"Boomerang" Moon UFO video [Bird]

[ki_cz]

Usually, these UFO videos that I stumble across are pretty easy to debunk, in terms of telling what the object is. This one is more difficult. The credibility of the videographer is (in my mind) questionable, but I was still hoping that somebody could provide some insight as to what this is, or perhaps determine that it is something added in post. Thank you:

 

[Chew]

It's a bird.

Related trivia: http://www.wbu.com/chipperwoods/photos/moon.htm

 

[solrey]

Usually, these UFO videos that I stumble across are pretty easy to debunk, in terms of telling what the object is. This one is more difficult. The credibility of the videographer is (in my mind) questionable, but I was still hoping that somebody could provide some insight as to what this is, or perhaps determine that it is something added in post. Thank you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=channel:52be6063-0-29ac-8925-1a11c2d77a&feature=iv&src_vid=qqqYKC6-rm8&v=MXoT50jBctE

That utuber Crrow777 seems to be one of those "I don't understand therefore... conspiracy!" types.

The UFO is probably a satellite, they do transit the moon occasionally. Many satellites maneuver to some extent to maintain orientation of antennas and solar panels plus there are many derelict satellites and other space junk tumbling in near earth orbit. One guy has even made a hobby of spotting satellites transiting the moon.

Back in August of this year, I received an e-mail message from Gary Eldridge wanting to know how to predict the position of the moon. Seems Gary has become hooked on watching satellites transit (cross the surface of) the moon's disk through his telescope. After relating his initial experiences, I can see why:

Got a GREAT silhouette view of Mir last Saturday night and some other unknown satellite a few weeks prior. The detail was incredible while using an 8 inch reflector scope and 17mm eyepiece.

Of course, the real problem here is figuring out just when a satellite is going to transit the moon (or the sun) so as to know when to look. Up to now, he's been using something of a brute force approach—running a large catalog of objects against a star background and examining in detail those that come close to the sun or moon.

http://celestrak.com/columns/v03n03/

Some info on the Iridium communication satellites as an example of maneuvering.

The axis of the satellite body is maintained vertical to the Earth's surface. It is the maintenance of the operational satellite's axial and longitudinal position that allows the flares to be predicted.

http://www.satobs.org/iridium.html

Here's one of several images of the ISS transiting the moon:

 

[Mick West]

Looks exactly like a large bird gliding in front of the moon.

Like this, without the flapping:

 

[Mick West]

It's not a satellite. A satellite would have a fixed orientation. This is a bird, swaying back and forth in the wind.

It even gives a couple of lazy flaps.

 

[Chew]

The supreme irony (idiocy?) is his standard opening scene is a bird silhouette flying in front of the Moon!

 

[ki_cz]

Thanks, I've done a lot of observing of the moon and have never seen something like this. I'd assumed that because of the large amount of magnification of the moon that a bird wouldn't be so in focus due to depth of focus issues, but the videos provided by Chew above helped to visualize the issue.

I'm still wondering why it seems to be moving so much slower in the original video as with that much magnification, you'd think a bird wouldn't last in the frame very long.

Thanks!

 

[Mick West]

Here's a video of a few different birds in front of the moon:

 

[Chew]

I'm still wondering why it seems to be moving so much slower in the original video as with that much magnification, you'd think a bird wouldn't last in the frame very long.

It depends on how fast the bird is flying and how far it is from the camera.

 

[Mick West]

You can tell by the size of the bird relative to the moon that it is very far away.

Think of its speed relative to its own size, not to the optical size of the moon, which varies relative to the bird depending on zoom settings. The speed of the bird is in bird lengths per second, which will be the same irrespective of zoom.

 

[Mark Barrington]

You can make some rough calculations of the distance of the bird based on the angle of view of the moon and the angle of the bird silhouette. Here's an article on Wikipedia that explains how to calculate it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter

The upshot is for small angles:

δ ≅ d/D

δ is the angle of the object in the sky
≅ is approximate equality
d is the radius of the object perpendicular to the angle of view
D is the distance to the object
(angles are measured in radians)

I did some rough calculations based on eyeballing the size of the shadow relative to to the apparent diameter of the moon and I estimated it to be about 1/120th the angular diameter. I'm probably way off and a much more accurate calculation could be done by counting pixels, but I'm too lazy to do that. The angular diameter of the moon is roughly 1/2 degree or about 0.009 radians. So my very rough estimate of the angular diameter of the bird is .00007

Solving the above for D and assuming we have a relatively large bird which is capable of obscuring about 1/2 meter, we solve the equation and get:

D ≅ .5/.00007 ≅ 6500 meters.

That seems pretty high to me, but I'm not familiar with how high birds fly during migration. I'm probably off in my estimate of the angle, or the bird may be smaller than my assumption. There's also some uncertainty in how closely the actual size of the bird is reflected by the size of the obscured area, since we are close to the resolution limit of the image. But as you can see, the math is pretty simple and could be done by anyone.

Edit: I admit to a high probability of calculating this incorrectly.

Edit again: A little googling seems to indicate that migrating birds do fly about that high on occasion, so maybe I'm not that far off on my calculations.

Edited formulae with unicode characters to make them more readable.

 

[deirdre]

actually he clearly flaps his wings when he first enters 'the moon space'. its a hawk or an eagle.

 

[Mick West]

Yes, there are lots of reports of birds flying over 8,000m. (26,000 feet)
http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/How_Fast.html

Most birds fly below 500 feet except during migration. There is no reason to expend the energy to go higher -- and there may be dangers, such as exposure to higher winds or to the sharp vision of hawks. When migrating, however, birds often do climb to relatively great heights, possibly to avoid dehydration in the warmer air near the ground. Migrating birds in the Caribbean are mostly observed around 10,000 feet, although some are found half and some twice that high. Generally long-distance migrants seem to start out at about 5,000 feet and then progressively climb to around 20,000 feet. Just like jet aircraft, the optimum cruise altitude of migrants increases as their "fuel" is used up and their weight declines. Vultures sometimes rise over 10,000 feet in order to scan larger areas for food (and to watch the behavior of distant vultures for clues to the location of a feast). Perhaps the most impressive altitude record is that of a flock of Whooper Swans which was seen on radar arriving over Northern Ireland on migration and was visually identified by an airline pilot at 29,000 feet. Birds can fly at altitudes that would be impossible for bats, since bird lungs can extract a larger fraction of oxygen from the air than can mammal lungs.

 

[Pete Tar]

It doesn't look organic in the close-up, and it appears to rotate. It seems to have large bodies at its tip.
Could be the pixel distortion?

 

[Mick West]

It doesn't look organic in the close-up, and it appears to rotate. It seems to have large bodies at its tip.
Could be the pixel distortion?

I think it's just an illusion as you think of it as being flat, when really it's viewed more from the side and below, and the wings are raised, more like this, particularly about 20 seconds in when the bird is making a lot of movements to correct for wind.

 

[deirdre]

It doesn't look organic in the close-up, and it appears to rotate. It seems to have large bodies at its tip.
Could be the pixel distortion?

I'm thinking the 'large bodies' are the wing fingers like eagles have. you'd probably rotate a bit too if you were 20 lbs and trying to hang ten on the winds up there! ; ) did you watch it in full screen?

 

[Mark Barrington]

Mick's post reminds me that I should correct my calculations for the angle of view. I calculated the distance from the observer to the object, but altitude is the distance from the object to the ground, and the telescope wasn't pointed directly up. I'm guessing the actual angle is somewhere between 30-60 degrees, so the altitude is between .5 and .866 as high as the estimated distance.

Another thing: you can do similar calculations to the size calculations to estimate the speed of the object, and you will see that it's moving at very pedestrian speeds for a bird.

 

[cosmic]

The credibility of the videographer is (in my mind) questionable...

To say the least. What really pains me is that he owns a nice Schmidt–Cassegrain and that it's relegated to doing silly stuff like this.

 

[play4keeps]

Fabulous website. Many thanks. My uncle who worked for a 3 letter angency always told me, "remember if it is a choice between conspiracy or stupidity, 99% of the time it is the later, however, it's the 1% that scares the living s+++ out of me."

While not being scared s+++++++, this an excellent image of what the secret space theorists have been saying.

Yes, this is a fabulous Schmidt-Cassegrain and it is a fabulous image of a TR-3C or later designation. I do not want to be subjected to critical analysis by using the following phrase, but through "personal connection" and review of the video, the rotation of the craft is consistant with the way the craft flies. There has been lots of theory and conjecture on the craft over the last several years. Diligence is the best thing about ufos and exotic air/spacecraft spotting, but idea that it is a bird or pixel distortion is ridiculous. Take a look at the horizontal image plane. Not a bird.

 

[Mick West]

but idea that it is a bird or pixel distortion is ridiculous. Take a look at the horizontal image plane. Not a bird.

Explain that.

 

[cosmic]

What's a secret space theorist?

 

[Mark Barrington]

This is a TR 3 Not triangular at all.

 

[Bill]

Fabulous website. Many thanks. My uncle who worked for a 3 letter angency always told me, "remember if it is a choice between conspiracy or stupidity, 99% of the time it is the later, however, it's the 1% that scares the living s+++ out of me."

While not being scared s+++++++, this an excellent image of what the secret space theorists have been saying.

Yes, this is a fabulous Schmidt-Cassegrain and it is a fabulous image of a TR-3C or later designation. I do not want to be subjected to critical analysis by using the following phrase, but through "personal connection" and review of the video, the rotation of the craft is consistant with the way the craft flies. There has been lots of theory and conjecture on the craft over the last several years. Diligence is the best thing about ufos and exotic air/spacecraft spotting, but idea that it is a bird or pixel distortion is ridiculous. Take a look at the horizontal image plane. Not a bird.

There is no actual proof the TR-3(X) exist. Just a lot of rumors and speculations.

 

[Mark Barrington]

...Take a look at the horizontal image plane. Not a bird.

Actually, the size calculations done earlier in the thread make it pretty implausible that it's any kind of aircraft. If it were 20 meters in length, it would have to be 260 km away, so somewhere between 130 and 200km up (80-120 miles). The speed also turns out to be kind of disappointing for a high performance aircraft, even when you scale it up for the increased distance.

 

[derrick06]

So out of curiosity I looked up a TR3 spaceship and got this apparent image... I'm posting it just to prove the point that it certainly isn't that... There isn't even any proof it exists.. But what the heck is this anyways?

 

[derrick06]

Also on the subject of the video... It's odd because I the first time I looked at it I thought it was a bird only after listening to what the narrater was saying did it seem like it wasn't a bird... I think it's just pixelation with the angle the bird is flying and such...

 

[Pete Tar]

Entering the coordinates associated with that image into google maps it takes me to a place in western australia with some windmills, but I can't find that exact structure or tell if it's the exact same position.
https://maps.google.com.au/maps?cli...F-8&ei=9zjjUsm-J4qQkAXIy4GoBQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ

 

[deirdre]

Entering the coordinates associated with that image into google maps it takes me to a place in western australia with some windmills, but I can't find that exact structure or tell if it's the exact same position.
https://maps.google.com.au/maps?client=firefox-a&channel=rcs&q=30°30'38.86″ S /115°22'58.17″ E &ie=UTF-8&ei=9zjjUsm-J4qQkAXIy4GoBQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ

thanks pete. that is one seriously big 'ufo' ; ) (1:40 minutes).

 

[Pete Tar]

Yep, it's the same spot - tried google earth as well, and that's exactly the same data as maps, though it's obviously been updated since the sighting and the ship's moved on.

Notice that the road is more defined and used in the later image where the windmills are now but is faint in the earlier image - it may have been the construction material for them?

 

[deirdre]

Yep, it's the same spot - tried google earth as well, and that's exactly the same data as maps, though it's obviously been updated since the sighting and the ship's moved on.

I found it by moving the little slider button. so it was there in 2004. I was looking for a mileage key but cant find one.

 

[Pete Tar]

Wow cool, didn't realise I could do that, that was easy.

It almost looks like uncleared scrub, maybe in the process of being cleared for cattle (there's cows in the latest image). (or the area was fenced off because there's a tower there.)
And the 'spot lights' are not symmetrical and look like dirt. And there's a shadow.

 

[deirdre]

Wow cool, didn't realise I could do that, that was easy.

It almost looks like uncleared scrub, maybe in the process of being cleared for cattle (there's cows in the latest image).
And the 'spot lights' are not symmetrical and look like dirt. And there's a shadow.
View attachment 5754

I just realized theres a ruler too like two buttons away, but I cant figure out how to use it ; (. may not be the tr-3c the kid was talking about anyway.

I know this google earth thing is wicked cool.

 

[Chew]

The origin of the TR-3 nonsense is this famous hoaxed Belgium UFO.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8RLOdlrA7l4/S5EN9Ymj-sI/AAAAAAAABx4/DgtWSO9pS8Q/s1600/Belgium-UFO.jpg

 

[derrick06]

Thanks for the info guys so would you coincided that pic rubbish as well? I figured it was related so I through it in.

 

[deirdre]

Thanks for the info guys so would you coincided that pic rubbish as well? I figured it was related so I through it in.

works for me. although tr-3c guy didn't say the craft was triangular. not sure how a triangle ship would move to look like that bird. maybe the tr-3 ship is more a bommerrang.

 

[derrick06]

Right? That's why I looked it up... Weird

 

[Bill]

works for me. although tr-3c guy didn't say the craft was triangular. not sure how a triangle ship would move to look like that bird. maybe the tr-3 ship is more a bommerrang.

The TR-3 is supposed to be triangular and is rumored to be the triangular UFO that has been reported over some cities. Whatever this is in Australia its definitely on the ground and is about 100 meters on a side. The first triangular UFO's I can remember were reported in the early to mid eighties. They turned out to be the B-2 bomber.

 

[pseacraft]

Wow cool, didn't realise I could do that, that was easy.

It almost looks like uncleared scrub, maybe in the process of being cleared for cattle (there's cows in the latest image). (or the area was fenced off because there's a tower there.)
And the 'spot lights' are not symmetrical and look like dirt. And there's a shadow.
View attachment 5754

I think you nailed the button on this one Pete, Its a broadcast radio tower. The six dirt spots are the guide wire anchors and you can clearly see the tower's shadow.

 

[Pete Tar]

Ah, you went one step further in logical deduction.

 

[pseacraft]

thanks pete. that is one seriously big 'ufo' ; ) (1:40 minutes).

View attachment 5752

The first "UFO" in the 3 Important UFO's on google earth video is another structure like a mooring Pile, modified or constructed in 2001 in the old port area as can be seen in the time slider of Google Earth and here: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/15169101

Funny how they do not click on the pics people place in Google Earth...