Giant UFOs?

I'd like to know what sort of technique he used to take these images. I did a quick search and did not find much apart from a mention of him inventing some sort of gizmo added to the telescope that provides extra resolution or something. Playing the devil's advocate for a moment, I am wondering if his gizmo distorts the image of normal space objects and makes them look like that? The video does say they are geostationary.

On the other hand, if other people could reproduce the results and compare to normal stars, then... wow.

I did notice that he had a few detractors on the web, calling him a hoaxer, etc, but didn't see any definite debunking. So that doesn't mean anything to me at this point; could well be that he is genuine and that is precisely why he is being called names.
 
Windmill knight said:
I'd like to know what sort of technique he used to take these images. I did a quick search and did not find much apart from a mention of him inventing some sort of gizmo added to the telescope that provides extra resolution or something. Playing the devil's advocate for a moment, I am wondering if his gizmo distorts the image of normal space objects and makes them look like that? The video does say they are geostationary.

On the other hand, if other people could reproduce the results and compare to normal stars, then... wow.

I did notice that he had a few detractors on the web, calling him a hoaxer, etc, but didn't see any definite debunking. So that doesn't mean anything to me at this point; could well be that he is genuine and that is precisely why he is being called names.
Click to expand...

Judging on this video from him:
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs10dC-hJuw

It looks like he is using something that changes or enhances the normal coulours or visibility of those objects.
 
Windmill knight said:
I'd like to know what sort of technique he used to take these images. I did a quick search and did not find much apart from a mention of him inventing some sort of gizmo added to the telescope that provides extra resolution or something. Playing the devil's advocate for a moment, I am wondering if his gizmo distorts the image of normal space objects and makes them look like that?
Click to expand...

Indeed, everything depends on the instrument he is using and what modifications he introduced. Did you find what kind of a gizmo he is using?
The images look like optically distorted and the way the deformation moves through time (with the "twinkling") is just the additional effect of the atmospheric turbulence. You can observe that effect (called "speckles") with any telescope with high magnification on a brillant star.
 
I watched several of the vids on the channel mentioned in Reply #12 and I watched them in 720HD for more detail.

First off, it struck me as odd that his vids of the surface of the moon have the same kind of speckles (twinkling) as the ones that supposedly are taken in deep space which show these spaceships or whatever. I thought one needs less magnification for moon surface pictures so I surmised the twinkling effect would be less discernible (which it wasn't) but I could easily be wrong with that assumption.

However, my greatest difficulty with the spaceship vids is the question where the light comes from. It's supposed to be utterly dark out there and far out in deep space the rather faint sunlight cannot be reflected this much off these UFOs, I think, to get such clear images. When we consider an innate source of this light aboard ship I again come up short in imagining the way in which these reflections could have been caught on camera this clearly -- unless of course they are not from deep space but from much closer near by, but in that case they could be any kind of Geo stationary satellite filmed in maybe intentionally a rather blurry view.

Therefore, until further evidence to the contrary I tend to consider these spaceship vids as a hoax.
 
The narrator says : "This means that perhaps if one structure is 2.5 light years away it may be orbiting around Earth with millions of miles per hour. With those kinds of velocities and with the capability of being able to effortlessly change and transform it takes an enormous amount of energy. What kind of alloys are they made of that allow them to transform and retract at these velocities in deep space"

It seems logical to be able to film an object with innate light at just 2.5 light years away, right ?
They look possible to me. The ghostly appearance in fact seems more possible than a pure metal thing.
Variable psysicality comes to mind of course.
Never mind that the image of that craft orbiting around the Earth sort of reminded me of vultures flying in circles above a dying creature. :rolleyes:
 
Loire said:
Could this thing be one of the international space stations we sparingly hear about? It seem that there are some folks of this world who have secretely managed to acquire some weird technology which the rest of us cannot even conceptualize! Just thinking though
Click to expand...

One of the comments on the video is this :

It's the international space station, very out of focus, with image ghosting shot through the shimmering heat of the Earths atmosphere.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this is a possibility or just a 'throw them off the scent' comment. However 'heat haze' definitely does have a distortion effect on thing optically - if you think of mirages and desert hallucinations; or even the heat above a road. I think looking at satellites through a specific type of filter really could distort them to the extent that could make you think you were looking at something ethereal.

However his comment regarding the direction radar satellites are 'facing' is very interesting. Regardless of whether the images are genuine or 'optical illusions' of real objects - perhaps he is trying to entice a more honest answer to his questions.

Edit : I don't think it's the Earths atmosphere that is 'shimmering hot' however! Isn't it pretty cold out there? ;)
 
A lot of them look like way out-of-focus dust bits on the lens.
 
Laura said:
Have a look at these things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHj0h8aInLc&feature=player_embedded

They strike me as paranormal, variably physical or something.
Click to expand...

I watched the video with sound turned off. I couldn't make heads or tails out of any of it.
 
I remember seeing the video from another channel a couple weeks ago while browsing around and I found them bizzare as well.

I'm personally a little skeptical on this one though, due to how far away the distance is reported to be. I don't think it would be that easy for non-sophisticated telescopes to reach these resolutions on these distances, regardless of what gizmos you attack to them.
 
I had an idea as to what this man did to get these images, but obviously I'm not entirely sure so I present my hypothesis here.

I have a DSLR (digital SLR) and have looked at different modifications done to these types of cameras by others. I didn't think of it when I first read this thread, but today I remembered. There is a way to modify a DSLR (or anything else using a CMOS chip for imaging) so it will allow both IR (infrared) and UV (ultraviolet). Here is a website that offers the service and gives some rather interesting image comparisons-

_http://ghonis2.ho8.com/rebelmod450d18.html

A breakdown diagram of the IR/UV filter on a CMOS chip-

xsmod028.jpg


The mod involves removing the filter that blocks IR/UV and replacing with optical clear glass so the camera retains autofocus functions. This type of modification is becoming increasingly popular with those who are interested in astrophotography. The only problem is in order to use the camera as "normal" after the mod, you must purchase color correction filters to block the UV and IR. I was unaware before I found this mod that all CMOS chips have the ability to capture full spectrum images, including IR and UV.

Here are some sample images for comparison from the same site- http://ghonis2.ho8.com/Full%20Spectrum%201000D%20Infrared%20Animation.html

TnRt_IMG_7935UN100text.gif


You really can see both greater detail and "hidden" things when shooting IR. Some of his astrophotography images are simply beautiful- and interesting...

110310veil.jpg


The image above somewhat looks like a plasma stream although I must admit I am no expert in plasma physics. This gentleman has also modified a video camera and a Logitech webcam using the same procedure with similar results. I am seriously considering this modification for my DSLR as an experiment in imaging techniques.

Whether or not this method is how the video in the OP was made is uncertain, but it would be a way to record objects beyond the frequency of human vision.
 
Hi QuantumLogic,
I don't think testing your hypothesis (which you didn't explain but I guess that it refers to observation in the IR) is worth modifying your DSLR chip. On the other hand, if you want to do IR photography, that's another thing. I tried with a IR filter without modifying the chip, only it needs longer exposure.
You can see if your detector is sensitive (through your lenses) to IR by pointing a TV remote-control to your camera and take a picture.
On astrophotography, you cannot observe in the UV because it is absorbed in the atmosphere (all UV telescopes are in space). IR astrophotography is delicate because it depends on your situation (you need a dry and cold atmosphere).
The "UFO" images can be obtained simply by an exaggerated defocusing and/or some other aberrations in the visible. If you have a small telescope with good tracking, you can follow a few bright satellites, take pictures/videos with a simple webcam and fiddle around with the focus. A slight defocus will show you that change in colors called "polychromatic scintillation" (it can be seen with the naked eye but very rarely).
 
mkrnhr said:
Hi QuantumLogic,
I don't think testing your hypothesis (which you didn't explain but I guess that it refers to observation in the IR) is worth modifying your DSLR chip. On the other hand, if you want to do IR photography, that's another thing. I tried with a IR filter without modifying the chip, only it needs longer exposure.
You can see if your detector is sensitive (through your lenses) to IR by pointing a TV remote-control to your camera and take a picture.
On astrophotography, you cannot observe in the UV because it is absorbed in the atmosphere (all UV telescopes are in space). IR astrophotography is delicate because it depends on your situation (you need a dry and cold atmosphere).
The "UFO" images can be obtained simply by an exaggerated defocusing and/or some other aberrations in the visible. If you have a small telescope with good tracking, you can follow a few bright satellites, take pictures/videos with a simple webcam and fiddle around with the focus. A slight defocus will show you that change in colors called "polychromatic scintillation" (it can be seen with the naked eye but very rarely).
Click to expand...

Well, now that you mention it, scintillation combined with being slightly out of focus would cause the images as shown in the video. It still would be interesting though to try some IR shooting and stacking images for greater detail. But your statement of UV not being observable on Earth due to the atmosphere is incorrect from what I currently know about astrophotography and photography in general.

There are filters made for CCD imagers(SBIG and others) that attach directly to the eyepiece holder specifically made for UV pass through. The most popular use of a UV filter on a telescope is for imaging clouds on Venus. Astrodon makes a filter called the UVenus specifically for this purpose. It targets the 325-381nm range, but blocks everything below 305nm and above 420nm(the latter being the beginning of the visible light range).

Also, most people shooting outdoor photographs in natural light will use a UV blocking filter on the front of their lens. For one, it is a great protector from dust, but it does also reduce the "haze" in the photos. I can attest to this effect as I have shot both with and without UV filters on my lenses, and I have them for every lens I own.

So there is UV observable from the Earth, although I admit it is rather weak and requires high quality filters to notice any discernable difference. The Astrodon UVenus filter is very expensive at $175 for a 1.25" eyepiece(which I do not own), and the 77mm B&W UV blocking filter for my Canon 300mm 4.0L is $200(which is only one of many UV filters that I do own). FWIW
 
I haven't properly astrophotographed for almost ten years (nebulae, gallaxies, comets, etc.) but you should consider that the atmospheric cutoff is around ~320nm (that's why UV telescopes are in space). You have a very small window to observe through. CCD detectors usually have small quantum efficiencies in the UV but I don't know about CMOS detectors, it can be different.
Very near UV (320-420nm) can be useful with Venus (very bright), the Sun (super bright), and also bright comets, very limited choices IMHO, but still interesting. If you can observe the coming bright comets of this year (especially ISON and Lemmon) in the near UV it could be cool, because electric phenomena do manifest in those wavelengths indeed. Working in the visible and NIR is preferable for ground-based astrophotography but I could be wrong. It could be because I always astrophotographed in the visible (with different filters and so on) and that I know the available detectors for amateurs from ten years ago.

In photography you want to filter-out UV because of diffusion. Most modern lenses have anti-UV coatings but they are not always sufficient, you have to add a UV filter (Hoya UV HD multicoated is the best apparently but I don't know if it is expensive or cheap). I personally do have quite satisfying result with a circular polarizer to darken the sky etc..

I think we hijacked the thread with our common passion here :)

You may experiment with scintillation+defocus, remembering that scintillation's coherence time is around 1 to 10milliseconds. With longer exposures you will have some residual scintillation still. And scintillation is inversely proportional to the telescope's diameter (that's why stars twinkle more to the eye D~5mm than with a telescope, where other funny phenomena do manifest instead) ;)

Edit: If you want to replace the DSLR filter, maybe this is an easy solution: _http://www.astrodon.com/products/filters/astrodon_inside_dslr/
 
I think you are right in hijacking the thread- sorry to everyone for that. This has been a great information exchange with you, mkrnhr. Your idea of photographing the 2 big comets in UV this year gave me an idea. I am not going to modify my 7D, but I can get an older used Canon DSLR for very little money and pull the UV/IR filter out myself without replacing with the clear glass. It will no longer auto focus correctly, but if I use it for telescope mounting only it won't matter. It may not work, but it should prove to be an interesting experiment. Thanks for the idea!

I also looked at the inside IR filter on Astrodon- great light transmission curve with full H-alpha range. I may consider that mod for my 7D along with building the peltier cooling box I saw that drops the CMOS temp 43.7 degrees (F) from ambient.

(thread hijack ended... :D)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom