Strange sighting over Kent 10th Oct 2013 [Long Exposure of Star]

[Jarmey 657]

Hi, A friend of mine took these in the early hours approx. 01:30. In the skies above Broadstairs Kent on Oct 10th The first 3 were taken with one type of camera, the other two with a different one. Whatever it is was moving erratically and the sightings lasted until 3am!!! He has sent these pics to the national space agency and they have no idea what it is, but are very interested. I wondered if any of your experts had seen anything like this or indeed know what it is?

 

[Mick West]

Looks like a long exposure of a small drone with pulsing lights. Can we see original files?

 

[Mick West]

I was looking at it on my phone before. Looking more closely the absence of background light would seem to indicate it's not a long exposure, so I'd suspect something small and close to the camera blowing in the wind and illuminated by flash. Something like a spider web remnant. Notice the very similar range of colors in this spider web illuminated by flash at night, particularly the long anchor line on the left. These anchor lines can be over 20 feet long.


(Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diffraction_pattern_in_spiderweb.JPG )

More detail is needed though. particularly the original images so the exposure and focus can be seen. The third image would be best, as it's more in focus.

 

[Mick West]

There's a related phenomena where tangled spider webs are found on the ground, and supposed to be a variety of things:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...obweb-fibers-are-from-ballooning-spiders.287/

 

[solrey]

Let me guess, it was low on the southern horizon in line with "Orion's belt", flashing colors (primarily white, blue and red) and may have even appeared to jump around a bit while maintaining the same relative position? Any motion that was apparent was exacerbated by zooming in with a handheld camera?

If the answer to all of the above is yes then it was probably Sirius, the brightest star in the sky and often mistaken for a UFO. It looks like hundreds of other bad photo's I've seen of stars mistaken for something else.

http://earthsky.org/brightest-stars/sirius-the-brightest-star

 

[cosmic]

Looks like a scintillating star to me. Likely Sirius, as noted above.


Kuinka erottaa tähdet ja planeetat toisistaan by Janne., on Flickr


David Lynch

 

[Mick West]

I initially thought it looked far to squiggly for camera shake, but I just did an experiment focussing on a small white LED on the front of my computer, 20 second exposure, 50mm, f22, ISO 100 to simulate night conditions, hand-held, image stabilization off.





This one is zoomed in more, but with image stabilization on:


And what it actually looks like:

 

[pseacraft]

My first thought was handheld camera shake, lack of background is due to the zoom probably max'd out. Scanning the comments I am positive of that. Made that error once or twice without realizing my camera settings were wrong for a hurry up kodak moment.

 

[Pete Tar]

Deliberate long-exposure hoax or honest mistake?

 

[Jarmey 657]

Thanks for the responses folks. I must re-iterate that what you see in the photos is what was actually seen in the sky. No camera wobble or time lapse photography. My friend who took the photos is due to come and stay for a few days on Tuesday 22nd so I will let him see the postings and add his comments. He did say that it was visible until approx 3am, a good hour and a half after first spotted. Of all the responses, I think solrey's seems most feasible at this stage. Really good to get some constructive points. I can assure you that none of this is a hoax or camera trickery, we are just a couple of ordinary guy's who like you, get fed up with conspiracy theories that don't add up! (Chemtrails primarily). Just looking for an answer or explanation.

 

[Jarmey 657]

I was looking at it on my phone before. Looking more closely the absence of background light would seem to indicate it's not a long exposure, so I'd suspect something small and close to the camera blowing in the wind and illuminated by flash. Something like a spider web remnant. Notice the very similar range of colors in this spider web illuminated by flash at night, particularly the long anchor line on the left. These anchor lines can be over 20 feet long.


(Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diffraction_pattern_in_spiderweb.JPG )

More detail is needed though. particularly the original images so the exposure and focus can be seen. The third image would be best, as it's more in focus.

Interesting Mick, I understand your thoughts, however, the images were taken with two separate camera's. I will get the makes models etc when my friend visits Tuesday. The length of time visible enabled him to get a more powerful camera to take the two larger pics. Thanks for the response though.

 

[Mick West]

Thanks for the responses folks. I must re-iterate that what you see in the photos is what was actually seen in the sky. No camera wobble or time lapse photography. My friend who took the photos is due to come and stay for a few days on Tuesday 22nd so I will let him see the postings and add his comments. He did say that it was visible until approx 3am, a good hour and a half after first spotted. Of all the responses, I think solrey's seems most feasible at this stage. Really good to get some constructive points. I can assure you that none of this is a hoax or camera trickery, we are just a couple of ordinary guy's who like you, get fed up with conspiracy theories that don't add up! (Chemtrails primarily). Just looking for an answer or explanation.

I think Solrey's theory is a camera wobble theory, as Sirius isn't going to look like that without it.

It's hard to believe the photos show "what was seen in the sky", seeing as there are very five different photos. It's probably either:

A) Five photos of a light source with camera wobble
or
B) Five photos of five different things (like spider webs).

I'm leaning towards the camera wobble, due to the similarity of the squiggle with my test photo:

 

[Jarmey 657]

I must

I initially thought it looked far to squiggly for camera shake, but I just did an experiment focussing on a small white LED on the front of my computer, 20 second exposure, 50mm, f22, ISO 100 to simulate night conditions, hand-held, image stabilization off.





This one is zoomed in more, but with image stabilization on:


And what it actually looks like: I must admit the first two pics look very very similar..

 

[Mick West]

And again the most useful thing here would be an original image straight from the camera (preferably both cameras)

 

[Jarmey 657]

I think Solrey's theory is a camera wobble theory, as Sirius isn't going to look like that without it.

It's hard to believe the photos show "what was seen in the sky", seeing as there are very five different photos. It's probably either:

A) Five photos of a light source with camera wobble
or
B) Five photos of five different things (like spider webs).

I'm leaning towards the camera wobble, due to the similarity of the squiggle with my test photo:

Again, I appreciate what your saying and it does make sense! From the brief conversation I have had with my friend, he said the images were taken over a period of time between 01:30 and 03:00 and 'It' was constantly changing shape, hence all 5 images look different. I need to ascertain with him whether these images were identical with the naked eye as they are in the pictures. If not, then maybe I have made a bit of a fool of myself! He was adamant that this is what he and his wife saw, I just need to confirm. If It were just a flickering dot in the distance that went crazy when zoomed in, then I think Solrey may have hit the nail on the head. I will get this confirmed.

 

[Jarmey 657]

And again the most useful thing here would be an original image straight from the camera (preferably both cameras)

I will see what I can do Mick, Thanks

 

[Mick West]

One more possibility:






Interesting the similarity between the images, the electrical arc, my computer LED, and your photos. Must be a similar degree of chaos in the random walk there.

 

[cosmic]

No camera wobble or time lapse photography.

I'll bet you a round of pints the Exif data show exposure times upwards of two seconds. It's surprisingly difficult to hold a camera steady for the amount of time necessary to create such photos.

It would be most helpful if we had access to it via the original images so we could see that as well as the other settings for both cameras.

He did say that it was visible until approx 3am, a good hour and a half after first spotted.

Right in line with Sirius being visible in the southeast, twelve or thirteen degrees above the horizon. It's already the brightest star visible in the northern hemisphere, and when viewed lower to the horizon, through a greater quantity of atmosphere, it's going to scintillate (twinkle) a great deal more. Jupiter would have also been visible at that time, but it wouldn't get your attention under those conditions like Sirius flickering through a rainbow of colors.

 

[Jarmey 657]

I'll bet you a round of pints the Exif data show exposure times upwards of two seconds.

It would be most helpful if we had access to it via the original images so we could see that as well as the other settings for both cameras.



Right in line with Sirius being visible in the southeast, twelve or thirteen degrees above the horizon. It's already the brightest star visible in the northern hemisphere, and when viewed lower to the horizon, through a greater quantity of atmosphere, it's going to scintillate (twinkle) a great deal more. Jupiter would have also been visible at that time, but it wouldn't get your attention under those conditions like Sirius flickering through a rainbow of colors.

One more possibility:






Interesting the similarity between the images, the electrical arc, my computer LED, and your photos. Must be a similar degree of chaos in the random walk there.

Wow, how strange is that! The similarity of all three is pretty close. Now I am really baffled!

 

[solrey]

I'll bet you a round of pints the Exif data show exposure times upwards of two seconds. It's surprisingly difficult to hold a camera steady for the amount of time necessary to create such photos.

It would be most helpful if we had access to it via the original images so we could see that as well as the other settings for both cameras.



Right in line with Sirius being visible in the southeast, twelve or thirteen degrees above the horizon. It's already the brightest star visible in the northern hemisphere, and when viewed lower to the horizon, through a greater quantity of atmosphere, it's going to scintillate (twinkle) a great deal more. Jupiter would have also been visible at that time, but it wouldn't get your attention under those conditions like Sirius flickering through a rainbow of colors.

Looking at the southern sky from Broadstairs Kent would be looking toward the English Channel. I've seen the city lights of Oakland twinkling like a christmas tree across the bay from San Francisco, and vice versa, especially on a chilly night in January when the air temp drops significantly below the water temp in the bay. Imagine what Sirius would look like under similar conditions.

 

[cosmic]

Imagine what Sirius would look like under similar conditions.

Good point. Sounds like fun, too!

 

[M Bornong]

Venus, October 18, 6:55 pm PDT


Antares, same time and place. Cropped, brightness and contrast enhanced. Looks close to the first photo posted by Jarmey 657

 

[Mick West]

Venus, October 18, 6:55 pm PDT

I suspect your straight lines there are from the image stabilization resetting.

 

[M Bornong]

I suspect your straight lines there are from the image stabilization resetting.

I'd already had a couple of beers, I can't draw a straight line when I'm sober.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Thanks for the responses folks. I must re-iterate that what you see in the photos is what was actually seen in the sky. No camera wobble or time lapse photography. My friend who took the photos is due to come and stay for a few days on Tuesday 22nd so I will let him see the postings and add his comments. He did say that it was visible until approx 3am, a good hour and a half after first spotted. Of all the responses, I think solrey's seems most feasible at this stage. Really good to get some constructive points. I can assure you that none of this is a hoax or camera trickery, we are just a couple of ordinary guy's who like you, get fed up with conspiracy theories that don't add up! (Chemtrails primarily). Just looking for an answer or explanation.

What do you mean "no wobble" and no "time lapse"? There HAS to be an exposure length of some period of time and wobble ALWAYS exists.

 

[Mick West]

What do you mean "no wobble" and no "time lapse"? There HAS to be an exposure length of some period of time and wobble ALWAYS exists.

He means they were not contributing significantly to the formation of the distinctive characteristics of the image, which he believes were also visible to the naked eye.

Let's wait until we see an original with EXIF data.

 

[Jarmey 657]

Thanks to all for your input. I have spoken again to my friend and it looks like the Sirius explanation from Solrey is spot on! The zoom was actually used and I believe an exposure delay of around 4 seconds too. I have sent Clive (My friend) the thread and he will log on and provide further details, just to confirm! Excellent site and so glad I have joined! Thanks again Mick and all who have contributed.