more pics 6...

Well, most SIGHTings involve light, yes. . .

those pictures aren't good enough for us to really even say that that's something in the sky, though, could be some puffs of smoke, or a stain on a dark counter top for all we can tell from that picture.
 
My responses on these two forums run mostly along the lines of "Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer". They have their fun and I have mine, it's all good.

As for how I know that most sightings involve light. . . well think about that for a minuet, sparky, it's not that hard, if you are SEEING something or using the sense of SIGHT you are seeing light, don't tell me you didn't understand that, as just the suggestion that you didn't is a much bigger insult than I myself would be capable of dishing out.

It’s always more fun when they bring it on themselves.
 
Originally posted by chris beacham
I used a telescope attached to a Nikon coolpix 950 which brought the tele to about 2000mm, and shot it at 1 sec exposure. The subject movement must have happened during the 1 second period. The images are as shot from the camera, and any less exposure would not register an image for it was shot at night. To the naked eye it is a very intense light, with absolutely no detail showing. The images are in sequence with the second image about 6 seconds later. The smaller light form seems to be the same as the larger one that 'came in' a fraction earlier.
Click to expand...

So where did you actually point the telescope? In the sky or elsewhere?
 
My second theory:

You pointed your telescope at the moon or a star, and it wobbled or was knocked while you were taking the photograph.
 
Originally posted by chris beacham
James R My second theory:
"You pointed your telescope at the moon or a star, and it wobbled or was knocked while you were taking the photograph."
If you wish to believe that, go ahead.
Click to expand...
I think part of the problem is you haven't stated what these are supposed to be, so everyone is guessing. I wouldn't have thought it was the sky because I see no stars/moon/etc... The look neat, but I have no idea what it is I'm looking at.
 
Chris Beacham,

In my opinion, the only reason why you are posting here, is to get people to visit your website and BUY your CD-rom.

Why withold your "best images" if you want people to believe your story?
Why don't you put your video-clips on your website for everybody to see, so there can be a debate about these anomalies?

My feeling is that you're in desperate need of money....:bugeye:
 
If you're taking pictures like these regularly I'd have to advise you to get yourself some photography learning. A picture of a blurry nothing in a completely black space, which we are supposed to take your word is the sky, without any reference points such as the tops of trees, and with an exposure that doesn’t pick up any other feature of the sky, just isn’t very convincing.

I’m of the opinion that if this is even a picture of anything in the sky, that you just shook the camera like hell as you took a picture of the moon or a low flying plane or something of that sort.

I’d also accuse you of trying to squeeze money out of poor gullible UFO enthusiasts with your CD, but I can’t really back that up, maybe you’re not just hoaxing stuff, and just really are that dumb with a camera.
 
I have better sites to waste my time on, thanks.

I'm not exactly hiding behind a false name, look around and I'm sure you'll find it :p
 
seems to me like a parachute with something hanging down its chords... well, it can be some kinda spy-plane... these days there are so many of these things flying and spying around ...
 
i don't know why people are being asses about this. they could be more diplomatic, so just so you know, chris, i'm giving this post a chance...

i took a look at your site in your second post (so i don't know why people have trouble figuring out that it's in the SKY). and although i agree with mystech that "most sightings involve light", there are always sightings that we see with our third eye that gets superimposed over our field of vision, and that would be something we are "seeing" with our mind, so i'm not sure if that involves light...

but, unless you have some sort of telescope that can read minds, this isn't what we're seeing here. and i have to admit that it could be easily faked, so you should remember that when showing these pics to anyone.

what are some of your ideas as to what it is? have you explored the phenomenon of auroras?
 
Last edited:
Look at the first two pictures. There's two shapes, one brighter, one darker. They have identical shapes, in both the pictures. So obviously whatever was photographed didn't really look like that - it was just shaped that way because of camera movement. Same as James R said. The source of light was just shaped like a point...not those weird shapes. Chris Beachum, to take legitimate pictures, you can't press the shutter button to take the picture...you have to use a timer or a cable release so that the camera doesn't move when the picture is taken.

There's one other possbility, however: if the camera didn't move, the two points of light were moving, which could be a phenomenon, if they're actually pictures from the sky. But I doubt it. However it's certain that whatever he photographed was not shaped like that. If he could have photographed it at 1 millisecond with fast enough film, it'd just be some point of light. A star, probably.
 
Chris, looking at the photos on the site you listed...most of those are interesting and believeable. But the ones you posted here, whether genuine or not, are easy to discount.
 
uhhh...

i don't know where you got that fourth quote there, but i didn't say that. i'm no expert on cameras, and all i said was that it'd be easy to fake pics like that. hell, i bet you i could MAKE those pictures in photoshop if i wanted to.

and another thing... i'm trying to support you here. if you don't want support, fine, but don't tell me my talk is cheap. in fact, i have no clue how you're gonna get anyone to believe you at all with such a defensive attitude. you have to be open to criticism... not saying everyone here is being fair, but i'm trying to be, so gimme some credit here. all i was doing was offering you another opinion, which goes a long way when there are others saying the same thing-- maybe we're all trying to tell you something here..??

now, as far as humanity's big ego is concerned, i agree. in fact, spuriousmonkey started an interesting thread about faith vs. science which i replied to here: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=262594#post262594 (just so that i don't have to retype all of that)

also, you should check out auroras, because what you've supposedly photographed there looks like it could be something similar. that is, if you're really looking for answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top