Starship Asterisk*

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:38 pm**

its a lightning ball

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:39 pm**

Themycles wrote:
It is not a light pole. It is a ship mast. Just because someone went and examined the light poles doesn't mean that it is a light pole. Color quantization has shown that the light in the flash is the same color as the sun. Someone posted that uncontested earlier. It is not lightning or a bulb blowing up or a metorite or reflected light from the flash. Does anybody remember prisms from high school science class? White light in colors out. See anything in the picture that could cause a prismatic effect? Water? Anybody remember ultraviolet and infrared? Colors very near the visible spectrum? The dark streak with saturation increased becomes violet. Try it. Ok, so, remember the guy's cat and it's quantum tail posted earlier. This was attributed uncontested to the fact that the cat's tail was not in one place during the entire frame exposure. Remember that. The picture was taken before sunset, so the sun was above the horizon.

The sun, reflected off the water. The water also created a partial prismatic effect causing an ultraviolet reflection, interpreted by the ccd in the camera as a dark (almost violet) streak. This all happened in less than the time it took for the shutter to open and close, causing the appearance that the flash occured in front of the ship mast. An amazing thing to capture, but explainable.

There is no evidence that the image was taken before sunset. If the time in the camera is correct, the refracted Sun was just below the ideal horizon- and even farther past sunset given that it was setting over land, not sea. There is nothing in the image at all that has any sunlight on it (except for the high clouds). There is really no way this can be explained as a direct reflection of sunlight (of the light from the clouds, maybe, but not the Sun itself). The color of the flash is similar to the color of the Sun on the clouds, but there is no good way to determine if they are the same, since both show quite a range of variation.

Regarding lamp posts versus masts, if you find the other posts in the image, you will see that the tops of all of them line up perfectly. This only makes sense if they are fixed and related structures, not masts- not to mention that people on the spot have identified the pole in question. Not that this really matters, in my opinion, since I don't think the flash has anything to do with light bulbs anyway.

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:39 pm**

A quick check of the photo in PaintShop pro I put a straight line against the streak and found it has a slight downward curve. Like a parabolic arc. Assuming some mass and approximate distance one might test the assumption that it is a falling body and calculate it's velocity given the parabolic shape. It may be a very close and quite small object. The extra haze/fog to the right of the flash is quite irregular, but seems to come in front of the light pole. This would suggest it is in front of or right at the light pole. Also adjusting contrast when blowing up the image of the flash there does seem to be a dark area just right and slightly down from the flash, approximately along the direction of original streak. In the original image this appears to be about the same color and luminance of the water, so it may be transparent and a clear view to the background water. At 1/20th of second there is no way that a very high speed object could be caught in what looks like stopped motion. So it really cannot be a high velocity micro-meteor. So it suggests a flash happening right at the light, possibly a burn-out. The clouds seem pretty high and lightning seems like a very remote possiblity. I would look for the more obvious, like a bulb burn-out. However, the slight curve to the streak is puzzling. I didn't see the answer to the film/ digital image question. If it's film it is likely an artifact. Digital images could be affected by a cosmic ray artifact, but I have never experienced such a thing. It is a very unique photo.

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:39 pm**

he i love u all lol

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:40 pm**

dont worry hes not gay *i hope

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:42 pm**

Someone suggested that the object is a mast and not a lamp post. Maybe it isn't a lamp post, but it is not a mast either. The wharf in the photo is a commercial ship dock and sailboats are not berthed there.

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm**

O.O >.< ^.^ ^.~

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:45 pm**

maby its a reflection of light

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:47 pm**

i think iy is the reflection of the sun

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:50 pm**

Neutino capture!! (or possibly proton decay)

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:06 pm**

See my previous discussion of the odds. I mentioned that I was surprised that the before and after shots didn't also show bugs. Well... In the "bug present" shot, there is a second bug, above the first one. It is further in the distance, is much fainter, but is visible in the "diff" images. One other person in the thread noticed it as a bright dot, so I looked for it in the diffs. It also has a very faint dark trail behind it, much shorter of course, going upwards, because the bug is probably ten times farther away from the camera.

Also note that the dark streak begins with a roundness that matches the shape of the bee's abdomen.

I'll bet there are bugs in his other shots that evening, but further in the distance.

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:11 pm**

i saw something similar in the sky a couple weeks ago. I go to Edinboro University in Pennsylvania. I was walking to work when I looked up in the sky, and saw the same streak. I was unsure of what I was looking at, and stared at this from quite some time. I thought it was from jet streak (clouds that come from the back of the jet. Do not know what it is actually called). I must have looked at it for at least five minutes, and was unable to determine what it was. My name is Mark Szukala and I go to Edinboro University of Pennsylvania.

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:13 pm**

Anonymous wrote:i saw something similar in the sky a couple weeks ago. I go to Edinboro University in Pennsylvania. I was walking to work when I looked up in the sky, and saw the same streak. I was unsure of what I was looking at, and stared at this from quite some time. I thought it was from jet streak (clouds that come from the back of the jet. Do not know what it is actually called). I must have looked at it for at least five minutes, and was unable to determine what it was. I am a student that attends Edinboro University of Pennsylvania.

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:20 pm**

I agree with the posting of "Guest" Posted on Tue Dec 07, 2004 5:31 am. I think it is most likely that the dark streak is sourced at the pole rather than targetted at it.

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:21 pm**

OK, I'm glad I'm not the only idiot making posts on this thread. The "difference" image I posted on page 43 was not done correctly. I finally figured out how to do it correctly, although I had to compress the color space to avoid clipping. Regrettably, my image was posted just prior to someone else's post which referred to their own difference image which was done correctly, so I hope there was no confusion for careless readers.

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:25 pm**

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:i saw something similar in the sky a couple weeks ago. I go to Edinboro University in Pennsylvania. I was walking to work when I looked up in the sky, and saw the same streak. I was unsure of what I was looking at, and stared at this from quite some time. I thought it was from jet streak (clouds that come from the back of the jet. Do not know what it is actually called). I must have looked at it for at least five minutes, and was unable to determine what it was. I looked at this picture for a bit and notice that this streak is not from the lamp post at all. The streak is in the background. If you look carefully, it looks to be a coincidence. If what I saw was the same (which am almost positive it was), it also could not be the camera.
I am a student that attends Edinboro University of Pennsylvania.

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:29 pm**

Did any of you ever see the movie The Omen?

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:35 pm**

I agree with an earlier suggestion that it is likely a hair or something floating by the lens when the photo was taken.

If not, then my second guess is one based on atmospheric science: Under very unusual circumstances clouds (consisting of water vapor and droplets) can reflect images much like a lake reflects a mountain. The sunset would provide the light bouncing off the water and then displaying an image on the cloud cover. The reflection seen in the clouds is either that of the far shoreline (looks very similar doesn't it?) or possibly the extended pier in the foreground (but the angle is probably not right).

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:36 pm**

If the shadow was sourced at the lamp, then the shadow would not appear
as a line with parallel edges. Depending on the distance between the
light source and the opaque object, the shadow would spread out more or
less.

Also, if the distant lamp caused that shadow, it would be caused by a lack
of scattered light coming from the distant lamp. The scattered light and the
density of the shadow would both drop off as 1/R^2, and the shadow should
fade to dimmness over perhaps ?tens of feet? The shadow in the photo
appears to have constant density, and its edges appear parallel.

((((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( (o) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty Research Engineer
beaty@chem.washington.edu UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74
billb@eskimo.com Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
ph206-543-6195 http//staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:40 pm**

On page 17 I wrote:

"I believe this to be what I call a "Planar Contrail Shadow". Many of the other postings have mentioned it. If there is a long straight contrail, the shadow created forms a plane. If you are standing in that plane (directly in line with the sun and the contrail) you can look down the direction of the contrail along the shadow and see a dark line. I've seen them several times, but many conditions have to be just right: 1) No wind at contrail elevation, 2) Correct temperature and humidity for a long, non-dissipating contrail, and 3) You must be standing in the right location."

I think some clarification is required. A Planar Contrail Shadows (PCS) does not have to "cast" its shadow on anything. The fact that you are standing in the shadow and looking down its length produces the dark band. In fact, you generally can't even see the shadow on the ground (too wide and diffuse), and the best PCS's are viewed against the sky on a cloudless day, since the absence of clouds allows for a longer, uninterrupted contrail shadow. They are usually short-lived also. With the movement of the sun, the angle of the contrail not being in line with the path of the sun, and the possibility of the contrail being pushed by a steady wind (not a wind that disperses the contrail or fluctuates it), these shadows may only last a few seconds. The longest I've seen one last is about 30 seconds.

To reitterate, I believe the photographer has a cloudless sky behind him to his left, and the sun is behind him to the left also. Also, the flash is not related to the shadow, merely a coincidence that can be explained a thousand ways.

Start looking for PCS's. Eventually you'll see one, and there will be no doubt in your mind what this picture is. Sometimes it's best to look for them when you're driving around...driving allows you to get in position to be "in" the shadow. The band will not last long though, due to your movement.

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:44 pm**

> Yes, of course it can be faked. But if you read the APOD description,
>
> "The photographer insists that the streak and flash on the above image
> has not been created digitally."

As with any photo of a controversial phenomenon, the reputability of the
photographer becomes paramount. If a sniggering group of high school
kids submit a UFO photo, we should suspect a hoax. If a professional
astronomer with a reputation to defend should submit a similar photo,
(and if it's not April 1st,) then we should take it more seriously.

So... would the photographer have any reason to pull a hoax? And
more importantly, will the photographer's reputation be damaged if
he/she pulls a hoax (i.e. are there strong reasons why a hoax is
unlikely?)

((((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( (o) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty Research Engineer
beaty@chem.washington.edu UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74
billb@eskimo.com Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
ph206-543-6195 http//staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:47 pm**

And about planar contrail shadows: they arise and vanish in a space of minutes. They become visible when the observer is inside the plane of darkness (the planar region where there is a lack of scattered sunlight from the air.) They vanish again when the observer is no longer inside the shadow region, i.e. the plane of darkness is essentially invisible when viewed from the side.

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:49 pm**

actually I know what it is... I have seen this happen before.. and its a bit on the uncommon side.. but the explanation is very simple... unless the particle beam weapon comment <chuckle>

if you look to the upper right you see rays of sunlight streaking down at the same angle as the shadowed streak on the left... the rays of sunlight are reflecting off the lamp cover .. I am guessing it was a highly reflective surface... in turn the shadow from the bulb or socket in the lamp casing is being refracted back into the air at an opposing angle...

if you are at the right angle "dirctly" beneath the pole you can sometime make out the elongated shadow but not as long as what was caught on film..

"its the shadow of a sunbeam refracted off of a reflective surface" ... I havent got a better way to phrase it.... but anyone who studies atmospheric phenomena should have figured this out... come on NASA ... WAKE UP!

this howver depends on part of the same sunlight hitting the lense of the camera at the same time... which seems to have been just the case from what I saw in the photo ... it should be renamed "Shadow Play"

its hard to catch but nothing spectacular <grin>, or mysterious.... <theme from twighlight zone>

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:49 pm**

But with a Planar Contrail Shadow, your eye, the Sun, and the straight contrail all have to lie in the same plane. In this photo, the Sun is apparently behind and to the right of the camera, not the left.

The streak/flash could be due to a bug I think. Someone here has said that a flash was used, and given that, the bright "fireball" could be a reflection off a shiny part of the bug's exoskeleton, and the "smoke" is an image of the wings taken at the time of the flash. The dark streak is due to the path of the bug during the exposure while the flash was off. Or, the flash could be due to the distant light bulb going out, and it just coincidentally lined up with the bug. Do light bulbs make that much of a flash when they die?

Posted: **Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:57 pm**

wbeaty wrote:And about planar contrail shadows: they arise and vanish in a space of minutes.

The duration of the apparent contrail shadow would depend on the apparent drift speed of the contrail. If the contrail was fairly low, and the wind at that altitude was fairly strong, then the dark stripe might be visible only for less than a minute. On the other hand, if the contrail was drifting so that it remained aligned with the sun while the sun "moves" as usual, then the dark stripe might remain visible for an extremely long time.

Starship Asterisk*

Strange streak discussion: 2004 Dec 7 APOD

APOD streak and flash - non-linear streak

Ship's mast: Not

It's a bug

Re: Strange streak discussion: 2004 Dec 7 APOD

Re: Strange streak discussion: 2004 Dec 7 APOD

Re: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? I think it's a plane...

Re: Strange streak discussion: 2004 Dec 7 APOD

hmmm...where have i seen that before?

picture

Planar Contrail Shadow

streak in photo