The Denbigh Lights UFO Analysis - Jan 2012 - [Likely sparking powerlines]

[UAPF]

No Jimmy, That is the same location that I have been saying all along. The Streetview location is between the Golf Club and Tyddyn-Uchaf. The LV line is the 3-phase line that goes up to the watertank. It is fed by the HV line and the pole mounted transformer.

I took the time to annotate the maps and pictures with arrows so there can be no confusion of what I'm trying to convey, so please look at it closely. This is the Google StreetView link .

3 things that would help. Your pinpoint on street view is towards a pole with no insulator reels on and that is connected to a pole with disc insulators (not insulator reels, very different). Can you pinpoint what stretch of 45 meters you believe is the "sparking power line". Because I'm now confused. I thought it was up by the water tank and now I'm looking at something on the other side of the road.

Thanks.

 

[flarkey]

I always get Insulator reels and insulator discs mixed up. My bad. The likely location for the sparking is in the line the overhead powerlines that go up the hill through the fields at the rear of the property (Tyddyn-Uchaf). That line gets its 3phase supply from the HV line & transformer that I had indicated in the last post. It makes sense that if there was a fault further down the line that the insulators and fuse which were replaced would be close to the transformer.

@UAPF Are you going to answer @Mick West's question re the LOS in post 160?

 

[UAPF]

I always get Insulator reels and insulator discs mixed up. My bad. The likely location for the sparking is in the line the overhead powerlines that go up the hill through the fields at the reear of the property (Tyddyn-Uchaf). That line gets its 3phase supply from the HV line & transformer that I had indicated in the last post. It makes sense that if there was a fault further down the line that the insulators and fuse which were replaced would be close to the transformer.

@UAPF Are you going to answer @Mick West's question re the LOS in post 160?

OK thank you for clarifying, as that is what I I thought - hence the long debates about the treelike at the golf course corner of the where the water tank is. So in the location that you have identified (treeline near water tank/golf course corner/14th hole) you identified 45 m of cable that you believe is the most probable location for the "sparking power lines".

The confusion came when you then pointed to a HV line across the road at a different farm 500 meters away.

Thanks, so Flakey how are we not still having the same issue? Unless you are suggesting the arc has jumped from the HV line, 500m over the road, up the side of the house and up the hill to the tree line? Help me understand it please. I have seen the street view pin you put in and that was (as you've clarified) to a line that doesn't have insulator reels on. So if we have a catastrophic risk to life danger or (presumable) lighting struck cable, or tree hit cable, or cables that fave fallen or something like that, why are they fixing insulator reels 500 meters way?

I'll reply to Mike now.

 

[Mendel]

The whole internet? I'm aghast you've never witnessed it. It's simple inductance - the current doesn't want to stop flowing.

It's the voltage given off by an inductance that is suddenly switched off that rises to a peak which allows it to ignite a spark, I believe.
Or is it that ignition is not required when switch contacts open?

 

[flarkey]

Jamie - I'll explain this one last time My hypothesis is that the lights seen in the video are sparks coming from a fault to the powerlines running up the hill to the water tank. I don't know the exact cause of the fault but the leading theory is 'storm damage' of some kind. The fault could feasibly have caused a short or over-current that resulted in the blown fuse and damaged insulators mentioned in the DNO letter. I do not know where these were replaced. They could have been at the HV-LV Transformer, or up at the watertank (where we can't see on Street view). I'm not saying there was a large arc, I'm saying the lights spread out over a distance of about 45m, which I think is the 'spread' of the sparking points . The short, intense blue flashes that we see in the video are (conceivably) electrical flashes (maybe I used the term arcing in the wrong context here) which are the cause of the sparks.

And the transformer isn't 500m away, it is about 175m.

 

[UAPF]

OK, so, the image that I like is this one that is taken from Nathans bedroom window. (attached). But even when I use @Trailblazer image and drop our polygon just to the left but touching the chimney of number 10, we are over (part of) the west side of the woods. But, as I said earlier, the line of sight is pretty much spot on. We're debating a fraction of a move from left to right.

Let's put that aside for a second and assume you're exactly correct about the LOS and exactly correct about how that correlates to the roof tops. And let's put aside where the cables are located. And let's put aside the lack of insulator reels etc. OK, so how are you mitigating elevation/height and ruling out the variables of the 5 or 6 tree lines in the way of the final resting spot? And even with @flarkey's belief that it is the cable that runs up to the water tank, that's still behind massive trees from our line of sight and the lights are seen (at least the furthest right light/s) above the treeline in the footage.

Add to that the poles/cable appears to be from the street view images, below the top height of all of the trees in the street view image attached.

 

[UAPF]

Jamie - I'll explain this one last time My hypothesis is that the lights seen in the video are sparks coming from a fault to the powerlines running up the hill to the water tank. I don't know the exact cause of the fault but the leading theory is 'storm damage' of some kind. The fault could feasibly have caused a short or over-current that resulted in the blown fuse and damaged insulators mentioned in the DNO letter. I do not know where these were replaced. They could have been at the HV-LV Transformer, or up at the watertank (where we can't see on Street view). I'm not saying there was a large arc, I'm saying the lights spread out over a distance of about 45m, which I think is the 'spread' of the sparking points . The short, intense blue flashes that we see in the video are (conceivably) electrical flashes (maybe I used the term arcing in the wrong context here) which are the cause of the sparks.

And the transformer isn't 500m away, it is about 175m.

Who is Jamie?

I appreciate you providing this one last time for me to understand, but I think part of the confusion is that you have said the exact trees and the exact power lines (which you state stretch up 45m) for the last 48hrs via X and on here. So sorry if I have questions now that's moving further west on the map. You guys are about data and accuracy and that specifics matter.

I pointed out that this is unlikely because:

1) Those cables are Low Voltage 230v (and we went in to all the science behind that, which as you know has a near impossible probability based on the distance of the archs/sparks and the length of time they were filmed/observed for).

2) The DNO response you obtained hasn't identified that location at all, only providing a postcode covering over 100 acres (and 6 properties including a golf course).

3) The DNO has stated they replaced x2 insulator reels and a 160v fuse. There are no insulator reels anywhere near your 45 meters (in any of the historic Street View imagery), or even down at the road for that matter, as they're disc insulators, quite different (as you've accepted) . So now we're getting in to LOS issues if we move further out (further west).

4) The DNO stated that the report they received was 8 hours after Nathan filmed the "UFO" and that "sparks" were reported. We don't even know if there is any relationship at all 8hrs later. No cable was replaced. Despite catastrophic failure. That's very odd.

5) The DNO stated it was reported on overhead lines in a field, behind a building. Not at water reservoir, or golf club.

6) There are at least 6 tree lines in your exact polygon route. Aside from maybe one of those, none of the others have been mitigated out.

And the only overhead cable that makes sense with all of the above is my identified likely fault at Coppi Farm. Which is within your exact polygon. Within the postcode. Has insulator reels. And even that doesn't take all that sense, because it's over a road, not in a field behind a building.

 

[Mick West]

OK, so, the image that I like is this one that is taken from Nathans bedroom window. (attached). But even when I use @Trailblazer image and drop our polygon just to the left but touching the chimney of number 10, we are over (part of) the west side of the woods. But, as I said earlier, the line of sight is pretty much spot on. We're debating a fraction of a move from left to right.

Please put images inline, full size, if you reference them in your post. You mentioned two images, and attached five.

The "debate" is important. If you can demonstrate there are lights in a location that does not have power lines, then that's a firm falsification of the power line theory. But from everything I've seen, there's zero evidence of that. The lights appear all to be coincident with this one segment of the powerline.

Narrowing down where the lights are (angularly) will be helpful if we are trying to rule things in out out.

 

[UAPF]

Please put images inline, full size, if you reference them in your post. You mentioned two images, and attached five.

The "debate" is important. If you can demonstrate there are lights in a location that does not have power lines, then that's a firm falsification of the power line theory. But from everything I've seen, there's zero evidence of that. The lights appear all to be coincident with this one segment of the powerline.
View attachment 86123
Narrowing down where the lights are (angularly) will be helpful if we are trying to rule things in out out.

I've just given you 6 points of science and data and we're focussing on overlay eyeball estimation on a match? I'll add one image below to keep it simple and within the format rules.

The single image below is a Google Earth areal photograph with a straight ruler from Nathan's bedroom window, over the rooftop of no 10 (your agreed angle) and to the left side of the chimney and straight in to the west side of the woods.

It's in to the west side of the woods. And the power line is lower down than the trees. It has to pass at least 6 rows of trees at unknown elevations. We can't identify what trees are depicted in Nathan's footage. Or what trees we're ruling in and what trees we're ruling out. The cable is LV and has no association with the report from the DNO, 8 hours later. It's not the correct poles reported by the DNO. And bears no resemblance to the repair they reported. It has no insulator reels.

The nearest cable that has any possibility of doing this is out of everyone's agreed line of sight across the road, west of @flarkey's 45 meter expanse of cable.

It's not that cable. It literally can't be.

 

[Mick West]

The single image below is a Google Earth areal photograph with a straight ruler from Nathan's bedroom window, over the rooftop of no 10 (your agreed angle) and to the left side of the chimney and straight in to the west side of the woods.

No, it isn't. The line you have drawn goes to the RIGHT of the chimney. It's the red line here:

The green line, to the left of the chimney, is the actual line of sight to the lights. I've attached a KMZ file with these two lines you can load into Google Earth.

 

[UAPF]

No, it isn't. The line you have drawn goes to the RIGHT of the chimney. It's the red line here:
View attachment 86126

The green line, to the left of the chimney, is the actual line of sight to the lights. I've attached a KMZ file with these two lines you can load into Google Earth.

I believe your angles are all out, Mick. I will attach 3 images to evidence this.

1) Image titled "IMG_6696.jpg" which shows Nathan's bedroom window vantage point.

This image shows the LOS. Importantly you can see the chimney of #10/9 (semidetached house). I believe we all agree the furthest (right) UFO light was seen just to the left of this chimney.

We see the chimney of #6/5 which the furthest UFO light is seen to the (right) of in your own overlay. We now it's this chimney (as the house has two) because that chimney in the centre of the house has a TV arial prominently sticking up above the chimney (but anchored to it). Donuts the centre chimney, not the side of house chimney.

You'll note the top arrow points not just to that tv aerial, but also to that Christmas tree looking object we have been debating for days. It's the tree that @flarkey has stated is the furthest right of his 45 meter expanse identified (where the cable is) and the location identified by @Trailblazer in post #35 and depicted in you green line in the last post above.

2) Image titled "LOS through chimneys with placemarks" shows the exact position our ruler has to go through in order to match your overlays on Nathan's footage. Between the two chimneys (as per my point 1).

3) Image titled "If at edge of woods, missed chimneys" shows that, if we take your overlays and your LOS, and apply the furthest right identified location our Christmas tree identified as the furthest right point of Flarkey's 45m expanse and as depicted in your image above (in green). Then we totally miss (and are to the right of, not left of, both chimneys.

The chimney and aerial at #6 very important in the LOS estimates.

Can you confirm your LOE takes this into consideration and if so help me understand why my straight ruler reaches a different location? If I'm not using Google Earth ruler correctly it would help to understand if that's why we're getting different outcomes? Thank you.

NOTE: Google Earth image with straight ruler overlayed, but tilted and heading shifted in 3D to help you visualise.

 

[flarkey]

This image shows the LOS. Importantly you can see the chimney of #10/9 (semidetached house). I believe we all agree the furthest (right) UFO light was seen just to the left of this chimney.

The chimney and aerial at #6 very important in the LOS estimates.
@UAPF

I think your're saying you think the UFO Lights are left of the 9/10 chimney and to the right of the 5/6 chimney with the large aerial.


Lets try again with the overlay and keep it simple - The overlay shows that the UFO lights are in-between the two chimneys on no 6.

Here's a view of those houses from a different angle showing all the chimneys.

We can then identify the chimneys in Google Earth and draw left & right lines of sight from Nathan's bedroom. Green line goes through No6 Chimney on the wall. Redline goes through No6 Chimney on the roof.

And looking up towards the golf club and the elevated horizon we can see where those lines would intersect with the ground - by the power lines and the tree.

... which is consistent with the previous estimations of 'just to the left of the woods' not 'over the woods'.

 

[flarkey]

Well this is mighty confusing. @Mick West

Lets keep it simple.... do you agree with this overlay that shows the lights between the two chimneys at no 6 ?

 

[UAPF]

Lets keep it simple.... do you agree with this overlay that shows the lights between the two chimneys at no 6 ?

View attachment 86144

Ish. Rather than between the two chimneys it would be through the TV arial (middle chimney) at #6.

As depicted in this Google Earth image attached.
(Edited, incorrect image added) this one below is accurate I believe.

 

[flarkey]

(First off @UAPF I think I may have confused things by editing @Mick West 's kml with the green and red lines, that I now think he'd used identify green = right, red = wrong, I was taking them as left and right of arc, but I dont think thats what he was intending. )

Spoiler: My secret

The fact that I've used green for left and red for right rather than the internationally accepted Port = Left = Red and Starboard= Right = Green is really poking me in my OCD.

I see what you are trying to say. Your orange line is one straight line, and that's fine to describe a LOS to a single point in the distance. But that's not quite what we have here - the UFO lights are spread over an arc (visual arc, not an electrical arc) with left and right. The overlay of the video shows that the lights extend between the two dotted lines, and they line up with the two number 6 chimneys.

 

[UAPF]

(First off @UAPF I think I may have confused things by editing @Mick West 's kml with the green and red lines, that I now think he'd used identify green = right, red = wrong, I was taking them as left and right of arc, but I dont think thats what he was intending. )

I see what you are trying to say. Your orange line is one straight line, and that's fine to describe a LOS to a single point in the distance. But that's not quite what we have here - the UFO lights are spread over an arc (visual arc, not an electrical arc) with left and right. The overlay of the video shows that the lights extend between the two white dotted lines, and they line up with the two number 6 chimneys.

View attachment 86147

Not quite. The overlay is different and even in your image it's out somewhat. The street light seems to have been used a few times as an anchor point for various overlays but as you can see from your screenshot just now, in the foreground right cover corner, the house that's clipped doesn't line up. The window isn't in place.

@Trailblazer has a post in #139 and other images have been used from seemingly different angles.

Like @Mick West's angle in post #168.

 

[flarkey]

Not quite. The overlay is different and even in your image it's out somewhat. The street light seems to have been used a few times as an anchor point for various overlays but as you can see from your screenshot just now, in the foreground right cover the house that's clipped doesn't line up.

@Trailblazer has a post in #139 and other images have been used from seemingly different angles.

Like @Mick West's angle in post #168.

Ok, so instead of an overlay, here's a top/bottom image that shows the lines of sight between the detailed daytime photo and the night time video still with a the line of UFO lights shown. Does that help?

 

[UAPF]

Ok, so instead of an overlay, here's a top/bottom image that shows the lines of sight between the detailed daytime photo and the night time video still with a the line of UFO lights shown. Does that help?

View attachment 86150

Yes that looks pretty accurate to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

The street light seems to have been used a few times as an anchor point for various overlays but as you can see from your screenshot just now, in the foreground right cover corner, the house that's clipped doesn't line up. The window isn't in place.

The position of the nearest house will appear to shift depending on exactly where in the room you are filming from, as it is close by (approx 30 metres away from the bedroom window) and will exhibit the greatest parallax. It makes more sense to align using more distant objects, eg the street light (about 70 metres) and the houses across the road (about 90 metres), as they will have a much smaller parallax shift relative to the ridgeline 1.5km away, in fact negligible across the width of a bedroom window. I mentioned this previously, you can see that the nighttime video was taken from a slightly different position as the nearest house roof was blocking more of a particular window on the distant houses.

The minor variation in the apparent position of the nearest house makes no difference to the distant LOS.

 

[flarkey]

Ok, so

Yes that looks pretty accurate to me.

Ok, so those green lines are extended in Google Earth to show where they goto.

They do not go over the woods on the top of the hill, they extend to the location with the Overhead Wires running through the field at the back of the Tyddyn-Uchaf property.

 

[Mick West]

that I now think he'd used identify green = right, red = wrong, I was taking them as left and right of arc, but I dont think thats what he was intending

Yes, sorry, red=wrong.

 

[Mick West]

3) Image titled "If at edge of woods, missed chimneys" shows that, if we take your overlays and your LOS, and apply the furthest right identified location our Christmas tree identified as the furthest right point of Flarkey's 45m expanse and as depicted in your image above (in green). Then we totally miss (and are to the right of, not left of, both chimneys.

The chimney and aerial at #6 very important in the LOS estimates.

Can you confirm your LOE takes this into consideration and if so help me understand why my straight ruler reaches a different location? If I'm not using Google Earth ruler correctly it would help to understand if that's why we're getting different outcomes? Thank you.

I suspect Flarkey's explanation might have cleared this up by now. But I think the main mistake here is that your line does not go to the tree. It's also starting in the garden rather than the bedroom.

Here (in grey) is an actual line from the bedroom to the tree.

 

[flarkey]

@Mick West I think the witness's house is the one with the red roof.

Lining up the aligned features confirms...

The dual doors in the living room match those seen when the witness was interviewed in this video.

And the bedroom window in this video

 

[Mick West]

@Mick West I think the witness's house is the one with the red roof.

#32? Hah, yes, looking back at my 2019 GE file, I have it there too.

Slight difference in the chimneys, but same basic result. The lights are just to the left of the woods.

 

[John J.]

The DNO stated that the report they received was 8 hours after Nathan filmed the "UFO" and that "sparks" were reported.

We don't know who contacted SP Energy Networks, or how long it was after the sighting of sparks was made.
We do know sparking had been seen on powerlines somewhere in that postcode area on that day, and the company carried out repairs as a result.

This was found out (the letter to @flarkey) after the hypothesis of the lights being due to sparking power cables had been raised on this thread.
It might be a coincidence, and coincidences happen. But there are power cables in the LOS of the footage, in the area where we know repairs were necessary.

The "Denbigh Lights" witness, Nathan, appears to be a very young man. Maybe, telling someone about the lights the next day, they put 2 and 2 together and contacted the power company. I guess it's more likely an unconnected witness contacted SP, but possibly regarding the same event(s) as seen by Nathan.
There are many reasons why people might make a belated of seeing sparks, maybe their cellphone needed charging and they went to bed; a landline phone connection was down due to the storm; the witness had more pressing things to do (including perhaps getting home and getting some sleep) at the time; the power company's telephones were engaged and the witness didn't want to stay up all night trying to get through. Maybe they saw the sparks, did nothing but woke up next day and thought "Maybe I should report this. I'd feel terrible if something bad like a fire happened, or if an elderly couple are shivering in an isolated house without power." All speculation, of course, but not impossible.

 

[flarkey]

We don't know who contacted SP Energy Networks, or how long it was after the sighting of sparks was made.
We do know sparking had been seen on powerlines somewhere in that postcode area on that day, and the company carried out repairs as a result.

This was found out (the letter to @flarkey) after the hypothesis of the lights being due to sparking power cables had been raised on this thread.
It might be a coincidence, and coincidences happen. But there are power cables in the LOS of the footage, in the area where we know repairs were necessary.

The "Denbigh Lights" witness, Nathan, appears to be a very young man. Maybe, telling someone about the lights the next day, they put 2 and 2 together and contacted the power company. I guess it's more likely an unconnected witness contacted SP, but possibly regarding the same event(s) as seen by Nathan.
There are many reasons why people might make a belated of seeing sparks, maybe their cellphone needed charging and they went to bed; a landline phone connection was down due to the storm; the witness had more pressing things to do (including perhaps getting home and getting some sleep) at the time; the power company's telephones were engaged and the witness didn't want to stay up all night trying to get through. Maybe they saw the sparks, did nothing but woke up next day and thought "Maybe I should report this. I'd feel terrible if something bad like a fire happened, or if an elderly couple are shivering in an isolated house without power." All speculation, of course, but not impossible.

The original video of the event was taken at 3am on a stormy January night. I doubt there would have been many people out and about to see any sparking powerlines at that time, or even know of a power cut if they were asleep. In fact, if it is this 3-phase power line up to the water tank that is at fault there may not have been a power cut to local residences at the time, only to the Water Tank machinery, and therefore a fault may not have been reported urgently. I think it is more likely that the sparking powerlines were seen by local residents when people had woken up the next morning.

DNO letter for reference:

 

[Gaspa]

1) Those cables are Low Voltage 230v (and we went in to all the science behind that, which as you know has a near impossible probability based on the distance of the archs/sparks and the length of time they were filmed/observed for).

The whole "We went into it" and "as you know are a near impossibility" are fallacious. You made claims, which are incorrect. Arcing in LV lines are not nearly impossible, and not for any length of time. Breakers can fail, and even if they are working properly, depending on how far away they are and how high the current is, they can take a long time to act.

A short circuit elsewhere in the line that starts and stops can cause an overvoltage that leads to arcing far away from the short location. For example: you have a short in one place (say a tree branch or another object falls across the line), you get a high current. When the short opens for whatever reason, since the line has an intrinsic inductance, the current "wants" to keep moving and this leads to an overvoltage across the line, and arcing happens on several locations in the line.

2) The DNO response you obtained hasn't identified that location at all, only providing a postcode covering over 100 acres (and 6 properties including a golf course).

Which isn't proof, but is corroborating evidence. In your later comments you are counting this as one of six points against the hypothesis?

3) The DNO has stated they replaced x2 insulator reels and a 160v fuse. There are no insulator reels anywhere near your 45 meters (in any of the historic Street View imagery), or even down at the road for that matter, as they're disc insulators, quite different (as you've accepted) . So now we're getting in to LOS issues if we move further out (further west).

They only have to be close in the circuit to the observed sparks to be corroborating evidence. Which they are. And the fuse was 160A, not 160V.

4) The DNO stated that the report they received was 8 hours after Nathan filmed the "UFO" and that "sparks" were reported. We don't even know if there is any relationship at all 8hrs later. No cable was replaced. Despite catastrophic failure. That's very odd.

Why is it odd? The cables sparked for a bit. They don't need replacing.

5) The DNO stated it was reported on overhead lines in a field, behind a building. Not at water reservoir, or golf club.

A fault in a circuit can cause issues in several places of the same line/circuit. The fact that a fault was reported in the vicinity, again, is corroborating evidence.

 

[jarlrmai]

5) The DNO stated it was reported on overhead lines in a field, behind a building. Not at water reservoir, or golf club.

 

[UAPF]

5) The DNO stated it was reported on overhead lines in a field, behind a building. Not at water reservoir, or golf club.

View attachment 86167

OK, but it was with reference to Flarkey talking about cables and possible transformers at the water tank location.

As I'd said at the start of my involvement in this forum I felt the location was pretty much there, give or take.

My 6 points mentioned earlier in this thread are important factors in my opinion and really haven't been addressed. They're the facts as we know them.

It's hard to respond to all of the questions in all the different posts, so my apologies if I hijack this and reply to them all here.

It's the voltage given off by an inductance that is suddenly switched off that rises to a peak which allows it to ignite a spark, I believe.
Or is it that ignition is not required when switch contacts open?

Phil's point about inductive kickback is technically correct in normal situations (opening a switch, relay, contactor, ignition coil, etc.)

But it does not explain (and absolutely cannot explain) a report of 45 meters of low voltage overhead cable arcing at multiple points for 6–10 minutes.

 

[UAPF]

Ok, so


Ok, so those green lines are extended in Google Earth to show where they goto.
View attachment 86151

They do not go over the woods on the top of the hill, they extend to the location with the Overhead Wires running through the field at the back of the Tyddyn-Uchaf property.

View attachment 86152

Ok, great, so we're happy it's not the unseen cable that runs up to the water tank location? But rather stops before the expanse that runs up to the water tank location? Confirming, not the one you added in to OpenStreetMap?

 

[UAPF]

The position of the nearest house will appear to shift depending on exactly where in the room you are filming from, as it is close by (approx 30 metres away from the bedroom window) and will exhibit the greatest parallax. It makes more sense to align using more distant objects, eg the street light (about 70 metres) and the houses across the road (about 90 metres), as they will have a much smaller parallax shift relative to the ridgeline 1.5km away, in fact negligible across the width of a bedroom window. I mentioned this previously, you can see that the nighttime video was taken from a slightly different position as the nearest house roof was blocking more of a particular window on the distant houses.

The minor variation in the apparent position of the nearest house makes no difference to the distant LOS.

Fair point.

 

[flarkey]

Ok, great, so we're happy it's not the unseen cable that runs up to the water tank location? But rather stops before the expanse that runs up to the water tank location? Confirming, not the one you added in to OpenStreetMap?

View attachment 86174

The work we've just shown in the posts above suggest that it's the lights are located at the line in the fields at the back of the property (Tyddyn-Uchaf) that runs up to the watertank. That is exactly the one I added to OpenStreetMap. That's why I added it - It was missing from the OSM database. In fact there's still lots of the Overhead Lines missing from that area, I might add them too so we have better coverage and accuracy in that area.

 

[UAPF]

The original video of the event was taken at 3am on a stormy January night. I doubt there would have been many people out and about to see any sparking powerlines at that time, or even know of a power cut if they were asleep. In fact, if it is this 3-phase power line up to the water tank that is at fault there may not have been a power cut to local residences at the time, only to the Water Tank machinery, and therefore a fault may not have been reported urgently. I think it is more likely that the sparking powerlines were seen by local residents when people had woken up the next morning.

DNO letter for reference:

View attachment 86161

We are now making quite a few assumptions to fit our desired resolution.

It could be argued that a 45 meter expanse of arching power line for 6-10 mins seen at that elevation by all of Denbigh would generate just one report at the time. But even if it didn't, you've still got the problem that the report is 8hrs later.

Then you have to navigate how they knew it was sparking/arching 8hrs earlier if they didn't know it was arching/sparking 8hrs earlier.

Or is the argument it's still sparking 8hrs later? Because that would be most unlikely.

Also no insulator reels. With our new identified cable (not in the woods) and thus all visible from the street view images, this reinforces the issue that there are no insulator reels on any of those poles.

Did you get a response from the DNO Flarkey? I got a "we're working on it" but that's all.

 

[flarkey]

.

Did you get a response from the DNO Flarkey? I got a "we're working on it" but that's all.

No assumptions being made there, just proposing some options.

Re the DNO - I spoke with them on the phone today, they're going to get back with more precise info as soon as they can.

 

[UAPF]

I'm going to throw another spanner in the works. I think I have identified the tree line seen in the foreground. When I looked at the original distance 1.4km it just didn't feel right. The woods to the right were too blurry and the row of trees (specifically that "christmas tree") seemed too in focus in comparison. As someone who runs about with a camera in my spare time, it just felt odd. So I've gone back to everyone's agreed line of sight. I looked at the closest street view footage of that farm. In the middle of our line of sight.

Yes, it is at a much lower elevation to the poles and cable identified by @Mick West @flarkey @Trailblazer an others. So of course you assume you would be able to see over it. And the trees I identified looking very similar to that Christmas tree and the funny shaped ones (the one virtually on the street out in front of the Coppy farm). But yes, they are indeed at a lower elevation and, I forget who it was, but a forum member found that green barn roof to help clear that up. So it wasn't that one.

However, looking at our agreed line of sight, there is a group of trees right behind Coppy Farm that are also exactly in our line of sight (stick with me, there will be some science coming) the above image shows the elevation of the farm (bottom right hand corner of the image shows 129m elevation) measurement taken between that furthest left pond/body of water and the tree line. And even this distance, from Nathan's vantage point he would be able to see over it. Well over it and on to Flakey/Mick/Trailblazers identified expanse of cable.

However, I checked street view to see what trees were there and noticed a group of trees that looked similar - A few funny shaped trees and some Christmas tree looking ones. Not particularly scientific, I know, and we've found trees that look similar before and seemingly failed.

But what you'll notice from this image (google street view 2013) is that the trees appear to be raised. And the elevation is 142m. Quite a bit taller than the original Santa tree I'd found earlier in front of Coppy farm. Directly in Nathan's line of sight. A LOS we have all now fully agreed with.

As you can see from this google earth image showing (above) the elevation in the bottom right of the image identified just at the point the raised treelike meets the yellow line (our LOS) it's 142m.

Now maths like this are a bit much for me at this time of night after a very long day, school runs, dinner cooking and bedtime routine with the kinds, so I have utilised ChatGPT 5.1 to do the sums. This is the prompt:

"I am analysing a line-of-sight geometry problem. A power line cable is mounted 7–9 metres above ground on a pole situated at a terrain elevation of 170 m, giving the cable an approximate elevation of 177–179 m. My camera is located at an elevation of 115 m, with an additional 2 m for the viewing height from a first-storey window (total camera height ≈117 m). Between the camera and the pole, there is an intermediate hill with a ground elevation of 140 m and trees approximately 10 m tall, giving a total obstruction height of about 150 m. This hill is 715 m from the camera, while the pole is 1.4 km away. Given these elevations and distances, will the hill and trees obstruct the line of sight to the cable?"

The response was very long and too much text to share here, so I asked for a shortened summary and this is the response:

Yes. With your numbers, the hill + 10 m trees rise to ≈150 m, while the camera-to-cable line of sight passes over that point at only ≈148 m.
So the obstruction is 1–2 m higher than the line of sight, meaning the view of the cable is blocked.

Without the trees (hill at 140 m), the cable would be visible.

I pasted my prompt showing my math, so feel free to run it through your favourite LLM, or do it the old fashioned way if you think it's wrong and let me know where, but from what I can establish we cannot see those LV cables from Nathan's bedroom window.

Now I know some people might argue that the trees might not be that tall, but even is we halve them, we still have a problem with the second pole and the 45m expanse of cable identified by @flarkey.

Only the first pole identified near the water tank is 170 m elevation. The second pole, next, down to towards the road, is 165 m elevation, so 7 meters too low for our line of sight.

 

[purpleivan]

Without the trees (hill at 140 m), the cable would be visible.

Are you saying that the trees alone would block the line of sight to the cable? If so, wouldn't those trees be bare of leaves at that time of year, meaning that an intense light souce would not be blocked by them.

 

[UAPF]

Are you saying that the trees alone would block the line of sight to the cable? If so, wouldn't those trees be bare of leaves at that time of year, meaning that an intense light souce would not be blocked by them.

That depends. Potentially if they were bare and wide apart etc…and the low voltage cable was super bright, then yes potentially the cable nearest to the first pole, but the second pole (remember it's been identified as a 45 stretch) then that's 7 meters below the tree level. I modelled 5 meter tall trees for the lower elevation pole further towards the road, snd that would be 2 meters below the ground level with that math.

Long story short potentially right near the woods, but further down, no, I don't think that's possible in this model.

At the time the trees looked fairly dense and conifers (what that Christmas tree looking one appears to be) are green all year round.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm going to throw another spanner in the works. I think I have identified the tree line seen in the foreground. When I looked at the original distance 1.4km it just didn't feel right. The woods to the right were too blurry and the row of trees (specifically that "christmas tree") seemed too in focus in comparison. As someone who runs about with a camera in my spare time, it just felt odd. So I've gone back to everyone's agreed line of sight. I looked at the closest street view footage of that farm. In the middle of our line of sight.

Yes, it is at a much lower elevation to the poles and cable identified by @Mick West @flarkey @Trailblazer an others. So of course you assume you would be able to see over it. And the trees I identified looking very similar to that Christmas tree and the funny shaped ones (the one virtually on the street out in front of the Coppy farm). But yes, they are indeed at a lower elevation and, I forget who it was, but a forum member found that green barn roof to help clear that up. So it wasn't that one.

View attachment 86185

However, looking at our agreed line of sight, there is a group of trees right behind Coppy Farm that are also exactly in our line of sight (stick with me, there will be some science coming) the above image shows the elevation of the farm (bottom right hand corner of the image shows 129m elevation) measurement taken between that furthest left pond/body of water and the tree line. And even this distance, from Nathan's vantage point he would be able to see over it. Well over it and on to Flakey/Mick/Trailblazers identified expanse of cable.

However, I checked street view to see what trees were there and noticed a group of trees that looked similar - A few funny shaped trees and some Christmas tree looking ones. Not particularly scientific, I know, and we've found trees that look similar before and seemingly failed.

View attachment 86186

But what you'll notice from this image (google street view 2013) is that the trees appear to be raised. And the elevation is 142m. Quite a bit taller than the original Santa tree I'd found earlier in front of Coppy farm. Directly in Nathan's line of sight. A LOS we have all now fully agreed with.

View attachment 86187

As you can see from this google earth image showing (above) the elevation in the bottom right of the image identified just at the point the raised treelike meets the yellow line (our LOS) it's 142m.

I disagree. Your trees there are these ones below the red line, visible from the Street View location on the main road looking over Bryn Garth. The skyline tree on the golf course is clearly some distance behind them, with an open field between them. There's the double conifer tree and a line of deciduous trees right on the skyline to their left.

That green field is clearly visible in the photo from the house location (linked in red between these pictures), with the same trees (marked in purple here) on the skyline beyond it. The trees on top of the ridge/cliff above Coppi Farm (which appears to be the back wall of an old quarry, backed up by old maps) are below the open field.

 

[UAPF]

I disagree. Your trees there are these ones below the red line, visible from the Street View location on the main road looking over Bryn Garth. The skyline tree on the golf course is clearly some distance behind them, with an open field between them. There's the double conifer tree and a line of deciduous trees right on the skyline to their left.

View attachment 86191


That green field is clearly visible in the photo from the house location (linked in red between these pictures), with the same trees (marked in purple here) on the skyline beyond it. The trees on top of the ridge/cliff above Coppi Farm (which appears to be the back wall of an old quarry, backed up by old maps) are below the open field.

View attachment 86192

I thought we all established and agree that your two images above are at different angle and elevations to Nathan's?

In both of your images above we should be looking a fraction to the left of the chimney at number 11 and through the tv arial of number 6.

There are at least 4 rows of trees and shrubbery at different elevations (that we haven't yet factored in) that could blend in to appear to be a row.

Plus the maths says we should have a row of trees (including conifers) that obstruct the view. Even if you suggest the trees aren't as tall as 5-10 meters, we should still see them directly in the line of sight (a line of sight we all now agree on).

Is the maths wrong?

We could be looking at anyone of these trees in the LOS blending in with anyone of the others directly in LOS. Surely the maths would help us more than trying to identify tree shapes (in photos taken in different years and from different angles) and guessing elevations?

 

[flarkey]

I thought we all established and agree that your two images above are at different angle and elevations to Nathan's?

We agreed that they were from two locations close by along a similar line of sight, but the fact that they were looking at the landscape in the distance made any differences negligible for the purposes that we were using them for.

Surely the maths would help us more than trying to identify tree shapes (in photos taken in different years and from different angles) and guessing elevations?

Here's the actual elevation profile for the agreed LOS. It shows that the line of bushes near Coppi Farm is at 463 ft ASL and the tree and 3-phase LV Power Lines near the golf club are close to 567 ft ASL, so they should be well above the line of the bushes. (the electrical poles in the filed in front of Coppi Farm are at 387ft ASL (not shown))

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Profile...7e702e&extent=-3.4651,53.1721,-3.3848,53.1959'