dr.penguin
Member
actually, maybe it's a helicopter? it says "N536MQ" this is what pops up.
https://www.jetphotos.com/registration/N536MQ
Claim: Video shows triangular UFO in the sky over Curitiba, Paraná
- Thread starter dr.penguin
- Start date
actually, maybe it's a helicopter? it says "N536MQ" this is what pops up.
https://www.jetphotos.com/registration/N536MQ
dr.penguin
Member
Given that something was definitely flying over Barigui Park, in Curitiba at the time of the "sighting" do you think it was a plane?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
If I had to guess, I'd guess it is a drone.
Second guess would be a helicopter carrying extra lights for some reason. Some other lifting platform (balloon if it is really windy, kite if the string broke and the wind is carrying it away, that sort of thing) might be possible but seem unlikely. Video enhanced by FX seems to me to be on the table. If the video is reversed, then it MIGHT be a plane if there was some reason why flashing lights would not be visible.
But I don't know, and my guesses are not better than any other guesser with insufficient data.
dr.penguin
Member
I mention the possibility of a plane because in my previous posts, I posted screenshots of a plane flying over the park at 8:00 PM. The lack of blinking lights is what makes my a little skeptical but do you have software that can measure this object by any chance for us to get an idea of what the size of this thing is to see if said size would be expected if a plane?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I don't, no. I'm just the humble kite guy!
dr.penguin
Member
Fair enough.
NoParty
Senior Member.
Yeah...but I remember when you were "a humble kite guy."
Minus0
Active Member
The attached video will provide important context regarding why this is very difficult to do accurately
Warning: this video is of a plane crash in Romania a few years ago. I believe it was a routine military training flight but something went catastrophically wrong and the pilot lost control entering an unrecoverable spiral dive.
Minus0
Active Member
*(followup for mods: I wanted to leave that comment without further explanation or correction to maximize the impact of psychological priming and visual illusions. Clarification is probably required as per the guidelines..)
@dr.penguin
It's highly probable that you intuitively saw a large military plane far away and about to crash into the centre of the field in a fireball. In fact, your brain was probably already activating available characteristics of large fiery explosions in anticipation.But then there was that moment as you noticed it go *in front* of the car and suddenly your brain struggled to recalibrate what it was seeing. It's a nice illustration normal visual illusions with aircraft. Even the best "trained observers" won't be able to avoid it
Determining the size of an object in the sky is impossible without relative context cues (eg passing in front of and behind the car), or knowing either (1) the size of the object or (2) its distance to begin with
The UAP in the video you posted could be a drone just above the trees or a kilometre wide alien spaceship very high up. It's unreasonable to believe the second, but without further information to triangulate definitively, determining the size isn't possible.
@dr.penguin
It's highly probable that you intuitively saw a large military plane far away and about to crash into the centre of the field in a fireball. In fact, your brain was probably already activating available characteristics of large fiery explosions in anticipation.But then there was that moment as you noticed it go *in front* of the car and suddenly your brain struggled to recalibrate what it was seeing. It's a nice illustration normal visual illusions with aircraft. Even the best "trained observers" won't be able to avoid it
Determining the size of an object in the sky is impossible without relative context cues (eg passing in front of and behind the car), or knowing either (1) the size of the object or (2) its distance to begin with
The UAP in the video you posted could be a drone just above the trees or a kilometre wide alien spaceship very high up. It's unreasonable to believe the second, but without further information to triangulate definitively, determining the size isn't possible.
dr.penguin
Member
You're right, optical illusions play a role. I can't say for sure what exactly the distance of the object is, but if you watch the video from beginning to end, the person zooms twice at a distance that seems to be about 50 meters. The person is recording with a phone, and with each zoom (twice in this case), the magnification disrupts the quality of the object. I had an AI write this for me: "An object 50 meters away and zoom in twice using a 2x zoom on your phone, the effective distance between you and the object after zooming in would be approximately 12.5 meters (50 meters / 2x zoom / 2x zoom)." So, 12.5 meters x 3.281 ft is about a 41 ft distance between the person and the object. Assuming this, what do you think the size would be?
Minus0
Active Member
@Mendel is correct. You can only determine the angular size of the object which won't help you figure out either the size or the distance.
You might find this useful
Source: https://youtu.be/NkapK7kcIFI?feature=shared
I suspect you're intuitively operating under the assumption that it's a drone and approximating its distance based on that. Even though I happen to agree with the drone hypothesis, I can't logically verify its size with this footage.
john.phil
Senior Member.
To me it is quite obvious that it is just a Chinese lantern.
I have stabilised the footage a bit and cropped it, contrast was also enhanced to bring more separation between the surrounding lights and the central light. Observe how the surrounding lights are swinging back and forth, as if they are suspended in place. It also seems one of the lights has either fallen off, or turned off, prompting a discussion that the video could have been reversed:
Here there are two examples with different shapes and arrangement, also from Brazil, where they are fitted with suspended lanterns:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZZp8qxS3ac&t=35s
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IjcBBHU-Ls&t=73s
Ann K
Senior Member.
You would still need to know the size or the distance to get anywhere close to realistic values. The old "bug on the lens" scenario comes to mind, which looks as if it is moving at "impossible" speeds, while a plane at thirty thousand feet is just slowly drifting along.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Just to clarify, I made no such claim. And I'm not saying that you made this claim.
The UFO/UAP website Ovinological's anonymous author made the date, time, location (DTL) claim, supposedly passing it on from the host of the Paranadrone Instagram account, who in turn seems to be passing it along from the anonymous person that recorded it.
Not saying the DTL is wrong, just that the source is dubious and trying to match exact flights to that DTL may be equally dubious. If jarlrmai or you found some possible flights, given the lack of good sourcing for the DTL, I would check flights on other days for the same time or other flights on the same night at different times. In other words, see how common flights are over this area on a given night. If it's a busy airspace, then there could be a number of possible dates and times that match.
Likewise, there is nothing in the video to suggest this location is Barigui Park, or anywhere else for that matter, aside from a 3rd hand retelling from an anonymous source. I could have made this video near some trees in my backyard as long as there were some clouds. There is nothing distinctive in the video to confirm the location. The metadata may help with that.
dr.penguin
Member
I don't understand the obsession with anonymity. Maybe the person who recorded the video just doesn't want attention? Or who knows, maybe they feel they really recorded something anomalous and fears the military abducting them. I care about data and it wouldn't matter if we knew the name of the person. Even if we knew who they were the date, time and location would probably not change. Not sure the purpose of the radical skepticism here. We have the date, location and time which is more than what most ufo sightings provide.
dr.penguin
Member
Even if you knew the person's name, there's no guarantee they'll provide you with any additional information is what I'm saying. My point is we shouldn't dismiss this just because we don't know the name of the person. It's also not a guarantee that the person has some social media presence that they used to create or promote hoaxes. It could just be a random guy.
dr.penguin
Member
I think despite a lack of SOME information like distance, size and the name of the person. With the details we do have and the actual video, we can try and see if the object is cgi and we could also verify the dimensions of the object. What I did just now is I used an emboss and directional difference filter to the photo to highlight shadows and reliefs, these are the results
Attachments
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Or any other sort of technique for adding/altering features in a video -- basically a video effect package. But yeah, I agree, that could be attempted, though it is above my pay grade.
I don't think so. You could measure the relative dimensions of the light array, but the object carrying them might be shaped differently with different relative dimensions.
john.phil
Senior Member.
If the object was CGI then the artist made the lights swing back and forth around the central light, just like they are suspended in place, and the object move in the wrong direction, for it to be a representation of the fictitious TR-3B. I would expect a CGI artist to keep the surrounding lights fixed, in order to represent the mythical TR-3B rigid triangular shape, and the motion to be in the opposite direction.
dr.penguin
Member
The surrounding lights aren't actually moving; the brightness of the central light creates a "smuge" like artifact of light that obscures your perspective of the lights around it.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I for one will wear that badge with pride. Given that the UFOlogy world is largely based on hearsay, misidentifications, and outright hoaxes one should be radically skeptical of UFO claims.
No. We have A date, time and location that has been provided 3rd hand from various anonymous sources. And there is nothing to confirm the provided DTL, aside from jarlrmai detecting a bit of corrugated metal roofing. That would suggest anywhere in parts of Central and South America as well as parts of Southeast Asia and tropical Africa and pretty much anywhere else in the world where people use corrugated metal roofing, including my own shop here in California.
Standard critical thinking when dealing with UFO claims is to attempt to verify the information provided. Something that cannot be done as of yet in this case. Accurate DTL can make a big difference. Case in point The Roulettes as UFOs discussed in this thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ex...-april-2022-roulettes-aerobatic-planes.12369/
After some confusion, it was determined the UFOs in question were filmed on March 30 at 11:30ish over Melbourne. This coincided exactly with a demonstration flight of the RAF Roulettes aerobatic planes in the area at that time on that day. Case solved. However, the same video was later presented by the UFO YouTube channel TPoM, but with the date changed to the Spanish Marzo (March) 1, not the 30th. There was no Roulettes flight on March 1, so the planes are back to being unexplained UFOs. Just by changing the date.
john.phil
Senior Member.
I have improved the stabilisation. If you look at each individual light, you can see them swinging:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Experience. Verified other-worldly mysterious craft, zero. Verified mundane objects that have been claimed to be other-worldly mysterious craft, 23 zillion and forty-eight, give or take a zillion. Any sensible investigator would start with the mundane.
dr.penguin
Member
So, what I did was I cropped the stabilized enhanced version you provided, and I cropped it frame by frame and slowed the speed to verify if the lights are swinging apart from each other, or if they really are a part of something bigger like we'd expect with a craft of some sort. I think the swinging is a part of an illusion of movement. It doesn't look like the lights are moving away from each other; rather, it appears that they remain still, but brightness creates a light artifact that obscures them, creating the illusion of them moving. I think they are a part of something moving, and the person that recorded the object with a cell phone camera was shaking a little as he or she "followed" the moving object. There's also a sense that you get that looks as if they're blinking. This is imo due to the light artifact.
Minus0
Active Member
Just over a year ago
The only remaining things I would suggest is reaching out to the three very popular drone businesses there in Curitiba and ask for their comment on the footage. They might even know who's drone it is.
Beyond this, there's not much else to do
Interesting, possibly related. The drone they show in the picture is surprisingly large.
An event that promises to go down in the history of Paraná and Curitiba. The Iguaçu Palace will host the largest drone show in the history of the State, this Wednesday (27) at night.
The State Government will officially launch Verão Maior Paraná 2024/2025 starting at 7 pm and soon after the names of the bands will light up the sky of the Capital.
There will be seven consecutive weekends of free shows on the stages of Matinhos and Pontal do Paraná. The shows begin on January 10 and run until February 22. Last year the events brought together more than 1 million people from all over the country, consolidating the name of Paraná on the show route.
The drone show will be visible from the vicinity of the Civic Center and should last around 15 minutes. The public will be able to watch the show from Praça Nossa Senhora de Salette and also through the live broadcast on TV Paraná Turismo and on the social networks of the Government of Paraná.
The only remaining things I would suggest is reaching out to the three very popular drone businesses there in Curitiba and ask for their comment on the footage. They might even know who's drone it is.
Beyond this, there's not much else to do
Minus0
Active Member
A couple more points since I'm down the Brazilian flying LED rabbit hole
Also based on a few articles I read, customized LED kites are popular in Brazil as well. But the flight behaviour doesn't really match unless the line was being let out so it could move downwind
Source: https://youtu.be/Lm1Hd7TijyY?t=233
Edit: note the background sound in the kite video. Same as OP no? Don't know if it's related to the kite/led or an insect like a grasshopper
The only image of the drone shows a drone with perhaps the same light pattern? Here:
Also based on a few articles I read, customized LED kites are popular in Brazil as well. But the flight behaviour doesn't really match unless the line was being let out so it could move downwind
Source: https://youtu.be/Lm1Hd7TijyY?t=233
Edit: note the background sound in the kite video. Same as OP no? Don't know if it's related to the kite/led or an insect like a grasshopper
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Those are fighter kites, when you let out line they spin, when the line is tight they would fly in a more or less straight line. But put the lights on a different kite and you'd be right about flight patterns. Or if somebody walked across the field with the kite at a constant height, you could get it to fly across the frame... towing it, essentially.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
That's what they look like to me. Lightbulbs swinging on the end of a cord.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I don't understand this at all.
Do you have an example for "brightness creates a light artifact" that does what you describe?
In @john.phil 's clip, the lights don't look at all like they're part of a single rigid object, and the only way I can imagine them moving like that is if they were viewed through turbulent highly refractive air, like hot air rising off a campfire flame.
This would be so unusual that filming it like that, but not mentioning it, would be akin to a hoax.
dr.penguin
Member
If you slow down @john.phil's stabilized footage frame by frame, you'll notice that the lights aren't actually moving away from each other or swinging from one another. It appears that way because the lights are in a sense "flickering," and since it's a cell phone-captured object, the quality isn't the best, so there's a smudge around the red lights that obscures your perspective. In faster or normal motion, if you look at Phil's video, it seems like they're swinging, but they aren't.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
If you look at all 7 seconds of john.phil's vid, especially watching the center lower light, I don't think your hypothesis holds up. That light in particularly moves quite a bit, in relation not only to the center light but also the others -- it crosses from one side to another of a line between the other two lights on that side, for example.
Similar threads
