Investigating the Authenticity of a Shooting Star Picture

In summary, the conversation is discussing a photograph of star trails and whether they are real or fake. There is evidence that suggests it is a long-exposure photograph, including the same length of the star trails and the presence of cloud cover causing changes in the "thickness pattern" of the trails. The conversation also mentions the presence of moonlight and trees in the photograph, which could be explained by a long-exposure photograph. There is some disagreement about whether the light in the photograph is from the moon or from city lights, and the possibility of the photograph being a composite is also discussed.
  • #1
pixel01
688
1
I have this shooting star picture, and not sure if it's a fake. Have you got any ideas?
 

Attachments

  • shooting-big.JPG
    shooting-big.JPG
    23.5 KB · Views: 595
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
It looks to me like it is simply an extended time photograph of stars. It seems strange that all of the "trails" are the same length.
 
  • #3
Not only they are the same length, but they don't seem to be curved.
 
  • #4
While there's no proof of such, this pic could easily be star trails:

1] If the shot were oriented with camera directly toward the rising or setting horizon, then the trails would be straight and all the same length. This is even more true near the equator.

2] Camera zoom and image cropping would create straight trails too.

3] All the trails have the same "thickness pattern". This is easily explainable by intermittent cloud cover. Over the one-to-several hours the pics were taken, the cloud cover has waxed and waned, causing a general dimming and brightening of the trails.

4] There are smudges of mist, but they are very indistinct, like clouds shot over a long period.

5] The lighting is awfully funny. This is not uncharacteristic of long-exposure shots taken at night. The prominent light source is likely reflection of the moon off clouds or somesuch. Trees in foreground are very black - also much like night shots.
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
Well because it would have to be along exposure photograph things will show up that wouldn't if you were simply looking... So even a slight crescent moon will show up very bright when exposed for say five minutes or something like that.
 
  • #7
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.
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.
 
  • #8
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.

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.
 
  • #9
I'm not so sure that's the moon - perhaps just skyglow from some lights on the ground nearby.

The shot could also be a composite (which is fine) - there are some clouds that are pretty sharp.
 
  • #10
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.

I'm with russ: I don't think that's the moon. More likely clouds lit by moonlight.
 
  • #11
DaveC426913 said:
I'm with russ: I don't think that's the moon. More likely clouds lit by moonlight.

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.
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.
 
  • #12
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.
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.
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.
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.
 
  • #13
Oh I am wrong, the moon can not be that position. Probably it was the wrong day or it's not the moon.
 
  • #14
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?
 
  • #15
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?

If it was something larger that was destroyed on entry, each part will give its own trail, parallel to others.
 

Related to Investigating the Authenticity of a Shooting Star Picture

What is a shooting star?

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.

How can the authenticity of a shooting star picture be investigated?

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.

What are some common signs of a fake shooting star picture?

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.

Why is it important to investigate the authenticity of a shooting star picture?

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.

What other factors should be considered when investigating the authenticity of a shooting star picture?

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.

Similar threads

I A busy and interesting night sky in Mackinaw City
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
965
B Vulpecula, pulsars and neutron stars
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
1K
B Lost Companions: Investigating the Existence of the Nemesis Star
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
1K
I How Does the Size of Neutron Stars Compare to Black Holes?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
I Questions on stars and planets: ratio of planet radius to star, distance between the two, temperature of a star and a planet, planet rotation speed
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
12
Views
1K
B Alpha Centauri Orbits to Scale?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
B Question about deep space pictures
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
3
Views
1K
I Lines of stars that we see in the sky
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
26
Views
3K
Stargazing Dark matter and its effect on the orbit of stars
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
13
Views
568
B Night Sky of Alpha Centauri: Sol as a Bright Star
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
15
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top