Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Could be, but it looks odd.
And there's a third, more distant light briefly visible...
Last edited:
News Nation - Light in the Sky video
- Thread starter jarlrmai
- Start date
Could be, but it looks odd.
And there's a third, more distant light briefly visible...
They claim to be looking "South-Southwest 236 degrees", however the concrete grid is aligned almost perfect north-south and east-west.
We see the lines of concrete on the ground. So we can get a vanishing point which should indicate where south is:
Assuming they are looking along the north-south lines, this means the light in the sky is more like 182 degrees (just slightly west of south)
Here, the pin is their claimed location. The red line is their claimed heading. The two blue lines are north-south concrete lines. The yellow line is a rough heading based on the concrete lines.
Overall, an impression of very unreliable data
We see the lines of concrete on the ground. So we can get a vanishing point which should indicate where south is:
Assuming they are looking along the north-south lines, this means the light in the sky is more like 182 degrees (just slightly west of south)
Here, the pin is their claimed location. The red line is their claimed heading. The two blue lines are north-south concrete lines. The yellow line is a rough heading based on the concrete lines.
Overall, an impression of very unreliable data
jimmyslippin
Active Member
The "paper" is so poorly written it's hard to tell exactly what is being used.
They mention using two Nikon cameras, a 60x zoom and a 125x zoom, but only one model is specified. The Nikon P1000 Coolpix.
This video has what looks to be a P1000 in an array of cameras mounted on a tripod.
Three other cameras are shown in the "paper":
From left to right:
1) Player One Neptune-CII with QHY 130mm Guide Scope
2) QHY5III462 with a Computar 50mm M5018-SWIR lens
3) Possibly a Watec WAT-910HX with Computar 25mm M2514-SWIR lens
All three cameras have low light sensitivity and are typically used for astrophotography.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
This diagram
seems to have been taken from one of their radar screens. God knows what it really is supposed to represent.
Nothing here could have taken the OP video.
seems to have been taken from one of their radar screens. God knows what it really is supposed to represent.
These three on the bottom are all monochrome.The "paper" is so poorly written it's hard to tell exactly what is being used.
They mention using two Nikon cameras, a 60x zoom and a 125x zoom, but only one model is specified. The Nikon P1000 Coolpix.
Three other cameras are shown in the "paper":
From left to right:
1) Player One Neptune-CII with QHY 130mm Guide Scope
2) QHY5III462 with a Computar 50mm M5018-SWIR lens
3) Possibly a Watec WAT-910HX with Computar 25mm M2514-SWIR lens
All three cameras have low light sensitivity and are typically used for astrophotography.
Nothing here could have taken the OP video.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Probably the headlights from their Ghostbusters style uap detector van.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Sky at that time and place. Rigel is at Az 185/Alt 41.
I should at least mention that the Leonids were at their peak, and the Leonids shoot a lot of bolides.
Despite this, I think this is the explanation:
The lights of the plane are a bit out of focus. Because this camera has a lens with a modest focal length, the plane wasn't that far away. So the twinkling navigation lights would be visible.
Out of focus landing lights and out of focus navigation lights might combine to produce a strobing effect, which I see in the video. We've already seen that these witnesses are primed to see strobing as rotation.
And maybe the instrument exhibits some chromatic aberration? Defocusing would make that more dramatic.
The witness describes seeing the rotation, but would he have seen that naked eye?
-But did he ever see it naked eye, or just through the viewfinder?
-Or more likely... he saw this once naked eye, but who knows how many times in the video. The video shows strobing, and this would overwrite any memory of the naked eye observation. He probably would honestly "remember" seeing it rotate during his initial naked eye sighting. That would go for all 3 witnesses we hear on the audio. They would remember the video.
The two objects are visible in this short clip, after all. They are the plane and the illuminated clouds. Of course the plane and the illuminated spot are going to come together.
The limitations of the camera, and the failure of the operator to get the focus right, make this look a bit strange.
Honestly, what's so hard about getting your camera focused at infinity? Yalçin Yalman is looking pretty good after all.
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Could be. The shadows cast by the legs of the bench support that. There's a low chain link fence just beyond the parking spaces. I think the strip might be retroreflective tape on the top of the fence. The other reflectors would be stuck on the fence. They don't want people driving into the fence at night, I'd guess. Odd choice to have headlights on though.
The video I posted of the scintillating star seems to show headlights illuminating the ground as well. I can't understand why anyone would do that to their night vision. Maybe scared of the dark?
jimmyslippin
Active Member
What gives you the impression they are all monochrome?
The QHY5III462 has colour and monochrome variants. The Player One Neptune camera is clearly the C-II model which is colour. The third camera I'm not even 100% positive is the model I've listed.
Last edited:
jimmyslippin
Active Member
Is he referencing a paper other than the one linked here in post #11?
Because all that paper is, is a highly repetitive rundown of some of the equipment in their [...] van. When it finally starts getting into the supposedly anomalous activity they've observed, it's all "trust us, bro!" with ZERO data presented.
Last edited by a moderator:
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
I did a quick search of demonstrations on YT. Maybe I'm wrong.
jimmyslippin
Active Member
Here's the book John Tedesco mentions - Nightcrawler: Eye on the Sky
https://www.amazon.com/Nightcrawler-Eye-John-J-Tedesco/dp/B0CTTSZH4S/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top
How nice of him to give himself a five star review.
More paywalled disclosure.
https://www.amazon.com/Nightcrawler-Eye-John-J-Tedesco/dp/B0CTTSZH4S/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top
How nice of him to give himself a five star review.
More paywalled disclosure.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
What would the magnification factors be on this kind of thing?
I have no experience with electronics. Strictly glass equipment. The most electronic tech I've had is a pair of stabilized binoculars from the 90's. The door on the battery compartment broke 20 years ago. I had a few years of stabilization and that was it for the high tech for me.
Mendel
Senior Member.
If that's UTC, we get
METAR KJFK 180151Z 25012KT 10SM SCT060 04/M04 A3006 RMK AO2 SLP178 T00441044=scattered clouds at 6000 ft at JFK airport in NYC at 01:51 UTC
via https://www.ogimet.com/display_meta...22&mesf=11&dayf=18&horaf=08&minf=59&send=send
jimmyslippin
Active Member
There are a few tools you can use to calculate field of view for camera + scope combinations.
For instance, with astronomy.tools Field of View Calculator, there are a whole bunch of pre-defined cameras and scopes that allow you to easily calculate the FoV for the Player One Neptune-C II/QHY Mini Guidescope combo. Set to Imaging Mode, and then pick the equipment from the drop down lists which will automatically fill out the required fields, choose any celestial object and it will spit out a FoV of 3.47 x 1.97 arc degrees.
I used a different tool (Omni Calculator) for camera + lens combinations. You'll just need the focal length and the sensor size for your equipment. In the case of the QHYIII462 (tiny 5.6mm x 3,2mm sensor) with the 50mm lens, it's a FoV of 6.41 x 3.666 arc degrees. You can also punch in the distance and get the field dimensions for any given distance from the camera. In this case, the field dimension at 10 meters would be 1.12m (horizontal) x 0.64m (vertical).
The terminology used on different sites can be a bit confusing. Omni Calculator uses Angle of View instead of Field of View, and Field of View instead of Field Dimension.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Well of course it does...
jimmyslippin
Active Member
It's harder than you think. Unless your lens is perfectly calibrated, racking focus all the way out can focus beyond infinity.
I've had a few disappointing nights of astrophotography where everything looked fine on the camera display out in the field only to come home, load everything into Lightroom and see out of focus stars. Now I use a Bahtinov mask to achieve perfect focus.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Waaat!?!?!?
He's describing a function that goes down-up-down, but he's drawn something that isn't even a function, as for a range of altitudes there multiple temperatures.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
"How can it disappear into the cloud?"
Erm, by entering the cloud, which is intrinsically cloudy. How could it *not* disappear?
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Hold my beer ... it gets way worse:
What the heck are they calculating in that image?
Code:
? sin(15*Pi/180)
%26 = 0.258819
? sin(15*Pi/180)*152.10
%27 = 39.36638I think their expression in Figure 21 is wrong too:
Shouldn't that be something more like:External Quote:
2.2 (sqrt(altitude of TX antenna center (m)) + sqrt(altitude of contact (m)))
because to have LoS on an object, the light beam grazes your horizon from your persepective and the target's horizon from its perspective, so is the sum of the two horizon distances?
Why am I still reading this paper, I've got actual chores that I need to do?
Last edited:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Did the words "monocular" and "binocular" swap meanings whilst I wasn't watching?
It's becoming an ordeal of ordure.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Chapter 4 of that paper is junk in its entirety; with statements being true by random chance. I would not be surprised if AI had a hand in this.
The journal is definitely not peer-reviewed, and the publisher is predatory, i.e. you pay, they publish
Publishing there means you could not find a reputable journal that would accept your paper, which, seeing chapter 4, comes as no surprise.
The journal is definitely not peer-reviewed, and the publisher is predatory, i.e. you pay, they publish
Article: 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.
According to its website, SCIRP publishes fee-based open-access journals (Gold OA).[10] Payments are incurred per article published.
Publishing there means you could not find a reputable journal that would accept your paper, which, seeing chapter 4, comes as no surprise.
jimmyslippin
Active Member
It really does seem that AI was used to generate a lot of the content. The "two scan geometries" radar configuration is described repeatedly throughout the document.
I was having trouble figuring out what the purpose of this paper even was. It describes their equipment and how they use it, but then astonishingly pulls up short of offering any actual data they obtained with it despite the mention of capturing "unknown elusive objects" in chapter 5.
And then I saw this...
They want those UFO dollars.External Quote:
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
I think found where they were stood.
I went through Youtube for every video I could find at the given location.
I found this this one
Source: https://youtu.be/YhODGTzZAY0?t=26
Pause at this exact time
Thenn compare to this Youtube screengrab to the gamma boosted part of the original video below:
The bing maps imagery is better than Google's for this location, I think the bench in the YT vid is the one in green and the bench in the UFO vid is the red bench
So the are positioned likey around here
40.622087, -73.278635
Or could be further back to the east depending on the focal length with the bench being from the other quadrant
I went through Youtube for every video I could find at the given location.
I found this this one
Source: https://youtu.be/YhODGTzZAY0?t=26
Pause at this exact time
Thenn compare to this Youtube screengrab to the gamma boosted part of the original video below:
The bing maps imagery is better than Google's for this location, I think the bench in the YT vid is the one in green and the bench in the UFO vid is the red bench
So the are positioned likey around here
40.622087, -73.278635
Or could be further back to the east depending on the focal length with the bench being from the other quadrant
Attachments
Last edited:
jimmyslippin
Active Member
Dude, you absolutely nailed it.
Thankyou so much for this, because it's been bugging me all day after Mick's earlier post and it seemed like people were settling on this object being the bench.
But this didn't sit well with me because 1) the shadow doesn't match, 2) there's a wire fence behind it which doesn't appear in the video, 3) the foliage and other background landmarks didn't seem to match, and 4) I was 100% certain those lights were from a car.
So these guys were actually facing WEST, and not SSW.
I don't think we can trust ANY information they've provided.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Beat me to it lol!
I actually suggested this 767 in post #3 of this thread
, but went back and edited my post to discount it because it didnt match with the viewing direction given by the witness, (The text and screenshot attatchment is still there.)jimmyslippin
Active Member
So they're filming directly toward two airports, JFK International and Newark Liberty International.
lol... No wonder they weren't being honest.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Yeah I remember, I looked at that as well but discounted it for similar reasons.I actually suggested this 767 in post #3 of this thread
Mendel
Senior Member.
So their "Nightcrawler" is stuffed with hightech but lacks a compass—and a map.
Mendel
Senior Member.
They believe that their modified marine radar can see things that the New York air traffic control radars don't (after 9/11!)?
FatPhil
Senior Member.
I wonder if they modelled themselves after Jake Gyllenhaal's character in /Nightcrawler/ the movie ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872718/ ), as it seems that truthiness is quite low down on their list of priorities.
Ravi
Senior Member.
It is obviously not on any list of priorities, but on the list "things to avoid".
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
You're saying that the headlights are illuminating paint on the pavement, and thus the oddly shaped strip? Could be.
There's still something odd about this.
The headlights and taillights are on, but the body of the car is not illuminated at all? And the taillights don't illuminate the ground at all?
An alternative: These are the retroreflectors on the side of one or more cars and the strip is retroreflective paint on the pavement or on a curbing. This explains how these lights can be so bright, yet there's no reflected illumination of anything around them.
A small point, but the importance, perhaps, is that there was a powerful source of light on or near the camera. Could they have been attempting to use some kind of laser rangefinder at the same time?
Or: The camera itself has an IR LED. An active infrared camera.
They could have been expecting that the mysterious object was right there in front of them. They've made that kind of how far/how big mistake more recently.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yes, that's normal. The taillights are much weaker, and not focused on the road.
Similar threads
