From: Bruce Maccabeee <brumac.nul> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:31:04 -0400 (EDT) Archived: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:55:11 -0400 Subject: Re: UFO Over Vancouver Oct 13 2010 >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:25:30 -0400 >Subject: Re: UFO Over Vancouver Oct 13 2010 >>From: Bruce Maccabee<brumac.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:32:55 -0400 (EDT) >>Subject: Re: UFO Over Vancouver Oct 13 2010 >>>Here is a very interesting video of a flickering UFO over North >>>Vancouver, BC. >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUu3f-N9YCw >>Spends most of the time defocused. Camera probably set on >>automatic focus which barely works when looking at a bright >>light in a dark surround. >>The very faint large disc images are way out of focus. >>Occasionally it does succeed in focus... when the image is the >>smallest, e.g. about 43 sec. >>Halo around bright center images are nearly focused. Changes in >>image size are a result of the camera "hunting" for focus. >>Rapid fluttering or flashing likely a result of atmospheric >>effect on light from a small or "point" source after passing >>miles through the atmosphere (scintillation or twinkling). >>Don't know direction or time. The slow drift to the right is not >>characteristic of a star or planet which would have a vertical >>component of motion due to the earth's rotation. Martin Shough in another email message has correctly pointed out that a star/planet appearing on the souther horizon would move mostly to the right. For some reason I had in the back of my mind that the witness was looking west (or east) in which case the motion would have a vertical component (rising if in the east, falling if in the west). I also had in the back of my mind my own experience of seeing distant aircraft with headlights on flying so nearly directly at me that they seemed to be stationary or moving very slowly to one side. This condition lasted many minutes before I realized what was happening. (There have also been some UFO cases explained in the same way.) However, in this case we don't know what direction the witness was looking so Martin could be correct. >I have to admit I was seduced by the audio channel which >insisted that no changes were made to the camera settings. I >forgot about the automatic setting. >Note that the author said she recorded the object for about an >hour. Would this not suggest that an approaching aircraft would >be not tens, but hundreds of miles away? Would the light from an >approaching aircraft hundreds of miles away be visible, >especially if the beam were not directed exactly towards the >viewer? Would the landing lights be turned on that far away from >an airport? I guess I did not hear a comment about filming for an hour. The video segment is much less. Certainly not likely to be an airplane if she followed it for an hour. Much more likely to be a "Celestial body." >I enlarged a frame from the video at 43 sec, where you thought >the object was in focus. I wouldn't say the image was perfectly focused, but close. >Here, there is still a >central/peripheral color separation (beige/green), and the >central color has a somewhat rectangular shape. >For my benefit, perhaps you can enlighten me on the following >observations. >The intensity of the strobe-like flicker was greater than I >would expect from atmospheric effects. Would the camera have >enhanced the flicker somehow? The "hunting" effect of the automatic focus would cause the brightness level to change or oscillate, but probably not as rapidly atmospheric scintillation effects. However, it would add to the scintillation making the size of the image change and the central brightness level change. >A hexagonal aperture shape can be seen occasionally around the >green periphery of the object, but there is also an internal >yellow/purple rectangular shape. Which component of the camera >might have created this rectangular shape? Whenever the lens goes a bit out of perfect focus there is a chance for the shape of the aperture to show up as a boundary to the illuminated area of the focal plane. When the lens is out of focus (too far from or too close to the focal plane) the incoming light causes a "shadowgraph" of the lens aperture. I don't know specifically what would cause a rectangular effect. A question such as this probably can only be answered by experimenting with the camera or an identical camera by videotaping a bright start or planet near the horizon. >Was the color separation produced by refraction in the camera? >What component would be responsible for that? The atmosphere is quite "potent" in causing distant lights to be "split" into color components. See the following for an illustration made possible by the long exposure times and "moving" images. http://www.brumac.8k.com/AtmosphereEffect/AtmosphereEffect.html There could also be color aberration in the optics. Color separation (refraction) effects should be very small for focused images, but when the lens is defocused there could some color separation that would add to the atmospheric effect. Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp