Starship Asterisk*

Doc Bluto wrote: You forget that the human eye/brain looks for patterns - even where none exist. As for being clever, what you are viewing is digital artifacts created by the application. It took me no work at all. Cleverness is not required. Again, you wish to ignore probabilities and possibilities, that's called opinion, not science. And when it comes to opinion, ego gets in the way quickly. I'm reminded of a good RUSH song with the lyrics: "everybody knows everything..." Thanks.

Quite the contrary; that's one of the factors I kept in mind.

Why not post your best attempt at a fake?

The "Australian Streak" is a "contrail shadow" formed by a passing aircraft at high altitude. I have seen these many many times in the deserts of Nevada.

Vayenn wrote:Did you ever try autocorrelation (mentioned on page 70)?

I didn't report the result, but I did try it (as part of trying to detect shading caused by the wings). When it didn't show anything, I also tried autocorrelation on the 'rods' image (shown below) as a check. Even that didn't give a particularly impressive result, whereas the FFT give a clear response. It's possible I messed up somewhere and gave up too easily, but looking at the apparent wobble in the trail that was found later I'm not convinced any periodic approach is going to work.

Doc Bluto wrote:

Ruidh wrote:

Doc Bluto wrote:You are, unfortunately, wrong. Use the word science, use bigger words if you like, you're still wrong. As wrong as 99% of the other pseudo-scientists here. You are STILL NOT allowing the most obvious, most reasonable, most simple explanations despite all your backslapping congratulations about a bug, or energy tube, or contrail, or exploding light.

And yet you fail to give the obvious explanation we are all supposedly missing. And that would be it's a hoax?

I'd believe it was a hoax if the photographer was trying to pass off the picture as one of a falling meteroite. The photographer seems to be very quiet in this whole brouhaha.

Do you think he went to a lot of trouble to create a false image of an insect flying in front of a camera? That's absurd.

The bug theory seems pretty well clinched. Sorry it wasn't as exciting as whatever you had in mind.

Well... it only took me five minutes to create multiple fakes of the same image, as well as other images... while retaining all digital information. And I am not a graphics artist. So what you are sayng is that the whole thing relies heavily upon your belief in the utter purity of heart of a person you don't know. OK, I can buy that. But, you must state that as a prerequisite in your explorations of the truth here. Thanks. Have a good holiday!

Why would someone try to make an image of an insect passing in front of a camera for a hoax? If I were cooking up a picture, I'd want to try for something notable -- a flying saucer or extinct antmal. Why would anyone try to pass this image off in a hoax?

It just occurred to me that this is the the shadow of a contrail

No seriously. Is there a way to get the forum to display at the top in every page a big message saying: THE PICTURE DOES NOT SHOW A CONTRAIL.

Also we should flashing big red letters saying: WE KNOW THIS MAY BE A HOAX, BUT WE ARE LOOKING FOR ALTERNATIVE REALISTIC EXPLANATIONS.

And yet another one saying: POST WITH CARE. ALL EXPLANATIONS HERE ARE THEORIES. WHATEVER HAPPENED THERE WE MAY NEVER KNOW, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO NAIL DOWN THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATIONS.

By hazeii's experiment, I know truly believe that it is a bug. I believe this theory, is the most probable and is quite possible. Hazeii's picture looks remarkably like the APOD picture. Is it more likely that the photographer had faked this image to look nearly exactly the same as the one of hazeii's, or is it more probable that his picture remsebles hazeii's experiment because they both show roughly similar objects being shot at similar settings? I would take the second explnanation. And also, a person has been down there to the spot where this photograph was taken, and explains that there were many insects flying around, and the chances of photographing one were quite high.

skyglow1

Ruidh wrote:If I were cooking up a picture, I'd want to try for something notable -- a flying saucer or extinct antmal. Why would anyone try to pass this image off in a hoax?

Ahhh, the antmals.... They were tasty!

*sniff*

- Boldra

SIRS:

WHEN AN ELECTRIC BULB OF ANY KIND IS READY TO BURN OFF, THE BURNING OCCURS JUST AT THE MOMENT OF SWITCHING ON, WHEN A VERY INTENSE BUT VERY SHORT LIGTH IS EMMITED AND THAT IS THE END OF THE BULB.- THAT IS WHY THE BULB WAS NOT WORKING WHEN INSPECTED.-

ACCORDIN WITH THE GEOMETRY OF THE LAMP GLASS WINDOW, THIS INTENSE LIGTH FIND THE WAY OUT CHANGING THE LIGTH PATTERN OUTSIDE THE LAMP, AS SHOWN IN THE PICTURE WHERE YOU CAN ALSO SEE AND OMEGA CLEARER PATTERN PERPENDICULAR TO THE STRANGE STREAK.-

THE STRANGE STREAK IS OF DIFFERENT TONE AS THE COLOR OF THE SKY IS DIFFERENT IN THAT AREA AND THE COMBINATION OF BOTH LIGTHS IS WHAT THE CAMERA CAPTURE IN THAT INSTANT.-

YOU CAN ALSO NOTE THAT INTENSITY OF THE STREAK DECREASE AS THE DISTANCE FROM POLE INCREASES, CONFIRMING THAT WAS EMMITED BY THE LAMP.-

THANKS FOR LETTING READERS COMMENT ON YOUR PAGE.-

JOSE LUIS RICE - MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER - MAZATLAN - MEXICO


[/url][/list][/list][/code][/quote][/u][/i][/b]

JOSE LUIS RICE wrote:SIRS:


YOU CAN ALSO NOTE THAT INTENSITY OF THE STREAK DECREASE AS THE DISTANCE FROM POLE INCREASES, CONFIRMING THAT WAS EMMITED BY THE LAMP.-

THANKS FOR LETTING READERS COMMENT ON YOUR PAGE.-

JOSE LUIS RICE - MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER - MAZATLAN - MEXICO

Paisano, la bronca es: (Translation: Conational friend, the problem is:)

If you read the whole thread (but 111 pages are a lot to read!) you'll find that the light is not aligned with the lamp post.

Even if it was, the geometry you describe would produce not only a dimmer shadow but also wider as you get further away from the light source, and this is not the case.

Salud!

Anonymous wrote:

fireking wrote:I've seen shadow lines very similar to the one in the picture.

This gives me an idea.

The light, when inspected, was not working. This time of the evening (just after 6PM) is when automatic lights often come on - we can apparently see other lights on in the picture.

When lights burn out at startup, they often flash, briefly and brightly. I can't make out the design of the light, but, is it possible that the photographer captured a light bulb burning out -- and the line is the shadow of the light housing? Depending on the design of the housing, a burnout flash could illuminate everything around it, except for the column of air/mist shadowed by the housing.

smith @ canada.com

I agree with smith (posting above). Its most likely to be an exploding light bulb. (mercury vapour?)

If you slightly increase the sharpness/contrast and zoom down to a level where the individual pixels can be seen, the flash(brightest pixel) is located 1 pixel to the right of the pole, and 1 pixel below the lamp housing level.

This is at bulb level, and is the perfect location to throw the shadow seen in the photo. It also clearly explains the source of the smoke/vapour around the pole.


detritus @ bigpond.com

What is the bright object seen at the bottom? could that be what caused the shadow to project?

detritus wrote: If you slightly increase the sharpness/contrast and zoom down to a level where the individual pixels can be seen, the flash(brightest pixel) is located 1 pixel to the right of the pole, and 1 pixel below the lamp housing level.

This is at bulb level, and is the perfect location to throw the shadow seen in the photo.

The flash appears on the right side of the pole. But inspect the After image closely. The bulb (or a support) seems to be on the left side of the pole.

I'm not ruling out the possiblity that the picture was a hoax, however, I'm more inclined to believe that it was an honest picture. What did the photographer have to gain by posting a hoax? There's no money involved, or notoriety, in fact, he's been rather silent throughout the whole arguement, which leads me to believe it was an honest capture.
Second, I'd like to see the photos you're talking about. Post anything that resembles the bug theory. I don't think it's a million to one odds that the bug appeared, the strangest part of the picture is that the bug was captured near the lightpost, that's what lead to the confusion. Had the bug been captured under other circumstances, the argeument would be a lot shorter.
Plus, dismissing any finding as a hoax, just out of your suspiciousness is not grounds for it being a hoax.
You're right in one thing, I should have stated, if this is not a hoax, then by 99% probability, it's a bug. Even if it was a hoax, the point taken is that Hazei actually went ahead, did the experiment, and reached the conclusion that the streak was a bug. Hoax or not, at least we now know the likelyhood that it was a bug in the photo. Unless you can prove otherwise, such as creating your own hoax, and replicating the appearance of the posted image, just as Hazei did.

Here's a photo of BEES IN FLIGHT. Better have a look.

http://www.pbase.com/image/34867461

I've been following some of the forum and one thing about the bug theory puzzles me. What is the diagonal streak? If it's the bug in motion, then there would be no image of the bug stopped at the bottom. Am I not right about that? The camera wouldn't capture the blur of the bug's motion and then conveniently produce an image at the last instant. Camera's don't work that way. And the supposed bug image seems to be what is clinching the theory in several participants' views. Will appreciate any calrification.

Excuse the typo on my previous post. s/b "clarification." Also wanted to note that many hoaxes are done for the kick of doing them and not for gain. One of the most effective ways the hoaxer convinces is by creating something that clearly (or apparently) he'd have no reason for doing. I see no reason to believe this is hoax, but, as I just said...

Jerry wrote:I've been following some of the forum and one thing about the bug theory puzzles me. What is the diagonal streak? If it's the bug in motion, then there would be no image of the bug stopped at the bottom. Am I not right about that? The camera wouldn't capture the blur of the bug's motion and then conveniently produce an image at the last instant. Camera's don't work that way. And the supposed bug image seems to be what is clinching the theory in several participants' views. Will appreciate any calrification.

The camera flash went off. The EXIF data in the image doesn't make it clear if the flash fired at the beginning or end of the exposure, but that only determines which way the insect was flying. The dark streak is the blurred silhouette of it against the sky for the 1/20 second exposure, and the bug image near the lamppost was captured by the flash. It is still a little out of focus because it was so close to the lens. The wings are probably further blurred by motion during the flash interval. While we can't be certain of this theory, it is well supported by the evidence- better than any of the other theories.

Jerry, the camera used was a Canon G3 which has the ability to be set to trigger the flash at the beginning or the end of the exposure. Most of us believe that it was set for the end of the exposure. The dark streak is the bug in flight going across the screen & the flash captured the image of the insect at the streak's end.

I am posting this Diff pic again because i think alot of the new posters are not reading the previous posts. The light & "smoke" when enhanced and rotated in an image editor looks just like a honey bee. See image below & decide for yourself.

Has anyone checked the ground inline with the shadow, opposite of the light pole? I was wondering, is there any damage to the ground, boats, or dock; what ever is in line?

Good exercise, indeed!...
OK. Time to tell you what this photo really is...

When one must analyze unknown(s), one must first compare to parallel knowns, eliminate them, which will leave you with just a few things left to disprove. It is by far easier to disprove something than to prove it. I am assuming this is a digital photo. If anyone knows differently, please let me know.

The only knowns are these: (1)When examined later, the light was not working, and (2)the series of photos were taken in 15-second intervals, with a 0.05 second exposure. Keep this in mind as I eliminate each existing theory, step-by-step. So here goes...

The first thing I did was to download the Hi-Res version of the photos to allow extreme zooming for analysis.

Burn up the Meteorite Theory. If this was a meteorite, the "next" photo would show an impact point, either on the water or on the dock. The "next" photo would also show a faint lingering smoke trail, which is absent. Although it definitely is possible to have a streak this long when photographing a meteorite, the streak would be bright (from the heat of re-entry) until the end of the streak. The reverse of this is true:it's bright only at the end of the streak.

Crash Dive the Contrail Theory for 5 reasons. (1)A contrail does not extend below the horizon line, (2) contrails are never perfectly straight, (3) it wouldn't disappear in the 15 seconds between the series photos, and (4) it would not be below the clouds since jets fly far above the clouds where the exaust gas freezes upon entering the extremely cold atmosphere (between 0F and -30F). You will not see a contrail at balmy sea level temperatures, and (5) they tend to drift with the upper-level winds and the "next" photo has no such streak.

Squash the Bug Theory. Bugs aren't exactly known for flying in straight lines for any distance. And how many can travel this apparent distance in the shutter speed of 1/20th of a second? The bug would have to be flying over 100 MPH (161 KPH)! Also, I concur with Doc: Why fake a bug when you could fake a UFO instead? What does he have to gain by faking a bug?

Does the Lightning Theory strike you? Nice try! Even some of the ligntning "fireballs" that I have photographed traveled in zig-zag lines. If it were a lightning "bolt", there would be damage to the lightpole, and damage was absent except for the bunt-out bulb.

So what is left?
Scratch on the film? (like I said, I am assuming it's a digital photo), or...

Are you turned on to the High-intensity Light Bulb Exploding Theory? Yessiree!

It is dusk, and darkness is more pronounced towards the right. The 3rd "tall" lightpole to the left has already started glowing. These lights have individual sensors on them to turn them on, and this one was just initiating it's warm-up. Unlike incandescent bulbs that use a filiment inside a vacuum, these types of high-intensity street lights use gas (mercury or argon) vapor under intense pressure. But what about the streak? Read on...

Imagine this shadow coming straight at you, but over your left shoulder. Had the pole been directly in front of the camera, the shadow would pass directly over your head.

From the camera's perspective, when I really zoomed-in on the light source, it is to the camera's right of the main (vertical) mast on the pole, and slightly below the cross-arm that contains the bulb. Reciprocating from that, a shadow would go up, and towards the left over the camera/viewer's shoulder.

The streak (I mean shadow...) also diminishes in intensity the further away it gets from the light source.

In the "after" photo taken 15 seconds later, the bulb area is still blurred from the intense heat (or perhaps lingering gasses) caused by the exploding bulb. Compare it to the next pole to the left, which has a crystal-clear image. There also appears to be a faint "cloud" of lingering gas that has drifted away from the camera, towards the right and towards the water. When I really zoomed-in on this "cloud", it has a faint brownish appearance"

Well, there you have it. Mystery solved.
I must confess, I did not read all 100+ pages in this blog, but I did read the first 20 or so, as well as the last dozen or so. Therre are a lot of good ideas and also some ideas that are "pretty far out there"...

Cheers!
Bob McKay 8)

Big_Mack1 wrote: Squash the Bug Theory. Bugs aren't exactly known for flying in straight lines for any distance. And how many can travel this apparent distance in the shutter speed of 1/20th of a second? The bug would have to be flying over 100 MPH (161 KPH)!

First, it isn't a perfectly straight line; second, what "distance" are you talking about; and third, how the heck did you arrive at that speed?

The streak is about 1175 pixels long and about 14 pixels wide. The relative darkening of the sky is roughly 2%, which could be caused by a dark object 2% the length of the total streak, or about 24 pixels. Using those numbers, this streak could have been made by a small bug about 0.1" wide by at least 0.15" long, making an 8" streak during the 1/20th second by flying a mere 9 MPH. Or, it could be a bee 0.3" wide by about 0.5" long making a 24" streak by flying 27 MPH, which bees can easily do. Those are just examples -- it could be an even smaller bug flying slower or a larger bug flying faster -- but the point is, this streak is very much within the range expected for a motion-blurred bug shot at 1/20th second exposure.

Big_Mack1 wrote:Good exercise, indeed!...
OK. Time to tell you what this photo really is...

Are you turned on to the High-intensity Light Bulb Exploding Theory? Yessiree!

It is dusk, and darkness is more pronounced towards the right. The 3rd "tall" lightpole to the left has already started glowing. These lights have individual sensors on them to turn them on, and this one was just initiating it's warm-up. Unlike incandescent bulbs that use a filiment inside a vacuum, these types of high-intensity street lights use gas (mercury or argon) vapor under intense pressure. But what about the streak? Read on...

Cheers!
Bob McKay 8)

Just one question - why does everyone keep saying that its dusk and not dawn??? When i go looking at the exif properties, it clearly shows that the pics were taken in the morning - not late afternoon (@ 4:52AM, NOT PM)

Is there a reason that i'm the only one seeing this? or is everyone just assuming it was taken in the morning. I brought this point up like 100 pages or so ago, but it seems that most people are just interested in their own theories...

The reason this would be so important is that lights turn off in the morning - NOT on. And as far as i know, light bulbs don't explode when you turn them off!!


[/img]

Big_Mack1 wrote: When one must analyze unknown(s), one must first compare to parallel knowns, eliminate them, which will leave you with just a few things left to disprove. It is by far easier to disprove something than to prove it.
<snip>

Well, there you have it. Mystery solved.
I must confess, I did not read all 100+ pages in this blog...

Well, I haven't read all the pages, either, but I've read enough to see your hypothesis disproved at least 10 times.

The most damning evidence is the fact that the streak isn't really straight. One enterprising poster did an interesting analysis that seems to show quite a bit of wobble, but even by eye, it's easy to see a distinct curve near the end where the flash is. How does a shadow do that?

That alone disproves your shadow hypothesis, but there's more. Casting a shadow the length that you're implying would require an extremely bright light, but this flash isn't even bright enough to saturate the CCD. Also, the streak does not diminish in intensity as you claim: Images made using the difference between this photo and the ones before and after show that the streak is fairly uniform the full length, and ends at a fairly distinct point. Furthermore, your "shadow over the photographer's shoulder" should be cone-shaped because of perspective, and that's just not there.

Sorry, but big colorful fonts don't get extra credit.

overs wrote:Just one question - why does everyone keep saying that its dusk and not dawn??? When i go looking at the exif properties, it clearly shows that the pics were taken in the morning - not late afternoon (@ 4:52AM, NOT PM)

The EXIF data is quite clear that the time was 18:52:52. I note that there is an incorrect timezone stamp of -7 attached to that. I'd suggest that whatever you are using to examine the header is trying to convert the camera time to your local time. The photographer has already stated that he was making the images near sunset- consistent with the time in the camera.

overs wrote: Just one question - why does everyone keep saying that its dusk and not dawn??? When i go looking at the exif properties, it clearly shows that the pics were taken in the morning - not late afternoon (@ 4:52AM, NOT PM)

When I were to look at the EXIF on pictures I took today, they would "clearly" show that I was up at 3:30AM taking pictures of my Christmas tree... on July 27!

The photographer said it was dusk; that's all we know.