From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:25:13 -0400 (EDT) Archived: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 08:35:34 -0400 Subject: Re: 'Snowflake' Video From South America >From: Viktor Golubic <Diverge247.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:44:53 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: 'Snowflake' Video From South America >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:02:13 -0400 (EDT) >>Subject: Re: 'Snowflake' Video From South America >>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:41:39 +0100 >>>Subject: 'Snowflake' Video From South America >>>http://tinyurl.com/c6c5pfu >>>Subtracting the erratic camera motion and measuring the position >>>of the light relative to the house window, I think the object >>>seems to drift slowly up and to the left over the rooftop during >>>the video. This makes me think of a bright star or planet. But >>>of course with no direction or time information to go on it's >>>hard to say. The pattern of lights hints at some optical or >>>video artefact but I haven't seen an effect exactly like this >>>before. Any thoughts? >>I wonder if the guy videoed a bright planet using a "star >>filter" or something like that on his lens (a diffraction filter >>with three gratings that are 120 degrees apart). >>He might have used a color filter as well to make the light >>approximately monochromatic to avoid color blur that would occur >>when a diffraction filter is used with polychromatic light such >>as starlight. >>Tha latter portion of the video looks like an "emboss" version >>of the first part. Pulsations of the image could be a >>combination of "focus hunting" by the camera and atmospheric >>scintillation. ><If all this were to turn out to be true, then it would be a >>hoax. >Hi Bruce, I think this is a very good suggestion. However, every >diffraction filter I know has bilateral symmetry: Where there is >the corresponding right half identical to its left. However, >this is a seven point polygon (not even numbered) with no >bilateral reflection plane. I'm not sure any exist and even if >you attempted seven, by default it will a produce a fourteen >point pattern (even not odd like this one). >Any additional thoughts? >My only thinking is that this is a lens flare effect caused by a >thin film coating and the shape of the aperture. In that case, >the spatial distribution of the flare depends on the shape of the aperture itself which has a seven point symmetry. You are correct that there wouldn't be a "7-fold symmetry" created by a filter such as described above. I have looked at the video again and noted that it seems like a "6-fold" array with a couple of other lights in seemingly random - but fixed relative to other lights - positions. I also note the "lights" (diffraction orders if this were an image of a diffraction pattern) seem weak or non-existent at the right side. It is as if some lights were missing or blocked by something. Since a diffraction filter operates inside the camera the diffraction orders would be created and there would be nothing to block a diffraction order. I therefore question my own suggested explanation and note that others have proposed a LED light hoax. If so, and if the lights were intended to be in a pattern, then something happened to the 'contraption' on the way up! 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