Anomalous triangular object filmed flying over my house.

[MapperGuy]

My position remains unchanged, "object unidentified".

Not sure if I will continue to participate. Thanks to all contributors.

The object is unidentified, as in no particular type of bird has been identified. Australia has owls, not sure why owls would not be candidates for night flyers.

Over what span of hours were the videos collected? I would suggest collecting video at dusk and dawn, to see if anything flies overhead that appears similar to these two objects. The lighter background sky at those times could make it easier to identify the objects.

One of the problems with reviewing classic UFO pictures is that what pictures we have are all we will ever have (unless someone invents a time machine). In this case you have the ability to collect more video and the ability to collect video under different conditions (background illumination) than the videos you have posted. More information is always nice.

 

[Peter Godman]

Scoffers bias – it's ducks even if it isn't ducks

NHI bias – it's aliens, there's no doubt about it

Scientific bias – object unidentified

* for the purpose of this comment I define scientific bias as a person who adheres to the scientific method at every step regardless of findings, public reaction, personal consequences etc.

A small number of you have a scientific bias, but most of you are afflicted with scoffers bias and don't realize it. Hence I have now left the thread to source those motivated by the scientific bias.

[insert cat amongst pigeons image]

 

[jarlrmai]

Scoffers bias – it's ducks even if it isn't ducks

NHI bias – it's aliens, there's no doubt about it

Scientific bias – object unidentified

* for the purpose of this comment I define scientific bias as a person who adheres to the scientific method at every step regardless of findings, public reaction, personal consequences etc.

A small number of you have a scientific bias, but most of you are afflicted with scoffers bias and don't realize it. Hence I have now left the thread to source those motivated by the scientific bias.

[insert cat amongst pigeons image]

So not anonomolous then?

Here's a question if we just agree it's unidentified what have we done? What would the real scientific approach look like?

 

[Ann K]

Scoffers bias – it's ducks even if it isn't ducks

NHI bias – it's aliens, there's no doubt about it

Scientific bias – object unidentified

* for the purpose of this comment I define scientific bias as a person who adheres to the scientific method at every step regardless of findings, public reaction, personal consequences etc.

A small number of you have a scientific bias, but most of you are afflicted with scoffers bias and don't realize it. Hence I have now left the thread to source those motivated by the scientific bias.

[insert cat amongst pigeons image]

We cannot fully perform as scientists when we don't have any scientific findings to work with. We can, however, pose possibilities, and as we on this site have already seen bugs, birds, butterflies, and balloons before that were called UFOs by the various photographers, what you refer to as "scoffer's bias" IS often one of the best scientific ways we can approach the matter, comparing an unknown with a known as a hypothesis.

 

[Mendel]

Scoffers bias – it's ducks even if it isn't ducks

NHI bias – it's aliens, there's no doubt about it

Scientific bias – object unidentified

* for the purpose of this comment I define scientific bias as a person who adheres to the scientific method at every step regardless of findings, public reaction, personal consequences etc.

A small number of you have a scientific bias, but most of you are afflicted with scoffers bias and don't realize it. Hence I have now left the thread to source those motivated by the scientific bias.

[insert cat amongst pigeons image]

Not a small number. Compare:

Therefore I prefer to say, "it might be ducks, but it remains unidentified until further evidence is provided."

with
1)

Not endorsing any particular theory, but these photos of Australian plumed whistling ducks [...]

2)

If the Duck Hypothesis is fatally flawed, that will become apparent. If the answer is "insufficient data, could be ducks or a drone or aliens or any number of other things," the gang here generally winds up there

3)

As I noted above, it may likely remain unidentified.

4)

Hi Peter, I agree with you that there isn't sufficient evidence to say "...these are ducks" (or anything else for that matter) at this time.

5)

Nothing about the video is actually inconsistent with birds.

6)

We agree that ducks are a likely (if unproven) explanation.

7)

The object is unidentified

That's gotta be the majority of participants; and the others mostly haven't committed themselves.
We agree with you, @Peter Godman.

 

[deirdre]

Hence I have now left the thread to source those motivated by the scientific bias.

well if you dismiss them out of hand too, when they ask for additional data, then they will probably also be happy for you to try a different forum. scientific types like data.

 

[saucerpilot]

anyone with the experience want to stabilize the video on the object(s)?

 

[NorCal Dave]

My position remains unchanged, "object unidentified".

Not sure if I will continue to participate. Thanks to all contributors.

I'm sorry Peter, but that seems a bit disingenuous. You brought the video here and said it was not birds. What were you looking for from members? An attempt to try and identify what was recorded or simple agreement that it is a triangular object and therefore anomalous.

Note in your OP, you seem to change from an "object" to a "tight formation" which would indicate multiple objects.

In addition, your main argument against any birds is that you saw it better than the video captured. But you're using a Night Vision device, which in theory should make what was recorded more viewable as it amplifies available light. In any case, the video is all anyone here has to go on.

Scoffers bias – it's ducks even if it isn't ducks

NHI bias – it's aliens, there's no doubt about it

Scientific bias – object unidentified

And now you seem to suggest that anyone putting forward the idea of birds or ducks as a POSSIBLE solution is a "scoffer", while a scientific bias is something many of us have already agreed upon, it might be unidentified.

A small number of you have a scientific bias, but most of you are afflicted with scoffers bias and don't realize it. Hence I have now left the thread to source those motivated by the scientific bias.

So, I guess I'm talking to a blank wall, but on the chance you read this, exactly what science do you expect other to perform to explain your video? What do you think they will find. Maybe more important, what do you hope they find?

You presented the video here. Many of us spent considerable time watching it and re-watching it. Then scrubbing it back and forth one frame at a time when we could have been doing other things. That analysis resulted in birds or specifically duck as a possible solution. Possible. That effort is now met with "you are afflicted with scoffers bias" and I'm taking my marbles and leaving attuited. What did you want from the members here?

 

[FatPhil]

* for the purpose of this comment I define scientific bias as a person who adheres to the scientific method at every step regardless of findings, public reaction, personal consequences etc.

That's not adhering to the scientific method. It's not a good plan to rely on square circles to give your argument weight.

 

[FatPhil]

Scoffers bias – it's ducks even if it isn't ducks
... most of you are afflicted with scoffers bias and don't realize it.

This is a tilt at windmills. Who has made that assertion? And quote, don't paraphrase.

 

[jarlrmai]

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/1fr678p/triangular_ufo_caught_flying_over_a_housing/


https://www.ufofeed.com/101515/tria...-in-brisbane-australia-09-25-2024-what-is-it/

let the science commence!

 

[NorCal Dave]

let the science commence!

Indeed!

I guess it'll be interesting to see what they come up with and how Peter reacts to the non-scientifically arrived at "defiantly alien spaceship" solutions he's bound to be presented with.

We never got to the second video here, which I thought aside from being vaguely triangular and filmed with night vision, was very different from the first one in the OP. The way the object jumped around made me think it was much closer to the camera. Maybe a drifting bit of spider web.

 

[Mendel]

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/1fr678p/triangular_ufo_caught_flying_over_a_housing/

He still calls it triangular, even after post #2 and the observation that it's not a fixed formation. Posting a huge flounce exhorting the scientific method and then still putting the triangle in the title speaks volumes to me.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/1fr678p/triangular_ufo_caught_flying_over_a_housing/


https://www.ufofeed.com/101515/tria...-in-brisbane-australia-09-25-2024-what-is-it/

let the science commence!

I'm not much for reddit. I hate the way one has to constantly click on the + symbol to see various comments as it makes the conversation very confusing as you can't tell who's responding to what. And it always defaults to "best" comments, not chronologically. I just find it hard to read and follow. Who decides the "best" comments, the mods, the up-votes? I guess it's made for phones and I'm sounding like an old Boomer/Xer.

Ok, now that I'm done ranting about reddit, I did pop over there to see what folks thought of the "anomalous triangular object".

First of all, it's the video shared in the op, but now it's part of a lame-ass UFOfeed with a YouTube channel, the other link jarlrmai shares above. It's monumentally bad. It features the video we've seen but with some sort of talking head down in the corner that doesn't seem to match the AI generated voice over. I have to wonder, did Peter upload or share his video with this click-bait UFO channel after leaving here for a more "scientifically biased" assessment? Or just to get it out there? It's really bad. Y'all can watch it on reddit.

Second, as best I can tell, again I may have missed a + that I was supposed to click on in the "best" comments section, but there isn't a lot of UFO chatter. One guy is confident the video depicts the US Aurora:

He gets quite a bit of push back with people noting that Aurora is largely a myth and the era of manned spy planes is being replaced with drones and satellites. His logic seems to be the US/CIA developed the U2 and SR71, so it's more likely that things in the sky are the follow on from those projects rather than aliens. OK.

Others suggested a hoax, and not in a Metabunk polite way:

And then there was this:

Whaaaat? Birds you say? Who'd a thunk?

I don't think this is going as hoped.

 

[jarlrmai]

Who knows the place posting it might have picked it up from here, the OP might have nothing to do with it..

 

[Ravi]

Who knows the place posting it might have picked it up from here, the OP might have nothing to do with it..

I believe you are right. The videos linked by OP are from a channel named "Anomalous Skies". The one with the "narrator", from another channel, is just a reposter/youtuber.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

That's what I'm getting. "Peter Godman" has nothing to do with this post on Reddit.

It's this Waldonalves character, promoting his own click-baity, advertisement heavy site.

 

[Peter Godman]

I filmed birds flying over my house on the evening of 29th Sept.
It's worth comparing this video to the "triangle" video.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1UH7ZjL46E



Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdkRCbeVgAE


The speed looks fairly similar in both videos, suggesting that if they are birds in both videos, then they are flying at similar heights in both videos, however in one video we see no obvious wings flapping, in the other video we see obvious wings flapping.

In addition, the shape of the birds in the bird video is clearly different to the shape of any of the 3 "birds" in the "triangle" video.

Now replay 19 seconds to 23 seconds, two or three times in this video, these birds to my eye do not appear to be moving in a bird-like fashion. Frame by frame movement analysis comparing to bird movement would be useful.


Source: https://youtu.be/RLepH0qnGfk?si=iIbuZR3-Stzkqj-H&t=19


As far as I am concerned until scientific analysis can shed some light on the matter the object remains unidentified.

If the final conclusion is "it's birds" then so be it. Most important to me is that a rigorous scientific process be applied. Opinions, excitement and guesses are of no interest to me.

Fortunately, I now have a couple of contacts that adhere to strict scientific protocols and investigate anomalous claims.

 

[deirdre]

I filmed birds flying over my house on the evening of 29th Sept.

that's helpful. i was hoping you would provide some measurements, but even doing the visual math in my head I'm gonna throw my hat in the scoffer bias ring and just say now "it's birds".

 

[NorCal Dave]

I believe you are right. The videos linked by OP are from a channel named "Anomalous Skies". The one with the "narrator", from another channel, is just a reposter/youtuber.

That's what I'm getting. "Peter Godman" has nothing to do with this post on Reddit.

It's this Waldonalves character, promoting his own click-baity, advertisement heavy site.

Whoever "Peter Godman" is it appears he posted the OP video on his very new YouTube channel, Anomalous_Skies. The title alone suggests that what is presented is "anomalous". At this point it consists of 5 videos from the last few weeks showing lights in the sky, presumably recorded with his night vision set up:

So, not being a big time YouTube content creator, do other re-posters just grab people's original content and use it on their own sites? Mr. Godman, after saying he was leaving this site, had his content, unbeknownst to him, used by UFO:files and that's what showed up on reddit via UFO:files?

 

[Fin]

In the ufo vid we don't see "obvious" wings flapping but if you look carefully you can see wings could be flapping but the definition isn't good enough to make that flapping obvious. See the comparison vids I already shared to get more familiar with the variation expected from distant birds in IR. In some cases where the definition is good enough we see no obvious flapping.. until we zoom in, and then the flapping is obvious, so a lack of obvious wing flapping in your video doesn't actually rule out flapping wings at all, and that's worth bearing in mind.

I'm not saying "its definitely birds". I'm saying nothing about it is inconsistent with birds, so if its aliens, they need to try harder, because ultimately we just can't rule out birds. This is in fact how we'd expect distant birds to look and nothing about their trajectory, speed, or manoeuvres is anomalous. These sorts of ufo vids are only exciting and interesting when you're not familiar enough with comparison vids of birds. As soon as you watch enough "birds in night vision" vids you'll see plenty where there are no "obvious" flapping wings, and yet other factors (namely changes in formation consistent with birds) demonstrate that its still birds regardless. You also may notice that they are a regular cause of ufo misidentifications (see vid below published in the last 24hrs on YouTube & see the vids I've already shared).

And, of course, there's always the chance that they're gliding and not flapping. With that in mind, again, nothing about the vid is inconsistent with birds.

This was just posted today:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAysHyTmY4c

Good playlist of birds filmed at night here

Source: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxKXgWCNsKHOV-n6L9rxuND4Pi5DSQX2F

Impressive example here (there are many similar examples to yours. Search Youtube for "Birds in night vision")

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G-jjdq-FEc

Gliding seen here. Video title "Predatory Bird Looking Like a Flying Saucer Until it Flaps it's Wings"

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0h9VliR58

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

My position is not "it's birds." My position is: "Probably birds, with ducks being most likely type of bird." Would I bet my life that they're ducks? No. But if I had to bet, I'd bet birds as the most probable choice. Well over 50% chance.

BTW your other videos show: "Very probably something in orbit. The flashes are specular reflections of the Sun off mirror like surfaces, or bright diffuse reflections from white paint."

We have a recent thread on the subject of flashes in the sky.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/flashbulb.13214/#post-303702

If you want to talk about your flashes in the sky videos, we can start a new thread.

 

[NorCal Dave]

As far as I am concerned until scientific analysis can shed some light on the matter the object remains unidentified.

If the final conclusion is "it's birds" then so be it. Most important to me is that a rigorous scientific process be applied. Opinions, excitement and guesses are of no interest to me

So, your back. Things remaining unidentified is perfectly fine, as has been noted above numerus times. Exactly what "rigorous scientific process" would you like applied?

I'll note in your new video the "object" looks more like something with a head on it and NOT a triangle:

Not at all like the other video. If these are all the same or similar objects, they look quite a bit different. I think you're recording a variety of things with a night vision device and thinking they are anomalous, because they are captured with a night vision device and not really anomalous. Birds, spider webs, leaves and any number of mundane things floating around in the air, amplified by your night vision device end up looking strange.

 

[Ann K]

I'll just point out that one species of bird is not necessarily like another, in size, shape, or flight characteristics.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I've been trying to bring in as much Science as I can. The science of astronomy. The goal is to see how many degrees of sky the lights crossed in the time they were visible. From there we can put that factor into play to find a range of speeds, sizes and distances that would either eliminate birds are would be consistent with birds. I guess we could use Sitrec?

However it takes a lot of effort. Do you want me to complete the analysis?

 

[Peter Godman]

find a range of speeds, sizes and distances that would either eliminate birds are would be consistent with birds.

Sounds worthwhile. Someone impartial will need to check your calculations.

Movement analysis also.

Our "ducks" appear to be falling like a rock in perfect formation,
then leveling out somewhat whilst maintaining perfect formation.

What do the ornithologists have to say about this?


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePfvoCQ7_74

 

[Peter Godman]

BTW your other videos show: "Very probably something in orbit. The flashes are specular reflections of the Sun off mirror like surfaces, or bright diffuse reflections from white paint."

if you track them you will see they are not in orbit
and one of them was at midnight, ie no sun available

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Please start a new thread on that subject. Also, you should read the thread I linked to.

 

[Peter Godman]

Please start a new thread on that subject. Also, you should read the thread I linked to.

I'm not interested enough to start a new thread
I dont want to divert this thread but in a sentence or two briefly summarize
what behaves like this, ......stationary for a time, random movements in a small area, and without sunlight to reflect?

 

[Fin]

Our "ducks" appear to be falling like a rock in perfect formation,
then leveling out somewhat whilst maintaining perfect formation.

They're not falling. They're heading away from you. Similar to how this contrail is not crashing straight down to Earth. Its just heading away from us towards the horizon.
They're far away and close together so the formation may be changing but just not by much, and that's totally within expected bird behaviour.
If you study the vids I've linked to in 2 posts now, you'll see other examples of what appear to be "perfect formations". A tight consistent formation is not something that rules out birds. You might think that if its birds the formation should change more, but you'd be wrong. Often the formation will change noticeably. Sometimes it won't.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I agree. They are flying at a steady altitude.

In the video, the apparent movement of the lights toward the horizon is due to perspective.

The ducks in this video are passing by straight and level, much like these planes.

 

[Peter Godman]

They're not falling. They're heading away from you.

This is incorrect. It was swinging down toward me from high in the west then arching toward the south.

Don't assume you know everything.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This is incorrect. It was swinging down toward me from high in the west then arching toward the south.

Don't assume you know everything.

Are we talking about this latest video? Or the Sept 25th video? I think we're talking about the latest one, right?

By "arching" you mean flying in an arc? The way a spiral punt travels in an arc? (Not turning in an arc.)




You think they were gaining altitude as they approached and were losing altitude as they flew away?

 

[Fin]

I was responding to your previous comment "Our "ducks" appear to be falling like a rock in perfect formation,". No. They appear to be flying away. In a shallow arc? Possibly

But now you're telling us you saw them swinging down toward you.. Interesting. Thanks for that additional info. Maybe they did that. But not in the video. They remain a pretty consistent size throughout the video. They're passing across the sky above you. This much is incredibly obvious.

Regardless, nothing about anything they're doing in the video is inconsistent with birds, so we can go around in circles all day, its not going to change that fact. I've watched people get excited about videos just like this for 15+ years. I'm painfully familiar with this type of UFO misidentification. At best its what I call a dead-end UFO video. Let's say it is a legitimate anomalous phenomena, which flew up to you and morphed into a flying saucer, that's a shame, because literally nothing we see in the video allows us to rule out birds.

 

[Peter Godman]

Are we talking about this latest video? Or the Sept 25th video? I think we're talking about the latest one, right?

By "arching" you mean flying in an arc? The way a spiral punt travels in an arc? (Not turning in an arc.)

You think they were gaining altitude as they approached and were losing altitude as they flew away?

I refer to the sept 16 video. The section without edited zooming or slowing.
The object falls down from a height at the west then swings or arches southward.
watch from 12s to 17s
Source: https://youtu.be/RLepH0qnGfk?si=lWFJGj8BJnPQkO1Z&t=12


Regardless, the words aren't so fruitful. Movement analysis, size and speed, from a maths/physics perspective would be a better place to focus.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This video, right?


These lights appear to be flying straight and level.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Could you give us your approximate position? The general neighborhood, within a square mile.

I ask because the lights seem to be following the same path in all 3 of your videos. Are they flying away from something and toward something in the area?

 

[Peter Godman]

This video, right?

These lights appear to be flying straight and level.

at the 15sec mark or so the object is pivoting in perfect formation as it swings southward

 

[Peter Godman]

Could you give us your approximate position? The general neighborhood, within a square mile.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/an...ilmed-flying-over-my-house.13669/#post-324070

 

[Ann K]

Someone impartial will need to check your calculations.

I think this is an offensive comment to @Z.W. Wolf, implying that he is not impartial. I apologize if you did not mean it that way, but that's certainly a strange comment to make to someone who has spent time and effort to help answer your question.