This is almost identical to the one my wife and I saw back in the late 70's

Cameras create all kinds of tricks.

Reminds me of a photo of a person on the right looking at a mirror on the left. That person on the right had the eyes closed. In the mirror on the left, in the reflection the eyes were open. This shot, a 'still' photograph, shows a creepy mirror image of a person with eyes open but that person had the eyes closed.

The answer is easy - anyone?

54 minutes ago, SteveW said:

Yes. The red light is flashing fast enough to look like solid flashes to the naked eye. But to a camera with a setting of, say 8th second exposure time, the flashing stage if at, say 50Hz for argument's sake, will show around 8 pulses in 12th second. So in one shot the red light is on.

 

So you are saying that the red light on the aircraft (if that's what it was) has a frequency of 50 Hz which is invisible to the human eye but not the shutter, thus, several solid red lights visible instead of a streak. Would make sense. However... aren't Aircraft lights DC not AC, so no flicker?

Edited June 22, 20214 yr by martin-w

19 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 aren't Aircraft lights DC not AC, so no flicker?

Some lights are pulsed DC, some might be off an alternator, who knows? However, look carefully at the streak of red lights, the row is not dead straight so the light is also moving up or down slightly during the open shutter as well as along the direction of the aircraft travel..

Edited June 22, 20214 yr by SteveW

too bad his camera didn't record the sound of the helicopter with a spot light....LOL.

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

Don't think so. If that were the case the red light would be a continuous red streak. Not 8 seperate red points.

If the red light is flashing very rapidly, then in the space of one second it could flash on and off eight times as the aircraft is moving across the frame, giving the impression of eight separate lights.

I just noticed you already made that point.

Edited June 22, 20214 yr by dmwalker

It's almost certainly a police/military helicopter with a landing light/searchlight.

The camera's sensor is not suitable for the correct exposure to record something like that however, since it is set to record the stars in the sky which are mere pinpricks of light, such a setting means it's overbright on the recorded image when a bright searchlight/landing light is imaged. This is the same concept as why you can't see stars on the Apollo moon landing pics; in that case they had to tone down the exposure of the camera for those because the surface of the moon was so bright, which meant stars would not show up on the images. Effectively, this image is kind of the opposite of that, where a bright light just completely overpowers the camera's ability to resolve it into a suitably balanced image.

So the red bit up the top and other bits, which sort of look like details and coloured lights, are simply chromatic aberration as the CMOS sensor pixels switch from displaying bright white light, to dark blue; since that is a large shift in colour range for a crappy CMOS sensor to handle at night, it causes the R, G, and B colour values of the sensor to throw up anomalous colour values too, a.k.a. chromatic aberration.

There is nothing spooky or alien about it at all, in fact, you can see the same tendency for lit areas to have a red tinge on the edge of them on the house illumination..

Edited June 22, 20214 yr by Chock

I agree with Alan. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence......and I do not see enough "extraordinary" here to convince me that this is anything other than a terrestrial flying machine.

2 hours ago, SteveW said:

The answer is easy - anyone?

Focal plane shutter and the subject blinked. 🙂

Hook

15 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Focal plane shutter and the subject blinked. 🙂

Hook

Yes. We have a similar reason why propellers often look curved in a shot.

1 hour ago, Chock said:

It's almost certainly a police/military helicopter with a landing light/searchlight.

Or Airbus H145 air ambulance N608UW about 10 km west of Monticello, flying at 107 kts from north to south at about 2600 ft.

Why can't we EVER get a clear photo of a UFO?

That's all!

 

Stan

spilok,

I don't think we'll ever get a clear photo of a night time event because of the wide aperture and slow exposure time required, and because most photos are hand held. In this case, the camera was fixed on a tripod but the UFO was moving. Also, some sharpness is lost at high ISO sensitivity settings.

I think one of the military pilots said they see UFOs every day so I don't know why they couldn't use a mobile phone to get clear photos. Aren't they two man crews? The bombardier could take the photo.

Edited June 22, 20214 yr by dmwalker

2 hours ago, SteveW said:

Some lights are pulsed DC, some might be off an alternator, who knows?

 

Alternators supply direct current not alternating current, but I think you are on the right track. 

2 hours ago, dmwalker said:

If the red light is flashing very rapidly, then in the space of one second it could flash on and off eight times as the aircraft is moving across the frame, giving the impression of eight separate lights.

I just noticed you already made that point.

 

Yep, I think Steve's hypothesis of it being related to the frequency of the light output is reasonable. Although I thought aircraft lights were DC not AC, so continuous. Maybe the H135 is AC. But yes, I think its certainly something like Steve's suggestion. 

Edited June 22, 20214 yr by martin-w