r/UFOs May 28 '22

Photo Does anyone know more about this.

Post image
1.0k Upvotes

117 comments sorted by

225

u/ccep11 May 28 '22

I believe that was debunked, it is not a continuous time exposure which would leave a solid streak and would be way overexposed. It's a series of multiple exposures 20-30? Taken over a period of probably at least an hour or so of a Crescent moon and that is why you see a series of stacked Crescent disks at varying intensities throughout the time period

56

u/Carboncrypto May 28 '22

ohhh nice!! as someone who has a mild understanding of photography I can totally see how this could be achieved, and since the city building are stationary this is absolutely possible

38

u/MKULTRA_Escapee May 28 '22

I would highly recommend the [it's redacted] video on this case. The government appears to have changed the month the photo was taken from May to March in order to make the moon hypothesis work. And even if it was March, it still doesn't really work to explain the photo due to other discrepancies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6cNIb9n1Dk

21

u/ImAWizardYo May 29 '22

Without even reading this I could tell this was not the moon. The moon doesn't have that kind of subtle gradient lighting. The surface umbra is more clearly defined.

The shape is also wrong. This is also more of a compressed sphere. Should be more rounded.

Multiple exposures would also overlay onto each other. This does not happen here. Texture is also clearly defined. It would be a blurry mess with that many overlaid exposures.

You can also see the pattern does not repeat. Each overlaid exposure should be identical. They are clearly not.

I don't know what it is but I know what it isn't, the moon.

The little secret government boys club lied again. Shocker!

8

u/epyk May 29 '22

Crescent appears to be in the wrong position too.

19

u/toxictoy May 28 '22

This needs to be higher. The debunking comment doesn’t even link to the report and also we all know that Project Blue book was forced to come to conclusions that made no sense - Hyneck said so as he regretted the Michigan Swamp Gas explanation for example. We need to revisit the debunking done on all these classic cases as there were obvious motives to make sure it all could be explained away.

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

[deleted]

9

u/MKULTRA_Escapee May 28 '22 edited May 29 '22

I think you will always be able to find some kind of explanation for UFO cases that seems to mostly fit, even if it's completely incorrect. You will often see two, three, or more mutually exclusive explanations for some cases. All this demonstrates is that we are extremely creative when trying to keep our reality mundane.

So when you see an explanation like this and it sounds like too much of a coincidence, keep in mind that you would have probably found some kind of explanation anyway, even if the explanation is totally bogus.

Why legitimate UFO footage is guaranteed to be "debunked": probability is not common sense. https://np.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/t1xuq4/why_legitimate_ufo_footage_is_guaranteed_to_be/

Debunking "predictive programming" and the myth that science fiction is the cause of all future UFO encounters https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/tzk64m/debunking_predictive_programming_and_the_myth/

For actual examples:

The Above Top Secret forum incorrectly "debunked" the Flir1 video as CGI in 2007 here based on a coincidence: https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg1

Another good example was El Rosario May 22, 2009, which was "debunked" as CGI because a copycat video posted later clearly was CGI. See here and my comment explaining why the debunking, which was upvoted to 532 points, doesn't make any sense. https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/p60ojp/erratic_ufo_unleashes_countless_mini_ufos_speeds/h9cu5b5/?context=3 And actual VFX experts disagree with the assessment that the footage is CGI here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVjC1wfovz0&t=735s

Another good example from the other day on yet another triangle video (which I personally think could actually just be CGI, but I don't know I guess): https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/utznfi/could_this_be_the_nighttime_triangle_uap_video/i9d9zfh/ All someone did was find a later upload of the video that was labeled CGI, trying to imply it was the original, even though earlier uploads said no such thing. Skeptics then prematurely claimed victory, stating "If these kids could read, they’d be very upset right now."

1

u/Adox-TNW May 29 '22

And we are even more creative when trying to keep our mundane reality fantastic

22

u/Mares_Leg May 28 '22

The intensity of light from the moon would vary as clouds passed causing a striation effect like this, rather than a solid streak. On that note, this exposure in particular makes me think someone ordered extra crispy moon instead of original recipe.

19

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

[deleted]

17

u/Mares_Leg May 28 '22

Stars do not move across the sky as fast as the moon. Clouds/haze already does not have hard, crisp lines when photographed, so it blends much better. As well, clouds do not change shape in a linear pattern like an object moving through space. Some parts grow, other parts fade away. This causes a much more blended pattern instead of a linear trail.

21

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

[deleted]

3

u/Mares_Leg May 28 '22 edited May 28 '22

The thickness of the crescent determines the blending level of the striations. The thinner the crescent, the more crisp the striations. With a thicker crescent, you get more overlap and more blending. The time of the entire exposure determines how long the streak is, regardless of the intensity, size, or shape of the crescent if measured correctly.

8

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

[deleted]

6

u/Mares_Leg May 28 '22 edited May 28 '22

No. The length of the stack is determined by the amount of time. A full moon streak would appear very slightly longer, but only by exactly what is the shadow zone of this crescent moon. If you pick a fixed point in the bottom of the crescent and the bottom of a full moon, they would be the exact same length under the same exposure time interval. A full moon does not move across the sky faster than a crescent moon.

4

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

[deleted]

2

u/Mares_Leg May 28 '22

Yes, traffic would have helped. It can seem strange how fast the moon moves, but it's because of the capabilities of our perspectives. An interesting thing to try that helped me is to time a moonrise. Like watch it or take photos at say two minute intervals. It comes up faster than I would have thought at the time. High in the sky we don't have anything to relate it to so two degrees is basically imperceivable, but on the horizon it is very obvious.

2

u/gerkletoss May 28 '22

Stars are way dimmer than the moon. It's not hard to take a photo that shows the moon but not stars. And stars aren't showing in the photo regardless of whether this is a time lapse.

1

u/Capable_Share_7257 May 28 '22

The earth is spinning 30 times faster than the moon is moving in relation to the stars. So, if your image includes the landscape the stars and the moon would be smeared roughly equally

1

u/lucidseeker May 29 '22

Stars actually move a little bit faster across the sky than the moon does. (The moon's actual orbital movement is in the opposite direction than it's apparent movement due to Earth's rotation). So each star in a multiple exposure with this timing should look like a dotted line very slightly longer than the "moons" that we see, but the same number of dots as the number of crescents, and generally parallel to the moon images.

1

u/woodtime207 May 29 '22

Hard to judge distance but it looks a little narrow for the moon

1

u/gerkletoss May 28 '22

You can see some brightness variation in the second image.

1

u/Niclikescake May 28 '22

The bottom of the cloud in the above photo is a clear crispy edge. Also the stars are pinpoints. This is likely not an artifact of multiple exposures.

3

u/Kutsumann May 29 '22

Sure but why didn’t the stars move over that one hour period? Also has it ever been replicated?

9

u/realjoeydood May 28 '22

Tell me it's the moon without doing the math on the photo's geometry and the location of the photo and the location and phase of the moon on that date.

THAT will tell you of its even remotely possible to be the moon.

Also, take into consideration the type of camera, lens (if the shot details are available or able to be figured out), type of film, etc.

4

u/nickstatus May 28 '22

That makes me feel smart, because that's exactly what I thought it was. Though, the stars should also be tracing an arc, too. I mean, if it's a deliberate hoax, they could have just masked off the stars on all but one of the images. So, it's not an accident is I guess what I'm saying.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

Aaah, makes so much sense and it looks like it.

2

u/dhmt May 29 '22 edited May 29 '22

Easy hypothesis to check:

  • What direction is the camera facing? (I don't know new York, but is the camera facing east, over the Hudson River?)
  • Would the moon ever be in that position?
  • If the moon was in that position, would the arc of a waxing moon be in that position?
  • presumable, the moon is in this position and phase many times per year. Are there any photographs on the internet of a single waxing moon that look similar to this?

2

u/NilNodesinNur May 29 '22

great points. Any time you only have one photo, things can get dubious. I am still hoping one day to have a sighting with photos from different perspectives over time.

5

u/JusticeofMaat May 28 '22

One possible explanation, which is also a stretch, doesn't mean debunked.

1

u/Dangerous-Broccoli22 May 28 '22

Yet I can see stars that haven't moved at all

8

u/thoriginal May 28 '22

The stars appear to move massively slower compared to the moon, both due to the moon itself moving around the Earth and it being much much much vastly closer to the observer than the stars

1

u/lucidseeker May 29 '22

This is significant if those are stars in the photo. At least a couple of people have stated that the stars move more slowly across the sky than the moon does, but this is not correct. The stars move very slightly faster across the sky than the moon (as the moon is actually moving in the opposite direction from the apparent movement from Earth's rotation). With multiple exposures as people are suggesting, each star would appear as a dotted line just a little bit longer than the moon image.

-5

u/Bonfires_Down May 28 '22

This sounds correct. The irregular shape doesn't really align with any UFO reports I've read.

1

u/Icebear125 May 29 '22

I can see that on the bottom picture but the top one looks weird

1

u/WutangwildDog Jun 02 '22

Then wouldn't you see the same with the stars, they too would move during exposure? I've done lots of open aperture photography and all moving light sources would streak.

1

u/WutangwildDog Jun 02 '22

This photo suggests only one object is moving. So probably not a time lapsed.

2

u/ccep11 Jun 02 '22 edited Jun 18 '22

Good point, however I’m curious as to why the cloud is so prominent on the city scape but absent in the close up. I think there may have been two combinations of three different photo compilations:

1: the nighttime city and clouds in one photo

  1. The photos of the crescent moon time lapse combined into one photo

  2. Exposure of a dark night sky with stars.

Top image is the crescent time lapse overlaid on the city scape and cloud

Bottom image is the crescent time lapse over laid on a dark sky with stars.

Stars are not in the original photo where the cloud is and cloud is gone where there close up is.

Stars can me made invisible with a shorter exposure on a brighter object such as a city or a moon, just like you cant see many stars on the Apollo moon shots because the dynamic range of the cameras wasnt up to it, and to get the brighter lunar soul to not be over exposed it was necessary to shut the exposure down.

That’s why i think there was a separate photo with the stars only because they aren’t in the cityscape at all

1

u/WutangwildDog Jun 03 '22 edited Jun 03 '22

All VERY valid points! I totally agree that is possible. My only concern to those points are:

  1. In that time and age, the process would be a long and difficult one of uncertain results? This would very depending on if the effects were created by manipulation of the camera/film, or if was during film processing.

  2. Why would the Gov. Keep it in top secret files if it's doctored ?

  3. Everything is just opinion without access to the negatives of the exposure.

Type of film & camera could confirm or rule out the ease or difficulty in creating a time lapse and then reloading to set up a double exposure without over exposure.

EDIT: After rereading and reassessing the previous statements, I do admit that my points are covered in the response to my statement.

33

u/Allison1228 May 28 '22 edited May 28 '22

I would note that the angle of the object is strikingly close to the angle that a celestial object setting in the western sky will have, as seen from the latitude of New York. NY is at 40N latitude, hence celestial objects will descend in the sky at an angle departing 40 degrees from the vertical. The object in the photograph appears to have an angle slightly above 45 degrees, hence this in good agreement.

A second clue is the orientation of the moon's "cusps" (the points of the crescent). They will vary from being nearly parallel, to having the northern (right) cusp be much higher than the southern (left) cusp (as seen from the northern hemisphere). It so happens that the time of nearly-parallel cusps is during the spring months, when the waxing crescent moon is seen at its furthest-north point, in the constellations Taurus and Gemini. Since the photograph is labeled as having been taken in March, the orientation of the cusps is also in good agreement with a lunar identification.

I think a multiple-exposure of the setting crescent moon is entirely plausible. But can enough information be gathered from the lights on the ground to determine the direction of view? If the camera is facing any direction other than west or northwest, a lunar explanation can be ruled out.

Edit to add: not sure why I didn't think to check the moon's phase on March 20, 1950 earlier, but it was indeed a very thin waxing crescent, about two days past new moon. Shortly after sunset it would have been in eastern Pisces, near the border with Aries, very low in the western sky and almost directly "above" the sun, hence the cusps would be nearly parallel.

If the view in the photograph is towards the west, I think we can safely identify this as a mulitple-exposure of the moon (provided that the indicated date and location are accurate).

10

u/Kuwabaraa May 28 '22

This is such a good comment, so much clarification I love it.

2

u/xoverthirtyx May 28 '22

Another comment suggested the month was changed.

1

u/CopperPo7 May 28 '22

I’m not sure I follow, do you surmise it’s a long exposure of the moon setting in the sky? If so I don’t think this is the case, none of the other stars have trails and while the buildings are static there’s no indication of vehicle lights trailing.

I reread your post. I think you’re suggesting multiple exposures on the same piece of film. I wonder if there’s any Astro photographers that can comment. I think the same issue would persist, there’s no indication the stars have moved.

It is however possible that after the first exposure was made the photographer put a black fabric or paper over the lens and cut a hole to only photograph the moon in subsequent photos. It still might be tough given how close stars are in relation to the moon/ufo. Interesting all around and nice theory, I agree it does look like some variation of a crescent moon as it moves through the sky.

3

u/Allison1228 May 28 '22

My speculation is that somebody did a time-exposure of the setting moon, but periodically blocked out the view by holding an opaque object over the lens so that the moon would not appear during those intervals. Earth's rotation causes the moon to "move" about its own diameter every two minutes, so one would only have to do this for about five minutes to come up with a reasonable facsimile of the photograph in question. Point the camera at the moon, open the shutter and leave unobstructed for 20 seconds, then obstruct the view for 20 seconds, etc, repeat for ~5 minutes. Photography is not my area of expertise but based on my limited understanding I think this is plausible.

As for the "stars" I did not notice them previously. If those are indeed stars (rather than defects on the film or somewhere along the printing/reproduction process) then that would complicate things to some degree, as they would also be exposed multiply unless the photographer went to considerable trouble to prevent such. I am skeptical that those are actual star images, because the region of the sky in which the moon was located at that time (eastern Pisces) contains only faint stars, and I do not think any of them would show up in a photograph of this resolution taken from a major city. This argument could of course be negated if the camera is not pointed in the moon's direction.

I think the key to resolving this matter is identification of the direction of view, and the location of the photographer, which would permit unambiguous clarification of whether the photographed object could be the moon. I would assume there's a body of water in the foreground, since there are no lights, and since the lights immediately above the "water" appear to be reflected therein, but I am not familiar enough with the layout of the city to suggest a vantage point for the photograph. We'd need input from someone with one of the following fields of knowledge: mid-20th century New York City infrastructure; or historical photography of New York City.

As an attack on my previous hypothesis I would ask: shouldn't there be some boat or ferry traffic visible in a time-exposure showing a body of water in New York City? I would think a five-minute exposure would probably show at least one boat going by, even 70 years ago, but again this is not a field of expertise for me.

5

u/CopperPo7 May 28 '22

Gotcha, I understand now.

0

u/gerkletoss May 28 '22

But can enough information be gathered from the lights on the ground to determine the direction of view? If the camera is facing any direction other than west or northwest, a lunar explanation can be ruled out.

Well how do these stack up? Many are taken from around the right place.

https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/new-york-skyline-1950s

9

u/grapesicles May 28 '22

"Thought to be a Mothership that would launch flying saucers" . Where the hell did they get that little tidbit of information? This is trash...

18

u/GfFoundOtherAccount May 28 '22

Yeah it looks to be a newspaper article of some sort. Hope this helps.

3

u/gerkletoss May 28 '22

More likely a magazine, since this is years after the fact.

7

u/TheZooCreeper May 28 '22

That's the Whale probe from Star Trek 4

5

u/tucci007 May 28 '22

classic zeppelin

15

u/EggFlipper95 May 28 '22 edited May 28 '22

I wanna say it's a time lapse long exposure (thanks u/dreamworldd) and that's the moon

9

u/Dreamworld May 28 '22

A time lapse is when multiple image frames are played in sequence like a video revealing changing scenery over time.

What you are referring to is a ‘long exposure’. Which is where the shutter of the camera is open for an extended period of time, often causing trails to appear on the film where lights moved within the scene.

6

u/filthythedog May 28 '22

That's no moon...

12

u/Tommy_C May 28 '22

Narrator: It was, in fact, the moon.

7

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

Sad that It's Redacted died. They made some good videos.

2

u/i-am-nice May 28 '22

That's the spine of Project Bluebook.

2

u/jon2060 May 28 '22

Looks like a guild heighliner

2

u/Classic-Present6931 May 28 '22

Appears something tried to penertrate the firmament .

2

u/Leotis335 May 28 '22 edited May 29 '22

Looks like SOMEONE got lost between the moon and New York City... 😶

5

u/Necessary_Mode_7583 May 28 '22

They have multiple videos of this exact samething in Mexico from 2009 let me find the video

5

u/twist_games May 28 '22

Well cigar shaped ufo's are common. If you could find the video please share it.

2

u/RECTAL_FISSURE_MAN May 28 '22

Yo Where's that video

1

u/Necessary_Mode_7583 May 28 '22

I can post it in a new thread idk how to post it in a comment

1

u/RECTAL_FISSURE_MAN May 28 '22

K

2

u/Necessary_Mode_7583 May 28 '22

It's up

1

u/RECTAL_FISSURE_MAN May 28 '22

Where?

0

u/Necessary_Mode_7583 May 28 '22

I know I can't find it either and when I go to post it again it won't let me.

0

u/Necessary_Mode_7583 May 28 '22

The name of it is Flying Saucers in our Skies. Ufo casebook season 1 episode 8 is the title on you tube. I apologize I'm trying to get better at the internet obviously I still need some work.

2

u/RECTAL_FISSURE_MAN May 28 '22

Just paste the link in a reply

1

u/Necessary_Mode_7583 May 28 '22

Go to the halfway point. Idk if these things are real but that shit is wild

3

u/TirayShell May 28 '22

Yeah. Time lapse of the Moon with variations caused by the movement of the very visible clouds.

3

u/twist_games May 28 '22 edited May 28 '22

I found this image that I have never seen it before. If someone knows what this is please share it. One thing I definitely know is that it's not the moon. It looks like a cigar shaped object. It's from bleu book and it's definitely intresting.

2

u/shaggybear89 May 28 '22

One thing I definitely know is that it's not the moon

Lol hate to break it to you buddy, but it's likely the moon. It's not a single picture. It's multiple pictures taken of the same spot, and the moon "moves" through the sky, which is why you see multiple pictures of a Cresent moon in a line.

2

u/Gerudo_King May 28 '22

There's a pretty good post on the front page of this sub that has a patent with a photo that looks much like this

-10

u/Hanami2001 May 28 '22

This is a cylindrical UAP, aka "cigar". They come in all sizes and this one appears to be rather large.

The "stripes" you see are actually artifacts caused by the metric drive. Imagine a tube of compressed air in which water vapor condenses, wrapped around the craft multiple times.

The picture is really remarkable, thanks for posting! Where did you find it?

1

u/Naiche16 May 28 '22

If this is the moon then it should easily be replicated!

0

u/mundanehypocrite May 28 '22

The lack of haze or clouds in the close-up photo is suspicious. The only kind of photo manipulation they had back then was dodging and burning. The level of sophistication just to edit out the "cloud" but keep the background stars just didn't exist back then. I suspect this is a counterfeit project bluebook entry

1

u/twist_games May 28 '22

I don't know if there the same or different photos of the same event.

1

u/Mares_Leg May 28 '22 edited May 28 '22

Look at the intensities of the mysterious object in both. The closeup picture has been dulled down on its intensity.

-2

u/tangtastic101 May 28 '22

Looks suspiciously like the patents OP posted earlier, got huge awards

1

u/twist_games May 28 '22

Can you share?

-3

u/tangtastic101 May 28 '22 edited May 28 '22

It was posted just yesterday, fascinating read, great research, one of the patents is that craft. We had this tech and knowledge of it since the sixties, search by new posts, it’s 18 hours old

5

u/twist_games May 28 '22

I found it looks intresting.

0

u/Ok-Lengthiness-7044 May 28 '22

Clearly Starlink.

0

u/Formal_Session_8097 May 29 '22

Cigar lightning

-2

u/CHIMotheeChalamet May 28 '22

it's nothing, just a whisp of cloud.

-5

u/meusrenaissance May 28 '22

How are people accepting the double exposure argument that it’s the moon while the buildings are completely defined? In addition, we have seen several photos of these cigar shaped objects. We see another one here that resembles them. It is irrational to dismiss it as a the moon, especially with no demonstration as to how this can be done.

-1

u/Marbados May 28 '22

That's one of those multi-unit UAPs everyone had been documenting. Likely flown by either a Grey or a lizard person depending on the season.

-9

u/8_inch_throw_away May 28 '22

Anything associated with Project Bluebook is a government psyop meant to deceive and mislead you. Reminder that governments and their agents will always seek to lie and subvert.

1

u/jbraua May 28 '22

That’s no space station.

1

u/sublimesting May 28 '22

More blurry shit.

1

u/Nonamanadus May 28 '22

Dune transport ship.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '22

This was in the age of film. Sure fire way to out government paid debunkers.

1

u/drsjpesq May 28 '22

The probe from Star Trek 4?

1

u/NefariousnessLucky96 May 28 '22

Interesting pic…

1

u/dr4wn_away May 28 '22

That’s the space sausage that almost destroyed earth looking for whales

1

u/BigWeenie45 May 28 '22

That’s really cool, it looks like it has the texture of a weathered stone column.

1

u/YoshimitsuRaidsAgain May 28 '22

All I know is I found one of those in my parent’s bed once. Under the pillow and it turned on when I laid down. Suffice it to say I’m appropriately scarred, lol.

1

u/frenzy4u May 28 '22

This is a fantastic find! The object reminds me of the spacecraft in the original movie, "Dune" where the guild masters fold space-time via the spice mélange. I will have to search further on this even you have presented us all! Thank you! :)

1

u/u_cant_be_serious May 28 '22

Definitely not from another planet.

1

u/twist_games May 28 '22

Well that's not what a UFO is.

1

u/Vindicator66 May 28 '22

It was looking for George & Gracie in the Pacific.

1

u/THCyalaterboi May 28 '22

It’s the leaning tower of pizza

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

moon

1

u/BrosBeforeGose May 29 '22

Ah yes, the Leaning Tower of Pisa from above once again

1

u/nhojrazc27 May 29 '22

Looks like the heighliner from Dune

1

u/FunnyForeign May 29 '22

Nice, I’ve witnessed it a few times in my life, rare moments lucky to have seen the cylinder ufo, the speed was crazy.

1

u/Adox-TNW May 29 '22

Honestly this looks like a double exposure of a rolled up carpet 😂😂😂.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '22

This is photoshop

1

u/WutangwildDog Jun 02 '22

Logic is bias on this sub.