Fanal Forest Photographer Sighting

[analiennamed]

reddit thread:

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1el1vf0/my_first_uap_encounter_photosstory_belowif_anyone/

Location: Fanal Forest, Madeira Time: Apprx 11:30pm (GMT+1) August 2nd 2024 Distance: 9-14m away. Size: Around a basketball to size of wheel.

Story: I am a 18 year old American Landscape Photographer. I went to the Fanal forest by myself on Friday the 2nd of August to watch sunset and stargaze on the Portuguese island of Madeira. At night a while after sunset I started taking long exposure photos of the Milky Way. There was no other people present in the area besides for a few individuals having a fire near the main dirt parking lot (approx 3-4km away from distance of photo) which was visible from a far distance due to the lack of light pollution in area. Around a half hour into my long exposure photos | noticed a very bright light hovering and moving slowly before vanishing. I am very familiar with aircraft and drones and this was way to close, small, and silent to be an aircraft and as someone who flys a multitude of drones it did not move, act or sound like any drone that is currently available to be purchased on civilian market. Additionally there was an aspect of this light that had an unexplainable feeling and glow. During the time this light was present in the sky I felt what I can only describe as a calming and warming glow that I could feel inside of me. For the photo I had my camera set up already in the direction of the tree taking timed long exposure photos of the tree well before the object appeared and was able to capture the first three clear photos attached on this post before it began to move in the last photo before eventually disappearing. This has been one of the most bizzare things that I have experinced in my travels of the world.

 

[jarlrmai]

My impression is this is long exposure of a drone with a light on and a made up story. A drone rather than the moon or a plane because it's lighting up the tree in the third shot.

Of course I cannot prove this, but the story follows some UFO story tropes, such as ruling out the most likely explanation and including the sighting making then feel weird. Also I think there will would be more photos than 3 if it were a truly anomalous encounter, but again it's not really debunkable.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This has been one of the most bizzare things that I have experinced in my travels of the world.

An 18 year old kid or a 60 year old Ernest Hemingway? Not Hemingway. His words would be less pompous and more nuanced. The misspelled words are a good touch.

My opinion: A clumsy hoax by a clumsy kid.

 

[JMartJr]

The (short) star trails still being produced in image three suggest that the light MAY have been moving fairly slowly. Of course it may have been stationary during most of the exposure then darted quickly for a bit. Not sure that means much, just getting it on the record.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

There's a lot of camera shake evident in those star trails. I suspect the trails are solely due to camera shake.



This image shows camera rotation during exposure, which may be an intentional artsy thing. But why would you do something artsy at a time like this? It's more likely unintentional camera movement. Typical kind of stuff for a naïve photographer mashing down on the shutter button and accidently rotating the camera clockwise during the exposure. They push the right corner of the camera down.

Independent of that movement, the camera was not held level. It was rotated counterclockwise from the photographer's viewpoint. Also typical of a naïve photographer. People let the left corner of the camera droop. How anyone can be looking through the viewfinder showing a crazy, tilted view of the world and be thinking "This is fine" amazed even a 12 year old me, but people do. People look but they don't see.

Along the way in the Reddit thread, he gives us this data:

1" F3.5 ISO12800 Exposure+0.7 24mm AWB DRO Auto

This should mean a one second exposure, but as the band Spinal Tap knows, people can be sloppy with what ' and '' mean. (Things point to a one second exposure.)

The tree is not framed the same way in the three photos.

All this points to a hand held camera in the hands of a naïve photographer.

For the photo I had my camera set up already in the direction of the tree taking timed long exposure photos of the tree...

This should mean that the camera was mounted on a tripod. But it's evident it wasn't, which suggests deception.

The guy says he's a "Landscape Photographer", but he's making naïve mistakes. Which suggests exaggeration at best.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

noticed a very bright light hovering and moving slowly before vanishing

it did not move, act or sound like any drone that is currently available to be purchased on civilian market.

I'm supposed to believe no one sells drones that hover or move slowly?

 

[Ravi]

I'm supposed to believe no one sells drones that hover or move slowly?

In the third image the tree tops are illuminated. Indeed, many drones and lights are available that can do all that.

 

[JMartJr]

the third image the tree tops are illuminated. Indeed, many drones and lights are available that can do all that

My son's thermal imaging drone, used for roof inspections and such, has a hard time AVOIDING it... if it detects something under it within a set distance and it is dark, the blinding landing lights come on automatically. There has to be an override for that but we haven't found it.

 

[sigmops]

which suggests deception.

I agree however the user states that they were not using a tripod and instead were laying their camera on the ground against their shoe.


Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1el1vf0/my_first_uap_encounter_photosstory_belowif_anyone/lgtjt6k/


There doesnt appear to be any photographic evidence provided that would suggest anything other than a drone. The rest is left to believe the users account of events and they suggest this thing appeared while they were already set up to photograph long exposures of the milky way behind the featured tree.

And then we are told the images are provided in chronological order but the first image is clearly handheld, with the following two appearing more staged to me.

So we are to believe that this Milky Way photoshoot was interrupted by an anomalous light and the photographer continued to take multiple long exposures staging the camera on the ground against their shoe while this thing was hovering in front of them

edit: this person has an instagram account that they have mentioned in older comments. There are a handful of photos on their instagram of the milky way with a similar looking tree without any anomalous lights. (I hope this isnt doxxing, mods please remove if so)

https://www.instagram.com/r.h.k.3.0/

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

It sounds more like the camera was on the shoe. The purpose of this setup seems to be a way to get a really low angle. Well, it's creative, I'll give him that. But he's busted.

He has other photos of himself as a silhouette against the night sky. But for this one... he used a drone.






Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/C-OGBTFuj1i/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=ZDNlZDc0MzIxNw==


As a kid my friend and I used to do something similar that we read about in a Photography magazine. Power Flicks was the name of the technique. Go out somewhere really dark. Set the camera up on a tripod and leave the shutter open. Use a flash unit or two. Point the flash unit at your buddy and set it off. Stand somewhere else. Repeat. You'd get multiple exposures of the same people in different places doing different things.

This appears to be a variant of that, but he's using the light on a drone. The shutter was open a long time so the stars have tracks. The guy is relatively sharp because the light was only on for a short time. Not a flash unit so the image isn't crisp, but just a bit of blur.

I like the effort.

But he's busted. He's previously used a drone with a powerful light.

The drone was above and to our left.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Motion blur on arm and hand. You can't hold absolutely still.



You set up the camera on the shoe, pointed up for a dramatic low angle shot. Leave the shutter open. Guess where you should stand. After your buddy gets the drone positioned about right you strike a pose. Your buddy turns on the drone light for a few seconds and turns it off again. Once he turns off the drone light, you just step away. The camera doesn't pick up any other image because the area is really dark and you have the ISO set low/lens stopped down. Go over to the camera and stop the exposure. Or wait for the long exposure to end.

The three UFO photos are framed differently and have different tilts because he's setting up the camera after every shot. I'm guessing that he picked up the camera each time to take a peek at what the shot looked like, then put the camera back down on the shoe for the next frame. He shouldn't have done that. He should have left the camera as still as possible and just keep shooting.

The camera movement in the UFO photos must have come from the unstable base the shoe gives. My prime suspect would be his finger on the shutter button. Didn't use the self-timer or a cable release. That would account for the rotation during the exposure previously noted.

If did use the self-timer, another suspect might be wind rocking the camera.

He should have used sandbags instead of a shoe. Does anyone know about sandbags anymore, though?

 

[JMartJr]

I note that the "doubling" effect of the stars and the arm in that one is echoed in THIS one from the original post of this thread where the stars and trees show similar doubling...

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

It's for two different reasons, though. In the photo above, the camera rotated during the exposure. Look at the bushes on our right. There were two different positions of relative stability. The camera started in one position and then shifted to a new position and settled down in that new position. The rotational movement between these positions is not even a blur because it was too fast for the sensor to record in the low light conditions.

So maybe the camera shifted on the unstable base it was on, which is the shoe. That's why he should have used sandbags.

In the other photo the guy is blurred because he moved, not the camera. The stars are kind of shaky too, but that's because the camera wasn't stable. That's because of the unstable base. So, yeah, the photos share that element. The stars are shaky because of a shaky camera. Which suggests they were taken using the same technique.

 

[Ann K]

As a kid my friend and I used to do something similar that we read about in a Photography magazine. Power Flicks was the name of the technique.

A similar thing is to open the shutter in the darkness, then "paint" the scene or portions of it with a light source. The photographer on Shackleton's voyage took this photo in 1915, of the Endurance before it was crushed by the ice in the darkness of an Antarctic winter.

 

[FatPhil]

as someone who flys a multitude of drones it did not move, act or sound like any drone that is currently available to be purchased on civilian market.

A still photo is poor evidence of "moving" and "acting" at the best of times, and if the object's bleached out by glare, it's no evidence at all, to match its support for "sounding" - so he's not provided evidence to back up his claims. This is just another "trust me, bro'".

Of course, I'm curious what models of camera and phone he has that cannot capture video with sound?

 

[JMartJr]

Of course, I'm curious what models of camera and phone he has that cannot capture video with sound?

I had not thought that. Couple that with the assertion that it was definitely not a drone, the thing it most looks like it was, and of course the recognizable sounds that a drone makes, and that would seem to support the conclusion that it was a drone. (Not probative, but a circumstantial case begins to feel pretty strong to me!)

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Of course, I'm curious what models of camera and phone he has that cannot capture video with sound?

More details have been added to the reddit thread...

Sony A7iii camera

1" F3.5 ISO12800 Exposure+0.7 24mm AWB DRO Auto

Although I suppose you might be theorising on him having a phone with capable video camera in his pocket.

 

[FatPhil]

More details have been added to the reddit thread...





Although I suppose you might be theorising on him having a phone with capable video camera in his pocket.

Why would he need a phone when he has something capable of this in his hands:

Videography features
Resolutions 3840 x 2160 (30p, 24p) 1920 x 1080 (120p, 60p, 60i, 24p), 1440 x 1080 (30p), 640 x 480 (30p)
Format MPEG-4, AVCHD, XAVC S, H.264
Videography notes Supports XAVC S codec (100Mbps), S-Log2 and S-Log3, and HLG
Modes

3840 x 2160 @ 30p / 100 Mbps, XAVC S, MP4, H.264, Linear PCM
3840 x blah blah blah elided for brevity
1920 x 1080 @ 60i / 17 Mbps, AVCHD, MTS, H.264, Linear PCM

Microphone Stereo
Speaker Mono

https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/slrs/sony_a7iii/specifications

But, yes, he probably has a phone *as well*.

 

[Scaramanga]

Something is decidedly wrong.

When I finally did a little detective work and lined up your photos with Stellarium, the time cannot have been 11.30pm. In the final photo I can clearly see the stars of Scorpius, and lining them up with your photo I get a time of 7.30 pm....and a direction looking due south....

Here you can see exactly the stars, in exactly the alignment, of your last photo...and the time is 7.30pm....not 11.30. How can you be out by 4 hours ?

 

[Scaramanga]

But he's busted. He's previously used a drone with a powerful light.

Well, the thing that confirms it for me is, as I mention above, that he can't even remember within 4 hours the time he took some pics a mere 5 days ago. I guess it simply never occurred to him that someone might use Stellarium to check those background stars for the actual time. There are people who saw the Phoenix lights 27 years ago who can at least get it right within 2 hours.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Why would he need a phone when he has something capable of this in his hands:

Fair point.

Time to react isn't helped when something's described as moving slowly either. Maybe too distracted by the calming and warming glow.

 

[Easy Muffin]

Something is decidedly wrong.

When I finally did a little detective work and lined up your photos with Stellarium, the time cannot have been 11.30pm. In the final photo I can clearly see the stars of Scorpius, and lining them up with your photo I get a time of 7.30 pm....and a direction looking due south....

Here you can see exactly the stars, in exactly the alignment, of your last photo...and the time is 7.30pm....not 11.30. How can you be out by 4 hours ?



View attachment 70676

You coordinates are off by couple hundred miles for some reason, you're sitting in the Atlantic, about a quarter of the way from Lisbon to the Azores. Your timezone's set to local mean solar too (UTC-01:06, it should be WEST, UTC+01:00).

Setting Stellarium to the location and timezone of Madeira though I'd agree that the 11:30 pm time appears to be incorrect. 10 pm-ish seems more likely but it's really difficult to say for sure since the camera was tilted and we do not see an actual horizon line. Hard to tell what it'd look like if positioned correctly.

But whilst the time given may be wrong, it still aligns with the rest of the description

a while after sunset I started taking long exposure photos of the Milky Way [...] Around a half hour into my long exposure photos | noticed a very bright light

Sunset occured shortly past 9 pm, add half an hour plus change to that and it's around 10, so that part checks out.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

This has been one of the most bizzare things that I have experinced in my travels of the world.

This grates me.

It's not the most bizarre thing they've seen. It's only one of many.

18 sounding 80.

Shouldn't it be "was", not "has been"? Has been's odd. Suggests a time line longer than a sighting.

 

[Scaramanga]

You coordinates are off by couple hundred miles for some reason, you're sitting in the Atlantic, about a quarter of the way from Lisbon to the Azores. Your timezone's set to local mean solar too (UTC-01:06, it should be WEST, UTC+01:00).

Setting Stellarium to the location and timezone of Madeira though I'd agree that the 11:30 pm time appears to be incorrect. 10 pm-ish seems more likely but it's really difficult to say for sure since the camera was tilted and we do not see an actual horizon line. Hard to tell what it'd look like if positioned correctly.

I got the right location this time ( Funchal is way closer ), and here we are at 21.41 local time...which actually fits better with ' a while after sunset' as you can see from the photos that there is still sunset light in the sky. But....still around 2 hours from '11.30pm'.

 

[Scaramanga]

There is actually a 4th photo, that made it onto Reddit but is not shown here. I enhanced it somewhat. Hmm...is that a drone flying off in the bottom right ?

 

[FatPhil]

I got the right location this time ( Funchal is way closer ), and here we are at 21.41 local time...which actually fits better with ' a while after sunset' as you can see from the photos that there is still sunset light in the sky. But....still around 2 hours from '11.30pm'.

View attachment 70683

You need to line up the horizontals. If they're ~30 degrees out, then the time could easily be out by 30/360*24 hours = 2 hours.

 

[JMartJr]

Hmm...is that a drone flying off in the bottom right ?

Probably, but of course if it WERE a mysterious UFO I suppose that it could fly off to the lower right as well as a drone does. I confess I was confused by the three faint lights and a brighter one at lower center -- having used the mighty powers of Brain, I suspect it's some sort of counter of the pictures, and this is 4 of 4, hence the last dot is brighter.

 

[Scaramanga]

You need to line up the horizontals. If they're ~30 degrees out, then the time could easily be out by 30/360*24 hours = 2 hours.

No...we can tell from the fact that Alpha Lupus ( the star just above the wide V shape in the trees on the right ) is well above the horizon that it is way closer to 21.45 than to 23.30. That star has set completely by 23.00. Those 3 stars to the upper right of Antares are separated by 7 degrees, which means Alpha Lupus is around 5 degrees above the treeline. At 21.45 Alpha Lupus was 7 degrees above the horizon, and was just 5 degrees above the horizon 20 minutes later....which means the horizon simply cannot be more than 2 degrees below the treeline and the 21.45 time figure is pretty accurate and the camera is not 'off' by any degrees at all.