Is this bright ball of light a star or an airliner?

[Starflint]

This is a video sent to me by a friend of mine along with some of the information, from the creation information of the source file in the phone you can see that the video this is the flight he took from Bangkok to Ningbo on 26 July 2023 at 20:12PM CST - China Standard Time .
9C7432 (CQH7432) Spring Airlines.He said he was sitting on the left side of the airliner when he took the shot.And it was probably taken about half an hour or so before landing (vague memory)....Unfortunately the exact location wasn't known at the time, so I wasn't able to find the exact parameters of the aircraft.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

It's neither a star nor an aircraft. It's Venus.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The left side windows would be facing generally northwest.

Venus was at Az 275 at the time. A good match.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This is a video sent to me by a friend of mine along with some of the information, from the creation information of the source file in the phone you can see that the video this is the flight he took from Bangkok to Ningbo on 26 July 2023 at 20:12PM BST.


View attachment 77035

Note: BST - Bangladesh Standard Time - is UTC +6;

CST - China Standard Time - is UTC +8 and is used across the entire country all year.

It would have been daylight at that place at 20:12 BST, so I set the time for 20:12 CST.

Bangkok is in Indochina Time - UTC +7 - and there is no daylight saving time.

The boarding time on the tickets must be in Indochina Time - 14:10.

So please clarify if you meant he took the video at 20:12. And 20:12 in which time zone?

 

[Scaramanga]

It's neither a star nor an aircraft. It's Venus.

Normally I'd jump on Venus. Trouble is, this object has flashing lights....you can see one very clear flash at around 11 seconds. Also, at around 53 seconds you can clearly see the aircraft main beam lights rotate in angle ( as they will do coming in to land ) and shine on clouds below. My verdict...this is an aircraft coming in to land. Though I suspect that stabilising the video would clarify one way or the other.

 

[Eburacum]

I second that. The smaller flashes favour 'plane landing lights.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Could you be looking at camera artifacts? You don't typically see anti-collision lights when the landing lights are pointed at the camera. Too much glare.

For one thing, the artifact at the 5:00 position to the object is caused by a reflection in the double paned window. Or possibly an offset lens cover ghost image. Least likely; Ghosting caused by Lens Element Reflections

Finally, if the object is not Venus... where is Venus?

That last question may not be valid if the time is not correct.

 

[Scaramanga]

I don't see any of that. Are you looking at camera artifacts?

I may be. It's not a hill I particularly wish to die on. That's why I think that whoever does the video stabilising magic here could resolve the issue. I've had plenty of experience of 'flashes' near bright lights being simply the camera motion capturing multiple images in the same frame. Likewise the 'smear' of the light at the end of the video...which 'looks' similar to when aircraft landing lights rotate downwards....could just be some form of lens flare.

An obvious first question....was it actually a clear night ?

 

[deirdre]

It would have been daylight at that place at 20:12 BST, so I set the time for 20:12 CST.

Bangkok is in Indochina Time - UTC +7 - and there is no daylight saving time.

The boarding time on the tickets must be in Indochina Time - 14:10.

So please clarify if you meant he took the video at 20:12. And 20:12 in which time zone?

https://www.flightera.net/zh/planes/B-6852/Aug-2023

probably doesnt change viewing angle much..
last time (in screenshot) is "arrival" which i assume means arrival at gate. some flights last year the taxi varies between 12 and 30 minutes. flight is 4 hours. could it be utc+7?


edit to put labels on screenshot

 

[Starflint]

Note: BST - Bangladesh Standard Time - is UTC +6;

CST - China Standard Time - is UTC +8 and is used across the entire country all year.

It would have been daylight at that place at 20:12 BST, so I set the time for 20:12 CST.

Bangkok is in Indochina Time - UTC +7 - and there is no daylight saving time.

The boarding time on the tickets must be in Indochina Time - 14:10.

So please clarify if you meant he took the video at 20:12. And 20:12 in which time zone?

Sorry, I just found the machine translation error, I have changed the time zone of the original post, which is actually CST - China Standard Time

 

[deirdre]

Sorry, I just found the machine translation error, I have changed the time zone of the original post, which is actually CST - China Standard Time

thats only 7 mins out IF "arrival" in the above schedule means wheels down vs "at gate". (although that seems odd )

im not seeing a road match guesstimating airplane speeds myself, but maybe the guys can pinpoint location. theres a nice shaped road here

https://www.flightera.net/zh/flight_details/Spring+Airlines/9C7432/VTBD/2023-07-26

 

[flarkey]

Kml of the flight attached if it helps.

 

[jarlrmai]

The KML is incomplete there

ADSB Ex doesn't have a solid track for the time given

 

[Calter]

Maybe this road in Ningbo? I'm still not sure where the plane is meant to be at 20:12 (I didn't match the angle perfectly since that goes beyond my skills, I just tried to match the road)

https://earth.google.com/web/@29.90...,360r/data=CgRCAggBQgIIAEoNCP___________wEQAA

 

[Starflint]

View attachment 77042

View attachment 77043

Maybe this road in Ningbo? I'm still not sure where the plane is meant to be at 20:12 (I didn't match the angle perfectly since that goes beyond my skills, I just tried to match the road)



https://earth.google.com/web/@29.90...,360r/data=CgRCAggBQgIIAEoNCP___________wEQAA

But you've opened up another possibility，And that curved highway is really similar， could it be a ship on the ocean？Although that thing looks like it is in heaven。In addition, is there a website that can query real-time data of ships like the ADSBex website?

 

[Calter]

I'd say chances are that I took the google earth from way higher than the plane would have been, and the angle is all wrong, I think it looks too bright to be a ship (though I guess it's possible)

 

[jdog]

But you've opened up another possibility，And that curved highway is really similar， could it be a ship on the ocean？Although that thing looks like it is in heaven。In addition, is there a website that can query real-time data of ships like the ADSBex website?

There are sites like marinetraffic.com where you can get realtime locations of most vessels and some identifying information, as well as recent tracks, but most of the data requires a subscription.

 

[Calter]

https://earth.google.com/web/@29.90...,360r/data=CgRCAggBQgIIAEoNCP___________wEQAA

This is probably not the place, since not only is it further east than the airport they would have been landing (so the plane travelling over that area doesn't make too much sense), but I also think more roads (and buildings) should be visible if that were the place.

 

[Calter]

What compass direction are we looking?

Looking Northeast (as if the plane were moving southeast)

Kind of like this

But I no longer think that's the place.

 

[flarkey]

This blue feature shown at 0m27s seems to be a large airport. That shouldn't be too hard to geolocate...

 

[Mick West]

Here's the KML from FR24 (green), more detailed than the ADSBx (red)

Sitrec with video, not synced exactly, but I don't think (if it;s Venus) the time on the video files is correct as at 19:11, Venus would be below the horizon. A few minutes earlier would be a great fit.
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...t-2.amazonaws.com/1/9C7432/20250209_190747.js

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I'm tentatively looking at this area. I've got to break off right now. Too busy.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

One parting shot.

Note that at the end of the video the image of the object smears, and then disappears. My interpretation: it was at the far left side of the window, and then it gets cut off by the left edge of the window frame. The plane may have been turning to the right... slightly.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This blue feature shown at 0m27s seems to be a large airport. That shouldn't be too hard to geolocate...

View attachment 77049

If someone wants to pursue this, I suggest that a good candidate is Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport to the west of Ningbo.


https://earth.google.com/web/search...jFtBF5AQgIIAToDCgEwQgIIAEoNCP___________wEQAA

This shows the plane in that area.

I suggest that the plane turned right in this area to line up with the runway at Ningbo Airport, which runs generally NW to SE.

https://earth.google.com/web/search...jFtBF5AQgIIAToDCgEwQgIIAEoNCP___________wEQAA

I've already tentatively shown that the plane was turning to the right. The image of the object became distorted as it entered the far left side of the window, then disappeared as it was blocked by the window frame.

 

[deirdre]

Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport

certainly dont go by me, but i tried to place my camera on Mick's plane line -post #21-and that airport seemed way too far away to get the clear video we have.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I've refined the Stellarium view. I previously set it to half way between Bangkok and Ningbo, as it was unclear to me when the video was recorded.


In this updated Stellarium view I set the coordinates to those of Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport. At an altitude of 2,000 meters.

I also reset the time. As Dierdre already pointed out, the arrival time is the time the plane is at the gate and the passengers are first getting off. Not when the wheels touch the runway.

The arrival time seems to be 20:19 CST. Let's allow 15 minutes from touchdown to door open at the gate... It landed at 20:04. Let's allow that it was 15 minutes to touchdown... the video was taken at ~19:50. I think that's pretty reasonable. The witness report says 20 minutes shy of landing.

Here's where Venus was at that time and place. This is a simplified version to make the situation as clear as possible.

And a wider view.

MW's Sitrec analysis is more sophisticated, and agrees with my Stellarium analysis.


This is not conclusive proof that the object is Venus. It could be the landing lights of plane, yes.

But I like the odds. Venus is far brighter than any landing lights and would attract more attention and wonder. Venus was in the right place. If the object is not Venus... then where is Venus?

 

[Scaramanga]

This is not conclusive proof that the object is Venus. It could be the landing lights of plane, yes.

Now that I look at the full video again, it can't be Venus.

You can clearly see a parallax effect whereby nearby ground objects move to the left and further background objects move to the right ( of the object ).

If its Venus then everything on the ground should be moving to the left as the plane moves to the right....with the distant objects just moving to the left slower. You should not get the foreground moving to the left and the background moving to the right...relative to Venus.

I'd expect that with an object tens of miles way....not one currently 42 million miles away. The parallax effect is highly visible and clear.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

certainly dont go by me, but i tried to place my camera on Mick's plane line -post #21-and that airport seemed way too far away to get the clear video we have.

I believe the plane was near Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport at the time the video was taken. It was beginning a turn to align it with the runway at Ningbo, which was the distant airport at that moment.


Red Arrow - Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport

Green line - MW's updated and more accurate path of plane.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Now that I look at the full video again, it can't be Venus.

You can clearly see a parallax effect whereby nearby ground objects move to the left and further background objects move to the right ( of the object ).

If its Venus then everything on the ground should be moving to the left as the plane moves to the right....with the distant objects just moving to the left slower. You should not get the foreground moving to the left and the background moving to the right...relative to Venus.

I'd expect that with an object tens of miles way....not one currently 42 million miles away. The parallax effect is highly visible and clear.

Okay, let's take a detailed look. It's a difficult visual situation. The camera is wobbling around in the hands of the witness. Typically bad camera operation skills of 99.9% of the adult population of the Earth. Which makes it difficult to keep track of things. So, we should look at still frames.

What should things look like? This video is not ideal as an example, as the direction of travel is opposite to that of the plane. But the camera is steady. Let's keep track of the relative positions of the nearest objects - houses - and the distant objects - clouds.


The clouds move to the left of the houses. The houses move to the right of the clouds. Relatively.

In the OP video the direction of travel is opposite. Venus should move to the right of the closest objects. The closest objects should move to the left of Venus. Relatively.

We should look at the closest objects, because the motion will be more clearly seen. We should also look at something clearly identifiable. I've chosen the highway. The one with the two big red lights next to it. Or you might just want to look at the two big red lights.


29 second mark in video.

39 seconds

48 seconds

What does everyone think?

It's clearly a distant object. A distant plane with landing lights would also be distant, of course.

Much more difficult would be to compare the relative position of the object to that distant orange island of ground lights, for example. Or any other distant ground light you might choose. With the purpose of distinguishing between an object that is a few miles away and one that is at an astronomical distance.

Pretty tricky.

And even more complicated because the witness was playing with the zoom. Another bad habit we constantly see in witness videos.

My conclusion: There's no reason to reject Venus because of visible parallax effects.

 

[Scaramanga]

What should things look like?

In the segments in the countryside, you can clearly see that objects move in the opposite direction to the car, with their speed of doing so slower the further the objects are. That is geometrically exactly what one would expect.

Now imagine a plane in the distance, in front of the clouds, was moving in the opposite direction to the car. You would see it move to the right relative to the background clouds. Venus simply can't do this. As far as Venus is concerned it is so far away that its reference frame is the background.

I'm sorry, but there is simply no way you can have airplane moving to the right whilst distant background objects also move to the right relative to Venus at an effectively 'infinite' distance. That is geometrically impossible.

On an infinite plane...everything closer than Venus geometrically must move to the left relative to it....if we are ourselves moving to the right. This has been true since Pythagoras. The only way the object can be moving leftward relative to the distant ground objects is if it is closer than them. One is otherwise defying basic geometry.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Please use visual evidence from the video in your presentation.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Perhaps my use of "relative" is confusing. Or maybe even wrong.

Let's simplify. The closest objects will, in sequential frame captures, noticeably appear to move to the left, compared to Venus. (No matter which way Venus seems to be moving due to camera wobble.)

That's what's happening.

Go back to post #29..
Highway starts to the right of Venus.
Highway lines up with Venus.
Highway ends up to the left of Venus.

The camera is wobbling in the unsteady hand of the witness, and Venus moves within the frame. The landscape also moves within the frame. The witness also plays with the zoom.

That makes this video visually confusing. We should compare the position of Venus to the position of fixed objects in the landscape. The closest objects within still frames are best. Stills eliminate the meaningless movements and retain the relevant info. The closest objects will exhibit the most noticeable parallax effects.

Lastly, the plane may be turning to the right. In a turn, the background will move to the left, including Venus. That would be noticeable if the camera were fixed to the structure of the plane. But it's handheld, and that motion is not easily noticeable. I speculate that the witness was moving the camera to try to keep Venus in frame. But, at last, Venus was obscured by the left edge of the window frame.

 

[Ann K]

You can clearly see a parallax effect whereby nearby ground objects move to the left and further background objects move to the right ( of the object ).

The plane is moving. If the angle of view is somewhat forward, not straight out perpendicular to the window, you would see things move to both left and right.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The plane is moving. If the angle of view is somewhat forward, not straight out perpendicular to the window, you would see things move to both left and right.

That would be true if you're looking through a front windshield and have a wide view. But not true when looking out an airliner (side) window.

 

[Landru]

That would be true if you're looking through a front windshield and have a wide view. But not true when looking out an airliner (side) window.

Please use the Reply button so it is easier to determine who you are responding to.

 

[Ann K]

That would be true if you're looking through a front windshield and have a wide view. But not true when looking out an airliner (side) window.

Here's a video of the view from the side as a plane turns to the right on its approach to the airport. Watch the first thirty seconds, and you can see the foreground rotate with respect to the background.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IMWMrxt60A

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Here's a video of the view from the side as a plane turns to the right on its approach to the airport. Watch the first thirty seconds, and you can see the foreground rotate with respect to the background.

You were talking about turning? I thought maybe we'd switched subjects from parallax to perspective.

Looking out the left window during a right turn - You'd see everything moving to your left. Including the Moon or Sun.

If you looked across the aisle out the right window. - You'd see everything turning to your left.

 

[Scaramanga]

Let's simplify. The closest objects will, in sequential frame captures, noticeably appear to move to the left, compared to Venus. (No matter which way Venus seems to be moving due to camera wobble.)

You're not simplifying. All objects should appear to move to the left compared to Venus. This is geometry 101 as we're looking out of the left window of a plane moving to the right and Venus is effectively at infinity. Every object in view is closer than 'Venus'....that is the CRUCIAL aspect here...as is the fact that we are looking perpendicular to the direction of motion.

Right at the start of the video there's a distant light literally right underneath our 'UFO', almost on the horizon. You can clearly see that as time passes the light on the horizon moves a considerable distance to the right of our 'UFO' as the airplane carries on moving to the right.

Now that is simply not geometrically possible if the 'UFO' is Venus. It just astonishes me that anyone is still arguing that it is Venus.

Even the plane flying a slightly curved path should not make any difference to this. With Venus at infinity...any movement to the right should cause all objects in the field of view to move to the left...and none to the right...by an amount dependent on the distance. No amount of jiggery-pokery gets you out of this. If that is Venus then NO objects should be moving further and further to the right of it.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Right at the start of the video there's a distant light literally right underneath our 'UFO', almost on the horizon. You can clearly see that as time passes the light on the horizon moves a considerable distance to the right of our 'UFO' as the airplane carries on moving to the right.

I'm open to being convinced. But you've got to present visual evidence from the video.

One thing to be wary of: The witness was playing with the zoom. If a ground light were slightly, imperceptibly, to the right of Venus when the camera was zoomed out... it would "move" to the right as the camera zoomed in.

A very distant ground light would only show a slight parallax to Venus over a relatively short time. Zooming in could make it "move" away to the right pretty noticeably.

That's why I want visual evidence.

 

[Scaramanga]

I'm open to being convinced. But you've got to present visual evidence from the video.

One thing to be wary of. The witness was playing with the zoom. If a ground light were slight to the right of Venus when the camera was zoomed out. It would "move" to the right as the camera zoomed in.

A very distant ground light would only show a slight parallax to Venus over a relatively short time. Zooming in could make it "move" away to the right pretty noticeably.

That's why I want visual evidence.

Look...here's frames from 0 seconds and from 6 seconds...before any zoom has occured. The object circled in red is the same distant light. In the space of 6 seconds it moves noticeably to the right of 'Venus'....

This is simply not possible if the object is Venus. What is there to argue about ? This is very basic geometry. With Venus at infinity that object on the horizon should be moving to the left of Venus...not to the right of Venus. In fact it gets further and further to the right of 'Venus' as the video progresses.

I can only suggest you take the matter up with Pythagoras if you still disagree.