News Nation - Light in the Sky video

[jarlrmai]

Mick posted this video (his edit of a clip from News Nation showing a light in the sky.


Source: https://x.com/MickWest/status/1841938352284823716


It looks like an airliner taking off with lights on shining though and onto the clouds, however the people filming say it is not.

They give (in tweet replies to Mick)

November 18, 2022, at 1:35 AM. (assume local?)

40 37'24" N, 73 16"46" W; South-Southwest 236 degrees at an angle of 27 degrees from the horizon.

That puts it in a carpark on Long Island New York, looking back towards the areas between Philadelphia and Atlantic city.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/pRKGBceeQhCWRL1j7

I put the time and date and location into ADSB exchange, there are aircraft in that direction, but they are probably/possibly too far away to be the object.

I am unsure what camera is getting used here, but would it be that light at 1:35AM in November?

 

[flarkey]

Mick posted this video (his edit of a clip from News Nation showing a light in the sky.


Source: https://x.com/MickWest/status/1841938352284823716


It looks like an airliner taking off with lights on shining though and onto the clouds, however the people filming say it is not.

They give (in tweet replies to Mick)

November 18, 2022, at 1:35 AM. (assume local?)

View attachment 72020

40 37'24" N, 73 16"46" W; South-Southwest 236 degrees at an angle of 27 degrees from the horizon.

That puts it in a carpark on Long Island New York, looking back towards the areas between Philadelphia and Atlantic city.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/pRKGBceeQhCWRL1j7

I put the time and date and location into ADSB exchange, there are aircraft in that direction, but they are probably/possibly too far away to be the object.

I am unsure what camera is getting used here, but would it be that light at 1:35AM in November?

Source: https://x.com/johnted88824079/status/1842058951241662952?t=QyLTzv8C7A6BzAGXrThV4g&s=19

40 37'24" N, 73 16"46" W; South-Southwest 236 degrees at an angle of 27 degrees from the horizon. The original video is over 25 meg. I can send a truncated version.

This should link to the ADSB replay:
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?replay=2022-11-18-06:35&lat=40.706&lon=-72.508&zoom=8.0

 

[flarkey]

This FedEx 767 looks like a candidate. Need to refine the view details, and maybe check historical METAR to get the cloudbase data for that 18 Nov 22 at 6AM.

Edit: That 767 probably isn't a candidate due to the direction 236 from the car park:

#

 

[Mendel]

check historical METAR to get the cloudbase data for that 18 Nov 22 at 6AM.

I used JFK airport in New York and https://www.ogimet.com/display_meta...22&mesf=11&dayf=18&horaf=08&minf=59&send=send

METAR KJFK 180651Z 28011KT 10SM FEW250 03/M05 A3010 RMK AO2 SLP194 T00281050=
FEW250 means few clouds from 25,000 ft, at 6:51Z.

TAF KJFK 180528Z 1806/1912 27013KT P6SM FEW050 FM181400 26012G19KT P6SM FEW040 FM181800 26017G26KT P6SM SCT050 PROB30 1900/1903 5SM -RASN BKN025 FM190300 27009KT P6SM SCT100=

 

[jarlrmai]

The video looks like a fairly solid cloud bank, planes taking off from Newark would not be at 25000 feet for a while.

 

[jarlrmai]

There's a longer excerpt here, with a distinctive looking bush the problem is there's no street view at the carpark location.

 

[jarlrmai]

Use of landing lights are guided by the FAA

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/f...ls/aviation/airplane_handbook/12_afh_ch11.pdf

page 11-6

Landing lights are not only useful for taxi, takeoffs, and landings, but also provide a means by which airplanes can be seen at night byother pilots. Pilots are encouraged to turn on their landing lights when operating within 10 miles of an airport and below 10,000 feet.

Doesn't mean they can't be on at other altitudes etc though but maybe this puts the cloud layer at <10k feet in the video.

 

[jarlrmai]

There's a longer excerpt here, with a distinctive looking bush the problem is there's no street view at the carpark location.

There's better location in streetside from Bing but it's very dark and you can't really see much.

 

[flarkey]

I think the issue here is verifying the accuracy of the witness's data, particularly TIME and DIRECTION. There are a lot of planes in this area, trying to tie one down will depend greatly on knowing exactly where and when the camera is looking. So far we have....

November 18, 2022, at 1:35 AM. 40 37'24" N, 73 16"46" W; South-Southwest 236 degrees at an angle of 27 degrees from the horizon

And if we're looking for ADSB playback it is important to note that not all planes are shown on ADSB.

 

[jarlrmai]

I think the issue here is verifying the accuracy of the witness's data, particularly TIME and DIRECTION. There are a lot of planes in this area, trying to tie one down will depend greatly on knowing exactly where and when the camera is looking. So far we have....



And if we're looking for ADSB playback it is important to note that not all planes are shown on ADSB.

Yeah I was trying to verify location and direction but there's no imagery to cross-reference the video with.

 

[flarkey]

Lots of info here about the Tedesco brothers science project, including their camera specifications:

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=135539 (and attached)

And Youtube videos showing their Nightcrawler (UAPmobile)...

https://www.youtube.com/@tedesco48

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The object... it seemed to have rotation to it...

...it was giving off a kaleidoscope of colors as it was rotating...

Classic description of a bright star and chromatic scintillation. We should check into the possibility that the static object was just that.

 

[flarkey]

Classic description of a bright star and chromatic scintillation. We should check into the possibility that the static object was just that.

But it wasn't a static object. it was a moving object that illuminated the clouds from underneath as it rose up towards them.

 

[jarlrmai]

But it wasn't a static object. it was a moving object that illuminated the clouds from underneath as it rose up towards them.

In the twitter thread and (on NN?) they mention seeing another object (during this sighting?) so there were 2 objects, however only video of the plane like object has been shared.


Source: https://x.com/johnted88824079/status/1842053929242120403

 

[jarlrmai]

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=135539

The paper, no mention of peer review.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

john tedesco
@johnted88824079
40 37'24" N, 73 16"46" W; South-Southwest 236 degrees at an angle of 27 degrees from the horizon.

The seeming precision doesn't hold up. 236 degrees isn't SSW.

236(.25) degrees points southwest by west (SWbW)

SSW is 202.5 degrees.

Quite a difference. Sloppiness... expressed with authority.

Taking this sloppiness into account, we can't trust the altitude either.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Witnesses often describe a star as in motion. (They will also draw an illustration of a star with a complex shape.)

-Maybe the clouds are in motion and that gives an illusion of motion to the star.
-Maybe it's being compared to another light source that actually is moving.
-The autokinetic effect is a visual illusion that causes a stationary point of light to appear to move in a dark or featureless environment.
-Witnesses may be describing motion over a long period of time, without mentioning that. Stars do move across the sky... slowly.

Is there a longer version of this video? This is only a few seconds long.

 

[jarlrmai]

Witnesses often describe stars as in motion.

-Maybe the clouds are in motion and that gives an illusion of motion to the star
-Maybe it's being compared to another light source that actually is moving.
-The autokinetic effect is a visual illusion that causes a stationary point of light to appear to move in a dark or featureless environment.
-Witnesses may be describing motion over a long period of time, without mentioning that. Stars do move across the sky... slowly.

Is there a longer version of this video? This is only a few seconds long.

The originals etc has been requested on twitter there is seeming tacit agreement to share but as yet no more data.


Source: https://x.com/johnted88824079/status/1842058951241662952



Source: https://x.com/johnted88824079/status/1842068716936114178

 

[Ravi]

So, the "25 meg" original is "too big" to just upload? A 2 sec excerpt is all we have? Are we in 1996?
Even the 2 seconds I see is showing a plane entering the could layer. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[jarlrmai]

The location and direction and video basically fits really well for planes taking off from JFK then heading NEish

 

[jarlrmai]

At first glance this all feels very UAPX

You have a self funded group of interested people with time to go out and watch the sky with a load of reasonably expensive commercial equipment that looks and sounds impressive on paper.

They see some things in the sky, and somehow conclude they are not mundane, they release a complex reading paper to a questionable journal that publishes without seeming peer review?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is a predatory[1]​[2]​[3]​ academic publisher of open-access electronic journals, conference proceedings, and scientific anthologies that are considered to be of questionable quality.[4]​[5]​[6]​ As of December 2014, it offered 244 English-language open-access journals in the areas of science, technology, business, economy, and medicin

But the paper reads like really just a list of specs of the equipment used and general methodology and over explains things to bulk word count like giving what ADS-B stands for each time it is mentioned.. and has some interesting pull quotes

The area was chosen based on retrospective historical data of high UAP reports, the 2014 USN F/A-18 Super Hornet pilot reports, and pilot admissions through personal conversations.

Gimbal/GoFast/Graves?

None of the source data, correlated imagery from all the various cameras/radars or analysis of said data from the anomalous sightings is detailed and then all of a sudden they are on the usual channels.

 

[flarkey]

Just like @Mick West predicted - the LIZ doesn't go away if you have fancy equipment, it just gets further away.

 

[John J.]

If we look carefully at the OP video approx. 43 to 44 seconds in, there seem to be a pair of brief flashes at about 1 Hz,
around the time the narrator is saying the word "colour".

I'm finding it easier to see looking at the video "as posted here", not expanded to full-screen.

It seems that the filming stops just after this point. I think it's a conventional aircraft and we're just starting to see the tell-tale blinks of anti-collision lights.

Maybe the bright splodge that the moving object heads towards is coincidental, e.g. light through clouds-was the moon out? Or maybe the runway lights of a second aircraft heading towards the filmmaker. Such lights can appear to be stationary for a surprisingly long time.

Had the filming continued a little bit longer, perhaps we would have seen the ascending object continue past the "stationary" bright area. And more evidence of anti-collision lights.

As evidence of anything anomalous, or even mildly diverting, this is rather thin fare.

 

[Mick West]

While this looks like a plane with landing lights going into the clouds, it would be great to get some similar examples. I know I've seen such things, but I can't recall where (it might even have been in person). Searching for videos online generally gives close-ups. But this should be something there are examples of.

 

[Mick West]

A related example with no clouds. There's a plane flying towards me, landing lights on. It seems almost static for the first minutes. Only in the last 15 seconds can we see the nav lights.

 

[Mauro]

Just like @Mick West predicted - the LIZ doesn't go away if you have fancy equipment, it just gets further away.

It just came to my mind that this implies we can expect more and more LIZ objects to be found as technology improves, and more and more 'anomalies' will be claimed and trumpeted around. Which is not exactly good from my point of view, but on the upside there shall be no lack of work for the debunkers of the future.

 

[jarlrmai]

I am so confused by this sighting

 

[Mick West]

They seem relectant to post the video, claiming it needs to be cleared by a federal agency, which sounds like nonsense to me.

Source: https://x.com/MickWest/status/1842325213528367502

 

[Mick West]

John Tedesco posted a link to a less edited clip from the video

Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Gy95eV0jCGXln8K9UEXDxv6Bs1uvKZe/view

In this clip we see an earlier portion where the plane is only just starting to illuminate the clouds,

There's also a little more local context, which might help validate the direction.

 

[John J.]

Odd that, if the filmmakers thought the apparently stationary bright patch was anomalous or of interest, they stopped filming so soon after the moving lightsource aligned with it (or passed through it. Pretty confident it didn't merge).

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I am so confused by this sighting

View attachment 72037

View attachment 72038
View attachment 72039

Indeed. What is this illustration meant to indicate? And this muddled sentence?

The sentence seems to mean that they were looking roughly NW and the path the object was following is represented by the crossbar on the "Capital T" shape in the illustration. And it was traveling "left to right" from their perspective.

Which means it was traveling... roughly SE???

But the diagram seems to indicate they were looking... NE?

So why the bit about 237 degrees, which they identify as SSW? Maybe it was heading straight at them and traveling SW? Or they were looking SW and the object was moving NW, straight toward them?

But he said it was moving from left to right. Everything leads to a different dilemma.

The cherry on top is that SSW isn't 237 degrees. As I said earlier SSW is 203.5 degrees.

 

[deirdre]

There's also a little more local context, which might help validate the direction.

i dont understand what i'm seeing. if they are facing the ocean then what is the white light (and blue beam?) on right? if he's saying the ufo was NW then is that blue strip the Parkway?

the only place i saw a bench like that is in front of restrooms and behind at field 5. we can drive field 5 and there are no benches along the "back" of parking lot... so would seem strange to me if they were along the back of field 2. That MIGHT be a dumpster to the far left...which i see in vid from 7 years ago and again video from 5 years.

vids in spoiler in case thats not a dumpster and im annoying everyone.

this is 5year shot as the guy pulls in (23 secs). that COULD maybe look like a wolf from the otherside. although that's barely NW.

drone from 7 years ago

Spoiler

run this half speed or youll miss the pull in! 23 secs.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxgwxfuN5rk


drone:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwGAR1opC6I

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This is a different sighting...


This is an out of focus bright star exhibiting chromatic scintillation. I've seen these things a zillion times on YT in the past 6 years.

The object is approximately 566 meters offshore at an approximate size of 3 to 4 meters.

Let's list the problems...
-Unsteady camera
-Out of focus

They have bought fine, expensive equipment but they don't know how to use it. They are the most naïve of beginning photographers.


-Claim that they recognize astronomical bodies, but they don't. Yes, despite being adults who have been living under night skies for decades and their claim that they use Stellarium.

They claim knowledge they don't have. They are the most naïve of beginning sky gazers.


-Classic how far/how big misperception. Not aware of this well known problem.
-Classic cause and effect mistake. The star is not rotating. This is a strobing effect, caused by differential refraction in Earth's atmosphere. The rotation is an illusion. Not aware of this well known eyewitness misperception. Probably have no awareness that there is such a thing a scintillation.

Are not aware of the most basic mistakes that UFO eyewitnesses make. Clearly have not educated themselves. Have ignored decades of accumulated knowledge, but present themselves as expert UFO researchers.

-Muddled descriptions and illustrations intended to indicate azimuth, altitude, and course of objects.
-Muddled and incorrect use of compass points.

Clearly have not educated themselves in this sort of thing, but use the jargon... incorrectly.

 

[jimmyslippin]

i dont understand what i'm seeing. if they are facing the ocean then what is the white light (and blue beam?) on right? if he's saying the ufo was NW then is that blue strip the Parkway?

To me, it looks like a stationary car with its head and tail lights on.

the only place i saw a bench like that is in front of restrooms and behind at field 5. we can drive field 5 and there are no benches along the "back" of parking lot... so would seem strange to me if they were along the back of field 2. That MIGHT be a dumpster to the far left...which i see in vid from 7 years ago and again video from 5 years.

I spent an hour or two poring over those Robert Moses State Park parking areas looking specifically for a matching bench and foliage and couldn't find anything. At this point I am inclined to believe that the provided latitude and longitude coordinates are incorrect.

It's worth noting that the SCIRP paper linked in post #11 mentions multiple locations where "research" took place.

The geographic regions chosen were Robert Moses State Park on the southern coast of Fire Island National Seashore, Cedar Beach on Long Island's North Shore, with access to the Long Island Sound, and The Great South Bay, which is Long Island's largest body of water inland, separating Fire Island from Long Island's South shore. These locations are referenced in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The site location.

Source: Eye on the Sky: A UAP Research and Field Study off New York's Long Island Coast

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This is very odd and unnatural looking. Have we established what kind of camera/instrument recorded this? Could these be artifacts inherent to some type of exotic instrument they are (mis)using?

This is another example of naïve camera operation. It looks as if the camera (instrument?) is mounted on a fluid head tripod. But the guy operating it is very clumsy. Evidence... the camera stays level - i.e. the bottom of the frame stays parallel to the horizon - but the guy has a really unsteady hand and is waving it up and down on the tripod. The side to side motions are due to small hand tremors, telling me that he's got a death grip on... whatever part he's gripping. You've got to treat it like a baby's arm, and move the camera like wisps of smoke.



To be frank this gives me the impression of the over-confident beginner who has bought fine, expensive equipment but hasn't got any talent, let alone skill, in camera operation. Never mind taking any classes. How hard could it be?

Not too strange. Ninety nine point eight percent of the adult population of the Earth have no intuitive talent for camera operation, let alone a developed skill.

 

[jarlrmai]

The PDF mentions the Nikon P1000 super zoom 'bridge' camera

I'm not sure it mentions a tripod.

 

[jimmyslippin]

The PDF mentions the Nikon P1000 super zoom 'bridge' camera

I'm not sure it mentions a tripod.

I don't think he's using the Nikon P1000 because he complains about not being able to get close enough to the object. The P1000 has an optical zoom of x125 (3000mm focal length) which would fill the frame with the moon at maximum.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Wasn't this taken in the dead of night? November 18, 2022, at 1:35 AM. It's got to be a color night vision camera, right? I'm not up on this kind of thing.

Let's take another look at the "paper" and the equipment they use. It's not a particularly long focal length lens. Certainly not a zoom.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

You know... if I had to guess... These look like retroreflectors. Including the strip. Which would imply that there's some powerful light source on or very near to the camera.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The PDF mentions the Nikon P1000 super zoom 'bridge' camera

I'm not sure it mentions a tripod.

It might not be a tripod, it's true. It might be something like a security cam with a simple adjustable mount, or something similar.

Could this be a color night vision security cam that projects near IR? Odd choice. But the focal length is kind of consistent, with what we see in the video. Note that the foreground and the distant clouds are all kind of in focus, but nothing is in really good focus. The distant light seems to be in rather poor focus.