Is the UFO Over Washington DC Real or a Reflection?

[polyb]

Well here is an interesting one! The claim is that a web cam from one of the national parks caught this live and it was sent over the web and confirmed. This is from a sight called IntelDesk.com. Here is the link and a snippet:

Take notice that the headlights of autos are showing exposure trails from the headlights, but the object in the air is not, thus implying it is stationary or hovering.. We consider this to be a remarkable image. Several UFO experts we have contacted have agreed that it is a very remarkable image.

http://www.mediavillage.net/test/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=12

It's a neat picture but I am unable to see if it was 'doctored' or not. Maybe this is a ploy to generate traffic for the site, which is not beyond reason.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, it looks very much like a plane to me - the long exposure would streak the cabin lights and the wingtip lights and strobes would still show up as points.

 

[polyb]

Actually, it looks very much like a plane to me - the long exposure would streak the cabin lights and the wingtip lights and strobes would still show up as points.

There is only one shortcoming with that arguement, apparently that is restricted airspace, but I am unable to confirm or deny that at the moment. So what is it? I don't know but I'm still thinking it is a lure to get site traffic. Stranger things have been done to lure people to specific sites, so...?

 

[Alkatran]

and yet, no reports of people seeing a huge disc in the sky? Odd.

It looks very much like the object is created by the exposure time.

 

[polyb]

and yet, no reports of people seeing a huge disc in the sky? Odd.

It looks very much like the object is created by the exposure time.

There is still the question of airspace restriction. Also, if it is a time exposure of a plane then there would be others like it somewhere in a database containing the photos from this webcam, assumuing one is kept.

But then again, if this was a known aspect of this cam then the conjecture for site traffic increase may be an affirmative! Hmmmmmm?

 

[russ_watters]

There is only one shortcoming with that arguement, apparently that is restricted airspace, but I am unable to confirm or deny that at the moment.

There is a major airport very nearby and the landing pattern takes planes over that area. That can't be changed without moving the runway. In fact, an airliner once came up short and crashed into one of those bridges over the Potomac river.

I don't know if this MSN MAP works as a link, but you can see how close the arport is to the city, and how the runway is lined up. The end of the runway is only about 2 miles from the Capital Mall, but it may be possible to run the pattern over the river, turning in a mile from the airport (either way, the planes have to fly through the line of sight of the webcam).

The bridge in the pic is the little one that goes from Arlington Cemetary to the Mall - the bridge the plane crashed into is the next one to the south.

edit: I hadn't checked the map before my last post - checking the map has convinced me beyond any doubt that its a plane, exactly where you would expect it to be.

 

[Moonbear]

One thing worth noting is that you're not seeing exposure trails on the car headlights. If you look at the images from daytime, you don't see blurred cars. Instead, what you're seeing is just the distance ahead of the cars that is illuminated by the headlights.

From the National Parks site that the web cam is on, there's approximately a 16 mile visible range on that camera. The no fly zone is a 15 mile radius and 18,000 ft altitude from the Washington Monument (my thanks to Google). I happen to have no sense of depth when looking at a photograph, especially in a section of the photo containing only sky, to tell where that streak is in terms of distance from the camera to know if it's possible to be a plane out beyond the no-fly zone. I'm not sure what approach is taken for the area airports (the camera is facing east, and the streak appears to be somewhat northeast). Reagan National airport would be south of the city (located within the no-fly zone), not northeast, but planes could be circling around to make an approach. If so, you wouldn't see the plane in the photo, just the lights, and it might be close enough to be switching on the bright headlights (or landing lights, or whatever those lights are called on planes that get turned on to approach a runway). Where's the airforce base relative to the direction of this photo?

I wonder if it's also possible that something caused a strange reflection on the camera lens that has nothing to do with anything being in the sky.

Edit: Russ beat me to it RE: nearby airport.
BTW, here's the site with the webcam. http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/WebCams/parks/nacccam/washcam.htm Those screen shots on the "UFO" site are fishy since they don't show what you actually see when you visit the site.

 

[Dayle Record]

Actually, it is a strip of lights from by the waters edge, caught upside down in some random reflection. If you look directly below the "UFO", you will see the same three lights in the image, only upside down. I could make this image, in under 5 minutes.

 

[Dayle Record]

Anyway, it took a little longer, but look, the photo now has two ufos. The lower ufo is entirely hand drawn. There are thousands of people that are a hundred times better at this than I am.

http://groups.msn.com/StreetCollaborations/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=65

 

[enigma]

That trail is heading towards Andrews AFB which is to the east of the city (toward the capital building in the distance). It also appears that the trail is to the north of the mall (the area between the monument and the capital), which is not restricted airspace. Regardless, if it were a military aircraft, the restricted airspace argument is a moot point, since they don't follow civilian FAA rules.

 

[chroot]

The "restricted flight" argument is not relevant -- there are no physical boundaries in the sky, and pilots, being human, occassionally make mistakes and fly into airspace in which they don't belong. As long as the pilot is in communication with ATC and is cooperating with instructions, there's no reason for the military to enforce the no-fly restriction with F-18s or surface-to-air missiles or what-have-you.

And, as enigma says, military aircraft do not have to obey the FAA restrictions in any way, shape, or form.

Bottom line: no-fly zones are not necessarily aircraft-free zones.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

That trail is heading towards Andrews AFB which is to the east of the city (toward the capital building in the distance). It also appears that the trail is to the north of the mall (the area between the monument and the capital), which is not restricted airspace. Regardless, if it were a military aircraft, the restricted airspace argument is a moot point, since they don't follow civilian FAA rules.

That's what I suspected, but wasn't completely certain where the AFB was relative to the direction of the photo. Of course, even if it was another pilot who strayed into restricted airspace, the webcam only captures an image once every 15 min to half hour, so the entire incident would have been over by the time the next photo was taken. Considering a jet approaching an airforce base would be moving considerably faster than the cars on the ground, that helps explain why it appears as more of a streak than the cars do.

What I find amusing is that people who believe aliens are coming into watch us and don't want their presence known would think they'd fly close to the ground in their flying saucer with all the lights blazing!

 

[polyb]

The site has posted a picture of an airliner in the camera shot, so that elimantes the restricted airpsace conjecture.
Here is the link!

By inference we also may be able to elimante the 'streaker' airline conjecture. But just to be more thurough, some quick calculations can be made to confirm or deny this conjecture. By finding the speed limit of the road on the shot we can determine an approximate exposure time for the shot. The timing period of the lights of the plane would have to be found, which is regulated by the FAA for civilian and military aircraft. Finally a speed for the said plane would have to be estimated. From there it may be determined if that is a fit. Though I have my doubts now.

Moonbear, I agree with the idea that if aliens came here why would they just hang out and watch like intergalatic voyers. You would think they would be smart enough to hide. Hey maybe they had a SEP field around them from which the webcam was immune! Myself, I would be scared to death of going anywhere near the monkey-hives that populate this planet.

Dayle, not bad! If this was a hack job, then someone would have had to hack the site where this cam is and then replace cam shot with the doctored photo. Personally I think this is all a ploy to 'advertise' the IntelDesk website, which something like that picture would be a great lure to get an expose' of the site. Stranger things have been done to generate traffic. From Alexa, I found a little data which supports the conjecture of a lure:

Traffic Rank for inteldesk.com

Today
316,163

1 wk. Avg.
1,091,895

3 mos. Avg.
3,409,939

3 mos. Change
--

Here is the link to Alexa data.

Here is a link to an analysis and discussion about the photo at the IntelDesk website.

So are there any other thoughts?

 

[chroot]

I'm a pilot. I don't have a copy of the FAR/AIM in front of me, but the white strobes on every plane I've ever flown flash once per second. The red beacon lights slowly turn off and on with a period of about two seconds.

The FAA imposes a speed limit of 250 knots indiciated airspeed for all aircraft under 10,000 ft. relative to mean sea level. Airliner-class aircraft typically land at about 130-150 knots, but this can vary siginificantly due to conditions and aircraft specifics.

- Warren

 

[Dayle Record]

Again, I just think that it is artifact, or reflection upside down, of the lights just below along the water edge. Perhaps there was a water droplet, so the image flipped, and since the camera is a long range version, the streak stayed long. Visually it is too much like the three lights along the waters edge, to not be some version of them. The symmetry is too good. I work on photos day in and day out, it could be the strobe on a helicopter, or something like that, and the motion reads like a streak, and the strobe flashess go 1-2-3. In fact there is kind of a discontinuity in the middle light, that might be a blade passing. Still the long body of the image, would be the pentagon, upside down, we would just be seeing the reflected light from it, with the water front lights being brightest.

 

[russ_watters]

I still think it's Reagan National (polyb's daytime pics are of a DC-9, which still could be military though) - its only about 2 or 3 miles from where that plane is located - and judging by the angle and an assumed distance from the camera (over the river or just over land on the other side), its at the height I would expect - 500 feet or so and lined up with the main runway. Andrews is on the same line, but another 10 miles away and the runway is oriented in a different direction.

One thing worth noting is that you're not seeing exposure trails on the car headlights. If you look at the images from daytime, you don't see blurred cars. Instead, what you're seeing is just the distance ahead of the cars that is illuminated by the headlights.

I don't think so - night time requires longer exposures and digital cameras are nowhere near as good as film cameras (webcams if left to themselves will adjust automatically). The exposure could easily be 1/4 to 1/2 second. Also, it looks to me like you can see both the headlights as streaks and the illuminated road in front of them.

 

[polyb]

I'm a pilot. I don't have a copy of the FAR/AIM in front of me, but the white strobes on every plane I've ever flown flash once per second. The red beacon lights slowly turn off and on with a period of about two seconds.

The FAA imposes a speed limit of 250 knots indiciated airspeed for all aircraft under 10,000 ft. relative to mean sea level. Airliner-class aircraft typically land at about 130-150 knots, but this can vary siginificantly due to conditions and aircraft specifics.

- Warren

Wow, your a pilot! What do you fly?

Those were some of the details that would be relevent. I remember from ground school(I never went beyond that because of cash constraints) that the flash period was about a second or two. It seems to me that by judging from the photo the exposure time could not have been longer than a second. There is also a question about the tail fin and light, where is it?

Of course the next question would have to be about how to gauge how far away the object is and so on. I have doubts about the streaker! I think it is a hoax to get the site an expose'. It really is not that bad of a site and it seems to have a lot of news links and etc. on it.

 

[chroot]

Wow, your a pilot! What do you fly?

I'm just a lowly private, just beginning work on my IFR rating. I mostly fly Cessna 172's and 182's -- the good ol' dumptrucks of the sky.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

I still think it's Reagan National (polyb's daytime pics are of a DC-9, which still could be military though) - its only about 2 or 3 miles from where that plane is located - and judging by the angle and an assumed distance from the camera (over the river or just over land on the other side), its at the height I would expect - 500 feet or so and lined up with the main runway. Andrews is on the same line, but another 10 miles away and the runway is oriented in a different direction.

Yeah, if it's coming in over the Potomac, it's probably headed for Reagan National. That plane is already pretty low and close to the position of the camera (you can see pretty good details on the plane despite the hazy, rainy conditions). A commercial flight also makes more sense given that all the cabin lights must have been on. As commercial flights are preparing to land, since 9/11, you must have the cabin lights on and window shades up.

I don't think so - night time requires longer exposures and digital cameras are nowhere near as good as film cameras (webcams if left to themselves will adjust automatically).

I hadn't considered the camera would adjust automatically. Since the image mostly included lights and brightly lit buildings, and very little could be seen where there wasn't bright lighting, I didn't think the exposure time would need to be that high to capture that image. But, I'm not really much of a photographer, so don't have experience with night time photos.

The exposure could easily be 1/4 to 1/2 second. Also, it looks to me like you can see both the headlights as streaks and the illuminated road in front of them.

A little of each sounds good to me.

 

[polyb]

I'm just a lowly private, just beginning work on my IFR rating. I mostly fly Cessna 172's and 182's -- the good ol' dumptrucks of the sky.

- Warren

Ya but they sure are fun! The IFR rating written test should not be too bad, it's just the hooded flight test!

 

[russ_watters]

I hadn't considered the camera would adjust automatically. Since the image mostly included lights and brightly lit buildings, and very little could be seen where there wasn't bright lighting, I didn't think the exposure time would need to be that high to capture that image. But, I'm not really much of a photographer, so don't have experience with night time photos.

See the webcam astrophotography thread. And next time you see a car with headlights on in the daytime, look directly at them: in the daytime, they don't look like much, but at night, its downright painful. So like your eyes, the webcam has to adjust quite a bit at night, even to see lights that look like they are pretty bright.

 

[Moonbear]

See the webcam astrophotography thread. And next time you see a car with headlights on in the daytime, look directly at them: in the daytime, they don't look like much, but at night, its downright painful. So like your eyes, the webcam has to adjust quite a bit at night, even to see lights that look like they are pretty bright.

Would it be too much to ask for a link to that thread? I did a search on webcam astrophotography and the only thread in the search result was this one. (Edit: Nevermind, I found it. Hard to miss a sticky. Hmmm...or perhaps you were just trying to show off your photography? Cool pictures, BTW. All my photography has the objective of keeping everything VEEEERRRRRYYYY still...cameras mounted to microscopes on air tables...if I get light trails, something has gone horribly wrong. )

The eye analogy isn't very good though. In the daylight, the lights don't seem so bright because my eyes are already adjusted to all the other bright light around. At night, it takes a moment for my pupils to constrict when looking at the light. The light from the headlights is still the same light. But, it doesn't really matter. It's not going to make much of a difference here, especially since planes move faster than cars, so even if the cars didn't appear to be moving, a plane could on the same exposure time.

 

[russ_watters]

The eye analogy isn't very good though. In the daylight, the lights don't seem so bright because my eyes are already adjusted to all the other bright light around. At night, it takes a moment for my pupils to constrict when looking at the light. The light from the headlights is still the same light.

No, that's just the point - while your eye may constrict when focusing on a headlight, that initial shot of pain you get when you look at it is because your eyes are adjusted for night. Your eye may focus on/adjust to the brightest object in a narrow field, but a webcam will typically total up (average) the light in the entire frame or a section of the frame.

And yeah, the plane is going much faster...but then again, it may also be much further away than the cars...

 

[Moonbear]

No, that's just the point - while your eye may constrict when focusing on a headlight, that initial shot of pain you get when you look at it is because your eyes are adjusted for night. Your eye may focus on/adjust to the brightest object in a narrow field, but a webcam will typically total up (average) the light in the entire frame or a section of the frame.

Still a bad analogy because your eye isn't averaging up the total light, it's adjusting to the brightest light being shined in it. Once you explained they could automatically adjust exposure time for lighting conditions, it made sense though, so no problem.

And yeah, the plane is going much faster...but then again, it may also be much further away than the cars...

Not too much further away if it's making a low approach over the Potomac. Being able to see how much detail was visible in a hazy daytime photo helps put some perspective on distance, and following the Potomac would be the approach flights headed toward Reagan National would take (sometimes it's almost scary how much you can find out about things with a Google search...don't even begin to think I knew any of this off the top of my head when I started reading this thread ).

 

[polyb]

Moonbear and russ,

I really hate proving people wrong because it's really no fun but I have to say your insistence on the streaking plane is not very well founded. To start, as russ stated the exposure time of the webcam could be any where from 1/4 to 1/2 of a second, which seems reasonable. But this is inconsistent with the shot of the object because there are 3 distinct lights on top of the object. Now chroot chimed in with the fact that the flash period of commercial airliners is about one second. I concur with this only because I took a ground school course in hopes of getting my private license. To get the details nailed down for either commercial or military aircraft the FAR/AIM book should be consulted. Just in case, this data is necessary in order for pilots to identify each other regardless of wether they are military or civilian, so the data is available. Given this, the time exposure of the cam would have to be at least 3 seconds, if not more. This seems to be a discrepancy even if I am wrong.

Next I have to point out that the angle at which the object is oriented indicates that it is not an airline in an approach landing maneuver. If it were on approach to Reagan National the plane would be at least horizontal or with an upward tilt and descending. I'm sure you have seen enough planes land to know this, if not run to your local airport and watch. The daytime photo is also a guide if you think I am in error. The angle for this to be a plane is to steep in the downward direction for it to be on approach, IMHO. This brings up another point, the light streak should seem to be different than what we see. It seems to me that instead of an almost straight line like in the photo there would be a little bit of downward type streaking. One more point on this part, it would seem that we would also see a little bit of 'jiggling' in the blur if this were a plane. That can easily be accounted for due to the fact that planes are constantly perturbed by air density differences that makes the plane 'jiggle' a little, of course this is a speculation on my part. Of course maybe it is taking off, but I would think that it would be at a higher altitude by time it reached the area which the camera is viewing. So that kind of eliminates that one in my mind.

Now if you can get a hold of the flight departures and arrivals from Reagan National for February 10th at around 3 AM and can find corollary to this object then you may watch as I put both of my feet in my mouth and shut up. After reading your posts and going back to see the picture, I kept finding that the picture did not have the characteristics of a plane given some of the info from this discussion and my own amatuerish speculations.

Finally, I still think that it's a hoax based on some simple criteria. One, the Alexa data for the traffic ranking of the site. When this went on the net the site jumped from being buried somewhere near 3.5 millionth to 3.5 hundred thousandth. Not bad! BTW, if you read their little analysis it addresses the airline conjecture without refutation, then it goes on about how it was mentioned on Coast to Coast, and then it tells you about the site and how great it is. It's like a cheap brochure with a snazzy UFO intro!

Oh yeah, I have been trying to pull up the site but I have been having problems and today's Alexa traffic rank is nill. This suggest to me that the site traffic has reached it's limit and they are probably working on a higher bandwidth connection. So whatchya think?

 

[Moonbear]

To start, as russ stated the exposure time of the webcam could be any where from 1/4 to 1/2 of a second, which seems reasonable. But this is inconsistent with the shot of the object because there are 3 distinct lights on top of the object. Now chroot chimed in with the fact that the flash period of commercial airliners is about one second... Given this, the time exposure of the cam would have to be at least 3 seconds, if not more.

No, it just means the lights had to flash once during the 1/4 to 1/2 second when the camera was snapping that picture. Since they flash, and don't stay on, that would explain why they still appear as points despite the cabin lights being more of a streak.

Next I have to point out that the angle at which the object is oriented indicates that it is not an airline in an approach landing maneuver. If it were on approach to Reagan National the plane would be at least horizontal or with an upward tilt and descending.

I want to look back at both pictures again before I comment on this.

Edit: I agree, it looks like the angle is more consistent with take-off than landing.

 

[Moonbear]

Here's a photo with a clearly long exposure time of a plane taking off from Heathrow airport at night. If you look closely, you'll notice the same types of spots from wing lights on it above the bright steak, just as you see in the one in the first picture from your "UFO" site.

http://www.scfotografi.dk/d1-049.htm

 

[chroot]

Next I have to point out that the angle at which the object is oriented indicates that it is not an airline in an approach landing maneuver. If it were on approach to Reagan National the plane would be at least horizontal or with an upward tilt and descending.

This is false. The flare (consisting of a level-off followed by a few seconds of nose-up attitude) occurs only about 10-20 feet off the ground, and always above the runway. The flare is in effect a controlled stall, transferring lift from the wings to wheels, and cannot be done anywhere but over good tarmac. Until just a few seconds before touchdown, the aircraft descends with a nose-down attitude, exactly as shown in the photograph.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

This is false. The flare (consisting of a level-off followed by a few seconds of nose-up attitude) occurs only about 10-20 feet off the ground, and always above the runway. The flare is in effect a controlled stall, transferring lift from the wings to wheels, and cannot be done anywhere but over good tarmac. Until just a few seconds before touchdown, the aircraft descends with a nose-down attitude, exactly as shown in the photograph.

- Warren

I found a lot of photos that show the same angle consistent with take-off as well, not just right off the runway, but during ascent a little way from the runway. If planes are landing, others must take-off or they'd have quite a stockpile of planes hanging around there. The daytime photo doesn't show the plane at such a steep angle, though it may be a bit further from the camera than the night photo one, or could be circling. Regardless, I really don't think there's any question that it is just a plane heading to or from the nearby airport.

 

[russ_watters]

This is false. The flare (consisting of a level-off followed by a few seconds of nose-up attitude) occurs only about 10-20 feet off the ground, and always above the runway. The flare is in effect a controlled stall, transferring lift from the wings to wheels, and cannot be done anywhere but over good tarmac. Until just a few seconds before touchdown, the aircraft descends with a nose-down attitude, exactly as shown in the photograph.

- Warren

Well, i'd go further than that: you cannot tell the AoA of the plane from a photo (at night) unless the plane is flying exactly perpendicular to the camera line of sight (during the day, you can tell what direction it is flying and get a decent idea of its AoA). If the plane is perfectly level and flying away from the camera, it will appear to have a negative AoA - perfectly level and flying towards it, it will appear to have a positive AoA.

Bottom line, like Moonbear said, while its tough to tell if the plane is coming or going, it is a plane. I still vote for landing though.

 

[Moonbear]

I still vote for landing though.

The one thing that inclines me toward landing is the time the photo was taken. It was around 3 AM. If a flight was that badly delayed to just be taking off at that hour, they'd probably cancel it until the next morning (unless they really needed that plane to be at the destination airport to be positioned for a morning flight back out). Though, I know from experience that flights will still be arriving at 3 AM due to delays elsewhere earlier in the evening (when a thunderstorm hits an airport in the evening delaying everything coming in and out of it, those 9 PM flights might not leave until midnight).

 

[polyb]

This is false. The flare (consisting of a level-off followed by a few seconds of nose-up attitude) occurs only about 10-20 feet off the ground, and always above the runway. The flare is in effect a controlled stall, transferring lift from the wings to wheels, and cannot be done anywhere but over good tarmac. Until just a few seconds before touchdown, the aircraft descends with a nose-down attitude, exactly as shown in the photograph.

- Warren

Woo Hoo, I got something wrong and I learned something new in exchange! Thanx Warren!

I was basing my thoughts on 1) the picture that was posted at the site, which shows the plane to be relatively level and 2) by observations of air traffic going into OIA, which has a pretty convaluted airspace that is dynamic.

I am still not convinced that it is an airplane and as I said if you read the inteldesk analysis it turns into a promotional for the site. Now if you look into the 'amateur' analysis you will find some interesting comments and pictures. There is a link in there to the rense website analysis that has a picture which does a good job on the airline hypothesis. Needless to say though so far this thing is ambiguous and perhaps that is to the advantage of inteldesk. Dayle has a good point about the photo being doctored and demonstrated that it could have been done. This photo has generated a lot of interest for the site and I think this thread demonstrates the point.

 

[Moonbear]

I really don't see what's ambiguous about it. Why bother creating a doctored photo when one showing a perfectly ordinary occurrence can create the same hullabaloo? Of course websites post things to increase hits on their site; this too is nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[Dayle Record]

This works better if it is a helicopter. They fly more slowly, and the long tail at the higher end, might be the signature of the graduated end of a helicopter. The three lights might show up, because they are a strobe that is flashing faster than a helicopter could move. I will go into the photo again, and turn it upside down, and stretch the harbor lights in relation to the brightly lit building above them. I still think it is an upside down reflection.

 

[Dayle Record]

Well I turned it over and created one likely upside down reflection. But turning the entire large image upside down, makes it much more obvious, that this is a reflection of cars on a very straight avenue. The street lights are still, but the moving autos make the nice straight line you are seeing. Because of the night lighting, and some effect of the weather, an extra reflection was picked up.

http://groups.msn.com/StreetCollaborations/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=66
this is the doctored version of a likely reflection, it is streaked a little, this is the waterfront lights and the bright building, just below the "UFO".

http://groups.msn.com/StreetCollaborations/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=67

this is just the upside down version, in general, and it seems very obvious to me that this is a reflection, of some sort, due to the lateness of the evening, and the weather, there is a lot of ambient light. Digital imaging, really plays to the reds, and does pick up infra red information, digital picks up more information than we can see.

 

[matthyaouw]

I'm not sure I get what you mean... Reflected from precisely where?

 

[Dayle Record]

The "UFO" in the image, is too much like many other images within the image, to not be a stray reflection. Occams Razor. So, for instance, on the surface of any camera lens, is the reflection of the viewed scene. In night photography, a brightly lit scene might have a strong reflection on the face of a lens, depending on the weather, and a bunch of other optical effects. The Mt St Helens cam gets all kinds of stuff on the surface, depending on the weather. The line is so straight, that it probably isn't an image upside down, as in a rain drop, that makes a small lens, on the lens. If there is a glass door, in front of this camera, that can open and close, or any other object that can pick up the a reflection in front of the lens of this camera, then that is how a reflection can be set up, that reads as an image. Digital film is so delightfully weird, motion does all kinds of things in digital, that it never did in regular film-based photography. Since the advent of digital imaging, there have been a slew of things that people think are brand new in the sky. There was this big talk of these rod-things in the sky, that happened right about the advent of popular digital photography. The way digital imaging works, it was probably the trajectory of birds. Old film didn't make the kind of long streaks that digital does. This image has a lot of red light in it, because it is dark, and whatever else it is. The infrared aspect of digital, might be even picking up the heat from the rear exhaust of a helicopter.

Anyway, I think that if it is a flying object, it would be a helicopter. The aliens don't fly in for visits in DC.

 

[Moonbear]

Dayle, occam's razor as your reasoning would suggest we stick with the plane explanation, when we know a plane can make a light "trail" like that one on a long exposure shot AND we have proof that planes do fly in that vicinity (you can almost overlay the streak in the nighttime pic with the plane in the daytime pick as in the same location on the image). It's actually a more complex explanation to account for how a reflection from a light on the river would be reflecting on the camera lens differently on that one night than on any other night due to some mysterious atmospheric anomaly.

 

[mouseonmoon]

From: William Matchen to UFO udates

I sent an e-mail the the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority and asked if any flights arrived or departed from
ronald reagan national airport on Feb 10, 2005 at 3:15 am.

Here's the response I got:

-----
Subject:
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:53:04 -0500
From: "Phillips, Neal" <Neal.Phillips.nul>

Thank you for your inquiry concerning flights on February 10,
2005. According to the operations log for the 10th of February
there were no arrivals, or departures, around 3:15 A.M. There
were two arrivals after midnight (12:15 A.M. and 1:11 A.M.) then
none until after 6:00 A.M.

Neal Phillips

Manager, Noise Abatement

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

=======

actually 'looks' like the 'object' is heading towards the Pentagon:
which is to the right before RR-half mile past Memorial Bridge-
helicopters land there -unlikely to get any info on this... or might be a News Copter?

for the record: it's 1 mile from Lincoln M to Washington Monument;
little over a mile (1.2) from Netherlands Carillion (Bell tower) to Lincoln M-
-not sure of the height maybe 100ft, and this is on elevated
ground-guesstimate 500ft for 'webcam' (not stated anywhere, but seems
this is location)

MBridge .4 miles

 

[polyb]

Even though it has not been settled as to what the object in the image is, I'll go ahead ahead and stick one foot in my mouth!
*shifts, brings up left foot and stuffs it into mouth*

MNowPHGGGH, MMI MMstPHill thMMMinkPGH iMt MisPPHHG aGHHM MMdocMMtMMoredPPGHM MpMhoMPGHtoMPGH!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An analysis by Bruce Maccabee
http://www.mediavillage.net/test/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=16

Also, Occam's razor is not appropriate for this problem. The correct approach is analysis, not philosophical guesses.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Occam's razor is not appropriate for this problem. The correct approach is analysis, not philosophical guesses.

Can't agree. Not positing little green men until you have real evidence of them still works for me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't see any evidence for little green men. It is silly to suggest otherwise. Also, if you read the linked analysis you will see that the UFO crowd agrees. Its a plane or a helicopter. Occams razor applies when we have two otherwise equal and competing theories. I don't see two competing theories to apply. And even then its only a guideline. Less some specific mathematical applications, it is not a principle of science.

It seems that a few lights in video shot gets some of you pretty worked up.

 

[Dayle Record]

I still think it is a reflection of something on the ground. After looking at it again, I decided it is a piece of road, illuminated, with street lights, and car lights make up the brighter strip with the tail being just the lit roadway. The section of road, is most likely right under the camera. The object optically is just too much like what is on the ground, to not be a reflected image. That is just me, I take a lot of photographs.