Photograph of strange star anomaly in Ecuador, February 2015

[ChristianSky]

Hello friends - Back in early February of this year I spent about a week and a half in Ecuador. One of the places I stopped at for a couple of nights was the city of Rio Bamba, specifically to go visit the iconic Chimborazo Volcano. On one of these nights I photographed a strange star light anomaly. I'm hoping that perhaps someone with far more knowledge of the night sky or astronomy or photography of the night sky can perhaps shed some light to what this anomaly may or may not be. Or at the least direct me to where I can have it properly evaluated.

I'm not a pro photographer by any stretch of the imagination but my passion is night sky photography and I certainly know how to handle a camera. With that, on the night of 2/9/15 I was positioned more or less on the south side of Chimorazo (approximate location, as per google map: http://tinyurl.com/lxf87fk) and began taking my shots. The evening had started out cloudy but it soon cleared up to reveal a truly magnificent night sky.

I noted that just east (slightly to the right) of the volcano there was an unusually bright star but to be honest, I was so in awe of Chimborazo and focused on getting as many shots as possible (I had a driver patiently waiting for me) that other than making a mental note of the unusually bright star, I just continued snapping away. It was not until a day or so later when I began looking over my shots and post processing them that I realized that this particular unusually bright star seemed to be omitting or radiating a somewhat cone shaped light towards the west or to the left, as you're looking at it. This was not visible to the naked eye. Rather, it was the cameras 30 second exposure shot that revealed this.

Again, I am not a pro photographer. However, I have shot a number of long exposure night sky shots, (to include the brightest star in the sky, Sirius) and have never seen this affect on any star. And by that I mean the cone shaped light as well as how bright it actually is under a 30 second exposure. With my attached pictures you can clearly see how bright it is when compared with the rest of the stars in the night sky.

I've attached compressed versions of the original RAW photo, which looks a little on the purple side due to the white balance; as well as a compressed post Lightroom version of the same shot. I've also attached a screenshot of the approximate northern visible sky on that night at that approximate location via the Stellarium app I use. Rio Bamba was used as the source location. The time via the Stellarium screenshots says 1938 (7:38 p.m.) but in actually it is 2038 (8:38 p.m.), as the app doesn't adjust for daylight savings. I've also attached the unedited versions of a shots taken within minutes of each other.

With that, I am open to anyone who would care to enlighten me. All thoughts and opinions are more than welcome. Cheers! :-)

[jc71]

Hi ChristianSky,

That does look fascinating. I have no expertise in this area at all so cannot really offer any likely theory. My immediate thought was a comet but I think I would have heard if there was a comet almost visible to the naked eye. (I remember being able to see vividly a comet with a long tail for several weeks in the mid to late 1990s even in London - was it Halley Bopp or something like that?). I guess this isn't a comet.

I will be interested to hear the more expert theories.

Thanks for sharing!

JC

[amor]

Dear Christiansky: You should run this by Marshall Masters of Yowusa.com and he has another website forum, Planet X Townhall, where things like this are discussed. That thing looks like the "Winged Planet, Nibiru". Run it by him and get back to us. He says the Destroyer and its three planets (which includes Nibiru) are in our solar system since 2003 very near the sun and is presently on the other side, behind the sun. It has three moons as well. He said we will pass through the Destroyer's or Nibiru's tail, etc. It is passing through our ecliptic at an angle of approximately 30 degrees. It will pick up speed after it comes out from behind the sun from our perspective as we are rotating around the sun in opposite directions.

[ghostrider]

I've seen a very bright object , just after sunset , it is the first star visible , low on the horizon ... it looks out of place , your photo reminds me of the object I've been following since 2011 ... the strange this is , it is always in exactly the same place , every night ... always in the west following sunset , very huge , very awesome , I don't think it is a star , I think it is a ship that monitors Earth ... just my opinion ...

[jc71]

Bumping this thread because I really want to know what this is now!

[StandingWave]

This is a high energy plasma discharge (z-pinch aka Bennet-pinch in a Birkeland current) in the upper atmosphere. As the interplanetary environment becomes increasingly energetic - a result of the entire solar system traversing a region of interstellar space that is full of highly magnetically charged dusty plasma - we will see more of these events.

[Innocent Warrior]

I see the same thing as ghostrider. I first saw it in 2013, for about a year and now it's back after I hadn't seen it for roughly ten months. I once witnessed an amber orb come from the direction of it but I didn't see it come out of it. The orb travelled low and slowly and I watched it for a few minutes.

[ChristianSky]

I've taken the suggestion of Love and sent an email to Marshall Masters of Yowusa.com. I've also contacted several astronomy clubs to get their take on it. StandingWave, you may very well be correct, sir.

[Deega]

Thanks ChristianSky, I snap one of your photo, with the help of Photoshop, I enlarged it many times, took a "Rectangle Markee Tool", cut a fragment, opened up another file, then try on different filters, here is what it look it, it seems like this star(?) has a somewhat propulsion, it looks like it. Enlargment distorted somehow the photo, so, at least it give a great impression.

The best to you!

[Atlas]

Posted by ChristianSky

It looks like a lensflare:



From:

Source: http://foam.wonderslug.com/photograp...ry=Lens_Flares

Another example:

[ChristianSky]

When you zoom it in the way you did it looks like a lens flare, or a flashlight, or a number of other things. To analyze it, the picture has to be put in its proper context, and by that I mean that other than the illumination of the stars (not the moon, not the sun) as well as a head lamp that I placed inside the red brick Llama stable to try and give the shed some depth, the area was pitch black. The yellow hue you see coming from the right side (south) are the distant lights of Rio Bamba, which weren't even visible with the naked eye. It took a 30 second exposure to amplify the lights of Rio Bamba, which was a good hour or so away. To have "lens flare", you need to have a strong light source coming from the front. Again, it was a pitch black night sky. Even the sky was clear and displayed millions of stars to my naked eye, the cameras 30 second exposure captures far more than what the human naked eye can ever see. Unlike what is seen in this picture, the volcano itself was barely visible.

As per wikipedia - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare) "Flare is particularly caused by a very bright light sources either in the image – which produces visible artifacts – or shining into the lens but not in the image – which produces a haze.[dubious – discuss] Most commonly, this occurs when shooting into the sun (when the sun is in frame or the lens is pointed in the direction of the sun), and is reduced by using a lens hood or other shade.

Secondly, the second shot that I included in this frame shows that the light anomaly appears to have expanded much wider. Thirdly, saying it was "lens flare" doesn't explain the brilliance of the light source itself. At this point I'm really not sure what it is, but my experience and knowledge of pro camera equipment would tell me that its not lens flare. Clearly its some type of flare but I'm not sure its particularly lens flare. But thanks for your feedback buares. Cheers.

[Atlas]

I don't know what to think about the brilliance of the 'object' although I would bet it's coming from the headlamp.

Posted by ChristianSky (here)
[...] a head lamp that I placed inside the red brick Llama stable to try and give the shed some depth [...]

I will wait until you provide more info from the independent sources. Thank you ChristianSky.

Posted by ChristianSky
I've also contacted several astronomy clubs to get their take on it.

[Hervé]

The solution is right there before everyone's eyes... 30 second exposure:

The stars show a "displacement" track... not the "mysterious" object... how come?

[ChristianSky]

Thats a very good observation, Hervé. I hadn't even noticed that. What you see are star trails or as Hervé put it, displacement tracks. This is due to me having exposed the shot a bit too long for the lens I had on. This shot had a 30 second exposure where as the proper exposure time for the lens I had on should have been about 21 seconds. This would have given me pins of lights for the stars as opposed to the slight star trails you see when you zoom in all the way in. The anomaly on the other hand, unlike the stars, retains its overall shape as opposed to being oblong. Back to lens flares for a moment, lens flares are not a physical part of the pictures or in this case, a part of the landscape. It is an artifact created by the lens when a bright light source is pointed right at it. Furthermore, buares made the point that it was was probably coming from the headlamp. I can't really buy that being as the headlamp itself was not actually in the picture but rather on the floor against the wall inside of the stable. Another photo I took, which I'm attaching, shows the light anomaly behind a cloud and slightly dimmed as a result. Plus, on this particular shot I took the headlamp out of the stable and positioned it behind the camera to illuminate the grass a bit.

[Atlas]

Posted by ChristianSky (here)
buares made the point that it was was probably coming from the headlamp.

The headlamp is probably more logical and rational than the 'star anomaly'. Did you receive any reply from the astronomy clubs yet ?

[Hervé]

A point of clarification that's needed here: was that object visible to the naked eye or was it discovered only when looking of the long exposures taken?

As for lens flares due to light sources outside the field of view:

PS: "displacement" tracks are more commonly known as "motion blurs" which is very misleading when used with respect to stars since it's not the latter that are moving but the camera - set on long exposure - firmly fixed to the ground of a rotating earth.

[ChristianSky]

Hervé, I noticed it only as an unusually bright star, when compared to all the other stars that is. Meaning, that I did not see any type of light wave or flare or anything of that nature coming from it. Just simply that it was very bright. It was certainly brighter than Sirius, which is supposed to be the brightest star visible to us. And brighter than some of the planets we can see on a nightly basis. As for the picture you posted, you are correct in your assessment. Perhaps I did not clarify myself in a previous post. My point was that the headlamp light source that was bought up as a possible cause of lens flare was not feasible for the simple fact it was on the ground within the stable, and actually pointed towards the volcano. Hence, the reason you get an overexposed back wall within the stable. That in itself would not be a sufficient light source to give off lens flare. I also posted a picture with the headlamp now behind the camera, yet the exact same flare to the left of the light source remains. Additionally, the picture I attached appears to show the "flare" slightly dimming behind the cloud. That would lead me to believe that the star itself is giving off the light flare. The question I would ask is what would be that luminous to cause the flare? Even if exposed Sirius for 60 seconds it would never be that luminous. As you pointed out in your previous post, at 30 seconds the stars begin to clearly trail. Yet the light source with the flare, maintains its overall shape. A star that bright would have been very easy to see that it was trailing or oblong shaped, which again, does not appear to be.

Buares, you mentioned that "The headlamp is probably more logical and rational than the 'star anomaly". Not sure what your definition of anomaly is but I call it an "anomaly" because it doesn't appear to be normal or regular when compared to the other stars, and by definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anomaly) an anomaly is "an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.", or "an anomalous person or thing; one that is abnormal or does not fit in."

I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this, mate. That is all

[Atlas]

Posted by ChristianSky (here)
I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this, mate. That is all

No worries ChristianSky, I hope we hear what the astronomy clubs have to say. They are used to all kinds of star anomalies so that if there is such anomaly in your photos, they will find it.

[ChristianSky]

Sent out four emails with pictures to four different astronomy clubs this morning. Thus far, haven't heard anything. As soon as I do I'll update this thread

[Hervé]

Since it doesn't exhibit any "Motion Blur" trail, then it, somehow, was geostationary... since it could be observed as a bright star with naked eyes (if I got that correctly?).

Since I have never seen any meteorite, asteroid or comet remain geostationary... what else could remain "geostationary" high in the sky and reflect sun light as planes do when flying high after sunset... any idea

PS: That would be a UOO! (Unidentified Orbiting Object )