Check this out!

[Mystic Wanderer]

I've never seen one in my life.  I would be excited if I did. 

At least you thought of taking pictures / video.  Most people wouldn't think of it, me included.  Just run to see before it zoomed off. 

I believe you though.  I've read you've seen them all your life.  ???

I've tried to capture them on my camera so many times, but they always faded out, or they would drain my camera battery. This was when I had my regular camera, years before I ever had a descent camera phone.
I was more shocked it allowed me to take pictures than I was of seeing it. I was also excited that it was communicating with me like it did.

I'm still a little worried about that portal being so close to me. What is it that's coming through?  

Whatever happened to the UFO stories of draining batteries, making radios go hay-wire, electronics quit?  They don't seem to do that any more in UFO reports. Hmm.

That UFO read your mind telepathically.  Maybe it was there for you, hopefully not to take you, but communicate, touch base.  That portal is worrying.  But at least you got some photo with a date on it I hope.

@"DaphneApollo" 

I have a date stamp on my regular camera... the one that didn't pick up an image, but not on my cell phone camera. However, I did email the picture to myself for a date. That wouldn't prove anything though, I don't guess.
Can't find any setting on my phone to include a date stamp to pics.  

[Ninurta]

I've never seen one in my life.  I would be excited if I did. 

At least you thought of taking pictures / video.  Most people wouldn't think of it, me included.  Just run to see before it zoomed off. 

I believe you though.  I've read you've seen them all your life.  ???

I've tried to capture them on my camera so many times, but they always faded out, or they would drain my camera battery. This was when I had my regular camera, years before I ever had a descent camera phone.
I was more shocked it allowed me to take pictures than I was of seeing it. I was also excited that it was communicating with me like it did.

I'm still a little worried about that portal being so close to me. What is it that's coming through?  

Whatever happened to the UFO stories of draining batteries, making radios go hay-wire, electronics quit?  They don't seem to do that any more in UFO reports. Hmm.

That UFO read your mind telepathically.  Maybe it was there for you, hopefully not to take you, but communicate, touch base.  That portal is worrying.  But at least you got some photo with a date on it I hope.

@"DaphneApollo" 

I have a date stamp on my regular camera... the one that didn't pick up an image, but not on my cell phone camera. However, I did email the picture to myself for a date. That wouldn't prove anything though, I don't guess.
Can't find any setting on my phone to include a date stamp to pics.  

I think that you said in your OP that you had already fiddled with the photo. It might bring out more detail to work with the original, because fiddling with them changes the information present, so tying to "clean up" a photo that has already been manipulated does not always pull out all the detail, as some of that is lost in the first manipulation.

I believe what you are calling a "portal" of light is more like what I would call a "column" of light - at least that is what it looks like to me - a "column" or "beam" of light with brighter lights inside the beam. Those point lights could be self luminous, or they could just be reflecting light from the beam, like dust motes will do in a flashlight beam but a lot bigger.

Also, your cell phone camera DOES have a date and time stamp, but it is in the metadata for the picture rather than visible in the image. Cropping it like you did for the photo in the OP eliminates that metadata in the crop, but not the original. Almost all currently operational cell phones (and digital cameras of all kinds) record EXIF metadata with photos they take, recording things like time, date, shutter setting, flash setting, etc.

And for your expensive camera, night time photography is mostly a matter of shutter setting. leaving the shutter open longer allows more light in for a sharper, clearer photo. The tradeoff is that if it is being hand-held, user motion will tend to blur the photo. I used to take night time pictures of the stars, and I had to sometimes leave the shutter open for as long as 30 seconds. To counteract user motion, I mounted the camera on a tripod. In the case of stars, however, 30 seconds can cause some motion streaking of the star from the Earth's rotation.

Everything is a trade-off when setting camera settings, it appears. The trick is to find the right settings, and in your case I don't know if the anomalies would have cared to "pose" long enough to get it optimal.

If you e-mail the original to me, I can pull out the relevant EXIF data to show the settings when it was taken.

.

[Mystic Wanderer]

I've never seen one in my life.  I would be excited if I did. 

At least you thought of taking pictures / video.  Most people wouldn't think of it, me included.  Just run to see before it zoomed off. 

I believe you though.  I've read you've seen them all your life.  ???

I've tried to capture them on my camera so many times, but they always faded out, or they would drain my camera battery. This was when I had my regular camera, years before I ever had a descent camera phone.
I was more shocked it allowed me to take pictures than I was of seeing it. I was also excited that it was communicating with me like it did.

I'm still a little worried about that portal being so close to me. What is it that's coming through?  

Whatever happened to the UFO stories of draining batteries, making radios go hay-wire, electronics quit?  They don't seem to do that any more in UFO reports. Hmm.

That UFO read your mind telepathically.  Maybe it was there for you, hopefully not to take you, but communicate, touch base.  That portal is worrying.  But at least you got some photo with a date on it I hope.

@"DaphneApollo" 

I have a date stamp on my regular camera... the one that didn't pick up an image, but not on my cell phone camera. However, I did email the picture to myself for a date. That wouldn't prove anything though, I don't guess.
Can't find any setting on my phone to include a date stamp to pics.  

I think that you said in your OP that you had already fiddled with the photo. It might bring out more detail to work with the original, because fiddling with them changes the information present, so tying to "clean up" a photo that has already been manipulated does not always pull out all the detail, as some of that is lost in the first manipulation.

I believe what you are calling a "portal" of light is more like what I would call a "column" of light - at least that is what it looks like to me - a "column" or "beam" of light with brighter lights inside the beam. Those point lights could be self luminous, or they could just be reflecting light from the beam, like dust motes will do in a flashlight beam but a lot bigger.

Also, your cell phone camera DOES have a date and time stamp, but it is in the metadata for the picture rather than visible in the image. Cropping it like you did for the photo in the OP eliminates that metadata in the crop, but not the original. Almost all currently operational cell phones (and digital cameras of all kinds) record EXIF metadata with photos they take, recording things like time, date, shutter setting, flash setting, etc.

And for your expensive camera, night time photography is mostly a matter of shutter setting. leaving the shutter open longer allows more light in for a sharper, clearer photo. The tradeoff is that if it is being hand-held, user motion will tend to blur the photo. I used to take night time pictures of the stars, and I had to sometimes leave the shutter open for as long as 30 seconds. To counteract user motion, I mounted the camera on a tripod. In the case of stars, however, 30 seconds can cause some motion streaking of the star from the Earth's rotation.

Everything is a trade-off when setting camera settings, it appears. The trick is to find the right settings, and in your case I don't know if the anomalies would have cared to "pose" long enough to get it optimal.

If you e-mail the original to me, I can pull out the relevant EXIF data to show the settings when it was taken.

.

@"Ninurta" Okay, I'll post the original image for you.  Hold on. This will take awhile.

[Mystic Wanderer]

Original photo.

ETA: Original photo deleted.

@"BIAD" or @"Ninurta" 

Can one of you get rid of that thumbnail please? It won't delete for me.

[Ninurta]

That's odd, The original has absolutely NO metadata included, neither EXIF nor IPTC. That is a first for me - I've not seen that since the early 2000's.

I'll see what I can pull out of it, but BIAD may have better luck - he's been at it longer.

ETA: on a cursory attempt, I can see what appears to be the back ends of two vehicles near the bottom, and what looks like a hillside on the left behind which the column of light disappears. Is that close to accurate?

.

[BIAD]

That's odd, The original has absolutely NO metadata included, neither EXIF nor IPTC. That is a first for me - I've not seen that since the early 2000's.

I'll see what I can pull out of it, but BIAD may have better luck - he's been at it longer.

ETA: on a cursory attempt, I can see what appears to be the back ends of two vehicles near the bottom, and what looks like a hillside on the left behind which the column of light disappears. Is that close to accurate?

My talent -what there is of it, is purely visual. To BIAD, metadata is what you call an encounter with a white-face dude
off Star Trek Next-Gen!

[Ninurta]

That's odd, The original has absolutely NO metadata included, neither EXIF nor IPTC. That is a first for me - I've not seen that since the early 2000's.

I'll see what I can pull out of it, but BIAD may have better luck - he's been at it longer.

ETA: on a cursory attempt, I can see what appears to be the back ends of two vehicles near the bottom, and what looks like a hillside on the left behind which the column of light disappears. Is that close to accurate?

My talent -what there is of it, is purely visual. To BIAD, metadata is what you call an encounter with a white-face dude
off Star Trek Next-Gen!

The metadata is not there. It was either stripped out by the website or not recorded to begin with. I was referring to pulling info out of the pixels themselves. So far, I've stripped out the red, blue, and green channels separately and adjusted each of them individually, but it's really not giving me much more clarity. I'm tinkering with the channels together and separately at the moment to pull out what I can, but not having much luck so far. I figure you might have more luck, since you've been at the business of making stuff look right for some time now.

.

[Mystic Wanderer]

That's odd, The original has absolutely NO metadata included, neither EXIF nor IPTC. That is a first for me - I've not seen that since the early 2000's.

I'll see what I can pull out of it, but BIAD may have better luck - he's been at it longer.

ETA: on a cursory attempt, I can see what appears to be the back ends of two vehicles near the bottom, and what looks like a hillside on the left behind which the column of light disappears. Is that close to accurate?

.

@"Ninurta" 

Yes.

[Ninurta]

This attempt I found interesting. I cropped just the top half of the photo to leave out the objects at the bottom of the image that were not related to the lights, then stripped out the green channel and adjusted brightness to "132" (132 of what I don't know) and the contrast to "98".

I can see a diagonal line that intersects the beam at the bottom of the beam, with the line running upper left to lower right, which I interpreted as a hillside, but the interesting thing to me is that dark blob right at the bottom of the beam. Looks saucer-shaped edge on to me, with the "beam" projecting upward from it instead of downward as one might expect if Travis Walton were anywhere around:



   
.

[BIAD]

The metadata is not there. It was either stripped out by the website or not recorded to begin with. I was referring to pulling info out of the pixels themselves. So far, I've stripped out the red, blue, and green channels separately and adjusted each of them individually, but it's really not giving me much more clarity. I'm tinkering with the channels together and separately at the moment to pull out what I can, but not having much luck so far. I figure you might have more luck, since you've been at the business of making stuff look right for some time now.

I'd venture to say the information isn't getting through due to the reality that Mystic's image on this site is a
copy and RN's 'capture' of a posted image may grab it in its simplest form. But I wouldn't really know.

I too, tried taking out particular colours -albeit tones of collective RGB tend to weaken any interpretation for
visual analysis. I did find that adding in some red helped a little bit, but it didn't really improve anything as
detail.

[Mystic Wanderer]

That's odd, The original has absolutely NO metadata included, neither EXIF nor IPTC. That is a first for me - I've not seen that since the early 2000's.

I'll see what I can pull out of it, but BIAD may have better luck - he's been at it longer.

ETA: on a cursory attempt, I can see what appears to be the back ends of two vehicles near the bottom, and what looks like a hillside on the left behind which the column of light disappears. Is that close to accurate?

.

Well, it's a cheap TracFone.  I've looked everywhere in the settings trying to find a date stamp for the pictures, but I've found nothing.

[Mystic Wanderer]

This attempt I found interesting. I cropped just the top half of the photo to leave out the objects at the bottom of the image that were not related to the lights, then stripped out the green channel and adjusted brightness to "132" (132 of what I don't know) and the contrast to "98".

I can see a diagonal line that intersects the beam at the bottom of the beam, with the line running upper left to lower right, which I interpreted as a hillside, but the interesting thing to me is that dark blob right at the bottom of the beam. Looks saucer-shaped edge on to me, with the "beam" projecting upward from it instead of downward as one might expect if Travis Walton were anywhere around:




.

Interesting. I couldn't see the bottom, so I have no idea. It did seem to come from the sky based on my perception; faded out the further up it went. It wasn't real close to me, but close enough to be seen clearly from my vantage point.

[Ninurta]

Red channel, same treatment:



   

All channels together, same treatment:



   

The same blob at the bottom of the "beam" stays there through all. Green seems to predominate, which is odd for bight time, but the blue blobs are also of interest. Those seem to be points of faint light scattered through the image, mosty upper right where there is no hillside. i would think it was stars, but some of them show on this side of the hillside, which a star would not shine through.

.

[BIAD]

This attempt I found interesting. I cropped just the top half of the photo to leave out the objects at the bottom of the image that were not related to the lights, then stripped out the green channel and adjusted brightness to "132" (132 of what I don't know) and the contrast to "98".

I can see a diagonal line that intersects the beam at the bottom of the beam, with the line running upper left to lower right, which I interpreted as a hillside, but the interesting thing to me is that dark blob right at the bottom of the beam. Looks saucer-shaped edge on to me, with the "beam" projecting upward from it instead of downward as one might expect if Travis Walton were anywhere around:

Yeah, I initially took it as the profile of a declining roofline due to everything 'below' that line holding darker pixels.
A massive solid object...? I couldn't say.

[BIAD]

Here's the full image "auto adjusted" and reduced to 25% to eliminate some of the pixelization. You can see what appears to be vehicles parked at the bottom parked next to what appears to be a hillside rising to the left, with the light terminating at the edge of the hillside:

Yes, I seem them. Maybe Mystic could elaborate.

[Mystic Wanderer]

Here's the full image "auto adjusted" and reduced to 25% to eliminate some of the pixelization. You can see what appears to be vehicles parked at the bottom parked next to what appears to be a hillside rising to the left, with the light terminating at the edge of the hillside:



.

Yes, that's pretty much spot on.

[Mystic Wanderer]

Thanks @"BIAD" and @"Ninurta". I appreciate your help with the photo.  I'm sure that's the best we're going to get with such a low quality photo.

[Ninurta]

Thanks @"BIAD" and @"Ninurta". I appreciate your help with the photo.  I'm sure that's the best we're going to get with such a low quality photo.

You're welcome. It does seem to be a strange anomaly if there is no town or industrial plant the beam could be coming from. Even that would not explain the lights within the beam. Folks could say "eh, birds in the light beam reflecting the light" but what kind of goofy birds randomly fly around in light beams in the night time? bats don't answer it because their albedo is not bright enough to reflect that much light, nor do they brighten on request.

Good catch!

.

[Mystic Wanderer]

Thanks @"BIAD" and @"Ninurta". I appreciate your help with the photo.  I'm sure that's the best we're going to get with such a low quality photo.

You're welcome. It does seem to be a strange anomaly if there is no town or industrial plant the beam could be coming from. Even that would not explain the lights within the beam. Folks could say "eh, birds in the light beam reflecting the light" but what kind of goofy birds randomly fly around in light beams in the night time? bats don't answer it because their albedo is not bright enough to reflect that much light, nor do they brighten on request.

Good catch!

.