Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Initially it looks like a bird; however, there is no head. Also there is obvious light differences around the outer edges, this suggests that it is metallic and has different light reflectance, which is why you named it lightbender III?
Where was this taken (city, state)? If there was nothing on the camera then it's likely a UFO, and a classic one at that. The shape a small bump on top, as suggested by the lighter areas around it, it is symmetric. The bottom is flat and the overall shape of the object is a circle, as suggested by the light around the bottom of the UFO.
Cool pic, thanks for posting.
The reason it's not a bird is this:
There is no light reflecting off the surface of a bird because a bird is typically made of carbon, not metal.
The 1st photo in your post is of a flock of storks. The 2nd photo is of a hawk. Two different birds. Making an enlargement of the smallest in the stork photo would be much better. In addition, the resolution of the hawk photo is much more clear because the photographer probably used a zoom or a telephoto lense.
I don't doubt at all that the OP's two original photos showing just the Moon and the object with the Moon are just as they were photographed. The problem is with the enlarged pair of images. First of all, I think the enlarged images are of the same object as seen in the original photo. It's not uncommon when magnifying the size of a photo a tiny object, the details begin to degrade.
Using my computer, I enlarged the image of the smallest stork in the photo to 500% of original size for the sake of making a fair comparison based on your opinion. The reason I used that stork image is because it's somewhat similar in size to the OP's object. The result was that the blurred enlargement of the bird had that same light-colored ring around it. Artifacts like that can show up when enlarging digital images. The point is that the enlarged image of the OP is showing the same thing because it's too distorted when greatly magnifying a small image.
Birds do reflect light, even dark-colored birds, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see them if they didn't. That has to do with diffferent wavelengths of the light spectrum. That birds are primarily made of carbon has nothing to with the so-called shine surrounding a bird. However, when you greatly enlarge a tiny object from aa digital photo, you can get distortion artifacts that resemble a shine. Keep in mind too, that the OP pointed out, and it shows in the photo, a haze, which the OP described as a vapor. That could also increase distortion of the object.
I'm still inclined to think the object is probably a bird. The only reason the body shape appears as it does is because of the particular direction it happened to be flying when the photo was taken.
The 1st photo in your post is of a flock of storks. The 2nd photo is of a hawk. Two different birds. Making an enlargement of the smallest in the stork photo would be much better. In addition, the resolution of the hawk photo is much more clear because the photographer probably used a zoom or a telephoto lense.
I don't doubt at all that the OP's two original photos showing just the Moon and the object with the Moon are just as they were photographed. The problem is with the enlarged pair of images. First of all, I think the enlarged images are of the same object as seen in the original photo. It's not uncommon when magnifying the size of a photo a tiny object, the details begin to degrade.
Using my computer, I enlarged the image of the smallest stork in the photo to 500% of original size for the sake of making a fair comparison based on your opinion. The reason I used that stork image is because it's somewhat similar in size to the OP's object. The result was that the blurred enlargement of the bird had that same light-colored ring around it. Artifacts like that can show up when enlarging digital images. The point is that the enlarged image of the OP is showing the same thing because it's too distorted when greatly magnifying a small image.
Birds do reflect light, even dark-colored birds, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see them if they didn't. That has to do with diffferent wavelengths of the light spectrum. That birds are primarily made of carbon has nothing to with the so-called shine surrounding a bird. However, when you greatly enlarge a tiny object from aa digital photo, you can get distortion artifacts that resemble a shine. Keep in mind too, that the OP pointed out, and it shows in the photo, a haze, which the OP described as a vapor. That could also increase distortion of the object.
I'm still inclined to think the object is probably a bird. The only reason the body shape appears as it does is because of the particular direction it happened to be flying when the photo was taken.
You do not have to zoom in to see the reflected light around the object, my screen is 8 ft by 6 ft, and I can see it just fine. Artifacts aren't symmetric.
The only problem with the 'bird' theory is that I didn't see anything in the sky. Maybe I am wrong, but wouldn't I have seen that speck on the camera screen if it flew in after I begin focusing on the screen itself?
You do not have to zoom in to see the reflected light around the object, my screen is 8 ft by 6 ft, and I can see it just fine. Artifacts aren't symmetric.
Who said anything about being symmetric or anything about viewing on a large screen? How large a screen is has absolutely nothing to do with it. has absolutely nothing to do with it. I see the exact same thing on the OP's enlarged images that you do. You're completely missing the point. I didn't have to zoom in on your unrelated bird photos, but I did so in order to see if there was any difference or not. The only thing I zoomed in on was the photos YOU posted. I didn't need to zoom or magnify the OP's images because they had already been resized to make the object larger rather than just a speck. There is software that can do that like Photoshop, and even free or low cost software. And THAT'S where the problem comes in. When you greatly resize a photo with software to enlarge a digital image, you can get those kinds of artifacts.
The only problem with the 'bird' theory is that I didn't see anything in the sky. Maybe I am wrong, but wouldn't I have seen that speck on the camera screen if it flew in after I begin focusing on the screen itself?
The thing is that not only did you point out the object, but you also mentioned about the vapor rising up from the ground. Don't get me wrong, I have no reason to believe that the object wasn't in the photo when you took it. I would think it was probably there. Yes, the object could indeed have been in the sky without you noticing it at the time you took the photo. It's pretty small, and what's more prominent and draws your attention in that view is the Moon. So, sure, a tiny speck like that can easily be overlooked at the time. You also indicated that you apparently noticed it AFTER you loaded it to your computer, and when you looked at the image, there it was. We're only human, and there are lots of things we can miss, or just doesn't grab our attention right off the bat. Those are details. And we don't always take in all the details immediately at any point in time and things constantly change. But with photos, it's a lot easier to visually scan for details because a photo doesn't change. Photos let us look at a 'frozen' moment in the past.
The size is relative to the perspective, I think I would have noticed if it was present at the time I snapped the photo. Especially since it was taken just minutes after the initial photo. However, " there are lots of things we can miss, or just doesn't grab our attention right off the bat.", true but all things considered it doesn't follow that an object that size wouldn't be observed if it in fact was in that area before. during and after the photo was taken. There aren't a lot of details to take in. But anyway, I do appreciate your sharing your perspective and feedback
The size is relative to the perspective, I think I would have noticed if it was present at the time I snapped the photo. Especially since it was taken just minutes after the initial photo. However, " there are lots of things we can miss, or just doesn't grab our attention right off the bat.", true but all things considered it doesn't follow that an object that size wouldn't be observed if it in fact was in that area before. during and after the photo was taken. There aren't a lot of details to take in. But anyway, I do appreciate your sharing your perspective and feedback
You're quite right that there aren't many details in the photo. You mentioned that the reason you were taking photos at the time was because of people who were dumping trash on a piece of property that used to be yours. You saw the Moon in the sky and decide to take a couple of photos of it. You also mentioned the vapor. You said you noticed the speck when you were looking at the photos days later after they had been downloaded to your computer. Based on what you said earlier, evidently you didn't notice the object at all when you snapped the photo because you said it wasn't until a few days later that you noticed it. It's probably fair to say that the object was in the photo the entire time, but just not noticed.
There's no question that sometimes things happen that seem pretty weird, and we think, "What the heck is THAT?" I'm no different than you are in that regard. We're only human. When we do things or observe things, our mind is very busy. It's possible you caught a glimpse of it but unconsciously ignored it because your attention was primarily focused on the moon, the reason you were taking photos in the first place (the trash dumping), etc., so it's pretty easy to overlook certain details at the time of the event. The mind is busy working on the task at hand while we're surrounded by all kinds of distractions. If the object had been much larger rather than a speck, then I'm pretty sure it'd be hard not to notice it. But it's a single object that's really small. Only later when looking at the photo, you can do so at a more leisurely pace to sort of study and take in more of the whole scene. That's when it's easier to better look around the scene and spot certain details that we may have otherwise completely overlooked at the time the photo was taken. Once we spot an unexpected object, it's pretty hard to unsee it after that because it'd probably stand out like a sore thumb from then on.
Another poster tried to point out that there's a bump on top of the object, and included a couple of photos of different kinds of birds. That really didn't work at all. While I'm sure the poster meant well, there's absolutely nothing "scientific" about the explanation and examples given. So what about that bump? It's hard to say because in the original image the object is too small or far away to tell. But it is possible we could be seeing a bird from the side with the "bump" being part of a wing showing. Or it could be flying toward the camera or away from it and the "bump" could be part of its head. I'd be inclined to say the high part of the object to the left, could be the head, the bulk of the object is the body, the "bump" (middle right side) is part of a wing, and at the bottom right could be the tail feathers. I have no idea if that's true, because the blow-up images are too blurred to show any clear details of what the object really is. However, I do think that it might be a bird is the probably most plausible explanation for what it is. Admittedly, that's a pretty mundane explanation, and not as exotic as evidence of something that's 'out of this world', so to speak. But there's nothing wrong with common everyday things either. If a "scientific" approach is to be made, then to do so means to rule out ordinary explanations. If ordinary explanations can be firmly ruled out, then we're left with it either being a prank, or something paranormal or unexplained. But I don't think it can be firmly declared that it's impossible for the object to be something ordinary, like a bird.
You mentioned that you haven't ruled out that it might have been tampered with. You're the only one who would know how likely would it be for someone to tamper with a photo stored on your computer. And why would someone even bother doing something that? After all, it would take some time to do, not to mention the risk of being caught in the act of messing around like that.
In my opinion, the subject in question in photo #2 is most likely a bird (looks like a high-flying hawk or eagle to me, moving toward "8:00" or so (WSW) , with the tail being the "bump" others have commented on). The halo seen around the subject looks EXACTLY like artifacts from a digital sharpening algorithm, or aliasing from the Bayer sensor in the camera.
I am NOT claiming that the OP manipulated the image in any way, as this type of anomaly happens in the camera itself. Many current digital cameras, by default, process the image before saving it, and apply some level of sharpening to the image. In addition, moire patterns often occur around small details, due to the way the sensor works. These types of digital anomalies are most visible in small objects surrounded by a single color (usually brighter) field, such as the sky, in the subject image.
For a much more in-depth explanation, try the following article from Thom Hogan.
A few paragraphs into that article is the following snippet, which I believe applies in this case.
Quote:
most digital cameras employ what is known as an anti-aliasing filter--essentially a diffusion filter over the sensor. (The exception is the Kodak Pro 14n). Why? Because the Bayer pattern sampling used in digital cameras has a tendency to produce colored artifacts and moire patterns on small detail. By blurring the light slightly so that multiple photosites get some of the information from a particular detail, this lessens the chance that these hard-to-remove artifacts appear.
It seems that those who claim it is a bird should be able to show some photographic documents where the image of a bird simulates the image presented in the post.
So far, I can find one image of a bird flying in any direction that duplicate the image in the initial photo.
Speck on the lens, mystery solved (bowing) you can thank me later.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
