Anomalous triangular object filmed flying over my house.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter Godman
  • Start date Start date
Next instalment. The lights are passing through Capricornus. That's them below Sigma Capricorni. Sagittarius is to our left. I can't account for the thing marked with the ? Maybe a satellite... ?


Stars 103.png


Tentatively, I think the video ends with them in the constellation Grus, shining through the thin clouds.
 
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.
I read that as 'unbiased'.

And I expect that is exactly why @Mick West put so much effort into sitrec—because its output demonstrates objectively what a given situation would look like geometrically.
 
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.
He shouldn't have used the word "impartial". I'm just slopping over with impartial. He should have used the word "competent". That I'm kind of short on. Heh.
 
Last edited:
I read that as 'unbiased'.

And I expect that is exactly why @Mick West put so much effort into sitrec—because its output demonstrates objectively what a given situation would look like geometrically.
Once I complete this project and draw the path of the lights on a star chart, I think we can use Sitrec to find a distance and speed, if we assume a size (ducks). If the speed is outrageous, for example, we could rule out ducks.

Very tentatively I think they crossed about 60 degrees of sky.

Edit: I just used this calculator: http://celestialwonders.com/tools/starAngleCalc.html

It comes up with 57 degrees between Al Thalimain Prior in Aquila and Alnair in Grus. So I think 60 degrees is pretty close. I'll check later, but I've got to get to bed.
 
Last edited:
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.
you are right I could have phrased that a little better,
how about this? ..... Someone competent will need to check your calculations.
 
As far as I am concerned until scientific analysis can shed some light on the matter the object remains unidentified.
I don't think anyone has said anything contrary to that. However, for symmetry, until all mundane possibilities have been scientifically excluded to the same level of rigor, can you desist from calling it "anomalous"?
 
now a satellite! you are anticipating the distance covered is too far for the ducks

trouble if there are no matches in sitrec
Why is your tone so adversarial? The satellite question references an static object unmatched to a star in your video. Discovered when matching your video to the night sky.
 
Why is your tone so adversarial? The satellite question references an static object unmatched to a star in your video. Discovered when matching your video to the night sky.
yes i misread that, and deleted moments before you posted
 
Once I complete this project and draw the path of the lights on a star chart, I think we can use Sitrec to find a distance and speed, if we assume a size (ducks). If the speed is outrageous, for example, we could rule out ducks.

Very tentatively I think they crossed about 60 degrees of sky.

Edit: I just used this calculator: http://celestialwonders.com/tools/starAngleCalc.html

It comes up with 57 degrees between Al Thalimain Prior in Aquila and Alnair in Grus. So I think 60 degrees is pretty close. I'll check later, but I've got to get to bed.
there will be trouble if the "ducks" arent fast enough!

size of the "ducks" is also required
 
You can do some tests.

Tentatively, these lights seem to be moving generally from the NW to the SE. I'll continue to check and refine that idea.

If these are ducks moving from feeding areas to roosting areas on a daily basis, perhaps some of them will be doing so when there's still light in the sky. Start observing the sky near sundown and see if there are ducks, or other birds passing by. They should be more identifiable with more available light.

This is what GPT has to say on the subject:

Ducks make daily flights and fly at night for several key reasons, mostly tied to survival, feeding habits, and migration patterns:

Daily Flights:
Feeding: Ducks often make daily flights between their feeding and roosting areas. Wetlands, ponds, or fields may provide abundant food sources like aquatic plants, insects, and seeds, but the ducks may prefer to roost or nest in safer, more sheltered areas. These daily flights help them balance feeding and safety.

Predator Avoidance: Some ducks may fly during the day to find food in safer, open environments but return to secluded areas at night to avoid predators. Moving between these locations helps reduce the risk of predation, especially by terrestrial animals like foxes or feral cats.

Breeding and Nesting: During the breeding season, ducks may make multiple flights each day between nesting sites and feeding areas to gather food for themselves or their young. These short flights are vital to support reproductive success.

Flying at Night:
Migration: Ducks, like many other migratory birds, frequently fly at night during migration. Flying at night helps them avoid predators, such as hawks and eagles, which are more active during the day. Nighttime flying also provides smoother air conditions, as the wind is generally calmer, and the cooler temperatures help ducks conserve energy.

Navigation: Ducks are well-adapted to navigate by the stars and use the Earth's magnetic field during migration. Nighttime skies provide clear celestial cues for orientation, helping them travel long distances accurately.

Thermal Regulation: Ducks may fly at night to avoid the heat of the day, especially in warmer regions. The cooler nighttime air allows them to maintain a more stable body temperature, reducing the energy needed to regulate heat.

In summary, ducks fly daily to meet their survival needs for food and safety, and night flights offer advantages like predator avoidance, navigation, and energy conservation during migration.

I think Lake Wivenhoe is to your NW?
 
Someone impartial will need to check your calculations.
As far as I can tell, very single person that has tried to help you figure out what you filmed, is impartial.
As a general rule, partiality on MB is usually from new folks coming in, telling those here what they saw.
I'm not interested enough to start a new thread
Hmmm...you were interested enough to consistently oppose the "It's probably birds" position that
your video led many here to. And interested enough to come back and post a second video
(which I genuinely do appreciate, even if it kind of undermines your "I'm not interested enough..." assertion.)
Don't assume you know everything.
Is that really what the poster was saying? Even if you think he's 100% wrong, accusing them
of obnoxiously assuming they "know everything" lowers the tone, and doesn't help your argument.
As far as I am concerned until scientific analysis can shed some light on the matter the object remains unidentified.
Again, you seem to really hate the prosaic opinion that "It's probably birds." I can't explain why.
Perhaps you're invested in the idea that you have a very special, revealing piece of video. As posters
keep telling you, there isn't much here to "scientifically" evaluate...and this site is a place where
people love to science!
...I now have a couple of contacts that adhere to strict scientific protocols and investigate anomalous claims.
Surely, I'm not the only one whose eyebrows raised at this: Again, this is a place where folks love
sources "...that adhere to strict scientific protocols..." Could you please inform us about these sources?
 
You can do some tests.

Tentatively, these lights seem to be moving generally from the NW to the SE. I'll continue to check and refine that idea.

If these are ducks moving from feeding areas to roosting areas on a daily basis, perhaps some of them will be doing so when there's still light in the sky. Start observing the sky near sundown and see if there are ducks, or other birds passing by. They should be more identifiable with more available light.

I think Lake Wivenhoe is to your NW?
wivenhoe is NW

I've never seen ducks fly over, if birds are the cause, i doubt it is ducks
 
No, that's not how things work. "Anomolous" is a positive claim, some might even call it an extraordinary claim, of non-normality or at least irregularity, and as such he who makes the claim should present the evidence to support it.

We can agree on "unidentified", why do you cling to "anomalous" so?
Phil, what you and so many here have not appreciated,
Is that right now I do not care for the semantics, I am here only for the data.
When the data comes in, I will attend to the semantics.

It's only Wolf enlightening us with data at present. Perhaps you could help him.

Please don't go off topic again Phil.
 
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


I'm hung up on this, because I cannot see what you're describing in that video.

I still think it would be useful to stabilize your original video. Could make it easier to see flapping. Although if not, it doesn't mean they're not flapping.
 
Could make it easier to see flapping. Although if not, it doesn't mean they're not flapping.

I do not see flapping, which is my entire motive for persisting with this inquiry.
Of course that doesn't mean there isn't flapping.

I think a valid point made earlier,
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.

for those seeing flapping, shimmering and video distortion can also mimic flapping
 
But what was it that you were trying to draw our attention to in that other video?
It doesn't matter if you cant see it.
Size, speed, sitrec, frame by frame movement tracking
is where the answer will likely be found.

btw a reliable source is giving me a big NO to satellites,
but I value a second opinion
 
It doesn't matter if you cant see it.
Size, speed, sitrec, frame by frame movement tracking
is where the answer will likely be found.

btw a reliable source is giving me a big NO to satellites,
but I value a second opinion

Can't see what? You're not talking about the camera shake, are you?
 
Is there a reason to be cagey about your reliable source? And more particularly, about WHY they are of this opinion? That could be helpful to know.
I cant say more at present, nevertheless there is a conviction "not a satellite"
lets see what metabunk finds
 
Is there a reason to be cagey about your reliable source? And more particularly, about WHY they are of this opinion? That could be helpful to know.
ignoring his input,
do you have any images of satellites that look like the object in my video?
..... I doubt I would be the first to record it.
do satellites travel beneath the cloud line? apparently they dont
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil, what you and so many here have not appreciated,
Is that right now I do not care for the semantics, I am here only for the data.
When the data comes in, I will attend to the semantics.

It's only Wolf enlightening us with data at present. Perhaps you could help him.

Please don't go off topic again Phil.
1. phil wasnt off topic.
2.YOU need to provide US some data.
3. If anyone in this thread knew how OR wanted to look up satellites they would have done so already.
4. you keep breaking posting guidelines with your links and hyperlinks to past statements you made. As much as i don't like FatPhil, you are starting to tick me off by not providing any needed data. Be nicer and start answering people like a normal person, or i'm gonna ask the mods to lock you out of this thread.

or those seeing flapping, shimmering and video distortion can also mimic flapping
do you have the science proof that what we are seeing is shimmering and video distortion? or are you engaging in scoffer's bias?
 
@Fin's post, here and @Peter Godman's post, here show 'lights in the sky' that are (to me) similar to the Brisbane lights in the OP.

I was sceptical about birds being a possible explanation, thinking maybe a drone or loose kite/ balloon with LEDs might be a better fit, but the vids of what are identified as birds flying at night match fairly well IMHO-
-well enough to be provisionally accepted as a rational response to "...what are the moving things in this video most likely to be?" in the absence of a more positive identification.

Satellites must be an unlikely explanation if we accept that there is some indication of the lights changing their relative positions to each other while apparently flying as a group. Not impossible, but unlikely.

The object falls down from a height at the west then swings or arches southward.
watch from 12s to 17s

Not confident I'm seeing that.
Using very basic graphics software I've taken some sequential screengrabs from approx. 12 to 17 seconds, and, using the stars as fixed reference points, tried to plot the position of the lights onto a single background (essentially using cut and paste, hence the differences in "background" luminosity in some areas of my result). -Crude but possibly gives an indication of flightpath.

The sequential position of the lights, shown by a tangerine dot, were not sampled at equal time intervals, so differences in the dots' spacing are not indications of changes in speed. (OP's yellow arrow). -As I said, a crude methodology, any errors in the lights' location are mine.

A.jpg


Screen grabs I used are below if anyone wishes to check, the first (1a) was taken at approx. 12 secs into the vid and was used as my common background. Filename "2's" were taken 13-14 secs into the video, "3's" 14-15 secs, "4's" 15-16 secs, "5's" 16 to 17 seconds in. (The 'tangerines' in these grabs were added after I made the above image so they would be more visible here, so a possible source of- hopefully very minor- discrepancy).
1a.JPG2a.JPG2b.JPG2c.JPG3a.JPG3b.JPG3c.JPG3d.JPG4a.JPG4b.JPG5a.JPG5b.JPG
 
i'm waiting for size and speed
hoping to have answers (not from mb) this time tomorrow
youre not gonna know size and speed. but if your guy can determine distance travel in degrees [and raw exif data etc] then he can give us "if the objects are x size they would be at x altitude and they are going x speed, if they are y size they would be at y altitude and they are going y speed. etc etc"

Of course i'm going to need someone impartial to check his math :)
 
Last edited:
On the satellite discussion, I concur with the mystery source that says not a satellite.

https://www.heavens-above.com/AllSa...ng=153.0235&loc=Brisbane+City&alt=0&tz=UCTm10
Edit: Apparently these share links do not preserve time settings and always go to the current day, so unfortunately the reader will have to input the evening of September 25.

Here's a list of possibly visible satellites for that evening, and there's no cluster of multiple satellites at close time and positions.

You won't see this kind of triangle formation with satellites. Due to the nature of orbital motion there is a high chance of collision in co-orbiting objects that aren't in a daisy chain like freshly deployed Starlink satellites (also seen with signals intelligence satellites co-orbiting with target earth observation satellites). And it takes hefty optics to resolve a shape and even from very good astrophotographers I've never seen a single object resolved into distinct light sources like this.

That leaves a very specific and unusual combination of different altitudes and eccentricities lining up perfectly to produce apparent formation motion which is incredibly unlikely but not entirely impossible, hence the Heavens Above link.

It's not worth much as there seems to already be a couple well reasoned dismissals of the idea.
 
Back
Top