News Nation - Light in the Sky video - Tedesco Brothers

flarkey said:
If the time period is now opened to a "quarter to two in the morning" that brings this EVA Air 777 as a candidate plane

1728461399512.png
Click to expand...
John Tedesco now tells me the times was "1:56 AM November 19 2022"

Which would be
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a6e055&lat=40.609&lon=-73.724&zoom=11.3&showTrace=2022-11-19
2025-01-18_14-00-43.jpg
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
Mick West said:
John Tedesco now tells me the times was "1:56 AM November 19 2022"
Click to expand...

Yup, I just came here to report that.

He was asked to provide data supporting his assertion that the cloud cover was at 2000 feet.

1737240133118.png

Source: X

If we have a closer look at the images he provided...

Image


Image



This, of course, completely contradicts the information he previous provided with regard to both the date and time of the recording, and the altitude of the cloud cover.

Also, interestingly, he now gives a precise time of 1:56AM. Previously he gave a time of 1:35AM.

1737240908994.png

Source: X

While on the Matt Ford show a while back, they said "Ok, so this was an object seen about roughly one thirty, a quarter to two in the morning." This reference video and timestamp is in post #200.

So now we have a third time of 1:56AM. Why such a precise time after previously giving a rough estimate and a completely different precise time. I wonder if it has anything to do with the weather data he pulled?

Image

Source: X

Hmmm... Is it just a complete coincidence that the daily observations are at :56 of every hour?

YOU DECIDE!

My god... This is just getting even more ridiculous.
 
I notice that two of the "media bias/reliability" websites have the following opinions about NewsNation:
https://adfontesmedia.com/newsnation-now-bias-reliability/ "Reliability: Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting"
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsnation/ "Factual Reporting: HIGH (1.1) MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY"
(Ground.news would also have such an evaluation but that's paywalled)

Does someone who thinks that these kinds of reports tarnish their reputation want to point those two sites to this and related stories, in case they need re-evaluating?
 
2025-01-18_15-16-08.jpg


This Beech Bonanza, N66919, is also a possibility, and seems to fit better with the FOV, but is a bit earlier and would need to be at 6:52.

I've tried to get the metadata from John. He said he archived the footage and it would take a while.
 
NorCal Dave said:
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?
Click to expand...

The bench are tree and convincing enough, but what completely seals it is the slightly longer video where the camera pans right slightly before the recording is ended. You can see two poles which are part of a retractable/removable awning attached to the building they are standing in front of. Analysis and references are in post #149.

The other problem the Tedesco's have is that John himself not only said where he was standing...

1737242990089.png

Source: X

... he was also nice enough to create a diagram showing us where he was standing. After we'd figured it out, of course.

1737243171588.png

Source: X

He's already confirmed the location.
 
I think what cinches the "direction" issue for me is that still image and all the data in it. @Mick West is dead on. Great investigating...and YouTube video.

The shadow of the bench can't be refuted in that there is a fairly bright light source to the viewer's right. From the field house/bathroom building (likely).

The lines under the treeline are the handicapped parking signs. The white light cannot be refuted as nothing more than car headlights in the large parking lot.

The red light is interesting. I did a little searching and think that is the nail in the coffin, so-to-speak. Considering that this area looks to be relatively flat and open with little tall trees, this, to me, looks like the safety light at the top of a tower. Which is located not too far across the bay at Cedar Outlook Beach. 360 view in Maps and a water view in Earth confirm it is a tall tower/antenna of some kind. Which would have to have a warning light at the top.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    243 KB · Views: 4
  • 2.png
    2.png
    851.1 KB · Views: 3
  • 3.png
    3.png
    497.6 KB · Views: 4
  • 4.png
    4.png
    773.2 KB · Views: 4
  • 5.png
    5.png
    523.5 KB · Views: 6
Mick West said:
I've tried to get the metadata from John. He said he archived the footage and it would take a while.
Click to expand...

On Matt Ford's show, didn't he say something like the video was sitting on Google Drive where it was being shared with scientists and Federal agencies?

I'm curious as to what John means when he says it was archived. Was it put on detachable storage and put away somewhere? Backed up to tape? Because it seems a bit strange that we suddenly have a new date and a precise time of 1:56AM which - given the previous information which John is now suggesting is incorrect - indicates he may have looked at the metadata recently. Being charitable, of course.
 
Last edited:
jimmyslippin said:
I'm curious as to what John means when he says it was archived.
Click to expand...

It means he's not going to share the information. It makes it sound like it's been put on microfiche and put away someplace in a giant Raiders of the Lost Ark style warehouse.

jimmyslippin said:
where it was being shared with scientists and Federal agencies?
Click to expand...

Where it's being studied by Top Men...Top...Men.

Seriously, one can buy a 1 TB Micro SD for less than $100. A Micor SD!

1737246221411.png


A 1 TB portable HD is less than $50:

1737246291399.png


Nothing is being "archived", it's just being withheld.
 
TRON said:
The red light is interesting. I did a little searching and think that is the nail in the coffin, so-to-speak. Considering that this area looks to be relatively flat and open with little tall trees, this, to me, looks like the safety light at the top of a tower. Which is located not too far across the bay at Cedar Outlook Beach. 360 view in Maps and a water view in Earth confirm it is a tall tower/antenna of some kind. Which would have to have a warning light at the top.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's that one, too far north. This red light is nearly due west. About 274°
 
Last edited:
FatPhil said:
Didn't he say it was 13000' distant?
Click to expand...

It's hard to figure out what John is actually saying a lot of the time, as he responds to direct questions with information that has nothing to do with the question he was asked. But the time I remember him mentioning this he was responding to our friend @Z.W. Wolf who was thoroughly fascinated by car lights.

1737248784858.png

Source: X

He seems to have interpreted Mr. Wolf's question as a suggestion that the light on the clouds was reflected from the car lights below, and to debunk his own misinterpretation he's pointing out that it's 13,000 feet from where he was standing to the cloud base at 6000 feet using an angle of 27 degrees (which we know is wrong), only now he's changed his mind and the cloud base was actually 2000 feet.
 
A closer examination of the weather data John Tedesco provided to support his assertion that the cloud cover was at 2000 feet (see post #282) reveals a few interesting things.

For some reason the first chart John presents is using Cloud Base (hfeet) data from the time of 06:00 CST, which is UTC-06:00, so 07:00 EST at John's location. This is, of course, just over 5 hours after John claims to have recorded the video. Here is a direct link to the data John took a screen cap of.

I checked 01:00 CST (which would be the closest observation to the supposed 01:56AM EST recording time) but there is no data. In fact, there's no data for 00:00 - 05:00. After a bit of poking around it would appear that Cloud Base (hfeet) data is only collected every three hours, at 0, 3, 6, 9, etc.. So why is there no data at 00:00 and 03:00?

Switching to the Cloud Coverage (%) data is revealing. At 01:00 CST, the data shows 0% cloud coverage at three different weather stations across Long Island.

1737256817847.png

Source: weather.us

Clicking on one of the weather stations will bring up an hour by hour report for a given timeframe. Here is the 24 hour report from 11/18/22 12:00 CST - 11/19/22 12:00 CST for JFK Airport.

1737257015115.png

There was 0% cloud coverage from 23:00 - 03:00 CST (00:00 - 04:00 EST).

"But wait, that data is for JFK Airport which is 38 miles away!!!" (John's estimate, not mine, it's actually 25 miles away.)

Well, the closer we get to Robert Moses State Park the worse it gets for the Tedesco's. Here is the data for the Farmingdale NY weather station which is roughly 10 miles NW of their position.

1737257507112.png


Something is amiss! Here's the cloud coverage the Tedesco's previously stated was at 6000 feet but later changed their minds to 2000 feet.

Image


The rest of John's images are him punching temperature and dew point data into a Lifting Condensation Level (LDL) calculator. This will provide an estimate of the altitude where cloud formation MAY occur.

The Tedesco's seem to have painted themselves into a corner with the latest revisions to their story. I wonder what the polymarket odds are for them changing the date and time again?
 
Mick West said:
I don't think it's that one, too far north. This red light is nearly due west. About 274°
Click to expand...

jimmyslippin said:
It's hard to figure out what John is actually saying a lot of the time, as he responds to direct questions with information that has nothing to do with the question he was asked. But the time I remember him mentioning this he was responding to our friend @Z.W. Wolf who was thoroughly fascinated by car lights.

View attachment 76016
Source: X

He seems to have interpreted Mr. Wolf's question as a suggestion that the light on the clouds was reflected from the car lights below, and to debunk his own misinterpretation he's pointing out that it's 13,000 feet from where he was standing to the cloud base at 6000 feet using an angle of 27 degrees (which we know is wrong), only now he's changed his mind and the cloud base was actually 2000 feet.
Click to expand...


The lights in the parking lot do look like a car with the lights on. And they probably are.

However I dislike getting locked into things without considering alternatives. Perceptions can be deceiving. Getting locked into, "This is what it looks like to me, therefore that's what it is," can be the primrose path to error.

Also, consider the odds. These guys were given special permission to stay in this area after official closing time. This isn't likely to be the Mystery Machine. Why would there be a car in the parking lot at the beach past midnight? Parked illegally. And happened to have it's lights on at that very moment. Possible.

My notion... not belief... as an alternative... was this:

The Tedesco Bros. are known to shine powerful flashlights at their mysterious objects - both visible light and infra-red flashlights. What if one of them was holding a flashlight and shining it downrange at the time? And what if these lights are really retro-reflectors and retro-reflective paint bouncing the light back? After all, the camera they were using captures both visible and near infrared light.

There's a little pitch and putt golf course pretty much due west of the camera position.

What if... Just what if... that distant red light is a retro-reflector on the golf course? Golf courses put retro-reflectors on the "pins" (the flags you see sticking out of the cup on the green) to aid the use of range finders.
what-are-these-lens-things-in-the-pins-at-my-local-course-v0-hi9bekjqzj5c1.jpg


My notion was to butter up JT and try to get some info out of him by pretending to be a fan. I tried more than once, but I couldn't get him to focus and give me a straight answer.

Okay, I'm ready to be pilloried. Begin the drum roll. I'll go quietly.
 
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf said:
Also, consider the odds. These guys were given special permission to stay in this area after official closing time. This isn't likely to be the Mystery Machine. Why would there be a car in the parking lot at the beach past midnight? Parked illegally. And happened to have it's lights on at that very moment. Possible.
Click to expand...

Who says they're parked there illegally? Have you considered they may have a permit to be there as well?

Long Island State Park Permits are given out for the following use cases: Fishing 4-Wheel Drive Access, Surfing 4-Wheel Drive Access, Stargazing, Night/Sport Fishing, Camp Hero Fishing, Regional SCUBA-Diving, Nighttime Photography, Metal Detecting (Source: parks.ny.gov). It could be someone there for a bit of night fishing, nighttime photography, or even stargazing. They could also be State Park employees doing their job. Maybe they just arrived when the Tedesco's started recording? Maybe they were in the process of leaving?

Taking into account that the Tedesco's have been providing provably incorrect information, we don't even know it's after midnight.

Z.W. Wolf said:
The Tedesco Bros. are known to shine powerful flashlights at their mysterious objects - both visible light and infra-red flashlights. What if one of them was holding a flashlight and shining it downrange at the time? And what if these lights are really retro-reflectors and retro-reflective paint bouncing the light back? After all, the camera they were using captures both visible and near infrared light.

There's a little pitch and putt golf course pretty much due west of the camera position.

What if... Just what if... that distant red light is a retro-reflector on the golf course? Golf courses put retro-reflectors on the "pins" (the flags you see sticking out of the cup on the green) to aid the use of range finders.
Click to expand...

It seems highly unlikely. There's no indication whatsoever the Tedesco's are pointing a light source of any kind in the same direction as their camera as the levels of illumination on any of the objects in the scene do not change.

The red light in the distance is pulsing on and off, just like the beacon at the start of this video, right in the middle.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awAHIzAL_T8

In any case, although an interesting exercise in geolocating, it seems like a complete waste of time to resolve the pulsing red light in the context of the Tedesco's claims. The light obviously has nothing to do with them, and there's enough information to nail down precisely where they are.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the pillory. It's not too bad once you're in.

But, yes it's (mostly) irrelevant to the case, but interesting as an issue in photography.

And it's not blinking. It's hidden, comes in sight, and hidden... as the camera moves wildly under the unskilled hands of whichever Tedesco.
 
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf said:
And it's not blinking. It's hidden, comes in sight, and hidden... as the camera moves wildly under the unskilled hands of whichever Tedesco.
Click to expand...

Hard disagree. It is clearly pulsing on and off. Or as you put it, blinking.

Who knows, it may even be rotating.
 
Last edited:
jimmyslippin said:
In any case, although an interesting exercise in geolocating, it seems like a complete waste of time to resolve the pulsing red light in the context of the Tedesco's claims. The light obviously has nothing to do with them, and there's enough information to nail down precisely where they are.
Click to expand...
It's a hobby. If someone likes to chase that down, it hones their skills, and "dots the 'i's and crosses the 't's" for us. We're not paying for it, and it contributes, even if it doesn't matter much to you. It's not your call to label them time wasted.

While I expect the light is an aviation obstacle marker, as @TRON suggests, it doesn't hurt to nail down exactly which one.
 
John Tedesco has been active on Twitter today and made some interesting statements in response to some months old comments as well as some more recent ones.

1737362260244.png

Source: X

This, of course, is false. It is also the second time John has falsely claimed images taken from Field 2 are actually from Field 5.

1737362397910.png

Source: X

So now magnetic declination is being factored in. What isn't clear is if he means 236° true, or 236° magnetic.

1737362645933.png

Source: X

The cloud base altitude has been further revised from 2000 feet to 1136 feet. His initial figure was 6000 feet.

1737362851002.png

Source: X

John's explanation for using Cloud Base (hfeet) data from 06:00 CST - some 5 hours after the revised time for his recording - is that there was no earlier available data. This isn't true. There's plenty of data, but the problem John is having is that when there are no clouds there is no Cloud Base figure. See post #295.

And finally...

1737363100937.png

Source: X

John is now asking for an aviation expert with a registered commercial pilot license (who also happen to be employed by a major airline carrier) to look at his data.

This is a strange request considering they claimed to have already engaged a Federal agency as well as a number of scientists to assist them.
 
Last edited:
Yeah it's confusing but as far as I can tell they are (for some reason) claiming the image (that matches their video) I got from the YT video that proves their angle is wrong is taken from field 5.
 
jimmyslippin said:
Yeah, they're still trying to suggest that the location images shown by Mick/Metabunk are actually from Field 5 while they themselves were in Field 2.

It's nuts.
Click to expand...
Were it a sitcom, I'd have turned off by now, it's just sloppy writing of stretched contrivances for cheap laughs. But because it's happening live in front of our eyes on national tv and xitter, I still maintain a morbid curiosity about what self-contradiction they can come up with next.
 
jimmyslippin said:
Yeah, they're still trying to suggest that the location images shown by Mick/Metabunk are actually from Field 5 while they themselves were in Field 2.

It's nuts.
Click to expand...
So, why can't the brothers go back to the location and re-create their filming spot and the bearing they say that they were filming on? It would be the honest thing to do.

Perhaps this can be suggested to the brothers? Perhaps Mick or others in regular contact with them can suggest this re-creation?
 
jimmyslippin said:
So now magnetic declination is being factored in. What isn't clear is if he means 236° true, or 236° magnetic.
Click to expand...

The bearings we use are all true headings. That's what maps like Google Earth use. The concrete lines have a true heading of 268°. The light in the sky is slight north of this, at about 270 to 271°

The magnetic declination on LI is about 12° west, meaning the magnetic heading is 12* HIGHER than the true heading.

Light heading: 270 true, 282 magnetic

Tedesco possibilitiess:

Magnetic Heading: 236° True heading 258°, error = 270-12 = 18°
True heading 236°: error = 270-236° = 34°

What their compass/recollection tells them is not important when it comes to identifying the plane because we have the physical reality of the concrete lines that prove 100% what their true heading was. The more important number is the exact date and time.
 
Last edited:
jarlrmai said:
Does not match the image from the youtube video that we are using as a reference for their location in field 2
Click to expand...
even if it did match, all that would mean is that the brothers were in field 5 and not 2. ie their notebook with their positioning data is even further off!

its not like New ENgland has bear shaped trees all over the place. let alone bear shaped trees with the exact same posts and benches around it.

It doesnt matter if the Tedesco brothers admit it, anyone with eyes can see the tree and poles and benches match the location behind the restrooms at field 2. Most people dont give a hoot about coordinates esp if they have visual footage of the area and tree.
 
 
Will the tree look like that this season? Not sure if it's an evergreen or not.

We already have an independent video from there anyway... Not sure what a photo adds?
 
jarlrmai said:
We already have an independent video from there anyway... Not sure what a photo adds?
Click to expand...
It would be from the correct viewpoint. The YouTube Field 2 video is shot from the bench, but the UFO video is shot from about 90 feet to the East of the bench.

It's not necessary, but it might be useful to convince holdouts.
 
Mick West said:
It would be from the correct viewpoint. The YouTube Field 2 video is shot from the bench, but the UFO video is shot from about 90 feet to the East of the bench.

It's not necessary, but it might be useful to convince holdouts.
Click to expand...
wouldnt it be better to take a pic from the alleged coordinates tedesco gives? i think the video is good enough for a behind the restroom shot.

that said what are the coordinates? where brothers claim they were? sinc e ive just been skimming coordinate talk i dont know and it seems they moved from the original position they claimed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Paul M Smith's video of fast-moving light in sky
Replies
8
Views
3K
Scaramanga
Scaramanga
NorCal Dave
Moving Lights in the Sky
Replies
5
Views
2K
Mick West
Mick West

Latest posts

Back
Top