Starship Asterisk*

Has anyone taken a close look at some distortion in the water with a (before - after)? ie, a diff of the before vs after pictures. I think it is in the water between the two light poles. I just noticed it after reading something a few posts ago and doing some quick processing of my own.

I can't take a close look at the moment, but I will get back to it later this week.

regarding the bee picture a few posts ago, I think the resemblance is superficial. If the reflection came from a bee, there seems to be a claim of three components, wing, thoraxic, and yellow abdominal. My concern is that the abdominal oval intersects the semicircular presumed thoraxic reflection. Whereas in bee anatomy the circles of the abdomen and thorax should be separate. Also, there is no interrupution in the supposed reflection between the two straight wing reflections, and the semicircular thoraxic reflection, wheras I think a real bee reflection should show some interrpution between these in this case bluish components due to bee anatomy. In the bee pictures I've just looked at, the thorax appears fuzzy and non reflective, and in other pictures I see a filled oval reflection, and not a neat semicircular reflection.

I know some people here have requested the photographer to upload some other pictures besides before, event, and after. When I get around to try looking for the source of some distortion between before and after, it would really help if I could get a beforebefore and an afterafter to look for the presence or absence of a similar distortion. maybe not, because it may be possible to show that the source of the differences is in the after picture and not the before picture. We'll see.

And if someone tries to explain the intersection of the yellow abdominal oval of the supposed bee with the bluish thoraxic oval, by saying something about the angle or velocity of the bee, then such claims should also apply to the angle and velocity of the source of the long trail.

hawaiianmike wrote:...perhaps BigMack (hamburger guy?) is correct about the light being a gas light that is being caught in the process of exploding---we all know that lights that DO explode usually do so as they are being turned on...

Just as an aside, has anyone on here ever actually had a light bulb (of any sort) explode when switched on, off or when being screwed into a live socket? It's never happened to me in 45 years - yet in this thread it seems to be accepted as a well known fact.

H0meAl0ne wrote:Just as an aside, has anyone on here ever actually had a light bulb (of any sort) explode when switched on, off or when being screwed into a live socket? It's never happened to me in 45 years - yet in this thread it seems to be accepted as a well known fact.

I've seen small incandescent lamps explode. I've not heard of higher wattage arc lamps (HP mercury, HP sodium, LP sodium) doing so, however. Those bulbs consist at least of an inner arc tube with a secondary glass or quartz envelope. Furthermore, the fixtures they are installed in usually have safety glass shields. It isn't really obvious to me that metal vapor lamps should experience catastrophic start-up failures. They start cool (except possibly for a small filament to get things started) and heat up fairly slowly.

hawaiianmike wrote:

Gosh, hOme alOne, you immediately, within a couple of minutes, state that what I just said about lights that explode usually do so when they are being switched on, which HAS INDEED happened to me many dozens of times, has been accepted by this group even though you and I may be the only ones here right now---seems light you want to pick a fight over nothing--go mellow out a bit!!---if a dozen other posters eventually come on-line and say that none of them have ever experienced a light blowing up upon being switched on, I'll gladly admit some sort of HORRENDOUS MISTAKE on my part and stay in my room for a full day---it rarely happens that a light blows up when switching it OFF, and I just meant to agree with Big Mack that the picture could indeed, PERHAPS, show such an explosion as the timing seems reasonable--if it's getting dark and the electronic timers are switching the lights on---and would explain the flash---you also were so intent on your attack that you failed to even mention what I was saying, that perhaps the streak is not really associated with the flash---try decaf or less anabolic steroids--

Sheez Hawaiianmike - talk about Paranoid - can't h0me al0ne ask a perfectly reasonable question? If anyone needs to get off the anabolic steroids... I'd be looking a bit closer to home if I was you.

I've never seen a globe explode either so I was only taking other peoples' word for it that they can.

I'm only going on the EXIF data that was posted in the discussion group, and I know there was some discussion about the files being out of sequence in the time stamp, ie "after" was taken first, while "before" was taken last. If anyone recalls what the resolution on that was, I'd like to hear...

Thanks,

JJ

I just checked my email and Wayne Pryde, the photographer, replied to a query I sent to him. I copy his repsonse below. If anyone has a question for him, please post it - keep it concise, please - and I'll forward them to him tomorrow evening (US PAC time).

Thanks,

JJ



Hi Jack,

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with the forum as much as I would
liked. What are the questions? I will reply to yourself and you can post
them.

There are some really interesting theories that people are coming up
with, but there is also some crap. Experts have already confirmed that
the photo has not been tampered with and yes I definitely have better
things to do with my time than make up a hoax...

Anyway, let me know what questions you would like me to answer and I
will try to get a response to you ASAP.

regards

Wayne Pryde

hawaiianmike wrote:Gosh, hOme alOne, you immediately, within a couple of minutes, state that what I just said about lights that explode usually do so when they are being switched on, which HAS INDEED happened to me many dozens of times, has been accepted by this group...it rarely happens that a light blows up when switching it OFF...

Sorry hawaiianmike, no attack intended. I raced off that question just before leaving work to catch my lift, so it wasn't a politely phrased as it might have otherwise been.

Your post just made me think about the term 'explode' and I wasn't sure if people took it mean a physical explosion with glass (and possibly mercury vapour) going everywhere, or just the bulb burning out (which certainly does tend to coincide with the thermal shock of being switched on).

When I thought about it, I've never met anyone who has mentioned a bulb exploding (not that I make a habit of asking people mind you).

So....I was just curious. My thought was that if bulbs exploded at all regularly someone would have sued the manufacturers or something. I'd be scared / angry if it happened to me.

H0meAl0ne wrote:

hawaiianmike wrote:...perhaps BigMack (hamburger guy?) is correct about the light being a gas light that is being caught in the process of exploding---we all know that lights that DO explode usually do so as they are being turned on...

Just as an aside, has anyone on here ever actually had a light bulb (of any sort) explode when switched on, off or when being screwed into a live socket? It's never happened to me in 45 years - yet in this thread it seems to be accepted as a well known fact.

hawaiianmike, I have apologised if it seemed like I was attacking you. I wasn't. I was responding to your assertion, perhaps hasty, that "we all know that lights DO explode". In reply I said that the thread seemed to accept that as a fact. I had no first hand knowledge, so I was asking for observations from people.

Frankly I'm surprised about explosions, as as far as I know most bulbs contain either a vacuum or at best a low pressure gas. Still, I'm by no means an expert, hence my question.

Yes, I understand hOme alOne, that in general, lights don't usually "explode" such as in this picture, but it can happen---most of the times that I have seen such bursts, it was a fluorescent light and had been turned on at extremely low temp and somehow managed to kick-start too quickly and actually "blow up"--also, many times have I switched on a wall light or overhead and heard a POP and the bulb was gonzo, however, never in these cases did it break the outer glass globe---I'm not familiar with what gases could be in the lamps in Australia---NOW, COULD WE PLEASE DISCUSS YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE AGREES THAT THE STREAK AND THE FLASH MAY BE UNRELATED AND THAT THE STREAK MAY BE DUE TO SOMETHING FROM THE LAND MASS IN BACKGROUND OF PHOTO????? PLEASE!!!!! PS, is your moniker supposed to be like OB One Kanobe?? Like in "Me One"???

Sol. wrote:

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.

Also as noted in earlier posts, an insect is largely at the mercy of the wind; if it was being blown past the lens that could also make the line straight(ish).

Well, it's beddie-bye time here and I wish you "bug folks" the best of luck(wish we could get the photographer to go and leave a camera there , time lapse, etc, I'd even kick in for film) to see if ANY bugs fly by and either support this theory or forever put it to rest---I don't think it was a bug but rather a co-incidence----smoke trail on land mass aligned with freak lamp explosion---any one who wants to see a variety of incredible photos can inquire at mikereilly@hawaii.rr.com as I just received a series of photos tht are entitled "last photo I ever took" and show things like a train going off a tressle and the photographer was obviously ON the train--hope he/she bailed out in time, as film DID make it--photos can be pretty incredible things, as we all know---

SAVE THE HUBBLE!!!!

Goodnight and aloha, especially hOme alOne--hope you aren't alone--hawaiianmike

hawaiianmike wrote:...COULD WE PLEASE DISCUSS YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE AGREES THAT THE STREAK AND THE FLASH MAY BE UNRELATED AND THAT THE STREAK MAY BE DUE TO SOMETHING FROM THE LAND MASS IN BACKGROUND OF PHOTO...

Personally I favour explanations that only involve one event. Two events occuring simultaeneously in time, and apparently in space, seems less supportable than one.

BTW, I don't consider the apparent alignment of the 'flash' and 'smoke' AKA 'insect' and the top of the light pole to be significant. There are heaps of objects in that photo that they could align with that would be equally striking. What I mean is, I don't consider that alignment to be an extra factor that necessarily has to be 'explained away' (as in "if it's the trail of an insect trail how come it aligns exactly with the light?").

But that's all just my opinion. What counts is a testable prediction that serves to eliminate one or more hypothesis.

And H0meAl0ne is my nick from about 6 years ago when I did happen to be at home alone for the night.

Cloudbait wrote:I've seen small incandescent lamps explode. I've not heard of higher wattage arc lamps (HP mercury, HP sodium, LP sodium) doing so, however. Those bulbs consist at least of an inner arc tube with a secondary glass or quartz envelope. Furthermore, the fixtures they are installed in usually have safety glass shields. It isn't really obvious to me that metal vapor lamps should experience catastrophic start-up failures. They start cool (except possibly for a small filament to get things started) and heat up fairly slowly.

Outdoor lamps tend to 'explode' much more often than indoor lamps do because of moisture - in particular, if condensation builds up on the fixture then drips onto the (hot) bulb. I'd guess that water on the surface of a cold bulb could cause it to shatter a few seconds after start-up as well (the glass in contact with the water drop can't rise above 100 degrees C, the rest of the envelope can get a lot hotter, and the resultant thermal stress would cause the glass to shatter).

I think there are a lot of unexplained problems with the bulb theory though. Light travels in straight lines, but the trail doesn't. Also the trail is only part way through the frame and roughly constant width (it would take some odd geometry to achieve that). We've had reports that the bulb is intact (though not working), and the 'explosion' isn't well-centred on the lamp. Finally, the 'smoke' is oddly symmetric (despite the lamps having a metal hood on top) and has apparently dissipated within 15 seconds.

Philip T wrote:I have two pictures of honey bees that were taken at 1/4th second and they may help support the insect theory. They are fairly high resolution - 2560 X 1920 pixels and show unusual streaks due to the bee movement.

Philip emailed me the photos, and here's an extract from one of them.



The trail is pretty obvious; in this case though it appears (to me) to be caused by reflection of ambient light from the bee, rather than as a result of the bee blocking light from the background (as was the case in my experiment, and as proposed as an explanation for the trail on the APOD image).

You can see the full size pictures here and here (these are big images, 2560x1920, about 1.7Mb).

The exposure was 1/4 second, and he writes:-

The insect is a common honey bee. The bees have made a large nest inside a 60 gallon steel barrel and fly in and out of a single hole.

Anonymous wrote: Also as noted in earlier posts, an insect is largely at the mercy of the wind; if it was being blown past the lens that could also make the line straight(ish).

Did you see the recent Spy on the Wild special they had on Animal Planet? They attached radar transponders to bumblebees. This allowed them to track their positions as they went foraging from the nest.

The bumblebees turned out to consistently fly at about 30 mph in a straight line, no matter what the local wind conditions were. Once they got to their foraging location, which was some distance from the nest, they changed to a different flight pattern, probably what you and I are used to. When finished foraging, they headed back to the nest, again in a straight line at 30 mph.

I'm certain you can't generalize to all insects from bumblebees, but here we have experimental data that bees fly in straight lines some of the time. Really, all it takes is a few minutes outside to observe this. Anyway, we're only talking 1/20 second here. How much of a zigzag to people expect to see in 1/20 second even if the insect is on a zigzag path?

Anonymous wrote:

Sol. wrote:

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.

Also as noted in earlier posts, an insect is largely at the mercy of the wind; if it was being blown past the lens that could also make the line straight(ish).

True, but there's nothing at all unusual about an insect flying in a fairly straight line for 1/20th of a second. Bees, especially, are known for flying in a straight line for long distances (hence the phrase, "making a beeline" for something), but even house flies can manage a straight line for 1/20th second.

About 5 years ago, I saw a Discovery channel special on Jose Escamilla's "rods" and I did a fairly extensive study of both "rod" images on the Web and videos that I took myself of insects. The original study of the images Escamilla had on his website are at http://opendb.com/sol/seq.htm but there are now several other pages that might be relevant to this photo. One in particular that seems relevant is the "Albany UFO" (http://opendb.com/sol/morerods.htm) which caused a stir about 2 years ago because it was shot by a Fox station and it was picked up by several affiliates. There are also several dark-colored "rods" in Escamilla's latest DVD (http://opendb.com/sol/joseDVD.htm)

With video images, it's easy enough to prove that "rods" are just flying insects because of the way the sequential video fields form a continuous streak. (Or, if only one field from each NTSC frame is captured, they show a pattern of rods separated by gaps of the same length.) That's to be expected when anything flies past a camera that is capturing 60 fields per second and the field exposure time is also 1/60th second.

"Rods" can be either light or dark, depending on whether they are seen in reflected light or in silhouette. Light-colored rods frequently appear to have 2 to 4 pairs of wings, but dark rods rarely show any sign of wings. That isn't always the case: In some light-colored images, the wings can be seen throughout the exposure, so they look like undulating fins. And the "Albany UFO" is unusual in that the streak looks like a typical dark rod but it does have 2 pairs of wings in each image. But the reason that light-colored rods frequently show multiple pairs of wings is that the wings are only imaged by the camera when they are at the right angle to reflect light directly back into the lens. So, the best explanation for the Albany rod seems to be that it's a dark bug that's mostly seen in silhouette, but twice during each 1/60th image, the angle between sun, bug, and camera is just right to reflect some light into the lens.

I think something similar is happening here in the Pyrde photo, with the wings only being imaged once during the camera flash. Other than the flash part, this photo looks like a typical dark "rod" shot with a video camera except that it's longer and fainter, which is precisely what one would expect from a 1/20th second exposure compared to 1/60th second. As I show in the calculation above, this streak could have easily been made by any number of ordinary insects. For comparison, the "Albany UFO" shows a relative sky darkening of about 6%, whereas this streak is 2%.

None of this proves that the Pyrde photo is a bug, of course, but it most definitely could be a bug, and at this point, that seems to be the simplest explanation that covers all the evidence. (I really don't understand why some people are so adamantly opposed to the bug hypothesis, given that it fits the evidence so well, and there's nothing extraordinary about having a bug fly past a camera.)

hazeii3 wrote: The trail is pretty obvious; in this case though it appears (to me) to be caused by reflection of ambient light from the bee, rather than as a result of the bee blocking light from the background (as was the case in my experiment, and as proposed as an explanation for the trail on the APOD image).

I agree. The lighting is wrong in this picture. The bee should be back-lit except for the flash. Also, the bee is too close to something, which is why you can see its shadow from the flash.

hawaiianmike wrote:

Well, now hOme alOne, I am sorry that I responded as I just did but it really wasn't intended for you anyways, but rather for "guest" who replied on your behalf--having just received your last message, I understand that you were in a hurry and intended no attack--now I do--please accept my apology, but guest can go fly a kite---it confounds me that we have yet to consider what I brought up and are wasting time on inter-personal &%$#@---what if the streak and flash are unrelated?? What if the streak is due to something taking place on the land mass and the photographer happened to catch a bulb self-destructing at the exact time that some other event has a straek going to the right spot in the eyes of the camera? realize that the streak could be quite a bit larger if it actually was way off in the background and therefore could more easily be lined up with the exploding bulb.

As I stated earlier on.. egos are in the way now

Doc Bluto wrote:
As I stated earlier on.. egos are in the way now

It's a shame that yours seems to be the biggest problem here.

As has already been stated at least half a dozen times. the purpose of the discussion on this board has been to figure out a possible solution assuming the photographer has not doctored the photos. This in no way precludes the hoax as a possible solution and no one I know has rejected the possibility that it /is/ a hoax.

Apparently to you, any discussion beyond the hoax is an affront to the natural order of your universe and deserves the utmost hostility.

It's a shame your attitude is so poor and your maturity level is so low. But it's not surprising.

Doc Bluto wrote:As I stated earlier on.. egos are in the way now

Doc Bluto sat on a wall
Doc Bluto had a big fall
All the king's horses and
all the kng's men
cannot put Doc Bluto's mind
together again!