Choteau, Montana UFO, 2024-08-31 - Reddit [Starlink + Plane]

[FastIndy]

A sighting of an unknown object was posted on reddit on 2024-09-02 17:42 UTC.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1f7cw5v/we_saw_a_ufo_on_friday_night_for_about_23_minutes/


A claim is made that it looked like a single huge object with a rotating red/orange light on the bottom:

On Friday night my wife and I were sitting on the deck out back looking at the stars, we do this every night. Just after 10 pm my wife said "is that a shooting star??", which I found odd, because if it was I wouldn't have time to look at it. The tree near me was blocking the direction she was staring so I got up and looked, and my jaw dropped. I said "Holy shit. Holy shit!!" and we both jumped off of the deck and got into the yard for a better view.

The craft seemed huge, miles away, had tons of blinking and spinning lights, and a rotating orange/red light on the bottom. You can only see the orange/red light in the video. We observed it for 2-3 minutes as it continued flying away, and then it was just gone. No noise, it was just gone.

For the photos and videos, these were taken on my wife's Galaxy Fold 4, I think it's the 4 anyway. She's had it two years. I pulled out my S21 Ultra immediately and it died right in front of my eyes. I knew the battery was low, but I don't ever "need" my phone while we're on the deck, so pre-ufo I didn't care to go throw it on the charger. If only I'd known!!!!

While I was taking the photos and videos I couldn't see shit on the screen because it has to process the night time photos, so I was pointing her phone in the general direction and taking tons of various zoomed photos and videos. What I have here is the best that came out of all that, this thing was really far away for a night time phone shot, so I'm pleased with what we did get.

I've got "the best shot" first, which is the zoomed out one where you can see the craft and trees. Then I have a crop of that photo that I messed with the settings on to show up better. Two shitty photos as well. And two videos, one video is the original, and one I over-exposed to show the lights better. You see the craft right at the beginning, and then I zoom in around 10-14 seconds and you can really see the edge lights and rotating bottom. There's one additional video, which is a screen recording of me going through the video and really highlighting the rotation. EDIT: It's only letting me put photos in the post, I'll figure out how to put videos in the comments. I added two more photos that are screenshots from the video. One is a very dark original screenshot, the other is blue from me over-exposing it to pip out the lights.

I don't believe this was Starlink, I've watched a ton of Starlink videos since observing this, and our lights were rotating/blinking, not a static line of unchanging lights.

This was August 31, 2024, Choteau Montana, between 10:10-10:15 pm.

After we got inside to see what we actually captured, my wife was shaking and crying from the experience. It was kind of scary, I couldn't fall asleep until 4am and it was my night to do the early feed for our twin boys.

What does everybody think?

Photos:

Sitrec:
https://www.metabunk.org/u/0EcNYV.html
*** Edit (20240903 0721): It seems the Sitrec link doesn't include the KML for SKW4113, it's also attached. Operator error, I'm sure.***

I have located the exact filming location in Choteau, MT, it is in the city proper, but I've omitted the precise location for privacy. Elevation is approximately 3813ft.

Flightradar indicates that this airplane does travel through the FOV during the viewing window, but I don't know how to display the exact location from the KML as a target on the viewing window in Sitrec.

It could be a confluence of this flight and a nice big Starlink train:

 

[flarkey]

This response was also posted on Reddit:


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1f7eqyj/its_starlink_debunk_to_ponethepoon_post/

 

[FastIndy]

I've overlaid with Starlink:

 

[jarlrmai]

Allison1228 also posted this


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1f7eqyj/its_starlink_debunk_to_ponethepoon_post/ll8aiv4/

 

[flarkey]

Sitrec:
https://www.metabunk.org/u/0EcNYV.html
*** Edit (20240903 0721): It seems the Sitrec link doesn't include the KML for SKW4113, it's also attached. Operator error, I'm sure.***

I have located the exact filming location in Choteau, MT, it is in the city proper, but I've omitted the precise location for privacy. Elevation is approximately 3813ft.

Flightradar indicates that this airplane does travel through the FOV during the viewing window, but I don't know how to display the exact location from the KML as a target on the viewing window in Sitrec.



It could be a confluence of this flight and a nice big Starlink train:

You can just drag and drop the KML into the sitrec window. That will initially lock the camera to the aircraft track. You have to goto menu View > camera position > manual and then set the camera position in the normal way. However, I dont think the aircraft track will appear in the view window - @Mick West ...? . I jut tried it and it doesn't seem to show ...

https://www.metabunk.org/u/grmHtA.html

I think you might be able to create an Object (from the objects menu) that will add a 3d shape at the aircraft kml position.

Edit: I think i've done it. Red dot is visible in the right hand image.

https://www.metabunk.org/u/xtJKCC.html

Settings:
Camera motion manual. Object: sphere with radius 100. Set colour to red.

 

[FatPhil]

Allison1228 also posted this

I've liked your post for the obvious reasons, but am alas not on reddit. I hope Allison1228 has received the appropriate thanks thereon.

 

[jarlrmai]

I've liked your post for the obvious reasons, but am alas not on reddit. I hope Allison1228 has received the appropriate thanks thereon.

They are an astronomer with an interest in explaining UAP, they'd be a useful resource on Metabunk, who knows they may even lurk here!

 

[Trailblazer]

A claim is made that it looked like a single huge object with a rotating red/orange light on the bottom:

I see a blueish line of light, which fits the Starlink train. What is the red/orange light?

The orange light only seems to be visible in the blown-up version of the video: https://www.metabunk.org/data/video/70/70566-e12adf51338a6f18356fa23bb8ac996c.mp4

But there doesn't seem to be any obvious point of reference between the video and the still photo.

The video I linked above shows two obvious points of light which move in tandem, suggesting it is just camera movement. Are they stars, or lights on the ground?

 

[jarlrmai]

I see a blueish line of light, which fits the Starlink train. What is the red/orange light?

I think it's being checked here with Sitrec if it could be a plane (SKW4113) that was flying within the field of view at the time. That's what Flarkeys posts are.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think it's being checked here with Sitrec if it could be a plane (SKW4113) that was flying within the field of view at the time. That's what Flarkeys posts are.

I edited my above post to make it clearer - I am trying to work out where the orange light is meant ot be in relation to the line of lights.

I assume this video is a contrast-enhanced version of the one I posted above? The blueish line is visible, but there seems to be a big jump/cut/zoom between that and the orange light, so I can't work out where it actually is.

Is this one of the buildings across the street or just JPEG artifacting? Certainly looks like a bush/tree at lower right. And if it is a building then the light on the right appears to be on the roof. Edit: I think it is just an artifact, see pictures below.

I am having trouble making head or tail of the video and its supposed link to the still photos.

A couple of seconds earlier that appears to be the Starlink line at the top left of the rectangular area, suggesting it may be the light that is causing the video artifact - the area below and to the right of the light is being made lighter for some reason.

And in that frame the trunk of the tree appears to be visible, with the two white fence posts at bottom right, comparing it to the photo:

But with all the camera movement it is still not clear to me where the orange light actually is in relation to the Starlink light.

 

[jarlrmai]

Yeah I came to the same conclusion,

It starts zoomed in on the tree/starlink line

Then it zooms out at ~5s there's loss of any reference and a dot appears bottom left.

Then we zoom back in and you can just see the the tree and white fence posts.

Then it zooms in to the area to the upper right of the tree and back out again, then we lose all context and 3 lights appear one reddish the other 2 white, the camera moves around and all three lights move with the camera. There's seemingly no way to locate them relative to anything in the scene.

Essentially the actual UFO got debunked so now we get the "oh actual the real UFO is this thing"

 

[FastIndy]

...
Edit: I think i've done it. Red dot is visible in the right hand image.

https://www.metabunk.org/u/xtJKCC.html
...

Settings:
Camera motion manual. Object: sphere with radius 100. Set colour to red.
...

Thanks flarkey, that was the ticket.

 

[FastIndy]

Here's a screen recording from Sitrec showing Skywest 4113 (red sphere) tagging along the end of the train. Is it possible to label an object in the viewing window?

 

[Mick West]

However, I dont think the aircraft track will appear in the view window - @Mick West ...? . I jut tried it and it doesn't seem to show ...

I've added the option of displaying the tracks in the look view

It seems like things like the object display and custom camera position are not saving correctly in the Starlink tool. That's using the old method of saving everything to a URL. For Custom sitches I use a different method, and I'm going to remove the Starlink tool after I incorporate all of its functionality into the Custom tool

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah I came to the same conclusion,

It starts zoomed in on the tree/starlink line

Then it zooms out at ~5s there's loss of any reference and a dot appears bottom left.

Then we zoom back in and you can just see the the tree and white fence posts.

View attachment 71271

Then it zooms in to the area to the upper right of the tree and back out again, then we lose all context and 3 lights appear one reddish the other 2 white, the camera moves around and all three lights move with the camera. There's seemingly no way to locate them relative to anything in the scene.

Essentially the actual UFO got debunked so now we get the "oh actual the real UFO is this thing"

Compare the contrast enhanced video with the photo here.

Why can't you see any sign of the brightly lit windows of the house opposite?

Look at the relative positions of the leaning tree trunk and the fence posts. If we assume that those three visible fence posts are the rightmost three posts of the fence, then the fourth post which is just visible next to the tree in the photo is hidden behind the tree in the video.

Which suggests that the vantage point has moved leftwards between the photo and the video. This would also mean that the house lights are hidden behind the conifer tree in the video (assuming they hadn't been switched off).

This also raises the possibility that the bright lights seen later in the video are actually bits of the house light seen through gaps in the trees, which would account for their apparent splitting and changing of shape.

Note that when the lights are visible, there is no sign of the dimly lit tree trunk or fence posts - everything is black, so the lights must be fairly bright relative to the other dimly lit objects around, if they are in the field of view. (As mentioned, we lose all reference points, so it seems impossible to gauge the zoom level or direction of the camera.)

Just before the reference points disappear, is that a glimpse of the house window to the right? Shouldn't it be brighter? And is that dot near the base of the tree related to the orange light we see later?

 

[Martin SC]

Trailblazer wrote:

"Why can't you see any sign of the brightly lit windows of the house opposite?"

Rather than a shifted POV I think they are cropped off the right hand end of the contrast-enhanced image.

I've indicated the right side of the tree trunk in red, 3x left-most fence posts in green and the right edge of the video frame in blue.

 

[mmtmn]

I find it interesting that the original poster mentions he had a different experience observing starlinks and firmly believes this isn't one while the member's of this forum has found the guy's location (I assume using the img/video metadata?) and pin pointed the satellites. There seems to be some disagreement on what it could be. Assuming the original poster is well intended, what are the most reasonable explanations for what he mentions? I'm sure its starlinks, would love a deeper dive on this topic

 

[jarlrmai]

Starlink satellites (and associated rocket launches) can manifest in a few different ways depending on the phase of the deployment, atmospheric conditions, angles to the sun etc It's more complicated than just a single thing.

I think also there may have been a plane present alongside the starlinks for this persons viewing and they have mistakenly attributed both sets of lights to one thing. This is often the case with sightings, a slightly unusual set of coincidences makes things look weirder than they are.

It is what they saw they just don't want to believe that.

 

[FatPhil]

Starlink satellites (and associated rocket launches) can manifest in a few different ways depending on the phase of the deployment, atmospheric conditions, angles to the sun etc It's more complicated than just a single thing.

I think also there may have been a plane present alongside the starlinks for this persons viewing and they have mistakenly attributed both sets of lights to one thing. This is often the case with sightings, a slightly unusual set of coincidences makes things look weirder than they are.

There are also other satellites than Starlink. The latest Starlinks are darker than prior satellites for both geometrical and paint reasons[*]. If people are able to see Starlinks, they'll also be able to see older non-Starlinks, they're just rarer.

One of the comments in the middle of that exchange made a comment (egregious paraphrase, alas) about how he felt knowing there was of a "massive object" above him. How does he know its mass? If it's what we think it is, it's effectively a compacted car (a couple of tonnes). And even if he was metaphorically referring simply to its size, how does he know its size? Modulo blur, it's pixel-sized. It's the smallest size his camera can display. That's the exact opposite of the metaphorical massive.

[* More info here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.06657 "Starlink Generation 2 Mini Satellites: Photometric Characterization" - TL;DR: "Their goal is to "make its second-generation satellites invisible to the naked eye when they are on station"."]

 

[jarlrmai]

it's effectively a compacted car (a couple of tonnes).

Well it's really several of these in a row, right next to each other. G9-5 was 21 satellites. They were yet to spread out into the more familiar starlink train which is a series of distinctly separate bright dots, so the glare from the flares overlapped.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I want to add my plea to moderate this trend of making "Star Link" a synonym for satellite.

Is it an all mammals are dolphins kind of thing?

All Star Link satellites are satellites
All satellites are Star Link.

(affirming the consequent)

Or is it a all an all adhesive bandages are Band-Aids kind of thing? (proprietary eponym)

Anyway... there are other satellites up there.

Lately even the unique patterns Star Link may appear in are no longer unique. Guowang is the Chinese version of Star Link. I'm assuming they are deployed in a similar way.

 

[FatPhil]

I want to add my plea to moderate this trend of making "Star Link" a synonym for satellite.
...
Or is it a all an all adhesive bandages are Band-Aids kind of thing? (proprietary eponym)

To be honest, you might be onto something there. I suspect the thought pattern is "it's Starlink or similar, the exact identity isn't important", and then it just gets hacked down to two words. When it gets added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks , I hope the cited reference is your post, as I've not noticed anyone else express that insight, it's your discovery.

 

[Gryffin]

Seems to me that the answer is starlink 99% of the time. It's my first assumption until proven otherwise.

 

[Mendel]

Seems to me that the answer is starlink 99% of the time. It's my first assumption until proven otherwise.

If it's
• moving like a satellite
• not a single dot, but rather
• a line/dotted line, or
• several short tracks in the same region of the sky,
then it's probably Starlink.
Bonus points if it's towards where the sun is below the horizon.

The ISS, aircraft, and celestial objects are also strong contenders for "light in the sky" that don't fit the criteria I laid out above.