News Nation - Light in the Sky video

[jimmyslippin]

Can you workout approx where that puts the car? Cars are at around 4.4-4.8m US cars might be bigger.

I can do a rough estimate using imagemeasurement.online.

I set the scale to 4.8m from the front to the rear of the car.

This gives me a horizontal width of 51.3m where the car is located. Additionally, the length of the beam is 19m.

Punching the known sensor and focal length details in the Omni FOV Calculator I adjust the distance until I get a horizontal FOV of roughly 51.3m.

Measuring 200m from the estimated location of the videographer puts the car in this general location.

Taking into account the length of the beam from the headlights, the yellow line ends 20m from the fence line.

 

[jimmyslippin]

And what's up with the third light that's only briefly visible?
View attachment 72085

We see a similar flashing red light in the video posted by @Kyle Ferriter.

The close proximity to both water and airports in these videos would suggest that it is either a marine navigation buoy or an aircraft navigation beacon.

Anyway, I feel like the matter of these lights has been settled now and I'm just cluttering up the thread with pointless distraction now that we have confirmed the correct orientation of the video. This is the last post I will be making about them.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Well, alright. I was never committed about this. If it is a car, the next thing I'd like to figure out is why this looks the way it does. Just intrigued about the way this camera handles light. That may have some bearing on this sighting... but frankly just something that interests me.

 

[jimmyslippin]

I now have no idea what this diagram is supposed to represent.

John is now claiming the object was 13,000 feet away (with elevation) when it disappeared into the clouds.

Source

This doesn't fit with the diagram he provided.

When asked to explain what the diagram was supposed to represent, he said the convergence of the two viewing angles was just supposed to represent the "vanishing point" where the viewing lines intersect. This is very strange, because they intersect at 6241 feet and not 13,000 feet.

Source

He also provided further clarification with regard to the headings of these lines of sight. From his RV the heading was 236. From his standing point the heading was 226. This makes no sense, as it in no way matches his diagram, and these two viewing angles would never intersect.

Source

John has also suggested that the readings from his multiple e-compasses need to be corrected by +/- 10 degrees, but then immediately suggests the correct heading is 231.

Source

At this point in time it seems to me that the only reliable data we have of anything is what is shown in the video.

 

[jimmyslippin]

Also, there was a mind bending discussion about basic geometry that I won't post in full, but here's a taste of it for anyone interested. It's hard to follow though, because John has a habit of replying to one tweet on a completely different tweet.

Source

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

The white + red lights in a car-like arrangement definitely looks like a car to me. Consider these screenshots from videos where a car drives by.

(shot 1) The red and white light in the lower left is a car (source: https://photos.app.goo.gl/bATfH7xSB7RLgMLt9)

(shot 2) And here one going the other way: (source: https://photos.app.goo.gl/gDRMonj7gu9VbnR39)

The blinking red light just seems like some random light maybe on top of a telephone pole or something. Basically every video I take of a skyline at night in the Boston area has blinking red lights in it, it's unavoidable, they're everywhere. There's multiple in the above videos that are on top of building structures on land.

As far as the ground foreground being illuminated in the OP video, that is expected if there's any light source around, like perhaps their own car's headlights, or lights in the parking lot, or lights on the building they're standing next to. Here's a photo I took yesterday next to some floodlights at a school football field, which leads to interesting lighting contrasts. The two lights in the sky are planes with landing lights on coming in on a queue line roughly maybe 120º to my line of sight to the airport. In the water you'll see dark hilly shapes which is one/more of the boston harbor islands.

 

[Mendel]

When asked to explain what the diagram was supposed to represent, he said the convergence of the two viewing angles was just supposed to represent the "vanishing point" where the viewing lines intersect.

mind bending discussion about basic geometry

has anyone asked him if the Earth is flat

He also provided further clarification with regard to the headings of these lines of sight. From his RV the heading was 236. From his standing point the heading was 226. This makes no sense, as it in no way matches his diagram, and these two viewing angles would never intersect.

Source

John has also suggested that the readings from his multiple e-compasses need to be corrected by +/- 10 degrees, but then immediately suggests the correct heading is 231.

Source

Suggesting that 226⁰ and 236⁰ should averaged to 231⁰ implies that he thinks the angles should be equal, which means the sight lines would be parallel. To indicate parallel lines intersecting in vanishing point on a diagram is a common misconception with people who attempt to reason about perspective without the benefit of a firm grounding in geometry.

 

[jimmyslippin]

I now have no idea what this diagram is supposed to represent.

Ok, a little context helps, and I have a better understanding of what this is supposed to be. This diagram was presented in response to @flarkey's request for John to pinpoint the location of the wind-swept tree. My apologies for wasting everyone's time.

Source

But even then, the location he pinpointed is completely wrong which also makes the lines of sight wrong, and the "0.42 mi" vector makes no sense given he is saying the object is 13,000 feet away and the pinpointed location is only 0.3 miles from the RV. I have no idea what it was supposed to mean.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this. This is more frustrating than dealing with Ashton Forbes.

 

[Mendel]

So now that we know John's camera was pointed to the west and not SSW as he originally claimed, it's time to revisit a tweet of his from a few days ago...

Source

I have no idea why they didn't think this airliner was what they were seeing.

 

[flarkey]

I have no idea why they didn't think this airliner was what they were seeing.

28 miles to the west is almost exactly JFK Airport.

The circle is 28 miles.

 

[FatPhil]

John is now claiming the object was 13,000 feet away (with elevation) when it disappeared into the clouds.

View attachment 72159
Source

I appreciate you've already followed up with a post that shows that trig isn't his strong point, but the way I understood the numbers in his tweet is that it's a 11775' ground track and 6000' elevation, giving a 13216' line of sight distance. So the shorter distances previously discussed are now being thrown out. Can we get an unambiguous "no that imagediagram was wrong" from him so we know what prior numbers and interpretations can now be disregarded.

 

[jarlrmai]

How it started:

How its going:

 

[Mendel]

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.
Source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-libel-slander-key-elements-claim.htm

Terrorism is a serious crime. Labeling someone a terrorist in public is defamatory.

 

[jimmyslippin]

Curiosity got the better of me.

Ok, this is a very, very basic and rough attempt to examine John's claim that the object was at an elevation of 27°. Please feel free to point out how bad it is, as I'm not sure what tools to use to get the best possible answer here.

As mentioned before, the SiOnyx Aurora Pro uses a 5:4 aspect ratio sensor with a size of 12.3 (H) x 9.9 (V) mm. At 48mm (3x digital zoom) this gives a FOV of about 14.6° x 11.8°. However the video output is in 720p with an aspect ratio of 16:9. This crops the image vertically, giving a FOV of about 14.6° x 8.24°.

Applying a grid layout with these dimensions to a still image from the video gives us this:

The object enters the cloud at what seems to be around 5° of elevation.

Using a trigonometry calculator with angle A of 5° and side a length of 6000, I get a line of sight of 68842 feet or 13.04 miles.

Am I way off base here?

 

[jimmyslippin]

Applying this to the flight path of candidate plane BOX453.

 

[FatPhil]

How it started:

View attachment 72179
How its going:

View attachment 72178

Is there a "5 stages of grieving" for bunk? (Which is a mis-characterisation of what she actually wrote, I know that, it's a shortcut)

 

[jdog]

Man, that's a wild thread on Twitter. I have to give Tedesco some credit for engaging, but I don't see a good reason for him getting so hostile and refusing to release information (like video metadata) that could support his claims. Under what circumstances would the video metadata not be releasable if a) you've already published the video, b) made claims about what's on the video, and c) given a copy of the video to a news channel?

This is more in the nature of an published observation than a scientific claim, and even those normally undergo vetting by editors familiar with the topic and face questioning from colleagues in the field.

Peer review is generally done sitting a desk, by someone familiar with the type of research involved, someone who can question your methods, check your calculations for accuracy, and gauge whether your conclusions are justified.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

He recorded the video with civilian grade equipment, on public property, of public airspace, of what's likely a commercial plane. I don't see any grounds for him needing permission from some unnamed federal agency to post the video metadata, unless he for some reason voluntarily signed over the exclusive rights to the video to a federal agency, which would seem like an odd thing for a UFO hunter to do.

 

[Mendel]

Applying this to the flight path of candidate plane BOX453.

What was the aircraft's altitude there?

 

[Mendel]

civilian grade equipment

their paper ("Eye on the Sky") does not describe how they calibrated their equipment, or if they even did. I don't see how they confirmed that their self-modified radar system worked as intended.

I'm not surprised their compass readings are off.

 

[FatPhil]

What was the aircraft's altitude there?

WSITD, if that's the kml file posted above:

...
<gx:coord >-73.619947 40.620691 2781</gx:coord>
<gx:coord >-73.609897 40.622507 2842</gx:coord>
<gx:coord >-73.598877 40.624512 2903</gx:coord>
<gx:coord >-73.586613 40.626603 2964</gx:coord>
<gx:coord >-73.574341 40.628128 3025</gx:coord>
<gx:coord >-73.564453 40.628885 3078</gx:coord>
<gx:coord >-73.552551 40.629181 3132</gx:coord>     <-- peak N value
<gx:coord >-73.543354 40.628931 3185</gx:coord>
<gx:coord >-73.533325 40.62822 3246</gx:coord>      <--  slightly larger delta-W
<gx:coord >-73.526438 40.627488 3277</gx:coord>     <-- seventh from the end, smaller delta-W
<gx:coord >-73.515452 40.625905 3315</gx:coord>     <-- slightly larger delta-W
<gx:coord >-73.504944 40.623825 3360</gx:coord>
<gx:coord >-73.495102 40.62125 3406</gx:coord>
<gx:coord >-73.486113 40.61841 3452</gx:coord>
<gx:coord >-73.477539 40.615265 3513</gx:coord>
<gx:coord >-73.477539 40.615265 3513</gx:coord>     <-- curious dupe which is why I counted back 7 not 6

So, the altitude is 3277 units.

Disclaimer: I'm completely busking this, but those 5 properties all align with the image.

And "units!?!?!" you say? Well, yes, it appears that they're shy about what units are to be used:

Altitude Modes

Many KML features can contain an <altitude> element or coordinate, which specifies a distance above the ground level, sea level, or sea floor for that particular feature. <AbstractView> elements also can contain altitude.

Any altitude value should be accompanied by an <altitudeMode> element, which tells Google Earth how to read the altitude value. Altitudes can be measured:

from the surface of the Earth (relativeToGround),
above sea level (absolute), or
from the bottom of major bodies of water (relativeToSeaFloor).

It can also be ignored (clampToGround and clampToSeaFloor)
...

absolute

The absolute altitude mode measures altitude relative to sea level, regardless of the actual elevation of the terrain beneath the feature. In this way, features can be placed underground, and will not be visible. Portions of a feature can extend underground, as in the example below. Negative values are accepted, to place features below sea level.

This altitude mode is useful in situations where the altitude value is known precisely. GPS tracks, for example, can use the absolute altitude mode to display paths created while flying or diving.

-- https://developers.google.com/kml/documentation/altitudemode

 

[flarkey]

What was the aircraft's altitude therw?

ADSB Playback with labels, including altitude:

 

[Mendel]

ADSB Playback with labels, including altitude:
View attachment 72199

Using @jimmyslippin 's 5⁰, the sightline to the aircraft intersects its flight path higher than 6000 ft and further out than 13 miles.

 

[flarkey]

Using @jimmyslippin 's 5⁰, the sightline to the aircraft intersects its flight path higher than 6000 ft and further out than 13 miles.

Again remember that this aircraft is just an example of possible departure routes from JFK towards long Island. It assumes the date & time on the videocamera that John Tedesco gave was wrong. We haven't been able to confirm the date & time as accurate.

Also it assumes their calculation of the cloudbase of 6000 ft is accurate. @Mendel 's JFK METAR in post #4 suggested a much higher cloudbase of between Scattered 16,000ft to Few at 25,000ft.

 

[Mendel]

With the attached picture, I'm seeing a frame width of 508 pixels, and the elevation of the white dot as 161 pixels from the car headlights. With the 14.6⁰ horizontal FOV from this post, I compute atan(161/(254/tan(7.3⁰)))≈4.6⁰ as the approximate elevation of the white dot.

Also it assumes their calculation of the cloudbase of 6000 ft is accurate. @Mendel 's JFK METAR in post #4 suggested a much higher cloudbase of between Scattered 16,000ft to Few at 25,000ft.

I'm not too worried about the METAR, especially with the uncertainties surrounding date and time, and the fact that clouds have a physical extension, meaning if you go a dozen miles north or south, conditions may change. Earlier METARS had a layer at 5000-6000 ft.

Article:

Alternatively, the cloud base can be estimated from surface measurements of air temperature and humidity by calculating the lifted condensation level. One method for doing this, used by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and often named after Tom Bradbury,[1]​ is as follows:

1. Find the difference between the surface temperature and the dew point. This value is known as the "spread".
2. Divide the spread by 4.4 (if temperatures are in °F) or 2.5 (if temperatures are in °C), then multiply by 1000. This will give the altitude of the cloud base in feet above ground level. Put in a simpler way, 400 feet for every 1°C dew point spread. For metric divide the spread in °C by 8 and multiply by 1000 and get the cloud base in meters.
3. Add the results from step (2) to the field elevation to obtain the altitude of the cloud base above mean sea level.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_base

I expect this sort of calculation would be thrown off if you took your readings next to the ocean, as that would elevate the humidity value. Wikipedia labels it an estimate because it relies on 400ft/1⁰C being constant, aka the air being homogenous above the observer, which may not always hold; and obviously this measurement was taken over a dozen miles from the position of the object as well.

 

[Mendel]

Taking a rough estimation of physical size based on cloud height data, which we had also calculated from Dew Point and temperature, and for/sensor size on the Sionyx optics puts its size as between 3 to 6 meters.

Article:

The LCL is a good approximation of the height of the cloud base which will be observed on days when air is lifted mechanically from the surface to the cloud base (e.g. due to convergence of airmasses).

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_condensation_level

i.e. this method only works under very specific conditions.

Since we have JFK airport METARs from that night indicating 2 layers of clouds, I would not take it as given that these conditions applied here. (See my previous post for more confounding factors.)

 

[Dave51c]

Source

John has also suggested that the readings from his multiple e-compasses need to be corrected by +/- 10 degrees, but then immediately suggests the correct heading is 231.

View attachment 72163

Yikes! John has a +/- 10 Degree error on his compasses!

And if each compass (physically located close by) has a different measurement then by how much and to what resolution is the compass capable of. Most that I can see on a quick google search that use low cost magnetic sensors are 1-2 degree accurate.

I had not heard about these guys before reading through this thread but if they cannot get basic measurements correct at the time of observation, then for me this is a huge fail and undermines any scientific credentials that they had claimed.

If they have been claiming to be citizen scientists then this annoys me intensely as I've had the pleasure of working alongside real citizen scientists whose skill. knowledge and discipline would put John and his team to shame.

 

[Mendel]

Science vs. Scientificality

One of my main takeaways from this thread is how well it illustrates the difference in approach between UFOlogists and scientists.

Modern science is based on quantitative methods. Chemistry started rising above alchemy when researchers started weighing quantities. Reliable numbers give rise to mathematical laws that allow accurate predictions.

John Tedesco knows this:

John has also suggested that the readings from his multiple e-compasses need to be corrected by +/- 10 degrees, but then immediately suggests the correct heading is 231.

Source

I've worked in a laboratory for many years, and an average is taken on multiple instruments.

Usually, multiple readings are done on the same instrument. For example, this is how surveyors achieve high levels of accuracy: by taking multiple readings with the same theodolite.
Tedesco's tweet above admits that they did not do that.

Their paper, "An Eye on the Sky ...", cited upthread, pays lip service to quantitative methods.

The temperature difference between the engines and the hull of the aircraft are not subtle. There is no "one-tenth of a degree" variation visible in this image. Tedesco's paper does not cite the sensor ranges of the instruments or their error margins. It does not state which methods were used to calibrate the instruments, including their homebrew modifications. It does not set down procedures for capturing and logging observations. And this after 10 months in the field:

The conduct revealed in the paper is anything but meticulous.

A scientist gathers data in the hope that, with time, an unknown phenomenon can be described exactly and thus become known. A scientist's business is turning the unknown into the known.

A UFOlogist, however, is happy with the unknown. A MUFON investigator's proudest moment is when a case can be "closed" as "unknown".

If I wanted to generate "unknown" cases, I'd use equipment that few people are familiar with (and that looks scientific), generate pictures that stimulate the imagination, but collect and publish as little data as possible, and pay no mind as to whether the data that I do collect is reliable. That's because the data works against the UFOlogist: it cannot make an unknown case more unknown, but it could turn it into something known, which would be a failure.

When you spend 10 months on "UAP research", you need to turn up some unidentified phenomena, or else you've failed your goal. Tedesco struggles with this because some of his equipment restricts his observation range to where some of his cameras can easily take identifiable pictures:

As a result, the case he presents here uses a single sensor, a camera that is not steady and not providing the best magnification he has access to. His other sensor information is not correlated with the camera: we do not know when the claimed "e-compass" readings were taken or how (the paper does not mention them), and the radar screen shown cannot be correlated to a time in the video or even oriented geographically (see post #44).

UFO believers reward unusual pictures that look scientific.
Science rewards reliable data.
It looks to me like Tedesco's "Nightcrawler" has managed to produce one but not the other.

 

[flarkey]

Science vs. Scientificality

A scientist gathers data in the hope that, with time, an unknown phenomenon can be described exactly and thus become known. A scientist's business is turning the unknown into the known.

A UFOlogist, however, is happy with the unknown. A MUFON investigator's proudest moment is when a case can be "closed" as "unknown".


UFO believers reward unusual pictures that look scientific.
Science rewards reliable data.
It looks to me like Tedesco's "Nightcrawler" has managed to produce one but not the other.

Nice summary. I've been working on a similar tag-line in my head for a definition of UFOology....

UFOology is the rejection of the known and prosaic, by the preservation of disbelief and error, in order to fuel imagination and perpetuate mystery.

Seems to be apt in this case.

 

[Mendel]

Nice summary.

Thank you!

I've been working on a similar tag-line in my head for a definition of UFOology....

UFOology is the rejection of the known and prosaic, by the preservation of disbelief and error, in order to fuel imagination and perpetuate mystery.

Seems to be apt in this case.

I think you'd get protested on "rejection of the known and prosaic". Tedesco would point out that they do track aircraft. They accept that some of their observations are going to be prosaic.

The difference is in how we treat ambiguity. For a believer—be it UFOs, Flat Earth, QAnon, ...—ambiguity confirms their belief, it's evidence in their favor. For us, an ambiguous phenomenon is not very interesting if a likely explanation exists, even if it is unproven.

"To fuel imagination and perpetuate mystery" is nicely put, though.

I think that science achieves the same goal differently: by pushing the boundaries of the known, new unknown realms open up.

 

[jarlrmai]

Thank you!

I think you'd get protested on "rejection of the known and prosaic". Tedesco would point out that they do track aircraft. They accept that some of their observations are going to be prosaic.

The difference is in how we treat ambiguity. For a believer—be it UFOs, Flat Earth, QAnon, ...—ambiguity confirms their belief, it's evidence in their favor. For us, an ambiguous phenomenon is not very interesting if a likely explanation exists, even if it is unproven.

"To fuel imagination and perpetuate mystery" is nicely put, though.

I think that science achieves the same goal differently: by pushing the boundaries of the known, new unknown realms open up.

The thing is if they do track traffic, they should list traffic in the area up to a reasonably long range.

1. It would geo and time correlate the sighting
2. It would assist peer review by making data available for crosschecking.

You can't just say you checked and there was nothing you have to show that.

 

[Mendel]

You can't just say you checked and there was nothing you have to show that.

My point isn't whether or not they checked, my point is that their paper lists a bunch of prosaic explanations for what they're seeing, and a blanket statement that they reject the prosaic is at odds with that.

They can check as much as they want, when they think they're looking SSW, then a check in that direction means nothing when they're pointing their camera westward. That's where my point about reliable data comes in.

And yes, if you do a check, document it and file it. Screenshotting FR24 is not hard.

 

[Dave51c]

A scientist gathers data in the hope that, with time, an unknown phenomenon can be described exactly and thus become known. A scientist's business is turning the unknown into the known.

A UFOlogist, however, is happy with the unknown. A MUFON investigator's proudest moment is when a case can be "closed" as "unknown".

I agree, an excellent summary.

Digessing somewhat;
I'm sometimes happy to indulge myself in UFOlogy and let my imagination run wild with "what ifs" safe in the knowledge that there is a scientific safety net ready to catch me when my thought experiments run me off a cliff! It's kind of fun.

I really wish there were not all of these bad faith actors in the UFOlogy community grifting off peoples intrinsic curiosity or belief systems in this subject. Which seems easy to do given the cultish nature of a lot of it.

 

[Mick West]

Yikes! John has a +/- 10 Degree error on his compasses!

And if each compass (physically located close by) has a different measurement then by how much and to what resolution is the compass capable of. Most that I can see on a quick google search that use low cost magnetic sensors are 1-2 degree accurate.

All the talk about compasses is a little redundant, as they are literally standing in a fixed grid with known alignments, essentially East-West, but more accurately 268.5°

Photo-fitting their video to the data shows they are standing between two gridlines and that the object is to the north of both of them. Adding a line of sight puts it at almost exactly 270° (due west, true bearing). This is more accurate than a compass.

The magnetic declination in Oct 2022 was about 13° W, according to NOAA. Be that means that a 270° true heading would read 283°, so that's not the source of their errors.


https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/calculators/magcalc.shtml?#declination

 

[Mick West]

That marker by JFK airport is 28 miles away, and about 6,900 feet high

 

[Mendel]

That marker by JFK airport is 28 miles away, and about 6,900 feet high

converting 28 miles to feet, and subtracting ~400 ft of curvature, then computing asin(6500/147840) gives me ~2.5⁰ elevation. That's less than I thought it would be, making the camera FOV quite small.

 

[jimmyslippin]

Using @jimmyslippin 's 5⁰, the sightline to the aircraft intersects its flight path higher than 6000 ft and further out than 13 miles.

It's worth noting that the BOX453 flight track is from the early hours of 19 November 2022. As Mick previously suggested:

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.

Has the METAR data for JFK airport been pulled for that date at UTC 06:35?

The fact they haven't been forthcoming with the metadata, as well as other erroneous data such as the incorrect heading, etc., there is the suggestion of deliberate deception, and that they gave the date of November 18 instead to reduce the chances of the object being properly identified. The cloud base of 6000 feet may well be erroneous as well.

I'm still scratching my head as to why a Federal agency would supposedly restrict them from making the time and date metadata publicly available. They wouldn't even need to release the entire video file from that observation. They could simply screenshot the EXIF data, or even just the Windows file properties to show when it was created. It's not believable, frankly.

 

[flarkey]

It's worth noting that the BOX453 flight track is from the early hours of 19 November 2022. As Mick previously suggested:



Has the METAR data for JFK airport been pulled for that date at UTC 06:35?

The fact they haven't been forthcoming with the metadata, as well as other erroneous data such as the incorrect heading, etc., there is the suggestion of deliberate deception, and that they gave the date of November 18 instead to reduce the chances of the object being properly identified. The cloud base of 6000 feet may well be erroneous as well.

I'm still scratching my head as to why a Federal agency would supposedly restrict them from making the time and date metadata publicly available. They wouldn't even need to release the entire video file from that observation. They could simply screenshot the EXIF data, or even just the Windows file properties to show when it was created. It's not believable, frankly.

METAR for the 19 Nov 22 says the sky was CLR = Clear.

https://www.ogimet.com/display_meta...22&mesf=11&dayf=19&horaf=07&minf=59&send=send

 

[jarlrmai]

They gave an semi accurate location I think they at least sort of tried to give data, unfortunately a few 10's of metres, a few degrees a few minutes etc makes all the the difference when trying to actually prove it's a plane. Do they know this and choose to obfuscate "just enough" maybe, maybe not.

We have shown it is highly likely to be mundane, as in we have similar comparison footage, there's nothing unexplainable in the video and the direction they were looking was directly towards two airports. As in we have characterised it as a plane.

But proving it was flight xxx requires accurate data for location, angle AND time/date and we likely only have 2 out of the 3 and we had to sleuth the 2 we do have.

We've been given a date and a time, but we were also given a location and a angle, and they were wrong enough to prevent identification but they were not complete fabrications.

So given the 2 of 3 data items they shared were wrong it's now up to them to show the time and date are accurate.

But time and time again we have to work out at least part of the puzzle ourselves, which sometimes the most fun part of the puzzle..

 

[jimmyslippin]

1:04:32

Tedesco: "Ok, so this was an object seen about roughly one thirty, a quarter to two in the morning."

So, the 1:35AM time given may be as precise as the 236 heading.

1:04:41

Tedesco: "The object itself, it was difficult to see in the visible spectrum, but we had the night vision, we had the STARVIS sensors, we used a planetary camera on this."

So which camera was used to record the video?

The other day John said on twitter that the video was recorded with the SiOnyx Aurora Pro. He also mentioned them using a FLIR camera which unfortunately didn't have a micro-SD card in it, as the one normally used been taken out and put into another device. From the Tedesco's paper, the FLIR camera he is talking about appears to be the ATN OTS 4T 640 which is around $3500USD. A 256GB micro-SD card is about $20USD.

So now we have a third camera thrown into the mix, which could be either the Planet One Neptune-C II or QHY5III462 (see this post for a bit more info) which use the Sony STARVIS IMX464 and IMX462 sensors respectively. They are both USB connected cameras and need a completely separate device (PC, laptop, Raspberry Pi, etc.) to control them and record video. They are meant to be connected to telescopes, but there's nothing stopping you from using it hand-held. It would just be a bit unwieldly with a cable running off to another device.

So they were using three cameras but only one of them was recording?