News Nation - Light in the Sky video
- Thread starter jarlrmai
- Start date
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
It's not a night vision camera from what I can see
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
You believe that the brightly illuminated ground can be explained by artificial illumination? For example, the headlights on their vehicle?
What about the bright sky at 1:35 a.m.?
The modest magnification factor of the lens and the fact that it can't zoom in any more than this also has to be explained. Certainly not their P1000, (unless they monkeyed with it somehow?)
What about the bright sky at 1:35 a.m.?
The modest magnification factor of the lens and the fact that it can't zoom in any more than this also has to be explained. Certainly not their P1000, (unless they monkeyed with it somehow?)
Last edited:
I'm uncertain about this. Putting the camera down on the concrete makes it looks like the object is too high, and further south than the FedEx track
Of course, with the mistakes over the direction, the time also seems a bit uncertain.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Can we trust any of the data? They were probably making up the Alt/Az figures on an ad hoc basis, just because they were asked. They probably didn't make any records at the time of the sighting.
So why should we trust the exact time? Was this even full night... or perhaps twilight?
So why should we trust the exact time? Was this even full night... or perhaps twilight?
I think that the aicraft is probably likely on a heading towards the camera position becasue we can see the bight forward-facing lights.
This Evaair 777 has a similar profile, but the time is wrong (or is it?).
RTM
Senior Member.
The whole thing reflects the lack of quality control prevalent in the UFO community. You have claims of great equipment, a highly unusual event, unclear information, the quality control/tough questions are being asked by debunkers, promoted by a mainstream organization with a lot of reach and then the circling of wagons by the community.
Last edited:
I feel like more investigation into candidate planes might be a waste of time unless there's some solid verification of both the date and time.
That said, looking at the position of the light entering the clouds in GE, using the fit I did earlier, it looks like it's about 12° above the horizon. John Tedesco said it was 27 degrees.
He also says the heading came from an "e-compass", so it seems like equipment and/or operator error is playing a big factor here.
I'm not 100% sure the GE fit is correct, but if near Newark, it suggests a plane at around 14,000 feet (very roughly), and near JFK would be half of that (around 7,000 feet)
That's climbing out of Newark. JFK planes seem more likely
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
new notion:
These traffic cones have retroreflective strips.
I suggest that these lights are traffic cones out in the parking lot. Light is reflecting back to the camera from the retroreflective strips on the cones.
The strip of light is caused by light reflecting back to the camera from these areas of blue (retroreflective?) paint. Not just one of them is involved. The light is reflecting back from multiple areas. Due to the low elevation of the camera, and the resulting perspective effects, multiple areas of paint blend together. That was something else that was bothering me. The strip is too long to be a single one of these blue paint areas. But several of them blended together would make the strip look longer than any single one of the areas.
This "stacking" effect wouldn't happen if just one or two of them was illuminated by headlights.
These traffic cones have retroreflective strips.
I suggest that these lights are traffic cones out in the parking lot. Light is reflecting back to the camera from the retroreflective strips on the cones.
The strip of light is caused by light reflecting back to the camera from these areas of blue (retroreflective?) paint. Not just one of them is involved. The light is reflecting back from multiple areas. Due to the low elevation of the camera, and the resulting perspective effects, multiple areas of paint blend together. That was something else that was bothering me. The strip is too long to be a single one of these blue paint areas. But several of them blended together would make the strip look longer than any single one of the areas.
This "stacking" effect wouldn't happen if just one or two of them was illuminated by headlights.
Last edited:
A common error is for camera clocks to be wrong. Sometimes they drift. Sometimes they forget to set them back at the end of daylight savings time. EDT (UTC-4) changed to EST (UTC-5) less than two weeks earlier, on Nov 6, 2022. If the 01:35AM time is in EDT, then that would be 05:35 UTC.They give (in tweet replies to Mick)
November 18, 2022, at 1:35 AM. (assume local?)
Another common error is to consider the night to be connected to the day before. If they went there on Nov 18th, then the recording might actually be on Nov 19th.
That's why camera EXIF would be useful. However, they claim they need to check with a federal agency before releasing it.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Even if we get exif if it's not from a phone then it's likely to be wrong, or we'd be relying on them setting the time accurately on the camera, etc given the state of the information we've got so far does not fill me with confidence.
deirdre
Senior Member.
i'm sure they had a diary or something where they documented what, when etc on which nights. that they could check.
Long Island boys. lol. (<half my family is in Long Island so that's a genuine laugh, not an insult.)
to be fair the Scooby doo and Ghostbuster stuff on MB WAS unnecessarily impolite.. but that's not libel.
John J.
Senior Member.
Always problematic when someone uses legalese in an attempt to suppress requests for information, fair criticism or freedom of speech.External Quote:
Mr Tedesco could just say "I don't want to share my information with you", that's his prerogative.
Or explain why/ admit that some of the information given might seem questionable to reasonable people when some of the issues raised and openly discussed here are taken into account.
But no.
Science has a dictum,
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Science advances (if we're following a Popperian methodology) by testing falsifiable (not necessarily false) hypotheses.
"Evidence", when relevant data is not shared, is incomplete, therefore unreliable.
Attempts by a scientific investigator to discourage the questioning of information that they provide (or don't provide), or to inhibit fair criticism, leaves their investigation susceptible to type I experimental error, an anti-scientific stance.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkUkVxM6R8o
You can take the FatPhil out of England, but you can't take all of the Englishness out of FatPhil.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
This sentence doesn't even make sense grammatically.
"As defined by counsel": Ambiguous, as it implies that the legal counsel created their own specific definition of the terms, which is unnecessary and confusing. Legal terms like libel and defamation already have established definitions.
"Libel Defamation": Incorrect noun modification—libel cannot be used as an attributive noun (modifier) in the same way that chicken can modify soup. Libel is a specific form of defamation and should not be paired redundantly with it.
"Defamation of the Nightcrawler Research": Misuse of preposition, as defamation typically refers to harming the reputation of people or organizations, not ideas or research.
"West and Metabunk": Ambiguous subject. It's important to clarify that West is a person and Metabunk is an organization, either through context or punctuation.
Revised: I've been advised by legal counsel that West and his organization known as Metabunk have committed libel against the Nightcrawler Research team.
Last edited:
jimmyslippin
Active Member
It looks light a flashing light in the distance. This is coastal area. Have you considered that it might be a lighthouse? There are also two major airports in that direction. Maybe it's a beacon?
Does it look anomalous to you?
Are you seeing any of the five observables?
Last edited:
jimmyslippin
Active Member
This is just getting really silly now.
John is thoroughly confused about UTC.
John is thoroughly confused about UTC.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
To be fair, it's not primarily UTC he's confused about. Although he is wrong about EST and UTC.
He just hasn't listened to what people are saying about EST versus ESD time... and maybe there was a confusion due to the camera's clock not being adjusted when the time change happened.
My opinion: The problem is he's not listening. He's automatically assuming he's the authority in the room and other people are confused. I think he just belted out an ad hoc pseudo-fact in support of himself. He just made up the relation of UTC to EST without checking or understanding, in other words. Seems more interested in winning than knowing, in my opinion.
Me; I'm pretty confident that MW understands UTC. I think I understand UTC, too. But maybe I'd better check.
Pause while I check.
I checked. Yeah... I thought UTC is 5 hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time (EST), and it turns out I was right. I think. Maybe it's me that's confused.
He just hasn't listened to what people are saying about EST versus ESD time... and maybe there was a confusion due to the camera's clock not being adjusted when the time change happened.
My opinion: The problem is he's not listening. He's automatically assuming he's the authority in the room and other people are confused. I think he just belted out an ad hoc pseudo-fact in support of himself. He just made up the relation of UTC to EST without checking or understanding, in other words. Seems more interested in winning than knowing, in my opinion.
Me; I'm pretty confident that MW understands UTC. I think I understand UTC, too. But maybe I'd better check.
Pause while I check.
I checked. Yeah... I thought UTC is 5 hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time (EST), and it turns out I was right. I think. Maybe it's me that's confused.
Last edited:
John J.
Senior Member.
This is just getting really silly now.
This is a bit of a problem for Mr Tedesco's credibility as an accurate record keeper or fact-checker, in my opinion only of course.
Not being an American I had to do a quick check online about the EST/ UTC time difference,
every source supports Mick West, no source supports Mr Tedesco.
"UTC to EST Conversion", World Time Server website.External Quote:
From Wikipedia,
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Time_Zone, which says this:External Quote:
We're advised that the footage is fromExternal Quote:
-so that's during EST, Eastern Standard Time, which is clearly and easily verified as being 5 hours ahead of UTC.
The first Sunday in November 2022 was the 6th, so the clocks changed from 02:00 EDT to 01:00 EST on that date.
I see where you're coming from Mr. Wolf, but John Tedesco chose to "correct" Mick- and instead slipped up. He didn't check.
John Tedesco appears to have confused (or equated) the prevailing time in the Eastern Time Zone with Eastern Standard Time.
At the moment, the Eastern Time Zone is 4 hours ahead of UTC because EDT applies, but EST (as opposed to the Eastern Time Zone) is always 5 hours ahead of UTC, by definition.
When Mr Tedesco says
...he is wrong on both counts.External Quote:
I'd guess the difference between EST and EDT is widely understood in the Eastern Time Zone, and if anyone's confused it's easy to check.
It's not the sort of unforced error that might be expected of an investigator or researcher into aerial phenomena who is debating the point.
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
That's credible, and something I considered. It's EDT time right now. And right now his time zone is -4 UTC. So maybe he did a quick check and made an overconfident assumption.
The overarching problem, in my opinion, is his aggressive Dunning-Kruger "syndrome."
Last edited:
jimmyslippin
Active Member
Well, well, well...
That was truly bizarre and reeks of deliberate deception.
In fact, this entire fiasco is starting to look more and more like deliberate deception to me. JFK is the 6th busiest airport in the United States (21st in the world), and they're videoing directly toward it. I'm willing to bet that this wasn't even the first time they saw a plane ascend into the clouds that night.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
This may be revealing.
This seems to show where the RV was parked and where the camera was.
My read on this:
-They assumed the mystery object was 0.42 miles away during the sighting. A how big/how far error.
-They didn't take a compass reading while they were standing next to the camera.
-After the mystery object was gone, they then jumped over to the RV and took a compass reading.
Here's the point. The compass heading indicates the direction toward the point on the ground directly under where the mystery object had been. Where they assumed it had been.
Whatever instrument they used indicated 236 (or 237). But if they had taken the compass reading while standing where the camera was placed and while the object was visible in the sky... I'll bet it would have read ~273 degrees.
Last edited:
jimmyslippin
Active Member
The angle they've drawn from the supposed location of the RV here is 241.9 degrees, relative to the image.
However, the angle from where they standing is complete nonsense. At no time is the object shown to be to the left of the trees. The position of the object is above the trees, more specifically the fence line (due west) which the trees overhang.
I'm not even sure what that 0.42mi line is even supposed to be. Are they suggesting that's the direction the object was moving?
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
No, they think the object was 0.42 miles away from them in a direct line. A how big/how far error. It was actually many miles away, but they "saw" it as being close and small, not distant and large.
They did that here too.
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.
They did that here too.
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.
Last edited:
jimmyslippin
Active Member
But it's not even 0.42 mi from the position of their RV. It's 0.32 mi.
Can these guys get anything right?
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Yes, the ambiguity makes my head hurt, but this is what I think this is meant to indicate.
Purple arrow - Camera was here.
Red arrow - They think the object was directly above this spot on the ground.
Green arrow - Just a label. Indicating that the distance between the camera and the object was 0.42 miles - 676 meters - during the sighting. They think it was a small and close object. This is why T. expresses outrage on "X" at one point at the thought that it could have been a huge plane at 18,000 feet.
The bright star was 566 meters away, and this aircraft was 676 meters away... in their mind.
Edit: 556 meters plus elevation, that is.
Purple arrow - Camera was here.
Red arrow - They think the object was directly above this spot on the ground.
Green arrow - Just a label. Indicating that the distance between the camera and the object was 0.42 miles - 676 meters - during the sighting. They think it was a small and close object. This is why T. expresses outrage on "X" at one point at the thought that it could have been a huge plane at 18,000 feet.
The bright star was 566 meters away, and this aircraft was 676 meters away... in their mind.
Edit: 556 meters plus elevation, that is.
Last edited:
Angatar
New Member
*On* Long Island
we are very particular about that.On the topic of the lights beyond the vegetation: is there any particular reason to think that those are not just a parked car with its brights on. The woman in the video mentions a parked car, which obviously could easily not be *that* parked car, but I'm not sure how many other cars are parked at Robert Moses after midnight in the middle of November.
jimmyslippin
Active Member
*On* Long Island
On the topic of the lights beyond the vegetation: is there any particular reason to think that those are not just a parked car with its brights on. The woman in the video mentions a parked car, which obviously could easily not be *that* parked car, but I'm not sure how many other cars are parked at Robert Moses after midnight in the middle of November.
Hmmm, I hadn't really paid much attention to what the woman was saying before. Listening to it now, I can make out the words "that car ... parked ..." I wonder if I'm only hearing that now because of the power of suggestion though?
Anyway, a parked car was my first guess because that's exactly what it looks like. It just didn't fit with the North-South orientation we were stuck on before. Now that it's East-West it 100% fits and is by far the most likely explanation.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
That might be because the 0.42 miles includes elevation. The hypotenuse of a right triangle with a base of 0.32. But I have no confidence in that at all.
The mystery right now is why they are choosing these precise numbers. Why 566 meters for the star and 676 meters for the aircraft?
Last edited:
They mentioned a "LIDAR" rangefinder (probably a laser rangefinder) as the source of the elevation angle (which was wrong). So maybe they got some distance numbers from that.
jimmyslippin
Active Member
Oh yeah, I didn't account for that at all. Makes sense.
Then again, doing the calculations, if this thing is 0.42 miles away including elevation then that means it's no more than 150m (or approx 500 feet) in the air.
Last edited:
Angatar
New Member
My best attempt at transcribing the video:
If anyone thinks I made a mistake feel free to correct me.
Maybe I'm a little too quick to judge, but from this conversation it seems like this group did know they were facing west when recording this video.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Concerning point 4:Article: To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
Article: False statements that are typically defamatory per se include those stating that someone:
• has committed a serious crime
• has an infectious disease, or
• is incompetent in their job, trade, or profession.
I believe the true facts shown in this thread harm Tedesco's reputation; our opinions based on these facts do not (and wouldn't be defamation even if they did).
Mendel
Senior Member.
Was their radar system involved?
This may be revealing.
This seems to show where the RV was parked and where the camera was.
My read on this:
-They assumed the mystery object was 0.42 miles away during the sighting. A how big/how far error.
-They didn't take a compass reading while they were standing next to the camera.
-After the mystery object was gone, they then jumped over to the RV and took a compass reading.
Here's the point. The compass heading indicates the direction toward the point on the ground directly under where the mystery object had been. Where they assumed it had been.
Whatever instrument they used indicated 236 (or 237). But if they had taken the compass reading while standing where the camera was placed and while the object was visible in the sky... I'll bet it would have read ~273 degrees.
If yes, then they would have committed the error of assuming that whatever they had found on the radar and the light they saw were the same thing. But if the radar range gives them the indicated point, then it is proven that it was not the same object, since the camera didn't see it that far south. And if they took the radar reading before or after the camera recording, then there's even less reason to assume they're the same thing.
Notwithstanding the obvious fact that an object that low couldn't disappear into those clouds.
(It kinda reminds me of GIMBAL, where the object was probably 30 nm away, but someone saw something on the radar that was closer, and assumed it was the same object, even though there was a group on the radar and a single object on the camera.)
Last edited:
Similar threads
