Starship Asterisk*

Posted: **Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:23 pm**

RJN wrote:
I am leaning toward the "bug" solution myself. I do realize that we may never know for sure. Here is a line of thought that I have not seen but I might have missed. How far was the bug from the camera? I think this can be estimated from the angular size of the bug and by assuming a "normal sized" bug like a bee. I think it was quite close! Is this distance consistent with the brightness of reflected flash at the end of the trail?

Is the depth of the darkness consistent with a bug flying by? The angular speed of the bug should be computable. If the darkness is darker than a path created even by a perfectly black bug, then this is a problem.

In general, I would like to thank everyone involved (now and into the future) for participating. Any answer was interesting especially given the prospect that an important celestial event MIGHT have been happening. The collective expertise of the APOD audience is deep and possibly unique. We will likely post another challenge sometime next year.

- RJN

I did some analysis about possible distance of the bug to the camera, based on the size of the blurred image (page 80, I think). There has been quite some discussion about possible speed of the bug in earlier pages.

There were also some simulations about blurred bugs including overexposed regions, Victorengel posted something in those lines, I think.

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:39 am**

RJN wrote:I've read about half of the comments and enjoyed the great depth of the discussion, but of course not the flames. For next week I will either write a new APOD or just put a link line at the bottom of an APOD linking to some already existing pages (like Cloudbait's) discussing possible solutions.

I am leaning toward the "bug" solution myself. I do realize that we may never know for sure. Here is a line of thought that I have not seen but I might have missed. How far was the bug from the camera?

Luis calculated the distance as about 50 cm. His calculation method seemed adequately rigorous.

I think this can be estimated from the angular size of the bug and by assuming a "normal sized" bug like a bee. I think it was quite close! Is this distance consistent with the brightness of reflected flash at the end of the trail?

It would seem so. Especially if the flash was glint from reflective scales on the insect. There were some pictures back about page 60 of an Australian bee with a quite bright yellow ventral side on its abdomen that would seem to fit if the bug is at the end of the shadow. (Flash setting at end of exposure.) I'll find that and bring it forward.

Is the depth of the darkness consistent with a bug flying by? The angular speed of the bug should be computable. If the darkness is darker than a path created even by a perfectly black bug, then this is a problem.

As Victor has said, this is also consistent. The darkness of the path does not depend of the darkness of the bug, as we are seeing a shadow on the much brighter sky of a bug that has essentially no light on it at all (except for the flash at the end).

In general, I would like to thank everyone involved (now and into the future) for participating. Any answer was interesting especially given the prospect that an important celestial event MIGHT have been happening. The collective expertise of the APOD audience is deep and possibly unique. We will likely post another challenge sometime next year.

- RJN

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:12 am**

I was just watching the bumblebee portion of Spy on the Wild again, and I'm kicking myself now for not recording it. They have a sequence in super slow motion showing the bumblebee taking off from the commentator's finger and then flying away. I'll try to catch the next rerun and step through it to see what the patterns of reflections from the wings look like from different angles (the bee turns during flight).

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:37 am**

[img]http://www.zeta.org.au/~anbrc/Images/xylocopa_lg.jpg

[img]http://www.zeta.org.au/~anbrc/Images/hy ... sus_lg.jpg

Here are two Australian bees with bright yellow patches. There might be more, but these photos were available. These seem possible in this habitat.
I'm still looking for one with yellow on the abdomen. The one in this thread earlier, turned out to come from Quebec. Not likely.[/img]

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:56 am**

BRENT wrote:I have seen what is described as "ball" lightning twice in my lifetime. Once a single light bulb just over my head exploded. The other time it hit a castiron stove with someone leaning against it and tossed him the length of the room.

Hello Brent,

I recently completed my Master's thesis on ball lightning and I was fascinated by the fact that you have seen the phenomenon twice! Would you mind telling me a little more about the events? If so, would you email me at petri.varsa@gmail.com ?

thanks.

Regarding the photo. The contrail explanation seems plausible, but what about the bright flash at the lamp post? It does not exist in the previous and the subsequent frames.

-petri

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:27 am**

Petri wrote:The contrail explanation seems plausible, but what about the bright flash at the lamp post? It does not exist in the previous and the subsequent frames.

What about the fact that the contrail goes below the horizon?

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:50 am**

Insect flight: When I watch hornets or bees, they always seem to be arcing this way, then that; I suppose, thought, that some insects could appear to be flying exactly straight for the fraction of a second the lens was open.

Reflection line: I'm referring to the line with the 'bulge' in the vicinity of the flash. When I used Paint Shop Pro to subtract the streak/flash photo from the 'after' photo, it seemed quite distinct to me that the reflection line extended from shore to shore (wharf), but not beyond.

The lightpole/bulb: The flash is clearly offset to the right from the top of the pole. I think the alignment with the pole is coincidental.

The streak: If it was an insect, it seems to me that the density of the streak should extend from wingtip to wingtip. The streak should be composed of three 'bands', very light bands on either side very where only the wings had an effect, and darker in the center where the body was. Also, if the insect was flying at an angle to the camera photo plane, the width of the streak should vary linearly. I don't see any evidence of three bands, and the streak seems to have constant width.

Again, I don't think it was a bug.

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:55 am**

I cannot fathom why people keep bringing up the possibility of contrails!!

There is no contrail in either the before- or the after-frame; contrails don't come and go THAT fast!

Maybe they just don't look...

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:54 am**

Anonymous wrote:
Ed in Oregon wrote: A tubular structure in the atmosphere would have a higher density at the edges than in the center. Just look at a clear plastic tube to see what I mean. This streak seems to have almost equal density across it, or slightly more density in the middle, like a shadow. See some of the difference images back about 9 or 10 pages.

Yes, a tubular structure would have higher density at the edges, and a "rod" structure would have greater density in the center, with a characteristic fall off at the edges.

A bug could have just about any conceivable "signature," and likely if he's flapping his wings to have an identifiable frequency associated with it. I presume much of the FFT analysis has been directed toward that end, but from the scanning I've done of these, the results look inconclusive.

I think I was wondering if it would be possible, and/or profitable, to do a statistical analysis of the cross section, along the entire lenght of the shaft? Would this approach cancel out or minimize the noise? Maybe the results would point more toward a tube, rod, or insect structure.

JJ

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:58 am**

FastArtCeeToo wrote:The streak: If it was an insect, it seems to me that the density of the streak should extend from wingtip to wingtip. The streak should be composed of three 'bands', very light bands on either side very [light?] where only the wings had an effect, and darker in the center where the body was. Also, if the insect was flying at an angle to the camera photo plane, the width of the streak should vary linearly. I don't see any evidence of three bands, and the streak seems to have constant width.

Excercise: Compute how much the wings should darken the background.

Roughly figuring here, the opaque and relatively large body only blocks about 2-3% of the background light. The wings, which are typically shorter than the body (from anterior to posterior), are also typically transparent. If a wing is 1/3 the length of the body, that would make about 1% blockage of the light if the wings were opaque. But they're transparent. I bet it's something less than 1/10 % that the wings end up blocking. That requires more than 8 bits per pixel to resolve. The only other way to detect it would be to take averages over multiple pixels, somehow cutting through all the noise.

Bottom line: I'd be surprised if wings could be detectable.

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:17 am**

FastArtCeeToo wrote:Reflection line: I'm referring to the line with the 'bulge' in the vicinity of the flash. When I used Paint Shop Pro to subtract the streak/flash photo from the 'after' photo, it seemed quite distinct to me that the reflection line extended from shore to shore (wharf), but not beyond.

To be objective about this, I took a difference image, and increased the contrast around the subject enough for smart blur to pick up an outline. Here's what I get. It seems clear that the top end extends significantly beyond the far shore.

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:24 am**

I apologize for not being able to post an image, but I do not know any public image upload website.

I have looked carefully at the negative of the 'reflection', with the contrast increased. I think it looks much more like it extends shore-to-wharf. It certainly ends abruptly at the wharf end; to have the wing of a fly aligned so precisely with the edge of the wharf is hard to accept.

Also, the lamp post BLOCKS some of the reflection; that could not happen if it was caused by the wing of a fly close to the camera.

Overall, the reflection phenomenom is centered on the body of water... quite a coincidence for the bug.

Also, the 'banking' attitude of the fly would seem to require a curvature in its flight path.

Nope, it wasn't a bug

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:46 am**

I do not know the date and time of the streak photo, but a sizeable meteor was seen at Manning (on the north coast) at 4:15 AM on Dec 6th. Here is the report:

http://taree.yourguide.com.au/detail.as ... class=news

It was large enough to create a brilliant flash, a sonic boom, and a major smoke trail... but it was apparently heading north-east, which would be directly away from Darwin.

I'm wondering, though, if pieces might have broken off high in the atmosphere, well south of Manning.

If the streak at Darwin occurred the morning of Dec 6th, and if the trajectory was south to north, it would be one more strange coincidence that this streak/flash phenomenon occurred at the same time as a documented meteor was passing over, to fall the other side of Manning.

(If this has been discussed before, I missed it. A search of the posts did not turn up any mention of Manning.)

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:54 am**

Maybe that light that you guys are trying to figure out is the meteor/comet its-self? and that streak is its tail? and because the camera was taking a picture every 15 seconds, that it didn't take a picture of the waves created by the impact of the meteor/comet into the water? I'm young, and am not that bright, but please tell me if this is even remotely possible. Thanks.

E-mail - BostonCTU@MSN.com

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:02 am**

The possibility that this phenomenon can be attributed to ball lightening has already been advanced by myself in earlier pages (somewhere around 36). Mainly, I was discounting the meteor as well as the contrail theory.
On hindsight though, given my experience with camera's, and film editing software, I cannot rule out the bug theory. Initially I thought the object could not have been a bug, due to the almost linear and consistent shadow. There had to be some sort of blurring at the edges, due to the physical variation in the bug. Figuring wings should have resulted in an alterable blurring. One comment though, claiming the light passing through would be blocked by only 1/10th the amount, resulting in apparent transparency of the wings does not sound too far off base.
I think the best solution to this would be empirical science. If it's the bug theory, why not try and replicate the experiment? I personally don't know about the specific camera used, or the parameters that would have to be included, but if one can set up similar initial conditions, and try to replicate the photo, perhaps we'll be able to better tell exactly what the image is (or better yet, what it's not).
If it's not a bug, I'd still lean on ball lightening discharing on the light bulb, or even simpler, just the lightbulb and a shadowing artifact due to the housing.

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:40 pm**

FastArtCeeToo wrote:...a sizeable meteor was seen at Manning (on the north coast) at 4:15 AM on Dec 6th.

It was large enough to create a brilliant flash, a sonic boom, and a major smoke trail... but it was apparently heading north-east, which would be directly away from Darwin. [Yes, Darwin is 4,000 km almost exactly 45 degrees NW of the Coffs Harbor-Wollongong area]

I'm wondering, though, if pieces might have broken off high in the atmosphere, well south of Manning.

...it would be one more strange coincidence that this streak/flash phenomenon occurred at the same time [about 39 hours later] as a documented meteor was passing over...

I agree as to the coincidence between the two events. Both traveling in generally the same direction. But what accounts for the time difference of a day and a half? The major meteor broke up and some pieces went into decaying orbit? If so how many orbits could there have been? The Earth would normally have rotated Australia from under the path if in a stricktly polar orbit. But I guess an orbit could be found to allow a meteorite to hit just west of the original meteor track about 39 hours later when it already has an eastward [Earth's rotation] velocity component.

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:50 pm**

I live an Darwin and have just visited this spot for the evening sunset. I noticed lots of flying ants at the rate of about twenty a minit. They are about half an inch long with their wings longer than the body. Their flight pattern viewed in the same direction seemed to match the angle of the track more often than not. they are slow flying but because of a light breeze tend appear to fly very straight. the wing beats are visible with the naked eye but only just. Body is the color of honey and the wings are transparent and rounded at the tips. The cliff is about 50ft with trees at the base so you are looking over the canopy of the trees. Other bugs of interest are dragon flies moving very fast and close to 4 inches long but their body is long and thin so highly unlikely. These white ants come out in the evening after rain in the previous days to mate and will last in plague preportions for at least another month until the wet season sets in properly. A photographer targeting these flying ants should have no trouble getting some in a photo to check for track based on shutter speeds similar to waynes photo. Unfortunately I dont have a digital camera. The only way I can see that this could be a shadow ray is if there was a very bright cloud to left of the frame and a plane flew past to cause a shadow. Flight path for Darwin airport second runway passes directly over crane at left background parallell with camera angle. There is the wake of a small boat visible inder Iron ore loading wharf and may have caused the flash and smoke effect but this appears to high a coincidence to be possible. the lamp nearest the flash is actually 70 yards back from the face of the wharf. Two video cameras are visible one on the building facing the flash and the other on the first pole to the right. this photo was on the front page of the Darwin News paper so the guys monitoring the cameras should have seen or been able to replay any footage. so a meteorite is out of the question.
This is definately a bug and should be easy to duplicate at the same location.

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:13 pm**

Rob wrote:I live an Darwin and have just visited this spot for the evening sunset. I noticed lots of flying ants at the rate of about twenty a minit. They are about half an inch long with their wings longer than the body. Their flight pattern viewed in the same direction seemed to match the angle of the track more often than not. they are slow flying but because of a light breeze tend appear to fly very straight. the wing beats are visible with the naked eye but only just.

That's a really useful report, particularly about them being slow-flying and so appearing to go in straight lines in the breeze, so thanks!

It makes me think that as the photographer apparently took a lot of pictures he must have captured some on other images as well, I guess the chance alignment on this one caught his eye.

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:27 pm**

Rob wrote:I live an Darwin and have just visited this spot for the evening sunset. I noticed lots of flying ants...... this photo was on the front page of the Darwin News paper so the guys monitoring the cameras should have seen or been able to replay any footage. so a meteorite is out of the question.
This is definately a bug and should be easy to duplicate at the same location.

Since you live there, could you check to see if anyone DID review those cameras?

And could you go to a photography shop and see about using a Cannon G3 set at f5.6 at 1/20th second with flash. Gather a bunch of the flying ants. Wait till dusk. Put the camera into continuous mode and aim in the same direction as the APOD as you open the container and let the insects take flight. In those few hundred photos is there one closely resembling the APOD?

Just a couple of time consuming experiments which might help the rest of us around the world consume less time on this.

Thanks for your post

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:36 pm**

I can't help but think that the staff of Darwin's newspaper is sophisticated enough not to publish a front page picture of an out-of-focus, common, local insect.

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:13 pm**

Can't use my Bad Buoy wrote:I can't help but think that the staff of Darwin's newspaper is sophisticated enough not to publish a front page picture of an out-of-focus, common, local insect.

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:31 pm**

I apologize for not being able to post an image, but I do not know any public image upload website.

Pbase.com will let you set up a free account with limited features. One of the limitations is that you won't be able to link your pictures inline, but I think if you post the URL, we can still follow it to your picture.

I have looked carefully at the negative of the 'reflection', with the contrast increased. I think it looks much more like it extends shore-to-wharf. It certainly ends abruptly at the wharf end; to have the wing of a fly aligned so precisely with the edge of the wharf is hard to accept.

You can't just look at the image itself. It's much better to look at a difference image, such as this one. It clearly goes beyond the far shore. To my eye, it also goes in front of one of the trees, althought that's a bit harder to discern.

Also, the lamp post BLOCKS some of the reflection;

It does not. Again, you must look at the difference picture to make this determination. While we're talking about the light pole, look at the difference picture and see if you can see any other light poles. You can, even though there is no change of substance to that part of the picture. So why do the poles appear? Because of jpeg artifacts. We can't expect the pole behind the bug to be any less visible than those other poles.

Overall, the reflection phenomenom is centered on the body of water... quite a coincidence for the bug.

Actually, the center point of this feature appears to be 21 pixels from the far shore and 31 pixels from the wharf. That's hardly centered.

Also, the 'banking' attitude of the fly would seem to require a curvature in its flight path.

It hasn't been established that the apparent look of the banking implies that the bug is actually banking. Most insects have 4 wings, and some of them fly with two wings up and two wings down for part of the flight cycle. This could simply be on of the up wings and one of the down wings on the other side that are at the right angle to reflect the flash.

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:46 pm**

"The lightpole/bulb: The flash is clearly offset to the right from the top of the pole. I think the alignment with the pole is coincidental. "

If the flash is indeed from the light going out it would not necessarily be centered. I still think the possibility of an *invisible* (invisible to the human eye but caught, in part, by the camera) lightening streak causing a power surge, making the light *flash* is the most logical and probable scenario. That flash is not behind or next to the light. It IS the light.

t

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:40 pm**

The following is a photoshop enhanced version of the "Strange_Pryde" pic from APOD
-"after" was subtracted from "big" and then contrast/color/etc were adjusted ...

The next pic highlights some of the things I see in the enhanced picture ...

Perhaps it is some kind of debris breaking up and falling to earth

Posted: **Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:51 pm**

Let me try this again ... with more resolution...
adjusted pic...

and the highlighted pic ...

Starship Asterisk*

Strange streak discussion: 2004 Dec 7 APOD

Bug!

Spy on the Wild Super Slomo

Re: IT's a bug

Re: LIGHTNING

Re: LIGHTNING

Reply to questions by "victorengel"

Forget contrails!

Re: Strange streak discussion: 2004 Dec 7 APOD

Re: Reply to questions by "victorengel"

Re: Reply to questions by "victorengel"

To victorengel - the reflection phenomenon

Australian meteor report in media

Weird Streak In Sky... A metoar/comet.....

Ball Lightening (or not?)

Re: Australian meteor report in media

Definately a bug

Re: Definately a bug

Re: Definately a bug

Meteorite

Re: Meteorite

Re: To victorengel - the reflection phenomenon

Mystery Trail and Flash

Interesting Photo Enhancement...

Strange Information in Pic