Fox5 New York Zip-by "orb"

[Mick West]

This seems very similar to the Utah case, and other zip-by UFOs. The object looks like it's flying in from a long distance away, like the other side of the river.

I think, like with Utah, that it's actually pretty close.

Unfortunately, it does not seem to be a live shot.

Article:

A rep for "Good Day New York," which originally aired the clip, said they couldn't say when the footage was recorded — but that it was likely within the last calendar year.

Source: https://nypost.com/2024/11/21/us-news/brilliant-orb-zooming-past-nyc-accidentally-caught-on-film-by-local-news-chopper/

Some wild speculation in the NYPost article:

Article:

If the supposed object did originate in the sky in the vicinity of Hoboken and then proceeded to travel all the way down river, passing the tip of Manhattan, it would indicate an incredible speed.

If the object traversed the 3-mile distance in four seconds, it would put its speed somewhere in the vicinity of 2,700 miles per hour — more than double the speed of an F18.

Source: https://nypost.com/2024/11/21/us-news/brilliant-orb-zooming-past-nyc-accidentally-caught-on-film-by-local-news-chopper/

Article:

"This is most likely an optical artifact from the helicopter glass in front of the camera, namely a bright spot from the reflection of sunlight as the camera gradually changes its orientation relative to the sun and the ground," Loeb tells The Post. "But even if it was a real object, the apparent speed is of an order the speed of sound and not extraordinary," Loeb concludes.

Source: https://nypost.com/2024/11/21/us-news/brilliant-orb-zooming-past-nyc-accidentally-caught-on-film-by-local-news-chopper/

Article:

Tim Gallaudet, a retired rear admiral in the United States Navy and CEO of Ocean STL consulting, agreed.

"For several reasons, looks like an artifact and not an actual UAP," Gallaudet told The Post, using the acronym for "unidentified aerial phenomenon."

Source: https://nypost.com/2024/11/21/us-news/brilliant-orb-zooming-past-nyc-accidentally-caught-on-film-by-local-news-chopper/

 

[Mick West]

This is the entire clip with a max echo, showing the direction of travel of the camera.

 

[John J.]

Rough approximation of the apparent path of the "orb".
No fancy software involved, just pausing the video and dead-reckoning, so it'll be imperfect!

1. Earliest point at which I can make out the light, whose path is indicated by yellow dots.
2. Becomes more visibly rounded (more than just a point of light) around here.
3. Appears to become larger and more diffuse as it travels. (Yellow dots not to scale).
Horizontal lines can be seen through the light, see below.
4. Near end of footage, "orb" more diffuse, maybe "splitting" into two adjacent areas of light.

Horizontal line features on shoreline structure visible through blue-ish light as per (3) above.

Blown-up detail; horizontal lines on shoreline structure visible through the light.

For comparison, orange arrow indicates the same shoreline structures after the "orb" has passed, note horizontal lines.
(Blue arrow indicates increasingly elongated and diffuse "orb").

End of footage, "orb" looks like two adjacent but diffuse light to me.

At first seeing the footage I thought it might be a balloon, but now strongly suspect it's a reflection.

 

[Mick West]

At first seeing the footage I thought it might be a balloon, but now strongly suspect it's a reflection.

I don't think those are the only options, or even good options. To me it looks very strongly like something small, blown in the wind, close to the camera. Only translucent from focus and motion blur.

 

[Ann K]

Whatever it might be, its appearance at its closest approach is of a translucent object such as a reflection ...or a small object much too close to be in focus. If it's too close to focus on at that point, then it's also pretty darn close when we first see it, and it is only its apparent position traveling along the river that gives it any impression of speed.

 

[John J.]

If it's a relatively small exterior object and close to the camera, would we expect its path to be quite so smooth as it approached the downwash of the helicopter? I appreciate this depends on speed, density and if it were powered.

I'm a bit curious as to why the footage ends just as the "orb" becomes more diffuse and appears to be splitting into two; I wonder if it might indicate a focus/ reflection issue (although I know very little about cameras) that would become more obvious had the footage continued?

Incidentally, the New York Post article in the OP (Shane Galvin, 21 November 2024) says

The orb appears to be opaque, not transparent or translucent.
This characteristic indicated to photo experts at The Post that it is not a standard lens flare, which refracts see-through light on camera lenses and also bears a distinct aperture mark.

The first sentence is incorrect, I think. When the light might be described as an orb- that is at least roughly circular or spherical in shape as opposed to a smallish point of light- and passes in front of background details fine enough to be seen in area equivalent to that of the orb on-screen, those details are visible.

The apparent path of the orb looks like it might be describing a regular arc in post #2, maybe a circle chord. It might not be relevant, but the Fox News helicopters I've seen on image searches have gimbal turret-mounted cameras under the nose.

Avi Loeb (quoted by NY Post in OP) opined

This is most likely an optical artefact from the helicopter glass in front of the camera...

...which I interpret as him thinking about someone filming from the helo cabin through a window, but I don't think we know if the footage is from the gimbal turret or from a passenger carrying a camera.

 

[Mendel]

If it's a relatively small exterior object and close to the camera, would we expect its path to be quite so smooth as it approached the downwash of the helicopter?

You're assuming the object is outside the helicopter?

 

[deirdre]

I don't think those are the only options, or even good options. To me it looks very strongly like something small, blown in the wind, close to the camera. Only translucent from focus and motion blur.

is it too fast to be a bird?. it starts off the same size as the bird by the letter G in hovering, then gets bigger as it nears the camera.

but i only get .86 miles IF the thing was on the ground..not sure why that guy said 3 miles. Looks like a job for sit rec, i suck at geometry.

ok likely not a bird, this bird is flying slower and while the plane is alot lower, its also flying faster than helicopter.

add: of course this bird is zipping by.. now i dont know.

 

[John J.]

You're assuming the object is outside the helicopter?

I'm not at all sure at present. TBH I think it might be just a reflection (but I'm not making a stand on that!)

However, Mick is giving consideration to an exterior object

To me it looks very strongly like something small, blown in the wind, close to the camera.

...if wind is exterior to the cabin.

 

[john.phil]

this bird is flying slower

It was a helicopter:

 

[deirdre]

It was a helicopter:

View attachment 73476

awesome, thanks! i didnt see a tail at all on my laptop.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

If this is an object which is out of focus, it would have to be very close. More like inches than yards.

What do we know about the camera?

This photo is included in the cited article. But without a caption.

What are we looking at here? It seems to be a view from the camera, not of the camera. Is this even the helicopter in question? That's dangerous to assume. It could be a file photo.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This is the segment in the story. The call letters for Fox 5 in New York City are WNYW.



It's dangerous to assume that this short clip was taken from the WNYW News Copter. Editors use clips from stock footage libraries. Their job is to present interesting imagery while the talking heads are talking, rather than images of the talking heads. They aren't concerned with the actual relationship of the imagery to the story.

The landscape depicted isn't directly concerned with the story. This is just a generic visual of "traffic congestion."

 

[john.phil]

What are we looking at here?

That's an antenna by Troll Systems, used for transmitting the video feed.

source: https://digipres.club/system/media_...353/599/692/646/original/a2188b3bb19cb8af.jpg

https://trollsystems.com/

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Thanks. The photo included in the NYP article is almost random. It's the underbelly of a helicopter. So what? "Well, it's what I could find in the library in the 3 minutes I had to find something, anything. I put in a search for helicopter cameras and found a view from a helicopter camera of the antenna the camera uses, not a photo of a helicopter camera. Get off my back."

Editors use something, anything visual. So they do a quick search through a stock library.

Similarly, we don't know where the "orb" footage came from. It could be years old, from some aircraft.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The point.

We don't know whether this footage is from an external camera, or a handheld camera inside an aircraft, or even if it was taken from a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft.... or a drone or a blimp for that matter.

If it was a handheld camera inside the aircraft, the orb could be:

- A very small airborne object inside the aircraft. Strongly illuminated by the low Sun. It would be inches from the camera and badly out of focus.

- A reflection in a window.


The curving track can be explained by:

-The airborne object taking this exact track... but very close to the camera. The sudden appearance of the object could be explained by the transition between the object being in shadow and then being illuminated by the Sun. Or, the image on the sensor being too small for the sensor to process and then becoming large enough for the sensor to process.

-Or a reflection in a curved window.


I don't like the idea that this is a relatively nearby object outside of the aircraft. This looks like bad focus rather than motion blur. That points to the very close object explanation.

In any case... Another example of accidental forced perspective.


As we've seen in previous cases, people seem to be very prone to locking into the large, distant object perception. And being outraged by the small and close object suggestion. A good example is the Ecuadorian butterfly/orb case.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...ured-by-photographer.13182/page-3#post-302869

 

[JMartJr]

A good example is the Ecuadorian butterfly/orb case.

Anyone who has not read that thread, it is one of the all time greats -- a lot of fun, and a great example of how "crowd-sourcing" works.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...rb-captured-by-photographer.13182/post-302654 (link to first post for those averse to scrolling! ^_^)

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Incidentally, the New York Post article in the OP (Shane Galvin, 21 November 2024) says

The orb appears to be opaque, not transparent or translucent.
This characteristic indicated to photo experts at The Post that it is not a standard lens flare, which refracts see-through light on camera lenses and also bears a distinct aperture mark.

It's not an internal reflection. I say that because the camera was not panning and the apparent motion of the orb cannot be explained by optical parallax effects - optical ghosting drift. The only other thing that could cause this kind of optical ghosting drift would be a light source that was moving outside of the frame. Couldn't be the Sun, obviously. There's a bare possibility of a reflection of a reflection of the Sun off one or more curved surfaces. Any other source doesn't seem at all credible.

 

[John J.]

There's a bare possibility of a refection of a reflection of the Sun off one or more curved surfaces. Any other source doesn't seem at all credible.

There must be many potential bright points in a helicopter cabin, including buckles/ clasps on clothing, seatbelts and equipment, wristwatches, dashboard instruments etc.
These could be ruled out if we knew that the camera used was a fuselage-mounted camera (which I think is likely, but we don't know). All the pictures I've seen on a quick search of Fox News helos show them carrying an external camera.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

We have no way of knowing what aircraft it was. The editor may have pulled this footage from an internal library - footage that originated with WNYW Fox 5. Or from some other library of generic footage.

If this footage was from an external camera it becomes harder to explain.
You'd have to think that all glass surfaces would have a quality anti-reflective coating.

And what would explain the curved path of a reflection? And a reflection of what? Sure wouldn't be the Sun.

There's not much chance of an airborne object inside the camera pod (or whatever they call it).

The only thing left would be relatively nearby object, yards away. It would be all motion blur.

A bug would look like a dark or grayish blur. Still possible, I guess. Photography can be surprising.

If it was an external object, yards away, and this is effect was caused by motion blur, I'd favor something very brightly illuminated by the Sun. Maybe clear plastic.

And the motion would be explained by:

- Parallax effects. The apparent speed is from the speed of the aircraft, not the object.

-The curve is from the external object being pushed aside by the area of high pressure in front of the aircraft.

In this case the prime suspect would be a helium filled uncoated (clear) latex/vinyl balloon. We're only seeing a specular reflection of the Sun off the internal surface of the balloon, not the balloon itself. The reflection is motion blurred, not out of focus.

 

[JMartJr]

It's not an internal reflection. I say that because the camera was not panning and the apparent motion of the orb cannot be explained by optical parallax effects - optical ghosting drift. The only other thing that could cause this kind of optical ghosting drift would be a light source that was moving outside of the frame. Couldn't be the Sun, obviously. There's a bare possibility of a reflection of a reflection of the Sun off one or more curved surfaces. Any other source doesn't seem at all credible.

What about a reflection in the curved windshield of the aircraft? I'm wondering about a light source behind the camera, moving R to L (or L to R, visualizing the geometry is tricky to me!) No idea what it might be, but just wondering if it is plausible -- IF there were a light moving behind the camera, COULD it reflect in the windshield liek what we see -- if not, then there is no need to try and guess what it is!

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

What about a reflection in the curved windshield of the aircraft? I'm wondering about a light source behind the camera, moving R to L (or L to R, visualizing the geometry is tricky to me!) No idea what it might be, but just wondering if it is plausible -- IF there were a light moving behind the camera, COULD it reflect in the windshield liek what we see -- if not, then there is no need to try and guess what it is!

That scenario is already covered by a reflection of a reflection of the Sun. I doubt the luminosity of any other source would be great enough to cause an internal camera reflection. A specular refection off the surface of a transparent window is different than the reflection off a mirror. And camera lenses have anti-reflective coatings. It's barely possible, but the geometry is getting pretty complicated.

It's a lot simpler to say it's a reflection off the window that the camera is seeing directly, if that makes sense.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Uncoated balloons.

With specular reflections of the lighting inside the room

In this case there are specular reflections of the sky and the trees.

I'm proposing that only the motion blurred specular refection(s) of the Sun would be visible in the video. The rest of the balloon would not be visible. So all we see is a mysterious bright blur.

Another possibility is a so called mylar ballon - properly, an aluminized plastic balloon. I'm not sure if the angles would be right. The Sun is coming from camera left and the object is to camera left. Would we see a reflection of the Sun in that scenario?

 

[John J.]

Maybe completely irrelevant, or coincidence, or just plain wrong, but the path of the orb does look (to me) like it might a circular arc, as if it's moving along the circumference of a circle.

Tilting Mick's figure from #2,
3.1 degrees R

4 degrees R

...superimposing a horizontally-orientated ellipse from MS Paint (!) (which I guess is based on a circle function) there's almost a match.
If that's the case, it might mean a random bit of airborne flotsam is less likely.
Or it could be the circular opening of the rabbit-hole I'm falling down .

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I think I'm favoring helium filled uncoated latex/vinyl balloon with motion blurred specular reflection of the Sun.

Just favoring, mind you.

 

[JMartJr]

It's a lot simpler to say it's a reflection off the window that the camera is seeing directly, if that makes sense.

Yeah, that's the scenario I was wondering about, thnaks!

 

[Mendel]

Maybe completely irrelevant, or coincidence, or just plain wrong, but the path of the orb does look (to me) like it might a circular arc, as if it's moving along the circumference of a circle.

That's an astute observation!

An aircraft turning is typically doing so on a circle, typically at a rate of 2 minutes for the full circle.

[Correction deleted]

 

[Mick West]

An attempt at 3D analysis from ThomasH

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98AsCeeD1vU


Of note, he assumes the date was Nov 17, and finds a plausible helicopter which he identifies as N50TV,

But on ADS-B Exchange, it's N6160Y, and dropping that track into Sitrec it really does not seem to be a match.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The resulting path was far too strange for a drifting balloon.

What if that path were the result of the high pressure zone in front of the aircraft displacing the balloon?

 

[Eburacum]

What if that path were the result of the high pressure zone in front of the aircraft displacing the balloon?

Exactly what I was coming here to say. The helicopter would blow the balloon away from itself, making the apparent trajectory of the balloon appear curved. I would not expect the balloon to move smoothly in the vicinity of a helicopter rotor wash.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This object is not a ghost image in an externally mounted camera.

See this post for a discussion of flare:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/in...e-footage-lens-flare.13702/page-2#post-325637

The only possible source of light causing the ghosting would be the Sun. The camera is not panning, nor is the aircraft turning at a rate that would produce this kind of apparent motion of a ghost image due to optical parallax effects.


The idea that this could be aperture ghosting, or ghosting caused by reflections between the sensor surface and the internal surface of the filter... or lens cover, or a ghost image due to internal lens reflections or due to filter flare is Flat Earth level naïve. Let me explain that.

Flat Earthers intuitively feel that as you're driving down a straight road, you would be "passing" the Sun. But we know that the Sun, and all astronomical bodies, "pace" our vehicle.

These objects are extremely distant compared to the scale of how far we're traveling. There's no significant angular shift - there's no detectable parallax effects. Thus, the Sun seems to "follow" you.

Picture yourself going down the road and you're getting an annoying reflection of the late afternoon Sun off the internal surface of your passenger side window. Does the reflection of the Sun move across the window as you're driving straight down the road? Of course it doesn't. You're not passing the Sun.

Would the reflection move across the surface of a bubble mirror stuck to the window? No.

I think people are getting the impression that the mere fact that some surface is curved would make the image of the Sun move across it. Nay.

That would happen only if the vehicle were turning.

Looking back on my previous post, I unintentionally supported that naïve idea by mentioning a curved window. I didn't explain fully. And the curved window wouldn't be necessary. I just thought it might help to explain the jink in the path of the object.

The scenario is a handheld camera inside the aircraft. The reflection in the window would be a reflection of a reflection of the Sun. Let the first reflection be from a wristwatch. To explain the motion of the reflection across the window, the wristwatch would have to be in motion. A turn of the wrist.

I just thought the jink in the path might be explained by a curve in the window. An extreme curve.

As for an external camera that's not panning, mounted on an aircraft that might, at most, be slowly turning...

This is not a recipe for a ghost image produced by sunlight showing this kind of movement due to optical parallax effects.

 

[Matt33]

Anybody noticed that when the orb first appears, at the same time there comes up a dark spot on the water? That dark spot stays there for a couple of frames, disappears, and reappears faintly during the orb's flight.

 

[tobigtofool]

For a moment the black spot appearing made me wonder if it was edited, then I thought that it couldn't be—unless someone edited it at the news station and then released it as a raw video?

I wonder if it was at all possible the person that works at fox that found this video, also edited it? What was the origin of this video release?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Anybody noticed that when the orb first appears, at the same time there comes up a dark spot on the water? That dark spot stays there for a couple of frames, disappears, and reappears faintly during the orb's flight.
View attachment 73527
View attachment 73528

So what does that mean?

 

[Mick West]

I found the original clip on YouTube at 720p 29.97. From this, I created a better echo image by combining min and max echos. As this is the original frame-rate it also has no gaps.

Here, it's combined with the echo

Something interesting about the echo is that the closer an object is to the camera, the more curved its apparent path is. You'll also not the distant paths are similar lengths to the nearby paths. This means the camera is panning. We can remove this to a degree...

 

[Mick West]

Here I've stabilized it so the objects in the distance don't move (as much as possible, as the far horizon is indistinct.

This gives a different sense of the helicopter path.

 

[deirdre]

This gives a different sense of the helicopter path.

the ufo is a helicopter?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The path of the helicopter.

 

[deirdre]

The path of the helicopter.

the camera helicopter? are you seeing a different path?
to be fair i dont know what "echo" means either.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This is a demonstration of how ghost images move while the camera is panning.



Ghosting is most prominent when the light source is strong and directly enters the lens, (especially from an angle) or when it's close to the edge of the frame.

Ghosting caused by a light source far from the edge the frame - at a very acute angle - is... well not impossible I guess, but very unlikely. Especially because any quality camera will have an anti-glare shade.

Why are we seeing flares with colors?
-Spectral flare: A flare pattern with distinct colors, caused by chromatic aberration and reflections off coated lens surfaces.

Why do we see a whole area of brightness?
-Veiling flare is caused when scattered light from bright sources hits the front element of the lens or enters the lens system and "veils" the image. This scattered light doesn't form coherent shapes, but instead fills the image with stray light, reducing contrast and obscuring fine details. This is not a ghost image.

Why do we sometimes see discs that morph into weird shapes as the camera pans?
-These are diffraction artifacts caused by light interacting with lens edges or aperture blades, growing more pronounced as the light source aligns with specific parts of the lens.


Ghost images appear across the optical axis from the light source. As the camera pans, the ghost images move in the frame in the opposite direction to the camera pan. If the camera is panning left the ghost image moves to the right.

The speed of the ghost image is usually equal to the speed of the camera pan. In other words, the light source and the ghost image move at the same speed across the frame, but in opposite directions.

Is it possible for a ghost image to move faster or slower than the camera is panning? Yes, ghost images are reflections, and their movement can look somewhat erratic or nonlinear, depending on the optical design and internal reflections in the lens. But only within narrow parameters.

In this test video, why do we see some ghost images appear on the same side of the optical axis with the light source and move to the left as the camera is panning left? Because these ghost images are reflections of the "original" ghost image and appear across the optical axis from the light source - which in this case is the ghost image, not the external light source. Note that all such "secondary ghost images" (my neologism) are larger than the first ghost image because the light has taken a longer path.

We sometimes see really large ghost images that are reflections of the secondary ghost images - "tertiary ghost images." They appear on the opposite side of the optical axis to the light source - which in this case is the secondary ghost image. They're even larger because the light has taken an even longer path.