Anomalous triangular object filmed flying over my house.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter Godman
  • Start date Start date
P

Peter Godman

Guest
.
location -- Brisbane, Australia
date / time -- 25 Sept, 2024 / 1936 approx.

I video recorded a triangular object for the second time whilst filming the night sky with my night vision camera.

The object was moving in a southerly direction.

I dont think it is birds. The image quality is significantly better live than it is in this video. I did not see flapping wings, I saw shimmering light.
I also have a second video from a different day of the same tight and perfect formation.




Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdkRCbeVgAE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You show 3 lights, not a triangular object. If you take a circle and put 3 lights on it in the dark, it's going to look exactly the same even though it's a round object.

The first thing someone is apt to do is check for aircraft-shaped objects that may have been in the sky.
location -- Brisbane, Australia
date / time -- 25 Sept, 2024 / 1936 approx.
That's 2024-09-25 09:36 UTC.
 
I noted this thing:
Capture.JPG

The way it "moves" looks like it is something on, say, a window you are filming through, and that's a smudge on the window. This leads me to wonder if the three dots are a reflection of something behind you?
 
You show 3 lights, not a triangular object. If you take a circle and put 3 lights on it in the dark, it's going to look exactly the same even though it's a round object.

The first thing someone is apt to do is check for aircraft-shaped objects that may have been in the sky.
That's 2024-09-25 09:36 UTC.
correct, 0936 UTC , nothing flying directly overhead, I checked

1.png
 
Upon first few looks, it appears to be a bit fast for a standard aircraft. It enters the screen, lower right, at 00:19 and then travels up and a bit to the left as the camera stays fixed until 00:22 when the camera starts to follow it.

While not quite centered, the camera is obviously pointing in the right direction at the start. OP says this is the second time filming this, so it appears to be regular, at least to the point that the camera can be positioned to capture it should it appear.

The apparent speed makes me think it's closer than we think, but it does appear to fade out into the light cloud cover. Or it is closer and being faintly illuminated, such that we can see it against a dark background, but not enough for it to stand out of the light-colored clouds. The night vision could be exacerbating this.
 
The apparent speed makes me think it's closer than we think, but it does appear to fade out into the light cloud cover. Or it is closer and being faintly illuminated, such that we can see it against a dark background, but not enough for it to stand out of the light-colored clouds.
Perhaps a drone, with some directionality to the lights so that they fade as it flies on away from the viewer? I almost felt like the two "corner" lights had a flashing thing going on, but the more I look at it the more I think that's an artifact of the camera/recording and noisy image.

I guess it's not a trio of laser dots, as it seems to show up best where there are fewest clouds for it to reflect off of. Otherwise I'd be worried about this guy....
predator-laser-sight.png
 


I like the three ducks thing for this one too. I think I can see wing flapping. Notice also that the lights bunch together near the end. Not a rigid structure.
 
I like the three ducks thing for this one too. I think I can see wing flapping. Notice also that the lights bunch together near the end. Not a rigid structure.

I dont see flapping wings, but I do at times see a shimmering effect (light?) or video quality distortion, which may be mistaken as flapping.

And at brief times the "ducks" appear very stable with no flapping at all. I would expect these "ducks" given their speed to be in movement every second, not gliding. Also, these "ducks" given their altitude are moving too quickly.

As for the "lights", if they are that then they could be free to break formation.
 
Thanks. "VISIBLE SPECTRUM: 400-1100NM" - so it does have some NIR capabilities, but its form-factor strongly suggests a photomultiplier stage too.
what impact will those specs have on the object(s) seen in the video?
 
what impact will those specs have on the object(s) seen in the video?
Best not to guess, best to test.
If you can put the camera in the same mode that it was in when you were filming the triangular formation, and then in a room with no direct lighting film your hand as you dunk it under cool water, that should tell us how sensitive it is to typical body heat. The water should block IR, so if your hand mostly disappears as it goes under, then the camera was picking up its heat before it disappered. If you need a NIR source to play with to do other experiments, your remote controls will almost certainly have 840nm or 940nm IR LEDs - how well does one act as a torch? (I also think the water should look more mirror-like than normal, because if it's not letting the IR through, it's reflecting it. Clearly I need fun toys, all I have at the moment is textbooks!) But the most relevant experiment is the one with warm-blooded animals in it.
 
Best not to guess, best to test.
If you can put the camera in the same mode that it was in when you were filming the triangular formation, and then in a room with no direct lighting film your hand as you dunk it under cool water, that should tell us how sensitive it is to typical body heat. The water should block IR, so if your hand mostly disappears as it goes under, then the camera was picking up its heat before it disappered. If you need a NIR source to play with to do other experiments, your remote controls will almost certainly have 840nm or 940nm IR LEDs - how well does one act as a torch? (I also think the water should look more mirror-like than normal, because if it's not letting the IR through, it's reflecting it. Clearly I need fun toys, all I have at the moment is textbooks!) But the most relevant experiment is the one with warm-blooded animals in it.
I dont know where this is headed, but I can see my hand as clear as day when under water and in a dark room using the sionyx and IR
 
I dont know where this is headed, but I can see my hand as clear as day when under water and in a dark room using the sionyx and IR
As we've seen many times, an experiment without a meaningful analysis of its result isn't a good experiment. I was prepared for one answer, not the alternative, now I'll have to think on my feet what this result means.
In retrospect, the 700-1100nm band isn't far out of the pass range at all:
640px-Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png

img: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...640px-Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png
via: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
Body heat is near 10um range, that's why it disappears in water, vastly greater absorbance.

Anyway, if the camera's view is unchanged by the water, then there's next to no trace of body heat detectable in the sensor.
Therefore: we may not conclude from their visibility in your video that the objects are warm-blooded. (However, we must not conclude the opposite either.)
Corollary: any claim that it's a duck or similar must be based on some other evidence of duckiness.

The experiment was at least useful for me, I have better understanding of NIR behaviour now.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
The objects are small and there's a lack of detail and quite a bit of smear indicating after image which we often see in video taken low light conditions where cameras are adjusting to make things more visible, look at the stars here

1727348858037.png


This would probably make any flapping very hard to spot on such small objects viewed from a distance.

Ducks are well insulated, but reflected NIR would still possibly show them up, ducks do fly at night and often fly in tight v formations.
 
Ducks are well insulated, but reflected NIR would still possibly show them up, ducks do fly at night and often fly in tight v formations.
In particular if they're lighter on the underside, a post-sunset nightglow would illuminate them, yes.
 
I dont buy it

these "ducks" are moving rapidly, as such they are not "too far" away from me and so I would have seen their wings moving and recorded the same; neither occurred

A lot ducks and other birds exhibit countershading meaning they are lighter underneath than on top
 
I dont buy it

these "ducks" are moving rapidly, as such they are not "too far" away from me and so I would have seen their wings moving and recorded the same; neither occurred
Can you show your math for the distance/speed?

I'm speculating duck size objects at a fair distance, but if you have some figures that would be handy.
 
I dont buy it

these "ducks" are moving rapidly, as such they are not "too far" away from me and so I would have seen their wings moving and recorded the same; neither occurred

That's a bit of a leap though: "not "too far" away from me and so I would have seen their wings moving".
You don't know how close it was. It could have been pretty far away, like you mentioned: the camera is very sensitive..
 
location -- Brisbane, Australia
date / time -- 25 Sept, 2024 / 1936 approx.
Another helpful thing to add might be your best estimates of the angle from the horizon in which the camera was pointed, and the total angle subtended by the moving object(s) while they were seen on the video. Yes, I know that the star-experts here might be able to figure that out, but your estimates would be useful.

I'll point out that all this talk of "ducks" and their behavior in the air ignores the fact that other birds with different sizes and different flying behaviors are similarly possible.
 
Can you show your math for the distance/speed?
the bird flying over your home appears much faster than the bird way off in the distance despite both moving at the same speed

the "ducks" in my video are moving rapidly, therefore they must be relatively close, close enough to see flapping

plus, the "duck" object appears under the cloud line
 
Another helpful thing to add might be your best estimates of the angle from the horizon in which the camera was pointed, and the total angle subtended by the moving object(s) while they were seen on the video. Yes, I know that the star-experts here might be able to figure that out, but your estimates would be useful.

I'll point out that all this talk of "ducks" and their behavior in the air ignores the fact that other birds with different sizes and different flying behaviors are similarly possible.
I first noticed the object directly over-head
 
consider the way in which the object moves
replay 21 to 25 seconds, 3 or 4 times,
the object gives the impression it is gliding,
which is a contrast to birds flapping to move rapidly
 
I dont buy it

these "ducks" are moving rapidly, as such they are not "too far" away from me and so I would have seen their wings moving and recorded the same; neither occurred

One problem is that the dots are not just small and noisy, but the CoC (circle of confusion, i.e. blur) is large enough that often the three can't even be individually resolved. You'll not be able to directly detect movement at the sub-pixel scale necessary to satisfy your claim, however, you should be able to detect fluctuations in the illumination that would be consistent with a regular change in the size and orientation of the reflecting surface. So the first thing I'd want to do is to examine the noise - do the fluctuations in brightness of each of the three dots have periodic components consistent with bird's wings.
 
So the first thing I'd want to do is to examine the noise - do the fluctuations in brightness of each of the three dots have periodic components consistent with bird's wings.
That sounds reasonable. Will you do those calculations?

And if it is not ducks but an object emitting light in varying intensities,
this will create a confounding variable.
 
So the first thing I'd want to do is to examine the noise - do the fluctuations in brightness of each of the three dots have periodic components consistent with bird's wings.
How do you treat the noise sources coming from the sensor itself? Like, thermal noise, shot noise.. They might be bigger than the pixel variations you are after.
 
How do you treat the noise sources coming from the sensor itself? Like, thermal noise, shot noise.. They might be bigger than the pixel variations you are after.
With an FFT. They might be bigger in magnitude, but their energy might be spread over a very wide range of frequencies.
We do have other objects we can also get frequency plots from and use as a control, to see what the noise spectrum looks like.

Note - in order to actually do this myself, I'd either have to relearn a language I haven't used in well over a decade, or I'd have to learn a new one. Anyone with suggestions on how I might best do this is probably in a better position to do it themselves. If I did get around to it, mine would be in perl/Tk, so might not even be useful to anyone else in the world afterwards. Yes, I'm that guy, sorry, and git orff moi lorn!
 
Last edited:
consider the way in which the object moves
replay 21 to 25 seconds, 3 or 4 times,
the object gives the impression it is gliding,
which is a contrast to birds flapping to move rapidly
It depends entirely upon what bird we are talking about. The rule of thumb is that small birds have to flap their wings more, but larger birds soar more often than flap.

And an axiom repeated often on this site:
Speed = distance /time.
Size = 1/distance.

In other words, if you don't know how distant an object is, you can't judge its speed or size with any accuracy, and vice versa.
 
consider the way in which the object moves
replay 21 to 25 seconds, 3 or 4 times,
the object gives the impression it is gliding,
which is a contrast to birds flapping to move rapidly

Just thinking out loud here and remembering my duck hunting days. It's customary to be set up well before sunrise, so I would see various ducks and geese flying around from darkness through dawn.

Here in California, the smallest ducks are Teal, and they fly very fast with very fast wing beats. Even in full daylight their wings are little more than a blur, and in low light even more so.

So, if there was a Teal equivalent down under being filmed with some sort of night vision type device what might it look like? Here's an Australian Grey Teal duck:

1727367465471.png


The breast is a bit lighter than the wings. Now if the slightly darker wings are flapping at a rapid rate such that they would be a blur in daylight, what would they look like in night vision? Particularly next to the lighter but not flapping breast? I don't know, but does the amplifying of available light work better on the breast than the flapping wings? If so, we would expect to see just the body of the duck and not its wings flapping, they just get lost in the motion blur. Depending on how far away they are, we might be left with what we are seeing in the video.

This is the second thread this week about home style night vision devices capturing something unusual. There have been others about military night vision or people like UAPx and the Skinwalker Ranch gang using various night vision devices, but I suspect to see more examples of just people at home playing around with these things.

I'm NOT saying these are ducks, but I am suggesting with the growing popularity of home night vision, we need to get a handle on what things, like ducks, look like with these devices before categorically ruling them out.
 
Back
Top