Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Yeah, sorry. The path of the aircraft carrying the camera.
And I think I know what "echo" means, but I'm not sure. It should be defined.
Fox5 New York Zip-by "orb"
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
And I think I know what "echo" means, but I'm not sure. It should be defined.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Is the camera panning or is the aircraft turning, slowly? Orbiting?
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Why I don't think it's possible for this object to be a ghost image in an external camera.
The camera is panning to the left, or the aircraft is turning to the left. This is a steady movement.
-The Sun is out of frame to the left.
-But the object moves first to the right in the frame and then starts to move left, crosses the optical axis, and ends up on the left side of the frame. If the light source is the Sun, this does not follow. This isn't the way optical parallax works.
-The camera pan, or the turn , is slow and the movement of the object across the frame far out paces it. Theoretically possible? I guess. But how likely? Not very, says I.
-The Sun is at an acute angle to the surface of the outer lens. Not a likely scenario to produce a ghost image in the first place. And this expensive camera has no anti-glare shade? That doesn't seem credible.
-Okay let's say this ghost image is caused by reflections between the sensor surface and the internal surface of the filter... or lens cover. Is that possible in this situation with the light source out of frame? I don't think so. I think the light source must be in frame, directly shining into the lens, for this kind of "sensor reflection" to happen.
-In any case... the same objection applies, as above. This kind of sensor reflection ghost image also crosses the optical axis from the light source and should move in the opposite direction to the light source as the camera pans.
Lastly... A rectangular ghost image? Never seen one. What would cause a rectangular ghost image?
It sure couldn't be a sensor reflection because that would be a ghost image of the Sun. Is the Sun rectangular?
What part within a camera would cause a rectangular ghost image?
The entire surface of the sensor? Fiddle-dee-dee. Couldn't happen.
The camera is panning to the left, or the aircraft is turning to the left. This is a steady movement.
-The Sun is out of frame to the left.
-But the object moves first to the right in the frame and then starts to move left, crosses the optical axis, and ends up on the left side of the frame. If the light source is the Sun, this does not follow. This isn't the way optical parallax works.
-The camera pan, or the turn , is slow and the movement of the object across the frame far out paces it. Theoretically possible? I guess. But how likely? Not very, says I.
-The Sun is at an acute angle to the surface of the outer lens. Not a likely scenario to produce a ghost image in the first place. And this expensive camera has no anti-glare shade? That doesn't seem credible.
-Okay let's say this ghost image is caused by reflections between the sensor surface and the internal surface of the filter... or lens cover. Is that possible in this situation with the light source out of frame? I don't think so. I think the light source must be in frame, directly shining into the lens, for this kind of "sensor reflection" to happen.
-In any case... the same objection applies, as above. This kind of sensor reflection ghost image also crosses the optical axis from the light source and should move in the opposite direction to the light source as the camera pans.
Lastly... A rectangular ghost image? Never seen one. What would cause a rectangular ghost image?
It sure couldn't be a sensor reflection because that would be a ghost image of the Sun. Is the Sun rectangular?
What part within a camera would cause a rectangular ghost image?
The entire surface of the sensor? Fiddle-dee-dee. Couldn't happen.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
this is your third lengthy post on a claim nobody suggested
can you please stop flogging that dead horse
i already didn't think you'd post a second or third time on this
but, alas, I was wrong
Edit: I missed a post. This was the fourth time.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
No one here on MB, but this guy did.
https://nypost.com/2024/11/21/us-ne...entally-caught-on-film-by-local-news-chopper/
I've also been addressing Loeb's opinion.
Loeb seems to be implying a handheld camera inside the aircraft. But what he's saying is just a bald statement that doesn't include vital details. And he's wrong about the attitude of the helicopter being the possible cause of this movement. That's just plain wrong.
I wanted to go over the details. It's barely possible that it's a reflection of a reflection of the Sun in the window. The vital missing detail is that the original reflection would have to be a reflection off a moving object.
In any case I want to make the case against it being any kind of optical artifact, and be methodical about it. Not just reacting. I think we have to address the possibility of a ghost image to support the idea of it being a physical object. Otherwise there's a hole in the argument.
I disagree. But without a supporting argument, that's just a bald statement. The issue is complex so the argument is complex.
https://nypost.com/2024/11/21/us-ne...entally-caught-on-film-by-local-news-chopper/
I've also been addressing Loeb's opinion.
Loeb seems to be implying a handheld camera inside the aircraft. But what he's saying is just a bald statement that doesn't include vital details. And he's wrong about the attitude of the helicopter being the possible cause of this movement. That's just plain wrong.
I wanted to go over the details. It's barely possible that it's a reflection of a reflection of the Sun in the window. The vital missing detail is that the original reflection would have to be a reflection off a moving object.
I'm glad that they agree with me. But... this statement is off. It equates all ghost images, or all lens flares, with aperture flare. It also seems to be implying that the object is solid because it looks solid. I think that's off, as I think what we're seeing is a specular reflection in the object, not the object itself.
In any case I want to make the case against it being any kind of optical artifact, and be methodical about it. Not just reacting. I think we have to address the possibility of a ghost image to support the idea of it being a physical object. Otherwise there's a hole in the argument.
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
I think it's a either an uncoated latex/vinyl balloon or a random airborne piece of transparent/translucent plastic. Maybe a bag of some kind.
The bright rectangular shape is a specular reflection of the Sun shining on the left side and visible on the right side, because of the transparent/translucent nature of the plastic.
The rest of the object is not visible. The blurred nature comes entirely or almost entirely from motion blur rather than bad focus. It moves in a curved path because it's being displaced by the high pressure zone in front of the aircraft. The apparent speed comes from the aircraft not the object.
It's close and small, not large and distant. And not an optical artifact.
The bright rectangular shape is a specular reflection of the Sun shining on the left side and visible on the right side, because of the transparent/translucent nature of the plastic.
The rest of the object is not visible. The blurred nature comes entirely or almost entirely from motion blur rather than bad focus. It moves in a curved path because it's being displaced by the high pressure zone in front of the aircraft. The apparent speed comes from the aircraft not the object.
It's close and small, not large and distant. And not an optical artifact.
Last edited:
"Echo" here is an effect in Adobe After Effects where previous frames leave an echo on later frames. There are various types, but here I've used "Max" and "Min", which respectively use the brightness or darkest pixels from previous frames.
This creates the trails.
Here's a proof of concept Sitrec. Not intended as a perfect recreation, which it is not.
15 knot wind from 219° (South-ish). Chopper (or maybe drone) flying slow, 22 knots TAS,
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...NY Good Curve, maybe sized/20241125_005608.js
The object is traveling at wind speed. The chopper catches up with it.
The object is moving in a perfectly straight line, but the chopper's curve give an illusion that the object is moving in a curve.
15 knot wind from 219° (South-ish). Chopper (or maybe drone) flying slow, 22 knots TAS,
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...NY Good Curve, maybe sized/20241125_005608.js
The object is traveling at wind speed. The chopper catches up with it.
The object is moving in a perfectly straight line, but the chopper's curve give an illusion that the object is moving in a curve.
John J.
Senior Member.
Can't help but get the impression from the frame(s) at the end of the footage that the orb is about to become two "orbs", more than it being a rectangle.
On a different tack,
Thomas H's video has a title screen with an illustration of a reflective balloon,
I've been wondering if he was partly inspired by the apparent balloon shape that can be seen in the final frame,
...if that's so, maybe it's a bit of pareidolia; the bluish "balloon lower half" might be already present in the features/ shading of that building before the "orb" passes in front,
On a different tack,
Thomas H's video has a title screen with an illustration of a reflective balloon,
I've been wondering if he was partly inspired by the apparent balloon shape that can be seen in the final frame,
...if that's so, maybe it's a bit of pareidolia; the bluish "balloon lower half" might be already present in the features/ shading of that building before the "orb" passes in front,
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Maybe. It's ambiguous, because it's a blurred image. But is this illustration realistic? The Sun is to the left of the camera, the object is to the left of the camera. How does the camera see a reflection of the Sun in a mirrored balloon... on the left side of the balloon?
That's why I think whatever it is, is transparent/translucent. We're seeing the specular reflection of the Sun on the interior surface of the right side of the object.
That's why I think whatever it is, is transparent/translucent. We're seeing the specular reflection of the Sun on the interior surface of the right side of the object.
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
So the apparent curved path of the object is entirely due to the curved path of the aircraft...
It seems Thomas H. was wrong about this too...
Last edited:
Here's a better fit, plausibly close. It's a 20cm diameter sphere. The camera path has just a slight curve to the right. The balloon path is wind speed (10 knots). Altitude 1420 feet, about the top floor of the WTC, with which we seem to be level.
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=https://sitrec.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/1/NY Orb Shallow Curve and 10cm object/20241125_055304.js
This works at any wind speed. Click on "Lock Wind" and then adjust Local Wind Knots.
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=https://sitrec.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/1/NY Orb Shallow Curve and 10cm object/20241125_055304.js
This works at any wind speed. Click on "Lock Wind" and then adjust Local Wind Knots.
Last edited:
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Looking at the smooth version of the object's path, I don't see any unusual movement when it gets near the helicopter, so I now think the rotor wash effect is minimal.
This is a small object, moving smoothly and slowly through the air, with most or all of its apparent movement caused by the forward and sideways movement of the helicopter. A small, probably transparent balloon, in other words.
Nicole Schnaß
Member
JMartJr
Senior Member.
It was not visible yet, but if it was an actual object and not a reflection, then it was THERE, just not yet detected.
John J.
Senior Member.
That's interesting. I hadn't properly understood the meaning of @Nicole Schnaß's post.
There are some other areas of changing brightness in your GIF as well.
Don Kielty
New Member
This perfectly sums up the Kenneth Arnold sighting, which is how we got here in the first place!
MonkeeSage
Senior Member.
The washington sighting from the 40's?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Yeah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold_UFO_sightingExternal Quote:
I guess there is not enough info there to justify a MB thread, and it has been well discussed over the years -- but it still feels odd that we don't seem to have one on THE seminal UFO case...
eleggua
Member
Birds.
James Easton[39] was the one of several skeptics to suggest that Arnold may have misidentified pelicans: the birds live in the Washington region, are rather large (wingspans of over 9.8 ft (3 m) are not uncommon), have a pale underside that can reflect light, can fly at rather high altitudes, and can appear to have a somewhat crescent-shaped profile when flying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold_UFO_sighting
Similar threads
