Sally Gap Investigation (19/09/05)

deisedevil

i don't know much about photography but looking at the last image posted i think i might have a possible reason, please correct me if i'm wrong(i probably am) the fact that mars is static and the object is a streak which lights up the clouds means the object is prob not a star or the moon(as they would be static too on the photo like mars) and is not something close up as it shines on the clouds then could it not be lightning. it has already been said that the streaks move across the sky so it could be lightning moving with a storm?

as i'm writing this i just realised it's prob not, chances of it happening a 2nd night would be slim. hmmm.

stormkeeper

Zillah wrote:

Thats your response!?

Well, I thought it looked impressive ^_^;;;

SkepticOne

I'm in agreement with some here. If you have a camera on auto exposure then at night, the exposure will be very long (several seconds). Digital cameras won't have the click to indicate the exposure has ended so the user will think that the photo has been taken.

I think the photos are over exposed images of the red torches streaked due to the long exposures. The first three are coming out white due to overexposure and the nearness of the torch. No. 6 has a red tint which can be explained by the narrowness of the image suggesting a light source further away and therefore less overexposure.

To repeat the experiment you need to make sure you know the exposure length. Anything taken at night will involve a long exposure so you need to use a tripod to keep the camera steady (or else rest it on something). Switch off all light sources before hand.

Zillah

SkepticOne wrote:

I'm in agreement with some here. If you have a camera on auto exposure then at night, the exposure will be very long (several seconds). Digital cameras won't have the click to indicate the exposure has ended so the user will think that the photo has been taken.

I think the photos are over exposed images of the red torches streaked due to the long exposures. The first three are coming out white due to overexposure and the nearness of the torch. No. 6 has a red tint which can be explained by the narrowness of the image suggesting a light source further away and therefore less overexposure.

To repeat the experiment you need to make sure you know the exposure length. Anything taken at night will involve a long exposure so you need to use a tripod to keep the camera steady (or else rest it on something). Switch off all light sources before hand.

That thoroughly ignores the fact that there are other points of unblurred light in most of the images which would be impossible if it was due to a long exposure. Several of the images even have a red star, mars. And mars was (is still?) out at the time these photos were taken. So if it was faked, and they put in stars to rule out camera shake, then they did their bloody research and added a red dot for mars.

Of course the streak could have been added later on top of a normal image.

stevenmu

I wonder if 6th has had a chance to have a good look at the similar images he took in charleville ?

6th

Dont worry Steven i'll have them on tonight ... they're weird photos alright but i think we found the answer before too long!

Zillah

It was a blade of grass, remember?

stormkeeper

Zillah wrote:

It was a blade of grass, remember?

There's a picture of me holding it after the two pictures....

SkepticOne

Zillah wrote:

That thoroughly ignores the fact that there are other points of unblurred light in most of the images which would be impossible if it was due to a long exposure. Several of the images even have a red star, mars. And mars was (is still?) out at the time these photos were taken. So if it was faked, and they put in stars to rule out camera shake, then they did their bloody research and added a red dot for mars.

Of course the streak could have been added later on top of a normal image.

I'm not suggesting it was faked. What the points of light were is anyone's guess. Probably brief flashes from a torch in the distance as it is moved around.

I would, however, again suggest repeating the experiment this time with a tripod to eliminate camera shake. Also make note of the aperature and shutter speed and direction of view and make sure all light sources are switched off.

It might be interesting to set up two cameras a few feet apart but pointing in the same direction so that images can be triangulated to work out where they are.

Zillah

SkepticOne wrote:

What the points of light were is anyone's guess. Probably brief flashes from a torch in the distance as it is moved around.

Such a presumption is not very sceptical. Its down right biased in fact. There is strong evidence to suggest that they are stars, including the fact that the images appear to have clouds in them (meaning the light source is in the sky), and one has a red tint to it, identical to the appearance of mars, which is clearly visible in the sky these days.

Regardless of their source, they are undisturbed pin pricks of light, which completely rules out camera shake.

Dfitzer

Not trying to be skeptical but the image looks like it could be a flare. Para flares on their way down will zig zag towards the ground leaving a streak of light in the air. If you were facing towards Kilbride Ranges the Army may have been doing a night shoot. Also the area of Sally Gap is used by the army alot so that could also explain the presence of flares. Check with Wicklow Mountain National Park people to see if the any flares that night as it would have to be reported to them.

SkepticOne

Zillah wrote:

Such a presumption is not very sceptical. Its down right biased in fact. There is strong evidence to suggest that they are stars, including the fact that the images appear to have clouds in them (meaning the light source is in the sky), and one has a red tint to it, identical to the appearance of mars, which is clearly visible in the sky these days.

Regardless of their source, they are undisturbed pin pricks of light, which completely rules out camera shake.

The only thing is that any exposure taken at night on auto will be several seconds long. There will be camera shake unless efforts are taken to prevent it using a tripod or other support. This is why I think it is a torch in the distance briefly pointing in the direction of the camera, possibly in the period when the camera was held still for the photo, and then moving away.

I think what looks like clouds in some of the pictures is really the blurred reflection of light from the ground from the torches. No detail, of course, can be made out properly because the camera would be moving.

There is a possibility that I could be wrong, but that is my guess at the moment. To clear things up, you would need to recreate the conditions on the night as much as possible. Have people walk around with torches with red filters. Take long exposure shots with a camera. Possibly carry around the camera with the exposure still going on (to simulate not realising that the exposure is still happening).

Then try the same thing with a known shutter speed and aperture, all torches and other light sources off and the camera immobilised and pointing in a particular direction. Compare results.

Ziycon

If i got the exact location would anyone like to go up there themselves and check out the area?

6th

Yeah i'll check it out, always nice to have a project!

whyulittle

Came across this photo, which looks similar to the ones you posted. This photo has nothing to do with the paranormal.

6th

whyulittle wrote:

Came across this photo, which looks similar to the ones you posted. This photo has nothing to do with the paranormal.

i like that picture and look the fire/grill thing is static ... rules out camera shake ... must be a ghost!
At this stage i'm not afraid to say i'm totally boards.ie with this topic!

6th

Zillah

It does rule out camera shake.

Which means the light source was moving.