Starship Asterisk*

Boldra wrote: I suggest that the people who still support alternative theories (UFOs, contrails, meteorites or Tina Turner) need to focus on disproving the bug theory to make headway.

Boldra

Yeah, or you could actually try proving it. The bug theory has not been proven any more than the other theories have been dis-proven. I don't believe it was a UFO, contrail, etc, but the lack of consistency in evaluating each theory is poor. Now, if only we could have accepted this level of circumstantial evidence to convict O.J...

Several years back I was doing photos of fashion displays in stores, which often required slow shutter speed due to low light. I frequently saw streaks where a person had passed walking quickly through the field of view.
Based on what I have read, seen and experienced in my near sixty years, the insect passing seems most plausible. In my mind it most easily explains the sharp edges of the shaded streak and the flared, spread out nature of the flash, which may be a reflection off one or more shiny surfaces of the bug. One question is, why didn't the flash illuminate some other dark part of the insect? Possible answers are that the insect was fairly light colored, or it was small enough to be completely blotted out by the glare.
Thanks for the chance to see another puzzle of nature.

hawaiianmike wrote:Ha Ha---we've all been had---this is like an Alfred Hitchcock movie (a bad one) where we are all unwitting subjects of an evil scientist---thius is now obviously a psychological forum, not an astronomy based forum, which was the evil intent to begin with---as we degenerate into our caveman (any cavewomen out there?), proving that "the Lord of the Flies" was an accurate portrayal of the human condition, it is time to search out and find this Pryde fellow and string him up---let's hire a dectective and get to it!!
PS, I still don't think it's a bug but just a co-incidental record of a bulb exploding and some unrelated event on the land mass--pppssfffttthhhttt!!!

Bwaahh haaa haaa ahaaa haaa!!!

Anonymous wrote: One point I might add is, if the image captures the insect silhouette, and a light reflection from the insects wings, this would tell us that the insect is still in the photo at the time of exposure. Where is the insect? If Mr Peterson's analysis is detailed enough to dislocate the flash from the light pole by 8 to 10 pixels, Say that the trail is 2% less bright than the surrounding sky, surely the there would be some evidence of the bug itself.

The insect was moving across the picture. At the start of the
exposure it was at one end of the streak and at the end of the
exposure is was at the other end. The bright blob is the
location where it was in the short period (< 1/1000 s) of the
flash. The dark trail is caused by the fact that during a
very short period the insect blocked the light at that location.
So the dark streak actually is the image of the insect, but
it is extremely blurred due to its movement.

HawaiiArmo wrote:Hey Doc Bluto,
I'm still waiting for your fake images that you claimed to have created. You talk a good talk, but you have no facts to back up your statements. I want to see these images that you bragged about. Anything will do, even the most low-tech artificially created image would suffice, and it would give you some credibility on the issue. Right now, you sound as credible as Bush when he says he backs stem cell research. I don't want this to sound like a threat or a criticism, but the best way to change my opinion on the subject, as Hazei did, is to post an image that utterly refutes the other claims.
This thread is dead because everybody keeps beating a dead horse, and no proof has come yet to counteract Hazei's apparatus and image he created.

You may wait. You missed the point again. My images are not the issue. As far as proof... no one has proof of anything, in case you hadn't noticed. And there never will be proof and my images will neither advance or refute any proof of anything. I don't know how to make this any easier... If I am able to create images that mimick this, then I must take into account the probability and possibility that the original image is an artifact or a hoax. And the ease of which I was able to do this places this as a prime candidate on my list of probabilities. AND, in light of not having ANY further evidence anywhere else but aside from gazing at a digital image, just as you do... you MUST NOT discard the prime possibilities JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT or it doesn't fit your view of this game. THAT, sir, is the point.

Try this experiment. Try to create a faked image... that looks kind of like the original. Try it... after a few adjustments here and there, you too will have a beautiful incoming meteorite from space in your very own digital image. You too could inspire hundreds to hotly debate whether it was real or not. And therein lies the danger of digital images... they are so so so easily faked and manipulated and 'created'. Why... just cruise around the internet... there are dozens and dozens of web sites that CATER and showcase this kind of artistry. And would they all be liars and crooks and jerks? No... its done for FUN, out of mischieve FUN!

You cannot now place the burden of proof on my created images... that is not the question here. That's a dodge. The question is the logic that accompanies the guessing game here... I can't say it an easier for you.

However.. the holidays are coming, put your mind at rest for a few days, then come back perhaps and think some more... have a good day, eh!

Sombrero4594 wrote:I would comment upon the insect “consensus” about the streak. As a lifelong student of entomology and the natural sciences, I would offer two problems, both fatal, with the insect idea.

1) As others have pointed out, the shutter speed rules out any insect leaving a trail that long (or any other creature from Earth) on a picture taken at that speed.

2)The trail is perfectly (within the limits of my digital copy) straight. No creature on Earth can do that—not even a peregrine falcon in full stoop at 198mph.

Also, any rocket-like device would have left the cloud associated with liftofff fully visible (unless it was the landing end of trajectory). Since the photographer said there was no trace of it in the next shot, that sort of rules out the landing end of a trajectory.

Superb logic. Thanks!!

Those who have, after some pictures of a wasp wired to a bike tire, blindly accepted the insect theory are just as bad as the UFO enthusiasts that find their preferred immeidate explanation for everything.

I think what many of us are saying is that this debate is far from closed, and there are many possibilities which have not yet been considered.


.

Doc Bluto wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, lemme see if I get this straight... As you state, the purpose of the discussion is to figure out possible solutions while discarding and ignoring solutions. Geez, that makes little or no sense, logically, or scientifically. I'd call that a waste of time or a bad game. And, I hadn;t relaized that you were setting the rules. ?

And as far as you taking this as a personal affront, or considering this to be hostile, merely proves my point about egos getting in the way of logical thought. You've proven my point perfectly. Further, your resorting to name calling and finger pointing ("poor attitude", and "low maturity level") continues to refine my point. I'm half amused and half disappointed.

You simply don't get it. You are trying to find a solution but set up preconditions that preclude certain circumstances - no matter how likely they may or may not be. I'm afraid to say this, but that's not science, that's emotional wishful thinking. You might try accomodating other points of view without getting worked up. Defend your position, by all means. But when I see that preconditions are set for this magical guessing game, then it's a waste of time and nonsensical. And it's silly for you to get worked up because someone else isn't playing by YOUR rules. Take a breath, enjoy the sunset, take a walk, read a book. If you want to pretend to play scientist, then try thinking like a scientist ... and then, have a nice day.

It's called a thought exercise. Apparently you don't think enough to be a part of it.

If you are so offended by this discussion WHY ARE YOU HERE?

The truth is you are a child. You have the mental capacity of a 12 year old and you need to tell everyone about it. Go troll somewhere else.

[quote="Ernst Lippe"]There are several possible explanations: and you give four
most of us don't really know how a flying insect looks in a flash photo. that's why we need to continue this discussion with some simple, logical experiments

Virtually all? insects can and do fly in straight lines. But most people will probably miss insects that are flying longer distances. Actually, the only time when there are not flying in straight lines is when they are searching (e.g. for food), and there is probably nothing interesting for an insect near the camera because it is located at the coast. if so uninteresting, why do any insects live at the coast at all?

Anyhow the actual length of the streak is at most a few meters (and probably much less)

We don't know if the flash occured ...We still don't know how fast the flash was. If it was indeed 1/1000 s the movement blur should have been greater than it is in the picture (assuming that the insect moves at a uniform speed demonstrations needed). But even a flash of 1/2000 s is short enough to be consistent with the observed motion blur experimentation needed. Now the minimum exposure time of this camera is 1/2000 s, and it seems reasonable to assume that the flash should also be able to handle this. 10usec to 1 millisecond

We don't know the size of the insect, and it is also very difficult to say how far removed it was from the camera. experimentation needed But even a very short
path (say 0.1 m) would cause the streak if the insect is close enough.demonstration called for
We don't know the orientation of the insect. Actually, I think that it ismost likely .... This is a very strong argument against all explosion theories I'll return to that after defending my questions. Let's stick to the insect question for the moment

Your comments were full of alot of what we don't yet know, assumptions, and 'what ifs'

You gave us, not a clear, but maybe an, hmmmm, impressionistic vision of the need for more investigation before a more definitive word can be given.

This thread has digested alot and sifted it down to one of at least three major probabilities. We can discuss those after agreeing that the insect question bears more scrutiny.

Sombrero4594 wrote: 1) As others have pointed out, the shutter speed rules out any insect leaving a trail that long (or any other creature from Earth) on a picture taken at that speed.

2)The trail is perfectly (within the limits of my digital copy) straight. No creature on Earth can do that—not even a peregrine falcon in full stoop at 198mph.

Good we have an entomologist in house!

Question: If the insect was 50cm from the camera the strike would not need to be longer than 20cm, and the insect would not need to be moving faster than 40km/h (numbers done in my head while cycling to the train station, excuse me if they are slightly inexact) if you add to this wind pushing the insect, do you still think this impossible?

Thanks

Deckham wrote: Mr Pryde has set up his camera to photograph what is essentially a landscape scene timelapse.

So he either decides to use the flash option to illuminate passing insects (couldn't resist, sorry), or he neglects to 'switch' it off. Can't think of any other reason it would be left on. There is no designed foreground focus to illuminate.

Given it was in error, would someone have an approximate time a digital camera of that ilk erroneosly configured to 'flash' every 15sec would be able to continue to do so - with a standard battery?

If this was not an error (I now understand why flash would be used to light up your friend's smile) what was the purpose of it?

There was a message posted many pages back that the photographer enabled the flash to ensure the exposure of the clouds would be correct. I don't see how this could possibly work, although there may be something about the camera that I don't know. Much more likely, I think, is that the photographer was simply unaware of the flash or simply didn't care. After all, for something essentially at infinity, whether the flash was used or not is irrelevant.

As to how long the camera can keep up with multiple flash shots, fifteen seconds is adequate time for most flashes to recharge on a fresh battery. According to the photographer, 38 photographs were taken in this series. That really is not very many for a fresh battery.

I'm actually more interested in what the camera thought the focus distance was (it does not, according to EXIF appear to be infinity) and also the flash exposure. These two things would be related, since the distance to target would determine the correct flash exposure and hence duration. That would affect the amount of blur of the brightly illuminated insect. An exception to this would be if the camera uses some sort of ETTL exposure where the flash is continued until correct exposure is attained. I've sent in a query to Canon to answer some of these questions, but I have not received a reply yet.

There is no question that the insect flying past the lens at close range answers all the questions.All other explainations need extordanary circomstances.When a resonable explanation answer all the questions there is no need to look for a more complex one.

Anonymous wrote:My problem is the 90 degree bank while still in straight flight.

Accepting the insect theory, it's not a 90 degree bank, and it's also not straight flight, especially near the location of the bright flash. If you look closely at the trail, it curves one way, then another, then sharply (relatively) downward near the rightmost part of the trail.

Someone posted a message a few pages back that bees are known to nest in the cliffside just below the photographer's position. Imagine a bee flying from behind the photographer and then needing to decend the cliff. How would it negotiate such a maneouver?

Furthermore, as I've stated many times, just because it LOOKS like the insect is banking doesn't mean that it is. The camera's strobe, while short, is nevertheless a segment, not an instant in time. The two images (apparently two wings) could have been recorded at different times.

Anonymous wrote:Those who have, after some pictures of a wasp wired to a bike tire, blindly accepted the insect theory are just as bad as the UFO enthusiasts that find their preferred immeidate explanation for everything.

But for how many people was this picture important evidence?
For most proponents of the bug theory this picture was just not
very important, it looked just like we expected.

So far it is the only picture that shows how this image could have been
caused. For all other theories we have never seen a similarly convincing
picture.

I think what many of us are saying is that this debate is far from closed, and there are many possibilities which have not yet been considered.

I strongly doubt that there are "many" of you. A large number of people have
participated in the discussions, and there is just a very small number
left. If you review the discussion, many of the serious contributors have been
converted to the bug theory (and the majority stopped posting after that,
because they considered the case closed). As far as I can tell there is no
one with a relevant scientific background who assumes that other explanations
are more likely than the bug theory.

We have seen a very wide range of theories, so if you really believe that
there are serious candidates that have not been considered, you should be more
specific. Which theories for which there is enough evidence have been ignored?

Can't use my Bad Buoy wrote:In my last post a half hour ago I posted my concerns with the insect theory but neglected to post to which photo of hazeii's extensive body of work I was referring.

That particular photo was actually contributed by Philip T (just making sure the right person gets the credit!)

hawaiianmike wrote:it is time to search out and find this Pryde fellow and string him up---let's hire a dectective and get to it!!

I second that.
Who has his address?

"When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?'

If this really an insect caught by a flash, why are the plants near the camera dark on the side nearest the flash?

These plants are the only objects that would be lit by a flash and I see no evidence of any additional light.

Anonymous wrote:I'm failing to see that. Plus the photo is much less distinguishable [focal plane:infinity/lens:f5.6 vs ?] than those posted by hazeii which were taken five times slower @ 1/4 sec.

I'm not sure where the 1/4 second came from (I hope it wasn't me!). Because the camera I used is automatic, I had no idea what the shutter speed was; I just set the camera to 100 ASA to make it as low as possible.

However, I was cross-checking my results a bit earlier and found a problem. I reckon the wheel was doing about 3 revs/sec which works out as a wasp-speed of about 12mph.

The sums: A 26" bicycle wheel has a circumference 26 times pi. Times 3 revs/second = 245"/second ~= 14mph. So your post made me think, hang on, a 1/4 second exposure should have given a trail 245/4 = 60" long! Which it very obviously isn't...it looks about 2" (estimated by comparison with the size of the wasp).



So I had a poke around in the EXIF data in the original photo, and here's the relevant bits:-

FNumber - 2.80
ISOSpeedRatings - 100
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/181 seconds
ApertureValue - F 2.83
BrightnessValue - 5.89
MaxApertureValue - F 2.83
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
Flash - Fired

The exposure was only 1/181 second! That works out as giving less than an inch and a half of trail - close enough to what's visible in the picture for me. Also, that means if the exposure had been 1/20th second (as per the APOD image) the trail would have been nine times longer at 13 1/2 inches. Given the wasp I used was about half an inch long, that means the would have been around 27 times the body length.

Now, if I had a camera where I could control the exposure, I'd try and repeat the experiment with a lower shutter speed. As it is, my only option is to try a very dark room (looking at the EXIF data for my first indoor attempt shows even that was at 1/64 second).

But it's the illumination on two counts which bothers me most with this theory.
1] Flash time 10usec-1msec. I go with other posts in that the flash probably maxed out. Being set for end curtain the camera would have been attempting a balanced exposure on a non-existant foreground.

I don't think it's a given that the flash maxed out. EXIF data show a non-infinite subject to camera distance. Calculated exposure would probably depend upon this distance. I don't know what the units are for this distance or I'd try to extrapolate a flash duration from it. I also don't know the ISO the pictures were taken at, also needed.

Now that 1/1000sec flash is 1/50 of the 1/20sec exposure. I would expect the flash to expose the insect for 1/50 of its flight in the frame.

I won't address this because we haven't established flash duration (even if it's maxed out). I did, however, on page 89 or thereabouts, post a simulation of the bee theory using 1/1000 sec. flash exposure as a basis. Here again is the picture.
http://the-light.com/Photography/bugsimulation.jpg

I'm failing to see that. Plus the photo is much less distinguishable [focal plane:infinity/lens:f5.6 vs ?] than those posted by hazeii which were taken five times slower @ 1/4 sec.

Hazeii posted little about the speed of the insect. It was a rough experiment, and I think no attempt to match the putative speed of the insect was attempted.

Additionally there is no trail remotely resembling straight nor long enough. At sunset, away from the hive you might catch a bee on a straight, 30 mph dive for home. But still, that is only 2.2 feet in the 1/20 sec exposure. Will that explain the trail? If it's to be an insect, I would say it has to be other than a bee.

Yes, that would explain a bee. Compare a bee's body length to 2.2 feet and compare that to the flash size vs. the trail size. They are quite compatible -- at least in the same order of magnitude, which is about as much precision as I think we can expect at this point.

2] The abdominal exposure. Having read all the posts, the most likely explaination of the flare in the 'insect scenario' were that it was a flash exposure of either a full pollen load or the surface of the insect's abdomen. If so, I don't see how that flare can be patially obscured by an object in the background [lamppost].

Facts not in evidence. To demonstrate this is the case, take a difference image, and show that in the difference image, the lamp post overlapping the putative insect is more clearly visible than other lamp posts. To my eyes, this is not the case at all. If you can demonstrate this, please show the pictures. Previously posted pictures that I've seen don't show this.

Why aren't more of the proponent's here doing !/20sec f5.6 exposures focused to infinity around their own yards? Yeah, so winter throws a wrench into the old insect watching evenings.

I have a digital camera and insects available (however in foraging mode = low flight speed). The problem is that my camera has a much larger sensor than a G3 has. That means the depth of field at the same aperture is much smaller. I could stop down, but then the exposure would be different. It's also extremely difficult to capture a fast flying insect under the conditions we're talking about.

But without wobble in its flight path?

Did you miss the posts that clearly quantify the wobble in the flight path?

The major ground work was done by the guy with the disassembled bicycle who can't be trusted warming KFC

The major groundwork? No, I'd say that he did, perhaps, the most recent groundwork, but not the major groundwork. Others have done plenty of that, and the bicycle experiment was simply that -- an experiment to confirm previous groundwork. By the way, why would you expect a bicycle to warm KFC?

Doc Bluto wrote:

Sombrero4594 wrote:I would comment upon the insect “consensus” about the streak. As a lifelong student of entomology and the natural sciences, I would offer two problems, both fatal, with the insect idea.

1) As others have pointed out, the shutter speed rules out any insect leaving a trail that long (or any other creature from Earth) on a picture taken at that speed.

2)The trail is perfectly (within the limits of my digital copy) straight. No creature on Earth can do that—not even a peregrine falcon in full stoop at 198mph.

Also, any rocket-like device would have left the cloud associated with liftofff fully visible (unless it was the landing end of trajectory). Since the photographer said there was no trace of it in the next shot, that sort of rules out the landing end of a trajectory.

Superb logic. Thanks!!

Hardly! Sombrero claims the trail is too long, without stating how long it is. Is a few centimeters too long for an insect to fly across in 1/20 second? Did he demonstrate the path is longer than a few centimeters? No. Also, the trail is NOT perfectly straight, as has been stated dozens of times. The logic is unsound because it relies on false premises.

Not Likely wrote:If this really an insect caught by a flash, why are the plants near the camera dark on the side nearest the flash?

These plants are the only objects that would be lit by a flash and I see no evidence of any additional light.

How close are the plants to the camera? How close is the insect to the camera? I don't think you can answer either of these questions. The plant question could be answered with a bit of work, using the known focal length of the camera, sensor size, and plant species. As far as I know, nobody has done this work.

In my opinion, this is the biggest flaw of the insect theory. However, it could be a nonissue depending on what the actual distances turn out to be. If the distance to the plants is long enough, then the flash would not be visible.

I took a film picture, as a child, that had an ESD discharge within the camera body (admitedly, a mechanical device). Is it possible a momentary discharge, very low energy, caused a localized flash and a linear drop in intensity across the CCD?

it's nothing to be alarmed over-- it's just a laser that was being tested at the time of the pic--
prob came from a top secret satellite...

Can't you see that the trail loops around that first cloud at the tree's level?

So many sharp eyes looking at the picture. People demonstrating that the trail isn't straight and they didn't see the loop?

Just take a look!

It is best seen in 100% zoom