Chris Letho's 2006 Stationary UFO Observed from Nottingham

[jhunsley]

I follow Chris Letho and joined in a live discussion on a UAP channel he was invited on to last night. He presented a video from a guy from Nottingham who videoed the object in 2006. It was a really good film, he logged the time and date and also managed to get some good film of it with a decent camera. The link to Chris' talk through of the video is here -
Source: https://youtu.be/oYo4utpa5ac


I did a quick timetravel in google SkyMap and also used a solar system position calculator to show the position of the planets relative to earth. I'm fairly sure the object is Venus, even though it's midday. The position of Venus relative to Earth would make it very bright at that time and very possibly visible during the day. I also worked out the position of Venus and other planets at that exact date, time and location. Venus was at an elevation above the horizon of 48.6 degress which I think makes it a likley candidate for the object.

Would anyone else like to check my figures and see if they're accurate?

You can watch the live show, and my comments about this and other UFO events here -
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4zqOid_1pU&t=301s


Many thanks,

John

 

[Agent K]

I follow Chris Letho and joined in a live discussion on a UAP channel he was invited on to last night. He presented a video from a guy from Nottingham who videoed the object in 2006. It was a really good film, he logged the time and date and also managed to get some good film of it with a decent camera. The link to Chris' talk through of the video is here -

I did a quick timetravel in google SkyMap and also used a solar system position calculator to show the position of the planets relative to earth. I'm fairly sure the object is Venus, even though it's midday. The position of Venus relative to Earth would make it very bright at that time and very possibly visible during the day. I also worked out the position of Venus and other planets at that exact date, time and location. Venus was at an elevation above the horizon of 48.6 degress which I think makes it a likley candidate for the object.

Would anyone else like to check my figures and see if they're accurate?

Many thanks,

John

Do you think the clouds were moving instead of the object here?

Source: https://youtu.be/wnRL_-7ygTs?t=288

 

[jhunsley]

Do you think the clouds were moving instead of the object here?

Source: https://youtu.be/wnRL_-7ygTs?t=288

Its obviously impossible to tell from that video if it was moving. The guy who filmed it is sincere and said it was at a fixed point in the sky for over an hour. A stationary point of light in the sky is going to be confusing. Planets can be visible in broad daylight in certain positions relative to the Earth and Sun. If it was geniunley stationary for a long time then I think a planet is the only reasonable explaination

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Not only have I seen Venus in broad daylight, I've seen the far less bright Jupiter.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...year-disproves-globe-earth.10324/#post-227614

 

[captancourgette]

Looking at the video I initially thought it was a satellite (Quite easy to see during the day, like venus/jupiter if you know where to look, I dont think you can see down to mars magnitude during the day, I looked for it about a month ago during the day and failed)

But if this object was stationary for an hour it was possibly a high altitude balloon, like the following

 

[Ravi]

Its obviously impossible to tell from that video if it was moving. The guy who filmed it is sincere and said it was at a fixed point in the sky for over an hour. A stationary point of light in the sky is going to be confusing. Planets can be visible in broad daylight in certain positions relative to the Earth and Sun. If it was geniunley stationary for a long time then I think a planet is the only reasonable explaination

Not sure about the planet option as they also move at similar speed across the sky (Earth rotation), and by observing it should be very clear it moves (surely in 1 hour).
There are other objects in the sky that can be stationary wrt to the observer, and these are geostationary satellites. Of course, it is NOT the case here, as it is far too bright, but I wanted to add this to the discussion.

 

[jarlrmai]

Here's the original video


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnRL_-7ygTs&t=0s


here's a sign of the objectivity of the witness

Venus was magnitude -3.68 almost directly overhead

Wikipedia lists objects around -4 as being daylight visible even at the brightest time of day.

−4

39.8

Faintest objects visible during the day with the naked eye when the sun is high[10]

 

[jhunsley]

Wikipedia lists objects around -4 as being daylight visible even at the brightest time of day.

I suppose it couldn't be Venus then. Not sure how accurate that -4 is, seems rather arbitrary to me and the visibility would depend on many factors on the day. I think if it was genuinely stationary then Venus seems most likely. However, we really can't say for sure whether it was moving or not.

Can I ask what software you used to get the data on Venus please? looks neater than the multitude of calculations I did.

 

[flarkey]

I suppose it couldn't be Venus then. Not sure how accurate that -4 is, seems rather arbitrary to me and the visibility would depend on many factors on the day. I think if it was genuinely stationary then Venus seems most likely. However, we really can't say for sure whether it was moving or not.

Can I ask what software you used to get the data on Venus please? looks neater than the multitude of calculations I did.

The app looks like Stellarium to me. It is free and very good. There's even an online version https://stellarium-web.org/

 

[Mauro]

For what my anedoctical experience is worth Venus is rather easy to see in plain day (and I'm also quite myopic), at the right moments of course.

 

[FatPhil]

Pretty decent skies for stargazing in that part of the country too, in my experience (but I'm only really have pretty large cities to compare to), so a -4 Mag object should have been visible. From what I extract from the data dump above, it was approaching transit at that time of day, and he says it was high in the sky at the time. Cross-checking the other angles would be useful though.

 

[Ravi]

Here's the original video


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnRL_-7ygTs&t=0s

If only a bright person would have thought of perhaps use a tripod or stand or so. I am getting nausea of the movements....

 

[jarlrmai]

I think Venus is the most likely candidate the -4 mag figure is a ballpark you can read more about the source of the the Wikipedia quotes in the reference for the table

 

[jarlrmai]

This is the page that Wikipedia references, it seems to inidcate that Venus is easily visible in the daylight.

https://www.skysurfer.eu/daystars.php

 

[Agent K]

Its obviously impossible to tell from that video if it was moving. The guy who filmed it is sincere and said it was at a fixed point in the sky for over an hour. A stationary point of light in the sky is going to be confusing. Planets can be visible in broad daylight in certain positions relative to the Earth and Sun. If it was geniunley stationary for a long time then I think a planet is the only reasonable explaination

It was moving relative to the clouds, so it was stationary and the clouds were moving? I don't think the camera was moving enough for parallax to account for the motion.

 

[jhunsley]

The only thing which makes me doubt the Venus solution is that he says he's looking 325 degrees NW and up 70 to 80 degrees elevation. He didn't measure those two values exactly, although I'm not sure if he later worked out the compass bearing based on the layout of his garden. I suppose its reasonable to suggest he got them wrong if he just guessed. If it was indeed stationary then a planet/star would be the most plausible. Otherwise I'd say a balloon.

 

[flarkey]

The only thing which makes me doubt the Venus solution is that he says he's looking 325 degrees NW and up 70 to 80 degrees elevation. He didn't measure those two values exactly, although I'm not sure if he later worked out the compass bearing based on the layout of his garden. I suppose its reasonable to suggest he got them wrong if he just guessed. If it was indeed stationary then a planet/star would be the most plausible. Otherwise I'd say a balloon.

Going on the post code and the images of the house in the video I think I've worked out the specific house that this was recorded from. I wasnt going to post the actual house coords or image for privacy, but he has his name on his YouTube Channel and the exact postcode in the video. Its not hard to determine his exact address. I think the bearing of 325 degrees NW does match using the limited reference points we have in his back garden.

 

[DavidB66]

If it was indeed stationary then a planet/star would be the most plausible. Otherwise I'd say a balloon.

A planet or star would appear to move through 15 degrees in an hour, which ought to be noticeable, but might not be noticed if there was no fixed point for comparison. I wouldn't rule out a high altitude balloon, as it might also be moving too slowly (when seen from a great distance) to be noticed. High cirrus clouds or contrails also appear static to casual observation.

 

[Trailblazer]

Can anyone explain what Chris means at 13:45 in the video in the OP about the airliner giving a reference for the object being closer? How can you possibly judge that from a 2-dimensional video where neither object obscures the other?

 

[JMartJr]

I wouldn't rule out a high altitude balloon, as it might also be moving too slowly (when seen from a great distance) to be noticed. High cirrus clouds or contrails also appear static to casual observation.

It would also possibly be moving with clouds at/near the same altitude... if so, that would mask the movement as the object and background slowly moved together.

 

[AmberRobot]

Can anyone explain what Chris means at 13:45 in the video in the OP about the airliner giving a reference for the object being closer? How can you possibly judge that from a 2-dimensional video where neither object obscures the other?

Recall that Chris believes that two objects at different distances can't be in focus at the same time, so maybe that has to do with it? I don't know...

 

[Agent K]

It would also possibly be moving with clouds at/near the same altitude... if so, that would mask the movement as the object and background slowly moved together.

But this object moves relative to the clouds or vice-versa.


Source: https://youtu.be/wnRL_-7ygTs?t=288

 

[JMartJr]

Total brain fart on my end, apologies.