Claim: Video shows triangular UFO in the sky over Curitiba, Paraná

[Z.W. Wolf]

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.

Honestly, I can't make head nor tails of your argument.

You seem to be saying an optical illusion is at work?

Name the optical illusion and give an example of the optical illusion.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

You may be saying it's an example of Illusory motion?

Or... a forced perspective illusion in the manner of an Ames Window?

Since you mention "flickering" could you be arguing that this is an example of beta movement?

 

[dr.penguin]

Honestly, I can't make head nor tails of your argument.

You seem to be saying an optical illusion is at work?

Name the optical illusion and give an example of the optical illusion.

The example is the file I provided. It's a slowed down version of what Phil provided. Those lights aren't moving or swinging, they're stationary.

 

[dr.penguin]

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.

Maybe this will help. I converted Phil's stabilized video to a JPG image sequence so you can see all the frames exactly how they are in the video. I placed it all in a file for you to extract. You'll be able to see that at no point do any of the lights swing apart from each other or move away from their position. You'll see exactly how they are frame by frame.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The example is the file I provided. It's a slowed down version of what Phil provided. Those lights aren't moving or swinging, they're stationary.

This is not a coherent argument. You just seem to be inventing a "new" type of optical illusion on an ad hoc basis. I'm going to be stuffy and insist that you reference a known illusion and give us a coherent explanation within the framework of that illusion.



Let's forget the central light. Are the smaller lights moving in relation to each other?

I'm not able to make a video testing that question. (Not easily, anyway.) Maybe someone here will be able to... erase the central light altogether and replace the smaller lights with dots. We could then see whether the smaller lights are moving in relation to each other. With that kind of video we can settle the question of this supposed illusion.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Maybe this will help. I converted Phil's stabilized video to a JPG image sequence so you can see all the frames exactly how they are in the video. I placed it all in a file for you to extract. You'll be able to see that at no point do any of the lights swing apart from each other or move away from their position. You'll see exactly how they are frame by frame.

Just eyeball distances while remembering them as we switch from frame to frame? That's not a good method. Very subjective and imprecise.

This is what I could do: Using Photoshop, I could manually erase the central light from each frame, and manually place dots in the center of each smaller light... then put the frames into a video. That video would, or would not, intuitively show us relative movements of the dots. I'm hoping that someone could do this more easily. More "automatically."

Alternatively, you could measure the distance, in pixels, between each of the smaller lights to see if the distances, in pixels, changes from frame to frame.

 

[dr.penguin]

Just eyeball distances while remembering them as we switch from frame to frame? That's not a good method. Very subjective and imprecise.

This is what I could do: Using Photoshop, I could manually erase the central light from each frame, and manually place dots in the center of each smaller light... then put the frames into a video. That video would, or would not, intuitively show us relative movements of the dots. I'm hoping that someone could do this more easily. More "automatically."

Alternatively, you could measure the distance, in pixels, between each of the smaller lights to see if the distances, in pixels, changes from frame to frame.

Sure, one could go that extra step just to make sure, but I think looking at all the images frame by frame in Phil's stabilized video seals the deal. What I could do is draw circles on each of the lights and lines of their respective differences image by image, "manually," and share a folder with them all for everyone to see, but that will take too long. Instead, I can show you with a select few images from start to finish. All the lights remain in the same location never changing but what DOES differ is the brightness of the lights as you will see with these few that I picked. Anyone can click the file I dropped to download all images/frames of the footage and they'll see if for themselves.

 

[justthefacts]

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:

View attachment 75202

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

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:

View attachment 75202

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

Tried the same thing, upscaled with Topaz Video AI and then zoomed in and shadows lifted in Davinci. Same observation. The middle light in the set of 3 to the bottom left swings back and forth towards the center of the object while the object itself spins clockwise.

 

[elvenwear]

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.

The objects appear to be moving. The only argument against them actually moving would be that the small amount of movement be attributed to atmospheric seeing.

I've seen minor amounts of wobble with a 1200mm telephoto lens or a telescope with higher magnification which was due to atmospheric seeing. I've never seen it with 300mm lens or below. If this photo was taken with a mobile phone, there's no way the minor wobble could be attributed to atmospheric seeing. So the lights must be moving.

 

[dr.penguin]

The objects appear to be moving. The only argument against them actually moving would be that the small amount of movement be attributed to atmospheric seeing.

I've seen minor amounts of wobble with a 1200mm telephoto lens or a telescope with higher magnification which was due to atmospheric seeing. I've never seen it with 300mm lens or below. If this photo was taken with a mobile phone, there's no way the minor wobble could be attributed to atmospheric seeing. So the lights must be moving.

Look at the photos frame by frame

 

[elvenwear]

Look at the photos frame by frame

When I do that, the stabilization is so poor, it does appear as you say, that there is no relative movement. Once John.Phil made it clear there was movement with the stabilized version, I couldn't unsee it. Even when I watch the OP at regular speed, I can still see it.

Have you watched the post below in slow motion?

I have improved the stabilisation. If you look at each individual light, you can see them swinging:

View attachment 75256

 

[JMartJr]

Look at the photos frame by frame

When I do, the lower center light clearly moves from one side of a line between the lights to either side of it, to the other.

 

[dr.penguin]

When I do, the lower center light clearly moves from one side of a line between the lights to either side of it, to the other.

Here is Phil's stabilized video image motion, frame-by-frame, @elvenwear I hope this puts an end to the debate about whether or not these lights are moving apart from each other or showing any relative motion such as "swinging." IMO, I don't see any relative motion what I DO SEE are the lights getting bright and dim which creates a light artifact especially the center light. My theory is that when one plays these images in a video it gives the appearance that they're swinging.

 

[Trailspotter]

Here is Phil's stabilized video image motion, frame-by-frame, @elvenwear I hope this puts an end to the debate about whether or not these lights are moving apart from each other or showing any relative motion such as "swinging." IMO, I don't see any relative motion what I DO SEE are the lights getting bright and dim which creates a light artifact especially the center light. My theory is that when one plays these images in a video it gives the appearance that they're swinging.

I think that people try to convey to you is this:

The first two images are frames from your file at 0:57 and 1:49, the third is their superposition based on the three corner lights.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Here is Phil's stabilized video image motion, frame-by-frame, @elvenwear I hope this puts an end to the debate about whether or not these lights are moving apart from each other or showing any relative motion such as "swinging." IMO, I don't see any relative motion what I DO SEE are the lights getting bright and dim which creates a light artifact especially the center light.

I'm not going to say that we should agree to disagree, as I'm opposed to the whole thought process behind that phrase. I'm going to disagree.

If you want to keep repeating this, I'm not going to call a cop. But your arguments are not well thought out or convincing. You just seem to be digging in your heels and expecting people to capitulate.

If you do some work and show us measurements I'll listen. But "I don't see any relative motion, what I DO SEE" is not an argument.

My theory is that when one plays these images in a video it gives the appearance that they're swinging.

Once again your "theory" is not convincing because you don't cite any known optical illusion by name or explain your ideas within that framework.

Lights simply changing from bright to dim to bright don't cause an illusion of a swinging motion according to any optical illusion I know of. You're certainly not talking about beta motion or the phi phenomenon, for example. What are you talking about?

 

[elvenwear]

I think that people try to convey to you is this:
View attachment 75304View attachment 75305View attachment 75306
The first two images are frames from your file at 0:57 and 1:49, the third is their superposition based on the three corner lights.

The transition between photographs 7 and 8 is the one I find the clearest evidence of movement. There is no way this is brightening or dimming of lights. The lights are not even overlapping in position.

I've revisited the idea of the possibility of the apparent relative movement of the lights being due to atmospheric seeing since Dr.Penguin is quite insistent the lights are not moving but they definitely appear to be moving.

There is no meta data on the video in the OP, but then Apple and Samsung don't release the size of their lenses in mm. The nearest I can glean from online sources is that the phone cameras range from 12-26mm and have an optical zoom of 2-5x. This gives an equivalent maximum focal length of around 130mm. This is nowhere near enough to be detect any distortion due to atmospheric seeing. Additionally, any zoom over 2x is going to have degraded optical quality so this would not really give the equivalent resolution of 130mm.

I'm afraid the only conclusion I can come to is that the lights are moving and this is not an optical illusion. They are bobbing to and fro within the confines of a general position, as though they are tethered.

 

[FatPhil]

There is no meta data on the video in the OP, but then Apple and Samsung don't release the size of their lenses in mm. The nearest I can glean from online sources is that the phone cameras range from 12-26mm and have an optical zoom of 2-5x. This gives an equivalent maximum focal length of around 130mm. This is nowhere near enough to be detect any distortion due to atmospheric seeing. Additionally, any zoom over 2x is going to have degraded optical quality so this would not really give the equivalent resolution of 130mm.

What does Bootes look like on that camera? (Or select something subtending a similar angle as this object.) If Bootes breathes, it's could be seeing, if it's rigid, it's likely not. Of course, I strongly suspect the latter, but at least it can be put to the test.

 

[Gaspa]

Just one more piece of evidence to the reversed video hypothesis: There is a strange and somewhat loud noise at around 15-16 seconds that, when played in reversed, (and now the noise will be at around 6-7 seconds) sounds exactly like some velcro being undone or maybe some scraping sound.

Attached sound snippets: file that ends with "R" is the reversed version.

 

[elvenwear]

What does Bootes look like on that camera? (Or select something subtending a similar angle as this object.) If Bootes breathes, it's could be seeing, if it's rigid, it's likely not. Of course, I strongly suspect the latter, but at least it can be put to the test.

I tried my own phone on max zoom and I was unable to get enough light to pick up Orion or any other constellation that would be good for a test. I could get a little shimmer on city lights on the horizon through several miles of dense atmosphere so I don't consider that a good test. The higher the angle, the less distortion.

To me what it comes down to is that atmospheric seeing is measured in arc-seconds (ie in increments of 1/3600th of a degree). In the video below Dr Mario Motta brags that with his setup his seeing is frequently one arc second. That is the equivalent of saying with a 32 inch F6 telescope (ie >4800mm focal length instrument) he is able to take images where the pixel resolution is 1/3600th of a degree. 20 seconds in he talks about viewing the Einstein's cross.


Source: https://youtu.be/iXMHASJquV4?t=516


The following article is pretty accurate on the practicalities of atmospheric distortion (emphasis mine)

HIGH POWER (19x to 31.9x per inch of aperture)(1.3mm to 0.8mm exit pupil): A very useful power range for observing fine planetary and lunar detail. This is the range where the full theoretical resolving power of the telescope is becoming visible. Also useful in moderate to large apertures for getting better star resolution in tight globular clusters or for viewing detail in the smaller planetary nebulae, as well as resolving tight double stars. This power range is sometimes compromised in apertures larger than 5 inches by seeing effects (ie: disturbances in the Earth's atmosphere which can blur fine detail).

19 x 5 = 95 magnification, 31.9 x 5 = 159.5 magnification. So between 100-150 magnification, atmospheric seeing starts to become a factor. I've experienced a very mild shimmer on a bad night around 100 magnification. On a good night, without a proper observatory, I would typically expect 300 magnification to be about the limit. With Mario's observatory, he may get 600-900 magnification. I strongly doubt he would get any more than that. IMHO, I think there is one order of magnitude difference between perfect seeing in an observatory and no detection of atmospheric issues at all. Without an excellent observatory it's not even an order of magnitude. In either case, if his seeing is 1 arc second at best, then any instrument that cannot measure 10 arc seconds would not notice atmospheric distortion anywhere near zenith.

I would say I've seen atmospheric distortion at 50 magnification - 100 magnification.

50- 100 magnification is around the equivalent of 2500 - 5000mm focal length (since the eye is typically a 50mm lens). I have a 80-200mm lens (I've had a 300mm in the past). I've never recorded atmospheric distortion with it. I have recorded atmospheric distortion with a 1200mm lens while pointing low over a road during the day (ie ideal circumstances for atmospheric distortion - akin to pointing over a desert). I don't recall seeing atmospheric distortion while pointed at the moon, but I don't trust my memory on that.

I'd be perfectly willing to accept a 600mm lens on an SLR might pick up on atmospheric distortion under some conditions. I don't think pointed upwards at 45 degrees at night is one of them.

As near as I can figure out mobile phone lenses are around 25-50mm focal length with 3-5 x optical zoom. This would give a maximum of 250mm equivalent. It's possible the pixel density in mobile phones is higher than regular SLRs because it would need to be but it is also possible the 250mm equivalent already factors in the higher pixel density. I think I am being overly generous, but I have this nagging feeling I may be wrong. The real problem is it's impossible to get serious specifications of mobile phone cameras.

 

[elvenwear]

I've just had a look at the iPhone 12 specifications. I don't think I'm wrong. I'll look into the numbers tomorrow.

 

[elvenwear]

I've just had a look at the iPhone 12 specifications. I don't think I'm wrong. I'll look into the numbers tomorrow.

I take it all back. I think I may be wrong.

The iPhone 16 specs are here. The salient specs are:-

• 48MP Fusion: 26 mm, ƒ/1.6 aperture, sensor‑shift optical image stabilisation, 100% Focus Pixels, support for super-high-resolution photos (24MP and 48MP)
• Also enables 12MP 2x Telephoto: 52 mm, ƒ/1.6 aperture, sensor-shift optical image stabilisation, 100% Focus Pixels
• 12MP Ultra Wide: 13 mm, ƒ/2.2 aperture and 120° field of view, 100% Focus Pixels
• 2x optical zoom in, 2x optical zoom out; 4x optical zoom range
• Digital zoom up to 10x

Essentially if you are taking 4K video with a 48 megapixel camera the digital zoom becomes important. So you have a 26mm lens that can zoom 20x ie you have a 520mm lens that can take 4K video. So I take it back, the ultra-high pixel density allows them to get in the vicinity of atmospheric seeing. I cannot rule it out. The lights may not be moving.

This appears also to be true for the iPhone 14 and up. I haven't looked at Samsung.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Just one more piece of evidence to the reversed video hypothesis: There is a strange and somewhat loud noise at around 15-16 seconds that, when played in reversed, (and now the noise will be at around 6-7 seconds) sounds exactly like some velcro being undone or maybe some scraping sound.

Attached sound snippets: file that ends with "R" is the reversed version.

I'm not convinced. It sounds like air brakes to me. So no need to reverse.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

https://www.metabunk.org/data/audio/74/74673-6adb292c284b95cf3001ffce3aa45d36.mp3

 

[Gaspa]

https://www.metabunk.org/data/audio/74/74673-6adb292c284b95cf3001ffce3aa45d36.mp3

Fair enough. I guess it could be that.