More "drones" in Bernardsville and Randolph NJ

[tom_]

Apologies if these were covered elsewhere, I couldn't find it.

A friend of mine thinks these are compelling. I think they're helicopters, or maybe one is a comet. Can the forum weigh in?

First image is from Bernardsville NJ, December 5th
Second image is from Randolph NJ, December 4th

Source article https://www.yakimaherald.com/news/n...cle_b26bb247-e15a-5174-897b-ef01f6031698.html

 

[FatPhil]

Long-exposure blur puts these firmly in the LIZ (low information zone).

 

[flarkey]

Apologies if these were covered elsewhere, I couldn't find it.

A friend of mine thinks these are compelling. I think they're helicopters, or maybe one is a comet. Can the forum weigh in?

There are currently no bright comets visible from earth that could account for what is seen in that photo.

 

[Trailblazer]

The first pic looks like a visible beam from a landing light of a plane in slightly misty air, combined with motion blur. The second just looks like a plane in the air.

 

[JMartJr]

The first pic looks like a visible beam from a landing light of a plane in slightly misty air, combined with motion blur.

I was thinking helicopter with searchlight, but yeah, you could well be right. Because...

Long-exposure blur puts these firmly in the LIZ (low information zone).

In terms of the current flap, the only thing that can really be noted is that after these have been added into the pile of "evidence," we still have no clear images of the big mystery drones that are supposedly swarming in NJ.

 

[MonkeeSage]

I think the first picture is just internal lens reflections. There are two in the top right from the porch lights (notice the one furthest right is on top/in front of the tree branches), and I think the left bigger one may be from some light near the ground just out of frame on the left (notice the shadow going to the right at the bottom left edge of the picture).

Here it is with lights cut out and overlayed on top with the right reflections aligned up with the porch lights.

Edit: Oops I accidentally created the "shadow" with the fill tool when I made the sides black (to show contrast in the overlay).

There's no shadow in the original, but there is definitely a bright light near there.

 

[tom_]

Excellent. I was looking at those two dots in the upper right last night and wondering if those were artifacts of some kind, maybe a speck on the lens, given that they're identical. But your analysis looks like a great match

 

[FatPhil]

Here it is with lights cut out and overlayed on top with the right reflections aligned up with the porch lights.
View attachment 74478

That pair is certainly a candidate for being a reflection, but the third one is wrong. You need to rotate 180 degrees around the midpoint to get the internal reflections. See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/drones-over-new-jersey.13770/#post-329354 for an example.

 

[MonkeeSage]

That pair is certainly a candidate for being a reflection, but the third one is wrong. You need to rotate 180 degrees around the midpoint to get the internal reflections. See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/drones-over-new-jersey.13770/#post-329354 for an example.

Thanks! I guess that makes sense. For some reason I have been under the impression that something just out of frame could be reflected inside the optics but not make it into the sensor because of aperture and depth of field and focal length and stuff, but I probably misunderstood something.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thanks! I guess that makes sense. For some reason I have been under the impression that something just out of frame could be reflected inside the optics but not make it into the sensor because of aperture and depth of field and focal length and stuff, but I probably misunderstood something.

Yes, if the bright light is closer to the centre of the frame than the other two then it would have to be a reflection of something also closer to the centre of the frame. I think that it is a real light in the sky.

 

[FatPhil]

Thanks! I guess that makes sense. For some reason I have been under the impression that something just out of frame could be reflected inside the optics but not make it into the sensor because of aperture and depth of field and focal length and stuff, but I probably misunderstood something.

JJ Abrams-style lens flare can indeed come from sources outside the frame and can appear on both the same and the opposite side of the midpoint. They tend to be from extremely bright sources that can reflect multiple times - things like suns and JJ Abram's fevered imagination.

The recent camphone examples are almost all single-reflection artefacts, and the number of light paths available is so limited they're normally very predictable. However, translated second images such as your suggestion are still possible, but they tend to be much closer to their source, almost like visual echos. The simplest example being a bit of a cheat because it's out-of-camera, and that's photos taken through double glazing, where you can get 3 simple (i.e. one zigzag) reflections producing the echo.