- #1
No meteor shower would produce such a display. The trails are far too alike.pixel01 said:It seems you all think it's star trails. If that's the case, howcome we still can see the moon light? And the trees..
Some more info as claimed by the author(s): the picture is taken at around 4am and the moon was 3 day before new moon, which was expected for a meteor shower.
DaveC426913 said:No meteor shower would produce such a display. The trails are far too alike.
As for the moonlight and trees, they are exactly as one would expect in a night shot. Why would we not be able to see moon light and trees?
It's hard to describe. When you have a very dark shot, and you use a very long exposure, things that seem unlit turn out to have quite a glow when exposed for minutes or longer. Often, it's things that are lit far away that look odd - lit by distant city lights, well below our human threshold for perception. Whereas other things (often nearby have no light on them at all, making them black.
Here're some long exposure night shots:
http://www.resurgemus.com/archives/rushmore1.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/39/105316889_9de5718992.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/36/123501153_4fdbc969c8.jpg?v=0
This one's very well known:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0409/kilistars_heller_full.jpg
Forget the star trails, look at the other objects: the clouds, the general starlit ground.
pixel01 said:I agree that the trees (and other things on earth) can be seen. But the moon? after such a long exposal (according to the length of the beams), the moon (light) can not be like that. The shots you show me are all star trails, no doubt.
DaveC426913 said:I'm with russ: I don't think that's the moon. More likely clouds lit by moonlight.
3 days from new, the moon is so close to the sun, you'll have trouble seeing it just before sunrise. At 4 AM, it is well below the horizon.pixel01 said:So I wrote '... moon (light) ..'. The shot was taken about 3 days before new moon so the moon is so thin and at 4am, it's position is somewhere close to the west horizon.
I didn't say it couldn't be star trails, in fact, I think it is. It could be a composite, but about that I am less sure.According to Russ, the cloud is quite sharp so it can not be a star trails.
It might be a composite, but we can not say for sure.
Redbelly98 said:From what I can tell, the trails are of different lengths and appearance. But, shouldn't shooting stars "originate" radially from a common point, rather than all being parallel?
A shooting star, also known as a meteor, is a streak of light seen in the night sky caused by a small piece of debris entering the Earth's atmosphere at high speeds and burning up.
The authenticity of a shooting star picture can be investigated by examining the source of the image, checking for any alterations or edits, and comparing it to other known images or videos of shooting stars.
Common signs of a fake shooting star picture include a lack of motion blur, unnatural colors or shapes, and a clearly photoshopped background. The background may also not match the location or time of the reported sighting.
Investigating the authenticity of a shooting star picture is important to ensure the validity and credibility of scientific data. It also helps to prevent the spread of false information and misinformation about celestial events.
Other factors that should be considered when investigating the authenticity of a shooting star picture include the credibility of the source, the time and location of the reported sighting, and any other witness accounts or photographic evidence.