrote:...It is most definitely a meteor...And there you have it.

If I may summarise the reason why many of us believe it is not a meteor taking some information from the following metero FAQ

It seems to me that this information makes a couple of assumptions about the meteor in question:

* It is made of ordinary matter.
* Its shape is rather nondescript.

I suspect that super dense material such as that composing a neutron star or a javelin shaped meteor might behave differently. I have no idea whether either of these exist. Maybe the assumptions are reasonable.

hazeii3 wrote:

victorengel wrote:
Here, then, is the difference between the FFT of a strip 5 pixels in from the edge of a 200-pixel cross-section across the trail (this strip would be outside the trail) and the FFT of a strip 96 pixels in (which would be about mid-span on the upper wing).


(click image for larger version)

The wing beat signal would, if present, be somewhere close to the left edge (on the full size image, each pixel represents about 10.75Hz, so a 200Hz flap would be about 18 pixels in from the left edge).

Hazel and Victor,
I call to your attention that there is a peak in that FFT at about 160 Hz (15 pixels in from the left) and again at 480 Hz (45 pixels in). The 480 Hz peak is the third harmonic of the 160 Hz. It is reasonable that the 1st and 3rd harmonics would show up like this, as a wing beat would not show on the image as a sine wave, but as something a lot more like a square wave, or series of pulses, thus the odd harmonics would show up quite strongly. I think the bee is buzzing at about 160 Hz. There aren't any other peaks in that region of the FFT.

Thank you HomeAlOne for your most informative post.

You'll note that in the first sentence of the third paragraph the author makes a distinction that atmospheric drag will cause a reduction of velocity for "most meteorites." I believe what we have here is a meteor of a composition making it an exception to the rule here.

There are documented cases of smaller metallic meteors striking the earth at a velocity that could cause the affects alluded to here.

I posted an enhanced cropped diff image on page 83, showing the end of the trail with no curve. The following post wondered if the stuff in the lower left of my cropped photo was the tree. This is correct. I don't find it too difficult to orient this image with the original diff image, as there is no reduction in resolution.

I am intrigued by the idea that there is some unique reflection in the foreground water that is lost in the other reflections in the water. I think I can still see it in the gaussian blur image posted later. It may take more than photoshop to bring out any possible reflections there.