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.
As someone who knows nothing about contemporary cameras /optical instruments and who doesn't use plane-tracking software, I won't pretend to have understood all the relevant bits in this thread. But from past experience I believe posters here are acting in good faith and generally know "what they're on about" (and if a mistake is made, others will point it out).
So, the Nightcrawler bogey footage resembles footage of a plane ascending, and the data supplied re. location and angle were imperfect. John Tedesco's apparent belief Eastern Standard Time is 4 hours behind UTC, and lack of released metadata which might help establish time, might give us cause for concern re. the reported time of the observation, particularly as other relevant reported variables appear to be imprecise / incorrect (have I got this about right so far?)
It would be great- and useful- if the (likely) plane captured in the footage can be identified.
But if that can't be done for whatever reason, we're still left with footage that resembles that of an airliner climbing, taken by researchers who appear to have failed to document/ share accurate information about their location and direction of view.
It seems likely that the researchers were filming an area of sky where we might expect civil aircraft to be seen.
Nothing anomalous has been demonstrated. There is no evidence that the Nightcrawler light is anything other than a normal aircraft. There is nothing about the footage, other than the researcher's own subjective interpretation, that might lead us to believe that anything unusual has occurred.
Even if the identity of the probable aircraft isn't established, this seems an extremely low bar to set as evidence of UAP.
I can't help but think the Tedescos et al., Ross Coulthart and other UFO enthusiasts might realise this.
If UAP represent something not currently understood- and especially if some were evidence of non-human intelligence- then evidence supporting this would be of extraordinary importance. You'd think people interested in UFOs would accept that.
We know there are aircraft-like lights in the skies, they are aircraft (or lights carried on/ reflections off of aircraft).
Researchers claiming that these lights might be UAP creates 'noise'; noise in which any real observations of anything anomalous or interesting might be lost.
Sadly, UFO enthusiasts seem happier totting up more and more claimed sightings and film clips of dubious value as "evidence"- and nothing ever changing, nothing real ever being found out- than trying to explain claimed UAP.
It's an income stream for some, I guess.
Ok, so it's pretty safe to rule out them just getting the date wrong then.
I find the METAR data from the afternoon of the 17th through to the early morning of the 18th to be interesting. Varying degrees of cloud cover at 5000-6000 feet up until about 2300 EST, (0400 UTC) before lifting to 16000-25000 feet.
I think it is significant that as the it-really-looks-like-a-plane enters the clouds,the lighted spot of the clouds is wiped from left (where the plane is coming from) to right -- the area in front of the plane stays brightly lit, but behind the plane, away from where the lights would be shining, is not lit as the plane moves.
That does not prove it is a plane that is shining lights on the cloud, but it seems to me to be strong evidence that the light in the clouds is not a solid object rendezvousing with the ascending light, but is just forward-facing lights shining from the object illuminating the clouds. Lights such as a plane has.
Pardon the sloppy image composition, jet-lag is being unfriendly to me tonight!
I find the METAR data from the afternoon of the 17th through to the early morning of the 18th to be interesting. Varying degrees of cloud cover at 5000-6000 feet up until about 2300 EST, (0400 UTC) before lifting to 16000-25000 feet.
I wouldn't have used the word "lifted"; you can see on the 2:51report a second, higher layer of clouds above the 5000 ft layer which remains after the lower layer is gone 2 hours later.
We also see a westerly wind all night (e.g. 27014KT meaning 270⁰, 14 knots), which means e.g. transatlantic flights would take off westward into the wind, ascend and turn around to then fly up the New England coast. (See for example the flight track on the previous page.)
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
And this is how it looks using @Mick West 's kml overlay, which is getting closer to the video. Altitude as it crosses the pillar is approx 1709m = 5600 ft...
The original point of this thread was to look at the difference between what the witnesses say about the sighting and what the visual evidence of the video says about the sighting.
I took a look at this particular sighting video, which they call Video 4.
Transcript from the interview .
Coulthart: In another video, Video 4, there's an orb with satellites — a large purplish orb surrounded by many smaller orbs that are strobing intensely. It's quite an extraordinary video. Can you talk me through that?
Tedesco: Yes, that one appeared off the shoreline. We noticed the large orb in the middle was visible in both the visible and infrared (IR) ranges. However, the smaller satellite orbs were only visible in infrared; we couldn't see them with our eyes.
This video shows us the constellation Piscis Austrinus (not to be confused with Pisces). The large orb in the center is Fomalhaut. This video is a rare one that has a timestamp.
The sky at that time and place. Piscis Austrinus is just "above" the sea, as seen in the video.
And the real deal, through a telescope
The brightest stars in our sky are many times as bright as the other stars.
The "satellite" of the main orb that is "strobing intensely" is an obvious aircraft. Not too surprising that it's strobing. It has one or more anti-collision lights - which are LED strobes. So it's strobing. Is that really mysterious?
There's another object which I have labeled "probable aircraft." If we had a longer version of this video, we would be able to analyze the apparent motion of this light in the video. Because this would be a very distant aircraft, it would only display a very slow apparent motion. This is one value of making the entire video public, instead of the "Trust me, Bro, this is enough, because we've done the analysis" attitude.
Delta Piscis Austrini is scintillating noticeably because it's so low to the horizon. A star's light passes through a longer path of atmosphere near the horizon, and it encounters more air layers with different densities. These layers cause more refraction and bending of light, amplifying the twinkling effect.
Transcript continued.
Another important detail is that we were tracking this on the main video monitor inside the RV. We wanted to make sure these weren't part of a star constellation, so we used Stellarium mapping and a few other utilities in the field. Using a dry erase marker, we would mark the positions on the monitor, which was fixed, and watch for any changes in the movement of stars due to the Earth's rotation. These objects, however, remained fixed for long periods, confirming that they weren't stars. I believe researchers in the past have referred to them as "pseudo stars."
This novel method of theirs was not effective in this case. Marks on a screen? How precise is this? How do they keep track of the relative positions of these blobs of ink over time? It's a dynamic, though slowly evolving, situation.
Apparently what they are trying to do is to compare the motion of the "psuedo star", in this case Fomalhaut, to the motion of the "real stars". If Fomalhaut is left behind, it has a different motion and is therefore not a real star. It's one of these mysterious pseudo stars.
It seems to me that it would be pretty easy to fudge a little. To convince yourself that the mark over Fomalhaut is not really keeping pace with the the marks over the other stars around it. Maybe if they could recognize the constellations, they would get a clearer understanding of what they're looking at.
There's another problem. In this case, the stars around Fomalhaut are being called "satellites" of the main orb. Of course they're going to share the same motion across the sky with Fomalhaut and with each other. And if they do, they are not real stars. They're a whole group of mysterious things! Which makes it even more mysterious. See what I mean? It's a subtle way to insure that you will always find that the motions of these things are anomalous. Just group them together and make the groups as big as you need to.
The mystery is not only preserved, it's heightened.
Still another problem. This constellation is low on the local southern horizon. The Tedesco Bros. may have made a naïve assumption that many other naïve witnesses have made over the years. They don't understand the motion of the stars.
They may have been expecting Fomalhaut to rise in the east and set in the west. In reality it rose in the SE and set in the SW. It just moved through a small arc. What may have happened: When the movement didn't match their naïve expectations, it was deemed anomalous.
See: Unexpected Real Motions
Why not just recognize the stars and constellations as mapped out over the centuries? Why not recognize what you're looking at the way everyone else does? Is it too much work? Or would it ruin the mystery?
I've already expressed my judgement that these witnesses don't know their way around the sky. Using this very artificial and clumsy method of identifying stars failed them in this case, and I argue that their methods have consistently failed them. There's no substitute for educating yourself and getting an intuitive feeling for the night sky. You should be able to recognize what you are looking at immediately and intuitively through experience. Believe it or not, you should be able to look at Fomalhaut and intuitively recognize it as Fomalhaut. The way you recognize anything that has become familiar to you.
To recap, my contention is that these are naïve witnesses who are making mistakes naïve witnesses have been making for decades.
In the case of these Tedesco brothers, they've been looking at bright stars, and not recognizing them as stars. The majority of their videos, that I've seen, show bright, out of focus stars, which they often describe as "rotating." The rotation is a classic witness misperception of chromatic scintillation.
Transcript from a segment just moments before; describing another sighting.
At that point, the seas were pretty calm, and you could see the rotation of light under the object itself. It was very intense.
It's important that these objects have been labeled "pseudo stars" and that they have been described as having features that are very unstar-like, such as rotation, and another classic witness misperception; a noticeable size and shape and noticeably close distance. They don't move through the sky as stars should. They react to me. Anything to maintain the narrative that they are not stars.
This seems to me to have started as an honest, naïve mistake. Perhaps they developed a series of unconscious reactive defenses against the reality of the situation. The reality being that they'd invested all this time, effort, money and, most of all, emotion into finding mysteries and are only finding the dull old familiar stars and mundane aircraft in a light polluted urban sky.
"And we spent the first two months eliminating all the prosaic explanations. We got very familiar with navigation lights on aircraft, of course the flight patterns coming into the airport, holding patterns and all that kind of thing. And of course that area was isolated from the area we were looking at."
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the white RV is the one they are currently using. Those videos on John's Youtube channel showing off the Isuzu truck are from January 2022. But the photos from their adventures later in the year show both the Isuzu truck and the white RV. It's very confusing and I'm not entirely sure when one replaced the other.
EDIT: According to the interview they gave with Ross Coulthart (at 25:27), the white RV mobile lab replaced the Isuzu truck mobile lab. They don't say when. Source
Apparently the original purpose of the mobile lab was to conduct a study of "electrosmog" and the effect on an apparent cluster of cancer cases in the Long Island area. Ross Coulthart talks about it in the following video, but I've also heard them mention it themselves in one of their interviews with either Matt Ford, Ross Coulthart or the dude from That UFO Podcast.
According to Ross, the Federal agency the Tedesco's are supposedly working with is... the FBI.
Probably because, as somebody else suggested, they've been pointing range finders at aircraft.
Apparently the original purpose of the mobile lab was to conduct a study of "electrosmog" and the effect on an apparent cluster of cancer cases in the Long Island area. Ross Coulthart talks about it in the following video, but I've also heard them mention it themselves in one of their interviews with either Matt Ford, Ross Coulthart or the dude from That UFO Podcast.
Help a brother out here, they have multiple "Nightcrawlers", and the original one built on the Isuzu cabover, was to study "electrosmog", whatever that is, and it's effects on cancer clusters. So, it was to be used in their efforts as epidemiologists. If that's the case, why did it have at least one FURUNO marine radar and 2 more radar screens inside that contraption per their video tours of the rig?
Did they move on from epidemiology to UAPs at some point and reconfigure and eventually rebuild on the Four Winds class C RV?
A bit off topic, but I will confess to watching a fair number of RVing/Overlanding videos on YouTube over the years and one of the things many successful creators do is always change rigs. Always have a new rig with new updates to keep people coming back to your channel.
Help a brother out here, they have multiple "Nightcrawlers", and the original one built on the Isuzu cabover, was to study "electrosmog", whatever that is, and it's effects on cancer clusters. So, it was to be used in their efforts as epidemiologists. If that's the case, why did it have at least one FURUNO marine radar and 2 more radar screens inside that contraption per their video tours of the rig?
Did they move on from epidemiology to UAPs at some point and reconfigure and eventually rebuild on the Four Winds class C RV?
In Coulthart's opening monologue to his interview with the Tedescos he mentions the Tedesco's were "making their research plan" for a study on cancer and the link to "electrosmog" and cell tower emissions, when they read an ODNI report about UAPs in 2021 (which I presume is Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena 25 June 2021) and decided that hunting UAPs was far more important than cancer research.
The Youtube videos were uploaded in January 2022, seemingly after this decision was made to apply their vast talents to a different cause.
The Tedescos mentioned in that interview that the Isuzo cabover was found to be unsuitable for the task so they switched to the RV.
A bit off topic, but I will confess to watching a fair number of RVing/Overlanding videos on YouTube over the years and one of the things many successful creators do is always change rigs. Always have a new rig with new updates to keep people coming back to your channel.
Researchers claiming that these lights might be UAP creates 'noise'; noise in which any real observations of anything anomalous or interesting might be lost.
Indeed. And creating a poor example for others to follow and claim similar findings, thus adding to the noise. These "researchers" set a very low bar for sure. Practically no experimental design that I can see of my admittedly limited knowledge of this group. If one is pointing optical and radiometric instruments towards the sky and want to be taken seriously, I would have thought baseline data would include (given the time & money they seem to have invested);
1/ Timestamp with timezone, calibrated clocks, timecode etc.
2/ Lat/Long of instruments(s) station, differential GPS (where possible).
3/ Horizontal direction to target (degrees) (timecoded tracking data ideally).
4/ Vertical direction to target (degrees) (timecoded tracking data ideally).
5/ Lens/sensor F.O.V (where applicable).
6/ Recording medium and gain/iso etc (where applicable).
7/ Recorded range of wavelength(s) (nm).
8/ Observation Notes. - start/end timestamps of observation, audio, visual notes etc.
9/ Instrument type(s) - model, specs, calibration, antennas used etc.
10/ Weather/environmental conditions at time of observation.
and no doubt other data points I can't think off from the top of my head right now. Then at least the skilled people on this site would not need to jump through hoops trying to establish basic facts.
Perhaps I'm being disingenuous and maybe they do record that data but, for whatever reason, do not want to discuss it. (Men in black, the omnipresent "they", mysterious government agency clearence etc )
Sadly, UFO enthusiasts seem happier totting up more and more claimed sightings and film clips of dubious value as "evidence"- and nothing ever changing, nothing real ever being found out- than trying to explain claimed UAP.
Sure, and I'd like to think that out there, somewhere, genuine UFO enthusiasts are just as fed up with the circus as I am (we are) - at least those who are willing to present evidence and not get upset when plausible explanations are proposed.
1/ Timestamp with timezone, calibrated clocks, timecode etc.
2/ Lat/Long of instruments(s) station, differential GPS (where possible).
3/ Horizontal direction to target (degrees) (timecoded tracking data ideally).
4/ Vertical direction to target (degrees) (timecoded tracking data ideally).
Just found this site that has an in-depth study of the airspace around New York City and shows the various takeoff and landing flightpaths. There is a map on that site shows the many departure routes from JFK runway 22. It shows that there is a common departure path along where the 'ufo' was seen.
The issue I have with this is that although it is based off observations on FlightRadar24, it is just a sketch. Can anyone find an official publication of this departure track?
The issue I have with this is that although it is based off observations on FlightRadar24, it is just a sketch. Can anyone find an official publication of this departure track?
Just found this site that has an in-depth study of the airspace around New York City and shows the various takeoff and landing flightpaths. There is a map on that site shows the many departure routes from JFK runway 22. It shows that there is a common departure path along where the 'ufo' was seen.
The issue I have with this is that although it is based off observations on FlightRadar24, it is just a sketch. Can anyone find an official publication of this departure track?
That sketch would profit from labeling waypoints, which the author of that page has apparently never heard of. It is remarkable because it includes typical altitudes.
The departure charts for JFK (attached) don't involve long routes. But for westward departures (as we had that night because of the wind direction), they always involve a left turn away from NYC and Newark.
Note that they also label DEER PARK, a major waypoint. Physically, there's a VOR antenna on the ground there:
Geographically, it's located a few miles north of Robert Moses State Park:
That means an aircraft departing JFK westward would first turn south and then cross right between the airport and Tedesco's "Nightcrawler" as it headed for DEER PARK.
I haven't dug through the IFR route charts that the jets would be following (the map above is VFR TAC chart), but see the indicated jet route along Long Island.
Also note that Republic airport KFRG is closer to Moses State Park and may be a better source of weather reports, if it is open at night.
There is a map on that site shows the many departure routes from JFK runway 22. It shows that there is a common departure path along where the 'ufo' was seen.
The flight track posted above shows that this runway wasn't in use that night.
Generally, the air traffic pattern above NYC needs to accomodate all 3 airports, and as such there is more than one pattern depending on the prevailing wind direction (aircraft prefer to take off and land against the wind, as that makes ground distances shorter). These patterns wouldn't be published, as they'd be just for air traffic control to use, and might be adapted to circumstances as needed. You could probably contact someone at NYC air traffic control to learn more.
There is a map on that site shows the many departure routes from JFK runway 22. It shows that there is a common departure path along where the 'ufo' was seen.
Wow. Unbelievable. If I had UFO footage I would definitely want as many people as possible analyzing it and eventually finding one way or another what it really is.
The most dangerous thing I can think of is having the wrong understanding of reality. If those are UFO, aliens, whatever, provide the data. If there are aliens flying around, I want to know. Show me the data. It doesn't matter what I want, it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is reality, and reality is driven by data.
I am still waiting for the radar data from the Nimitz encounter.
I wouldn't wait for that too actively, it seems to no longer exist. Better bet is to pounce on the NEXT such case and shout loudly for the data to be preserved. (Sounds like that is now the plan in such cases, but of course WE may never see it...)
If you have lots of money and can build a relationship with a Senator as a major donor, that seems to help.
Ah...this is some of the 'best' evidence from some New York UFO group. I hate to think what the worst evidence was like. If a supposedly scientific UFO group cannot even correctly recognise a plane then its way past time people abandoned UFOlogy.
The interview from @UAPF with the Tedesco brothers has been published. I havent watched it all the way through yet, so I'll use this post to highlight the main points.
We often say that UFOlogy is made up of too many 'trust me bro's' and not enough credentialed people who look at the subject with a scientific approach and using top of the range tech…well these brothers and their associates show us that this is simply not the case, this team use some of the best technology and they have the best credentials and they have captured some of the best footage, using a data driven approach and publishing their findings in a scientific fashion.
John is an incredibly credible person, a laboratory engineer in instrumentation, safety testing, electrical and electronics engineering, with masters degrees.
Gerald, or Gerry, is also an engineer, with bachelors in public health, he's worked in forensic science, then switched over to electrical and mechanical engineering and worked within surveillance for aerospace and aviation.
Throughout this episode, John and Gerry will share their process of ruling out conventional explanations through detailed investigation. Their toolkit, which includes radar, high-zoom optics, hyperspectral imaging, FLIR (forward-looking infrared) cameras, thermal sensors, acoustic detectors, infrasound equipment, and other advanced technology.
In this episode we will look at some of their incredible footage and listen to what they have found so far - and it is really compelling stuff!
My first point is that their claim of using 'hyperspectral' imaging is false. At best they could claim to be using multispectral imagery - that is using imagery in different EM Wave bands, such a IR Visible and Ultraviolet all recorded on separate cameras. Hyperspectral imaging uses a specific type of imager that collects typically hundreds of wavebands which can be used to generate a continuous spectral characterisation for each pixel in the image. I have seen no evidence that they have a Hyperspectral camera on the NightCrawler.
actual scientists publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals.
good scientists share their data.
The Tedesco brothers do neither.
External Quote:
their process of ruling out conventional explanations through detailed investigation
science aims to find explanations, not to rule them out
science uses quantitive methods
the Tedesco brothers can't operate a compass or get a time zone right
Especially not when the claim being made is extraordinary. "This UFO is not a star, or an airplane, or a balloon, therefore ALIENS!" is not a good example of following the scientific method, as the list of possible explanations for every UFO report I have ever seen has a very long list of potential explanation ahead of ALIENS! or other UFO promoters' hypotheses. My issue (one of my issues) with "UFOlogy" is that they, as a group, not only don't seem very good at even the first bit where they'd at least accurately rule out some things (to the extent that "When a UFO promoter introduces their case with 'This is definitely not a balloon,' it is probably a balloon." has become a bit of a meme), but they never seem to get around to testing their current hypothesis as to what any given UFO actually is!
PS: When I search on Google for "Tedesco Brothers UFO," generative AI tells me that the Tedesco Brothers are not associated with the English hard rock band "UFO," but is happy to give me some information on the band. So that's nice. Yay AI.
PS: When I search on Google for "Tedesco Brothers UFO," generative AI tells me that the Tedesco Brothers are not associated with the English hard rock band "UFO," but is happy to give me some information on the band. So that's nice. Yay AI.
But apparently, he had a reputation for being much moodier and harder to work with than his brother Rudolph. Michael was in and out of UFO, the Scorpions and constantly changing the lineup of his own MSG, while Rudy, Klaus and Matthias are still going after 60 years.
...well these brothers and their associates show us that this is simply not the case, this team use some of the best technology and they have the best credentials and they have captured some of the best footage, using a data driven approach and publishing their findings in a scientific fashion.
It's almost the definition of Scientifical:
External Quote:
There were widespread examples of mimicked science talk ("scientese") and attempts to appear scientific. Examples of scientific misunderstandings abounded. These examples prompted the use of the word "scientifical" in the title of this paper. This is not a dictionary word but a slang term used to describe when a person is attempting to sound sophisticated and complex by speaking in sciencey-sounding jargon. Being "scientifical" may fool the public into thinking one is "scientific". Contrarily, the two terms have very different meanings.
ARIGs (Ameture Research and Investigation Groups) failed to display fundamental understanding regarding objectivity, methodological naturalism, peer review, critical thought and theoretical plausibility. The processes of science appear to be mimicked to present a serious and credible reputation to the non-scientific public. These processes are also actively promoted in the media and directly to the local public as "scientific".
They were on Matt Ford's UFO belief promotional vehicle podcast a couple months ago and one of their cases they presented was a street light going out and one of their cameras switching to IR mode because of the darkness and then slowly adjusting exposure level, which they interpreted as a UFO landing.
My issue (one of my issues) with "UFOlogy" is that they, as a group, not only don't seem very good at even the first bit where they'd at least accurately rule out some things (to the extent that "When a UFO promoter introduces their case with 'This is definitely not a balloon,' it is probably a balloon." has become a bit of a meme), but they never seem to get around to testing their current hypothesis as to what any given UFO actually is!
Exactly!
Science tries very hard to falsify all hypotheses, and the ones that survive are "the truth—for now". And these hypotheses are honed to be as precise as possible!
But UFOlogists like the Tedescos only "attack" conventional explanations, never the "it's aliens" hypothesis, and by switching it from extraterrestrials to non-human intelligences, it's just become more vague!
These people do not seek knowledge, they're looking for a good mystery to enjoy! And there's nothing wrong with that, but it's entertainment and not science. ("Nightcrawler")
They were on Matt Ford's UFO belief promotional vehicle podcast a couple months ago and one of their cases they presented was a street light going out and one of their cameras switching to IR mode because of the darkness and then slowly adjusting exposure level, which they interpreted as a UFO landing.
Yeah, it was pretty clear the source of the IR light was coming from the side (and from the vicinity of the camera) and not above, just from the way the roll bar is illuminated.
They also claimed the UFO somehow shut down the street lights, and the supposed proof of this is the lights shutting down out of sync with each other. But if you watch the footage closely it becomes obvious it's the cameras that are being recorded out of sync with each other.
)
