News Nation - Light in the Sky video - Tedesco Brothers

This video personifies exactly what's wrong with their investigations and The Good Trouble Show - no presentation of evidence or analysis as a rebuttal as to why we were wrong and they were right. Just two guys saying 'no, they're wrong, We're right', and one guy saying "yeah you guys are so right".

And I must address Matt's claim that I spend too much time in my basement. That is demonstrably untrue as I don't even have a basement.
 
Matt's claim that I spend too much time in my basement. That is demonstrably untrue as I don't even have a basement.
He called me a guy and said i identified the bench lol!! when i specifically said there are no benches facing the ocean. and i saw none in field 2. Men never listen to what women say...this is why we have to nag constantly, Matt!!!

I'd rather be in my basement then be a guy!! they know Deirdre Hall was a female. wtf.

At least news nation showed what i wrote (on page 1 of a 7 page investigation thread) and that i was actually saying "what they are claiming doesnt jive with what i am seeing. what am i seeing then?" lol.
 
Is there a three-sentence summation possible, for those not wanting to watch the hour long video? (Of course, starting a fight with Mick West would be a great way to gain some attention and cred in UFOria -- it would be very helpful to these folks if he was a little easier to provoke into belligerence! ^_^
I replied here (and on Twitter, as I just noticed in @flarkey's post)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOPUv19Nwuw


Basically, they doubled down on the heading being what they said and claimed Metabunk identified "the wrong bench" (based on a very early post by @deirdre, way before the video of the parking lot was found). They are, of course, entirely wrong.
 
Is there a three-sentence summation possible, for those not wanting to watch the hour long video? (Of course, starting a fight with Mick West would be a great way to gain some attention and cred in UFOria -- it would be very helpful to these folks if he was a little easier to provoke into belligerence! ^_^

The griping starts at following. I tend to watch such videos at 2x speed.


Source: https://youtu.be/GzELhUbP3KE?t=217
 
At least you're collecting that paycheck since we all work for Mick though, right?
1737151335395.png


Worst boss ever.
 
Hey, at least it was a thread where you could contribute substantively. Why does nobody ever want to come at us for one of the kite UFOs? How am I ever going to get (in)famous, at the rate we're going?
Well, we love you here, but as yet we haven't rounded up enough members to take over the world.
 
Hey, at least it was a thread where you could contribute substantively. Why does nobody ever want to come at us for one of the kite UFOs? How am I ever going to get (in)famous, at the rate we're going?
noones gonna come at you with that super cute wholesome avatar. you have to accuse them of pointing lasers at planes or something like i did.
 
This video personifies exactly what's wrong with their investigations and The Good Trouble Show - no presentation of evidence or analysis as a rebuttal as to why we were wrong and they were right. Just two guys saying 'no, they're wrong, We're right', and one guy saying "yeah you guys are so right".

And I must address Matt's claim that I spend too much time in my basement. That is demonstrably untrue as I don't even have a basement.

It's very interesting that they've accused their detractors of cherry picking their statements, but that's exactly what they've done on Matt Ford's show.

They were the ones that originally provided the lat/long coordinates for where they were, and Mick's early illustration demonstrating the camera view was in alignment with the concrete grid simply showed that a) the direction they claimed to have been facing couldn't be correct, and b) they had provided the wrong coordinates.

1737157343137.png

Source: X

I don't recall anyone here stating they were actually at Robert Moses State Park Field 5. Weird how they focused on this and not @jarlrmai's work that correctly identified their location.

@flarkey had raised the possibility of a plane departing from Newark Airport but that was pretty quickly dismissed by Mick. Weird how they only focused on that one and not the other candidates coming out of JFK Airport.

In response to Mick's requests for the video metadata, they complain we weren't looking at the "totality of the data." This is hilarious, because pretty much all of the data they provided was wrong! Wrong coordinates, wrong direction, wrong timezone... Now they're claiming the cloud cover was 2000 feet? Where does that even come from other than "trust me bro!", because the meteorological data for the time they provided (which we have no way of knowing is even accurate) certainly doesn't support their case. Not only that, it's also inconsistent with their own previous statements.

1737157398309.png

Source: X

They complain that we took their supposed compass readings and were "chopping it to death" for supposedly being off by 2-3 degrees. They were actually off by about 35 degrees. When they were further questioned about the accuracy of the compass heading they provided two different compass readings - 236 degrees from the RV, and 226 degrees from where they were standing. This makes no sense!

1737157752089.png

Source: X

According to the Tedesco's, they are a "scientific research team of engineers who had the most sophisticated multi-modal equipment being used out there." The most sophisticated equipment has an accuracy of +/- 10 degrees?

Good grief, I am only 20 minutes into this video and I'm not sure I can take any more. They are just speaking absolute nonsense.
 
Last edited:
The video has been timestamped at the discussion regarding the altitude of cloud cover which they now claim was 2000 feet.

22:25.



Again, they are changing their story.

1737159186216.png
 
The Tedescos and the host mostly display a level of dickishness that would get forum-users banned from Metabunk if it were aimed at the Tedescos. (I know I've been rightfully warned when I've posted less-than-charitable snark in other contexts.)

I see on YouTube the host has also been hearting the most content-free insults aimed at Mick.
 
Confused.png


We did get side tracked on a (mostly) irrelevant discussion about what those lights are in the parking lot.

At this point in the video I think they're getting confused about what we were talking about. They seem to think we were suggesting that the lights in the sky are a reflection of ground lights. These ground lights.

I got the feeling, at the time, that they were making that false assumption.
 


This seems to be a report from memory. This didn't happen on MB and he gets other details wrong.

You know it's interesting, he posted a video... It looks like he copied our video of one of these polyhedral objects rotating.

And he says that he videotaped this in the sky, and he's trying to show this simply a star.

And that we misjudged the star. And the interesting thing is that you can see the video was a fake. There's no stars in the background. It was pitch black in the sky. And there was just this object turning. And it was supposed to be an Infrared image.

This is as close as I can come to a word for word transcription. I did leave out some irrelevant stuff indicated by the ellipses.


He didn't express himself clearly, so I'll present the original exchange. No one copied one of their videos. John Tedesco posted it on X. Here:


Source: https://x.com/johnted88824079/status/1842367062720528553


-MW did not claim it's an IR image. (It's not.)
-JT failed to notice that you can clearly see a part of the constellation Orion. In that context, anyone with the most basic familiarity with the night sky should recognize the bright star as Sirius.
Another bit of evidence that he doesn't know his way around the night sky.

And the interesting thing is that you can see the video was a fake. There's no stars in the background. It was pitch black in the sky. And there was just this object turning.
Another bit of evidence that JT doesn't recognize that the brightest stars are many times as bright as most other stars in the sky. Another bit of evidence that he doesn't have a good understanding of photography.

Sirius is many times as bright as the stars around it. The camera sensor was able to capture this bright star, but the other stars were too dim. Much like the misunderstanding about the black, starless sky in the Apollo Moon landing photos. Really basic stuff.

-Also evidence that he doesn't understand - and has probably never heard of - chromatic scintillation.
-And evidence that the Tedesco Bros. are unaware of the history of UFO investigation; that the misperception of chromatic scintillation as rotation is a classic. It's been reported thousands of times over the decades.
 
Last edited:
In this video they claimed that they didn't - and by extension, have never - mistaken bright stars as rotating "polyhedral objects." As I just showed in post 260.

In post 207 I showed that they identified Fomalhaut as an "orb" and failed to recognize a constellation .

I don't think it's an accident that they didn't present post 207 in this video.
 
In this video they claimed that they didn't - and by extension, have never - mistaken bright stars as rotating "polyhedral objects." As I just showed in post 260.

In post 207 I showed that they identified Fomalhaut as an "orb" and failed to recognize a constellation .

I don't think it's an accident that they didn't present post 207 in this video.
i hear you but thats called a gish gallop and they seem to have trouble focusing enough as it is. just thinking a new thread would perhaps help them be less confused.
 
This one is funny. They look at this post of mine, onscreen...

Whiffs.png


and while still looking at it...

And the camera was catching whiffs of smoke, he was saying.
Yeah, whiffs of smoke.





Well, how stupid of me to suggest that the camera was catching whiffs of smoke. Well, what can you expect of a guy called "Senior Wolf"?



BTW, that's classic advice to beginning students on how to operate a video camera on a fluid head tripod. Meaning... Treat it gently and move it delicately. It's a metaphor.

"A what? A meteor? Now they're saying it was a meteor.
It wasn't a meteor. *chuckle*
 
Last edited:
based on a misinterpretation of a very early post by deirdre.

It's pretty funny that they drew attention to your post and claimed you thought they were at Robert Moses State Park Field 5, but then later in the video when they are looking at a screencap you took from a Youtube drone video, one of the Tedesco's says "this is the wrong parking lot, this is parking field 5." (1:00:24)

The screen cap is actually of Field 2, the same field they were actually at.

Matt Ford's response... "Wow!"

Then a few moments later they show a cropped version of the same screencap and the same guy says "then they show this parking field, this parking field 2, this was, in fact, the correct parking field." (1:00:44)

IT'S THE EXACT SAME IMAGE!

This is beyond comical.
 
Last edited:
Then a few moments later they show a cropped version of the same screencap and the same guy says "then they show this parking field, this parking field 2, this was, in fact, the correct parking field." (1:00:44)

IT'S THE EXACT SAME IMAGE!
It's the same parking lot, just from a slightly higher drone position.

Parking 5, of course, is curved. Nothing at all like the shot they say is 5 (and 2)
2025-01-17_22-00-12.jpg


2025-01-17_21-56-59.jpg


It's like everything they say is wrong. It is actually weird.
 
Oh nice! Some of my comments made it into the video and, of course, were completely misrepresented.

1:01:27 - "Then one of his, I guess one of his people say 'to me it looks like a stationary car with it's head and tail lights on.' *chuckles* I think what he's doing is pointing out to this reflection and they're trying to equate this to what we are seeing." "They were saying we were confused by this reflection, of these lights that were in the parking field."

This is in reference to post #34, and we were obviously trying to figure out what the light was as it didn't match with the geography around latitude/longitude position provided by John Tedesco. Nobody here thought the lights from the car had anything to do with the object in the sky.

1737180455716.png


1:02:37 - "Then he claimed we were using a Canon P1000 and that wasn't the case. So they were using the focal length and so forth from the Nikon P1000. And I think they saw that in our paper ... instead of asking."

This is in reference to post #37, where I actually suggested they were not using the Nikon P1000 listed in their paper and only mentioned the focal length because they would have been able to get a much closer view of the object had they been using it!

1737181429620.png


Also, they actually were directly asked which camera they were using.

1737181987534.png

Source: X

It was the specs from the camera John Tedesco provided that were used to calculate the Field of View in post #133 (which didn't take into account 16:9 crop), locate where they were standing in post #152, and get an approximate degree of elevation for the object in the sky in post #174.

I'm really struggling to find a charitable explanation as to why these two guys misinterpret so many things.
 
It's the same parking lot, just from a slightly higher drone position.

Ahh yes, sorry, you are correct. The are not the exact same, but not dissimilar enough that it would be immediately obvious when quickly eyeballing them. The building, location of the cars and shape of the car park are exactly the same in both images, so how could they make such an error?

For reference, here are the two images as originally presented in post #32. According to the Tedesco's, the top one is Field 5, and the bottom one is Field 2.

1737183867848.png


It's like everything they say is wrong. It is actually weird.

That's not an exaggeration either. It took me a few hours to get through the Matt Ford video because I kept pausing it to check every statement they were making. They get EVERYTHING wrong. I was thinking of putting a video together to cover all the mistakes and misrepresentations they've made until I realised it would be AT LEAST 5 hours long!
 
The Tedesco "object." on top; and Sirius, a bit out of focus, on the bottom.




Play them at the same time. Similar? What do you think?

Neither one of them is "rotating."


(Also note that the Tedesco video is, typically, unsteady... and out of focus. Not good photography. Bad photography is produced by bad photographers.)


Some more videos of Sirius exhibiting chromatic scintillation.


More out of focus



Really out of focus



In good focus



The Tedesco "object" isn't necessarily Sirius. It could be another bright star.., such as Vega. But Sirius is a good candidate as it's the brightest.

If we knew the time and date of the Tedesco video, we could get a better idea of what star it probably is. But it's a star, c'mon.
 
Last edited:
Well, how stupid of me to suggest that the camera was catching whiffs of smoke.

That is either a frighteningly-low reading comprehension level, or a deliberate misinterpretation. However, if the latter, it's a deliberate misinterpretation that anyone with even primary-school reading levels would recognise as such.
 
Every single thing they misinterpret is us trying to make sense of what we are being shown with limited and in the end wrong information, but THEY are the ones that limited that information and provided wrong information in the 1st place..

We did get side tracked on a (mostly) irrelevant discussion about what those lights are in the parking lot.

This isn't a side track tbh, the discussion was trying to align lights in the image with the location and angle we were given by the Tedescos, we ultimately cannot because we were given the wrong location, this is ultimately why in a lot of investigations I tend to pay only moderate attention to the details given by the filmer and rely on the actual data in the video.

Interestingly the Tedesco's don't really seem to make much of a splash over on r/ufos posts about them go nowhere and no-one really seems that interested in their endeavours.
 
That is either a frighteningly-low reading comprehension level, or a deliberate misinterpretation. However, if the latter, it's a deliberate misinterpretation that anyone with even primary-school reading levels would recognise as such.

They are dealing with a crowd of people that they know won't bother to verify anything they say.

When they brought up my post and said I was claiming they were using a Nikon P1000, anyone that actually takes the time to read what is on the screen can see I am saying the exact opposite! There are people in the comments of Mick's latest video about this, mocking him for supposedly getting the camera model wrong. It's truly astonishing.
 
The Nikon P1000 discussion this went like this

Do we know what camera they used?
I check THEIR paper for cameras that might fit the bill, THEY list a P1000.
Someone else does some checks to see if it might be that camera, probably not.

Later on we find out I think it was using a Sionyx night vision device.

But if they had just said when the describe the video the camera they were using we wouldn't have had to have had a discussion about it.

Their breakdown is honestly quite breathtaking in it's disingenuousness.
 
They are dealing with a crowd of people that they know won't bother to verify anything they say.

When they brought up my post and said I was claiming they were using a Nikon P1000, anyone that actually takes the time to read what is on the screen can see I am saying the exact opposite! There are people in the comments of Mick's latest video about this, mocking him for supposedly getting the camera model wrong. It's truly astonishing.
George Carlin wasn't wrong.

Keep collecting these "it seems they can't even read" moments, those who are brave enough to watch the brainrot.
 
It's pretty funny that they drew attention to your post and claimed you thought they were at Robert Moses State Park Field 5, but then later in the video when they are looking at a screencap you took from a Youtube drone video, one of the Tedesco's says "this is the wrong parking lot, this is parking field 5." (1:00:24)

The screen cap is actually of Field 2, the same field they were actually at.

Matt Ford's response... "Wow!"

Then a few moments later they show a cropped version of the same screencap and the same guy says "then they show this parking field, this parking field 2, this was, in fact, the correct parking field." (1:00:44)

IT'S THE EXACT SAME IMAGE!

This is beyond comical.
it's probably just a scientific experiment trying to prove her wife wrong when her wife told them "Careful, if you pick on an italian female from Long Island, she might just give you the evil eye. And if she does it through a digital medium, then all your expensive digital equipment will break".

At least they didnt call me lazy like the host who was too lazy to read the youtube header on the picture, so their equipment will just annoy the hell out of them and not fully break. Plus it's funnier that way.
 
That is either a frighteningly-low reading comprehension level, or a deliberate misinterpretation. However, if the latter, it's a deliberate misinterpretation that anyone with even primary-school reading levels would recognise as such.
I don't think it was a deliberate misinterpretation.
 
We did get side tracked on a (mostly) irrelevant discussion about what those lights are in the parking lot.

At this point in the video I think they're getting confused about what we were talking about. They seem to think we were suggesting that the lights in the sky are a reflection of ground lights. These ground lights.

I got the feeling, at the time, that they were making that false assumption.

The beauty of this forum is that one can see people working out solutions in real time. It can also be a downside for those that just skim or are looking to deliberately mislead. Solutions often involve false steps or dead ends. These get corrected, but the original ideas (posts) don't get deleted, so it can be confusing or a source of misinformation.

I haven't made it all the way through Ford's video, I really dislike his smugness, but did watch Mick's response video and it seems in all the blathering in unison of "yes, yes, yes" and "right, right, right", there simple claim is that Mick and Metabunk identified the wrong bench and tree in possibly the wrong parking lot. Thus, the solution of an airliner is wrong because the Tedescos were in fact looking in a different direction.

Is not the simplest and easiest way to prove Mick wrong to just show the actual bench and tree that corresponds to where they were and the direction they were looking?

The Metabunk solution is undoubtable in parking lot #2, where the Tedesco brother claimed to be. The lined concrete, bench and distinctive tree in the Metabunk solution is undoubtedly in parking lot #2. The line of sight in parking lot #2 over the bench and tree lines up with an airport and a departing airliner.

The Tedesco brothers claim that they were in parking lot #2 but not lined up with the airport and this could not be an airliner. There is undoubtable a similar bench and distinctive tree in the Tedesco's video.

Therefore, if the Tedescos are correct, there is another bench and distinctive tree that lines up with wherever they were looking. Just stop yammering and show the correct bench and tree that does not line up with the airport.

Don't these guys live near there? They could have easily shown up on Ford's show with a simple video. Here is the correct bench and tree as seen in our video and it does not line up with the airport. Here is a similar bench and tree that Metabunk incorrectly identified as the ones in our video, and it does line up with the airport. The Tedesco bench and tree and the sperate and different Metabunk bench and tree.

But they don't.
 
Back
Top