Starship Asterisk*

Stray "bullet" energy pulse, somebody missed their target, somewhere besides earth.

In regards to all of the 'black ops' weapons comments:
Nonsense. Particle beam weapons superheat the air around the beam, creating a shockwave that would have been easily heard. No boom, no PB. Lasers also superheat the air,and the superheated air changes density, distorting the beam- we have a straight line trackwith no distortion- hence, no laser. I've seen this in a lab video.
I do not have an opinion yet as to what the track is, but I do know that it is not a beam weapon. It does seem unlikely that the track was caused by a very small meteor though, as the terminal velocity of such an object is very low, and therefore the track would have been curved. A low velocity (v<300km/h) would have left no 'ionization trail' either. If the object was a meteor, it would have had a very high velocity, and there would have been a shock wave. Perhaps the bend in the light on the water is a reflection off that wave, spreading out shortly after impact, perhaps not.
Does the light flash extend past the cost on the upper side? I am unable to determine that on my monitor. It looks as if the light is only on the water, an interesting piece of evidence, if true.

Ed in Oregon wrote:One quote from an early post identifying the bug.
"There is a common carpenter bee in Australia that is black with a metallic iridescence which could be the culprit." The iridescence is strongly reflecting the light of the flash, and the rest is not. I'm assuming the iridescence is on the abdomen. Can any Aussies confirm that?
wings.

I did some poking around for pictures. Check out these:




I included the last one because it looks like it was illuminated by flash. Note that in these carpenter bees, it's the thorax that is yellow. The wings are attached to the thorax. If the yellow is the abdomen, however, the wings would attach to the black portion. Other bees have yellow abdomens and black thoraxes.

I also considered the possibility of an insect engorged with a yellow liquid. This could be quite brilliant when illuminated by a flash.

Many years ago my former wife and I were having breakfast in Gold Beach, Ore. quite early in the morning and I was watching the bay through the window facing the ocean when faster than thought, a streaking "something" shot downwards at a slight angle and "sizzled" into the bay. It hapened so fast that I had to use a sort of photographic memory of what I had just witnessed even to try to "see" it a few times to check my own eyes. After reviewing my visual memory as many times as I could, I decided that it must have been a tiny meteorite or something similar to have behaved in such a fashion. In my mind's eye, it looked just like the photograph shown on Coast To Coast's website, with the only difference being that the flash on impact was so brief as to have been missed by my eyes. The dark "streak" was just as I remember seeing it though, and it is a possibility that this shot was just such an unusual sighting.

Kevin in Vegas wrote:"I believe this to be what I call a "Planar Contrail Shadow". Many of the other postings have mentioned it...

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.

I agree that the streak looks like a contrail shadow. However, I don't see how it can be one in this case. In fact, the camera is facing south, and the Sun has just set at to the photographer's right. The geometry is completely wrong for a contrail shadow- the streak, camera, and Sun are not coplanar.

I am not sure if this was mentioned after the first 5 pages, but it was mentioned that the time stamps on the pictures seems to be reversed from what the names of the pictures are. The "Before" picture was definetely taken after the prior 2.

But here is my beef with the pictures. The pictures are getting brighter from frame to frame (According to Time stamps), not darker as would be assumed near sunset. The overall pictures are getting brighter, even with the darker streak in the middle picture. I have no explination for this, but thought it was interesting to point out.

The contrails idea has to be disregaurded due to the angle of the sun, and the differences in size of clouds from left to right of picture would change the shadow being cast on them from being a perfectly straight line.

The idea that this is a faked image, by at least 1 person posting a photoshopped image can be tossed due to the Pole (Assumed to be causing the phenomenon) in the picture is clearly in front of the flash of light, by the distortion to the lense flare that wouldn't have occured if the light was between the pole and the camera. Plus the ability to see the "Shadow" is greatly affected by the brightness of the background. (Hard to Photoshop in), yet fully explainable for a shadow cast into hazy air.

The burned out bulb I can't seem to disprove. See the following picture for a real life example of lines being cast by light.

http://www.meteoros.de/streu/streu06.htm

Notice the three prominent angled shadows on the right of the picture, and how the top 1 looks very similar to the one featured on the original?

Anonymous wrote:Many years ago my former wife and I were having breakfast in Gold Beach, Ore. quite early in the morning and I was watching the bay through the window facing the ocean when faster than thought, a streaking "something" shot downwards at a slight angle and "sizzled" into the bay. It hapened so fast that I had to use a sort of photographic memory of what I had just witnessed even to try to "see" it a few times to check my own eyes. After reviewing my visual memory as many times as I could, I decided that it must have been a tiny meteorite or something similar to have behaved in such a fashion. In my mind's eye, it looked just like the photograph shown on Coast To Coast's website, with the only difference being that the flash on impact was so brief as to have been missed by my eyes. The dark "streak" was just as I remember seeing it though, and it is a possibility that this shot was just such an unusual sighting.

Just a question, why would it sizzle if the meteorites are already cool when they hit the earther surface due to the air it goes thourhg which cools it down? I thought that was one of the misconceptions that metorites are still hot when they fall on the ground.

skyglow1

Earthworm wrote:Notice the three prominent angled shadows on the right of the picture, and how the top 1 looks very similar to the one featured on the original?

But that shadow appears to be getting wider, while the one in the weird picture seems to be the same width from end to end.

skyglow1

I believe that this is reflection of the sun off an airliner. The center bright spot is the sun’s reflection and there is a diffuse reflection off the cylindrical skin. I could either be off the fuselage or the leading edge of the wind. You can see the diffuse light all across the water. To confirm my hypothesis I would like to know the time, compass direction of the camera and the lat and longitude (location).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... &start=456

This did it for me...I was big on the lamp theory but this photo with superimposed insect and the diff image that shows the distinct start and end of the "streak" has done it for me.. It's a bug....

Pleased to oblige! I love detective work.

twocents wrote: To add to my earler comments doubting the fly theory. (straight line, dark trail, ...) does anyone think a bug flying in such a straight line is going to be flying sideways so that you'll see a top (or bottom) view from the cameras viewpoint? Doubt it.

Your comment above made me doubt the bug theory too so I went home to my compost bin and captured a ferment fly and a calliphoridae (a nice iridescent blow fly). I put them in a jar and watched as I listened to the news. I discovered that flies fly in whatever orientation takes their fancy – usually one pertinent to their take-off or landing orientation. You also mentioned that the bug was not uniformly bright in the image. Both flies and bees commonly have a hairy thorax – I believe it helps them warm up wing muscles in the morning ready for flight. This may reflect light better or worse than their abdomen.

Ed in Oregon wrote:One quote from an early post identifying the bug.
"There is a common carpenter bee in Australia that is black with a metallic iridescence which could be the culprit." The iridescence is strongly reflecting the light of the flash, and the rest is not. I'm assuming the iridescence is on the abdomen. Can any Aussies confirm that?

You may well be right, however, native bees are nowhere near as common in Australia as flies are. As mentioned above, there are many iridescent flies in Australia.

waynep wrote:Thankyou all for your input, even the idiots.....

Painful isn’t it!

PS to all: Unusual job offers are welcome… Free_lancerB@hotmail.com

The image for Chapter 35, in the Physics text "Physics for Scientists and Engeneers" Third Edition, Volume II, FISHBANE, GASIOROICZ, THORNTON.

ISBN: 0-13-141881-5
Page: 974

"This spectacular shuttle launch produced a very special and memorable effect. The launch took place just after sunset, and the lower part of the plume was in shadow while the upper part still recieved the raysof the Sun. The launch also took place very close to a full Moon, so that the Sun, Moon and Earth were nearly aligned. The upper part of the plume cast a shadow, visible in the form of an "anticrepuscular ray," a shadow that is approximatley aligned along the direction of the Moon."

It shows a picture with a ray almost identical to the dark line in the image. I don't have a scanner to post the picture but if anyone else does it's very similar.

Gavin

More bee pictures:

Sorry if someone already guessed this, I'll admit I didn't take the time to read all the posts. It looks to me like that whitish "smoke" is an an electrical arc, so I'm going to guess that the pole had some sort of transformer or other electrical device that got overloaded and blew. It's a bit of a stretch for a pice of the thing to go flying and make that streak, but I suppose it's possible....

I had to laugh.

It's a bug, flying in front of the camera so quickly (or closely) that it is a streak, except, that is, for a reflection on its body that happens at he moment it is in front of the pole.

Anonymous wrote:
Oh please... 1) you can argue all you want. That is not a natural trace of anything that would be flying sideways. There are no irregularities whatsoever, from wingbeats, or anything else. Nothing is going to fly so arrow straight regardless of the duration.

2) Proved my point? Even the transparent wings would have reflected enough light from the supposed flash to overwhelm anything behind it. But yet, the lamppost is barely obstructed at best.

and it's more likely that the streak would be more due to blocking the light from the background vs. imaging the body of the bug in flight. Ever dodge a print?

Sorry, not plausible. No bug, at least not a real "living breathing" one

You really need a basics physics course and a basic biology course. You have no clue what you're talking about.

wombat wrote:Perhaps someone has already mentioned this in the 55 pages of post, but I couldn't find it, so here goes:

There's a small "pink blob" centred at what Paintbrush calls position (888, 1346) It's in exactly the same position on all three images, so it doesn't show up in any of the diffs. Being "on the water", and being in exactly the same position on all images, I guess that that "proves" that it's some kind of camera/lens artifact and not actually "on" the water ??????

I'm wondering why no-one else has mentioned this? Quite a few other things in the image that seemed even less relevant have been discussed at length.



There ARE fireflies in Australia. I've seen them in the famous "firefly tunnel" past Lithgow; the exact name of the town nearby escapes me right now. They are exceedingly faint, which is why you only see them at night time, when you are quite well dark adapted. Their faintness was quite well demonstrated in that Milky Way photo from Texas. I'm not sure how relevant that is, either.

The pink dot has been covered. It is a hot pixel on the CCD. It is a CCD defect. Google for "hot pixel" and "CCD" and you will see plenty of examples.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh please... 1) you can argue all you want. That is not a natural trace of anything that would be flying sideways. There are no irregularities whatsoever, from wingbeats, or anything else. Nothing is going to fly so arrow straight regardless of the duration.

2) Proved my point? Even the transparent wings would have reflected enough light from the supposed flash to overwhelm anything behind it. But yet, the lamppost is barely obstructed at best.

and it's more likely that the streak would be more due to blocking the light from the background vs. imaging the body of the bug in flight. Ever dodge a print?

Sorry, not plausible. No bug, at least not a real "living breathing" one

You really need a basics physics course and a basic biology course. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Excuse me? I would guess I have more background than you. If you can't keep from personal comments, get off the thread.

The light poles in the picture look like monster high pressure sodium or mercury lights - the kind you typically see in parking lots of malls or Wal Mart.

I'm betting it blew up, and with authority!

If you zoom in on the picture, you can distinguish a definite pattern on the opposite side of the pole from the shadow. A whiteish, slightly curved arc perpendicular to the shadow, with a central bulge protruding away from the "exploded bulb" and having the same width of the shadow. It's too symmetrical with the shadow to just disregard a correlation.

Maybe I'm just an atypical APOD viewer, but it sure looks to me like hot, glowing gas from an explosion. A mercury light under high pressure and heat exploding would probably give such a show - probably that color too. It would probably also disperse in such a pattern. In 1/20 of a second, the photo caught the initial burst and the expulsion of the gas.

The shadow could be caused from the housing of the light (as another poster mentioned), if it was a hazy day. It would definitely be bright enough to cause it.

The problem I have with "contrail shadow" is that the shadow seems to penetrate the horizon? Maybe? It's hard to tell. Also, a shadow leading off to infinity would appear to grow narrower as it approached the horizon (Art class, remember?) This shadow doesn't appear to do that.

I have not had time to read everybody's theories, but here is what I can discern:

Comparing the before and after picture reveals the tip of the lightpole is fuzzier on the AFTER shot. The lightpoles next to it have the same definition in both pictures. This hints there is still a haze or residual smoke around the top of the lightpole.

If the flash is bright enough, perhaps it is the source of the shadow or streak? We have seen and read about the shadow created by the Space Shuttle's plume during liftoff. I believe we have the same thing here. Perhaps the bulb blew, created a large flash. The tip of the lightpole probably has some sort of cover that is large enough to create a shadow when exposed by the bright flash. Much like the shuttle's plume, the cover caused the streak we see in the photo.

Reason I doubt it is lightning...the streak is perfectly straight. It does not even arc. Any lightning would have at least some pertubation in its path.

Reasons I doubt it is a meteorite...the streak does not arc, which would mean a very high velocity. If it had that much velocity, you would see a large splash in the water, or at least ripples in the AFTER photo.

A very interesting photo that has certainly stirred the imagination.

SMSgt B.
Dyess AFB

I had photoshop do a difference calculation on the photos
Between the streak photo and the after photo, a boat moved on the far right, a person moved in front of their truck, and the clouds, trees, and water moved nominally. The streak looks very straight, there is no sign of a water reflection from the light burst.
here's the difference photo http://www.pbase.com/image/37290874

There is no sign of the streak at all ( that I could detect) when looking at the differences of the before-after pictures

I'm stumped. Why is the streak dark? If it is a shadow, why is there no curve or deviation on the streak as it crossed the landscape? Why is there no relection in the water. I'm assuming this is a CCD (digital) photo. Could this be some type of high speed elementry particle creating a trail and a flash on the sensor? The hit appears to be on a light post, but it is not a perfect alignment - perhaps it is just appears to hit the light post.

This is an image of the difference between the first and second shots plus some histogram stretching to pull out the mystery beam (click for full size image for a large image):



Note that the beam doesn't fade or extend to the edge of the image, stopping at about 200 pixels from the left side (large image), suggesting a traveling particle. It must be a flying fragment from the lamp filament leaving behind a thin smoke plume. The path extends exactly opposite from the small circular smoke plume, shaped by the thrust of the superheated "propellant" moving in the opposite direction of the flying particle.

Kudos to creator the difference photo! Good data.

Does it appear that the shadow terminates at the horizon? Since the horizon didn't move, I can't see it in the difference photo

Maybe someone else can use some cool software to flip between the difference and the origional picture to answer that question.

I believe this is the most simple and therefore most logical explanation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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[/quote]

Anonymous wrote: Excuse me? I would guess I have more background than you. If you can't keep from personal comments, get off the thread.

Your theory in this case is flawed by an extreme lack of knowledge in both biology and physics.

The wings are semi-transparent and are moving at many hundreds of beats a second. It is very obvious how you can see through them. The "reflected" light is not 100% reflected back at the camera or the sensor because the wings move in three dimensions. The light is scattered all over the place

Your own desire to be "right" is clouding your judgement. Go back and think about the problem instead of spouting off the first thing that comes to your head.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your own desire to be "right" is clouding your judgement. Go back and think about the problem instead of spouting off the first thing that comes to your head.

And that differs from 95% of these postings.... how?