Newsnation Benfield - Police Officer Robert Klein - Fairfield County, CT - 2022 Orb UFO

Im one of the researchers involved with this case. AMA. I'll clarify a few things here.

-We filmed with NewsNation for multiple days and so the report you end up seeing is a result of multiple hours of footage being edited and cut together to try and tell a story but it leaves out some details of interest. I'm told that last night was just part 1 of the story and NewsNation intends to show several more parts to the story.

-Diane, the witness at the community center, had her sighting 2 months prior to Officer Klein

-We recorded interviews with Chris Burns who was the journalist that photographed "orb/lights" at the reservoir in 2013 and wrote a blog post about it. He also had a front page story in the Redding Pilot in 2015 after he spent over a year researching sightings in the area. What he found is that multiple people have been seeing the same lights, either a single orb or three orbs together, that are usually orange but can also change colors. Sightings are mostly reported around or directly over the resevoir and surrounding areas.

-Officer Klein did not have his dashcam on because it only turns on and records when his code 3 lights are activated.

-Our team is putting together a paper on this case to include some history of the sightings going back decades, but primarily focused on Robert Kleins sighting. We did some tests with drones and sky lanterns while we were out there with results being published in our paper.

-The most likely prosaic explanation for the object in Robert's video would be a helicopter, but after being out there myself could explain why I don't think the object in the video is a helicopter.

Attached is Chris Burns article from 2015 and a screenshot of where the sighting occurred. He was facing approximately 60-75 degrees NE

Let me know what questions you have and I'll do my best to answer or help.
Really happy you popped by! There's so much we've been trying to sort! I hope you're patient
re. answering sincere questions! (Like Minus0, I'd wanna start with why you don't think it's a helicopter)

ETA: I must confess, I didn't know exactly what you meant by "Im one of the researchers..."
I'm assuming that you are NOT saying that you are employed by Hersam Acorn Newspapers...
but can you explain just a bit your capacity as a researcher? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for joining and providing additional information! It could be very useful.

Did Chris give you any copies of the original photos? The metadata would be very helpful for those pictures.



Did Officer Klein tell you where his sighting was?

That's fantastic you did some exploratory experiments, would like to see your results. Also doing any experiments is far more effort than a lot of folks these days

Can you expand on this?

I noticed the 3 "orbs" in the inlay are a similar pattern to landing lands on an aircraft (rotated appropriately). Was that considered?

View attachment 74977

Thanks for coming to provide additional information, interesting cases
Chris said he would try looking through some of his old hard drives for the originals but was very doubtful that he still had them.

I posted a picture that was a screenshot of our location and that was exactly where his sighting was. It was on Valley Forge Rd right where there's a little turnout on the sort of peninsula.

For the experiments I'm going to wait to talk about those until the paper is out. But the general idea was to use the same kind of camera (iPhone 13) to determine how many pixels different sized objects were at various sizes, distances, and lumens.

I don't believe the object in Robert's video was a helicopter for several reasons.

-Nothing on ADS-B. Could potentially be a Sikorsky test helicopter but we spoke to someone familiar with their operations who stated Sikorsky does not do test flights in that area and generally do not fly aircraft without ADS-B. We also spoke had someone reach out to Sikorsky and said they were not operating in the area. Unfortunately neither of these are official and we essentially have to go on a "trust me bro".

-the object doesn't display any navigation or strobing anti collision lights

-lack of sound. When we were out there we had several smaller police and EMS helicopters fly over us when we were at resevoir at about 2,000-2500 feet. Even when they were several miles away we could still hear them and you could clearly make out the sound of them on video recordings from our phones.

-we would also have to completely negate the officers story about the object he saw and how close it was to him prior to appearing on the other side of the lake. So he's either a liar or crazy or stupid. I met and talked to him and several of the officers he worked with, including the chief of police who all vouch for him as not being someone to make things up or tell crazy stories or seek attention.

For the three orbs. I would not be surprised if a certain number of the sightings out in that area and resevoir are misidentified aircraft but there's some of the various witnesses stories and factors to consider.

1. There doesn't seem to be an airport approach path directly near or over the airport.

2. Many of the witnesses have claimed to see the orbs interacting just over the resevoir with the objects clearly in front of the trees on the shore.

3. The lights/orbs don't stay together in a tight pattern. They move around each other, split off, go in different directions, etc.

I'm hoping we can go back out this spring/summer for a week and setup a sky camera system and try to get some quality images/videos. I have no idea what it is but I do know there are many reported sightings in the same area spanning at least decades of the same or very similar characteristics and behavior.
 
Really happy you popped by! There's so much we've been trying to sort! I hope you're patient
re. answering sincere questions! (Like Minus0, I'd wanna start with why you don't think it's a helicopter)

ETA: I must confess, I didn't know exactly what you meant by "Im one of the researchers..."
I'm assuming that you are NOT saying that you are employed by Hersam Acorn Newspapers...
but can you explain just a bit your capacity as a researcher? Thanks.
Look at my response to Minus0 for the helicopter answer. I'm with a team of "UAP" researchers who were sent Robert's case over the summer and have been working on it since then. We just try to do our best to find prosaic explanations, interview witnesses, and collect as much pertinent data and information as we can
 
For background, I found a blog site belonging to a Chris Burns (appears to be the same author as the newspaper article posted in #119), who goes into some depth about the reservoir sightings.
External Quote:
On the dates of Oct. 8, Nov. 11, and Dec. 10, 2013, I documented the appearance of an unidentified flying object which hovers over the Saugatuck Reservoir, in Redding, Connecticut. On each of those dates, the same orange orb appeared above the reservoir and hovered for anywhere between 5, and 30 minutes.
https://chrisburnswriting.wordpress...fo-phenomenon-near-reddingweston-connecticut/

Of course, observed lights 11 years ago doesn't automatically mean a light today is generated from the same source.
 
Chris said he would try looking through some of his old hard drives for the originals but was very doubtful that he still had them.
Fingers crossed!
I don't believe the object in Robert's video was a helicopter for several reasons.
[…]
-Nothing on ADS-B.
Do you have the date and approximate times for Chris's pictures even if he lost the originals? It would be great to verify.
-the object doesn't display any navigation or strobing anti collision lights
The smaller strobe lights or navigation lights can be drowned out by the glare of a brighter light source onboard. This is especially true when seen at distance. However, if the UAP was indeed over the reservoir, as is being considered, then it would be likely to see those lights if it was a commercial craft. Curious indeed

-we would also have to completely negate the officers story about the object he saw and how close it was to him prior to appearing on the other side of the lake. So he's either a liar or crazy or stupid. I met and talked to him and several of the officers he worked with, including the chief of police who all vouch for him as not being someone to make things up or tell crazy stories or seek attention.
I think basically everyone here would start with the assumption that he is genuine, not lying, and presenting the information as well as he can recall. It's a big misunderstanding to assume scepticism about one's claims requires assumptions of dishonesty or even worse, insanity.

Visual illusions and perceptual errors are normal and well researched by cognitive neuroscientists. Our brain is always engaging in a process of constructing our perception of the external world. To do so it uses many different shortcuts and assumptions influenced by the algorithm itself and from previous experiences. The image on our retina, for example, is just a 2-D picture that the brain has to translate into three dimensions adding speed, location, etc. In conditions of low information, especially with limited light sources at night, the likelihood of perceptual errors dramatically increases. We have all experienced these to varying degrees in our lives at some point.

As a brief example; it's neurologically impossible to determine the size or distance of an object in the sky on its own. The only way is if we know either size/distance to begin with. i made a post here yesterday going into more detail about perception: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/oregon-ufo-lights-seen-by-pilots-starlink.13825/page-2#post-331127

The main takeaway is I fully believe Officer Klein is genuinely honest in his retelling of events. That doesn't mean he couldn't have also experienced normal perceptual errors at night or other well documented issues with memory recall, especially under high arousal/shocking situations. I don't know what he actually saw, of course, just clarifying that we wouldn't need to tarnish his character while also remaining skeptical about his experience.
2. Many of the witnesses have claimed to see the orbs interacting just over the resevoir with the objects clearly in front of the trees on the shore.
Now this is the most important evidence that needs to be captured on video! It will provide relative distance/size. If the orbs also demonstrate high rates of speed in this situation without producing noise in the video, then we finally have something very interesting. I hope you're able to capture something like that on video with your upcoming sky camera.
3. The lights/orbs don't stay together in a tight pattern. They move around each other, split off, go in different directions, etc.
I would encourage you, again, to have a look at the comment I linked above. Some of the gestalt, cognitive organizing principles can explain how these perceptions happen. The lights might have been completely unrelated to begin with, but because our brain often group similar stimuli together we misperceive their behaviours. Two lights appearing right next to each other on our retina could in fact be many miles apart along the same vector from our point of perception.
I have no idea what it is but I do know there are many reported sightings in the same area spanning at least decades of the same or very similar characteristics and behavior.
I'm genuinely curious what you think about the current drone flap going on. Would you agree that plenty of normal, non-mentally ill people, are priming one another to misperceive mundane things like airplanes in the sky?

For me, it clearly demonstrates the power of priming and availability heuristics impacting perceptual errors/illusions. Now that everyone is expecting drones, they are perceiving drones, despite them being normal aircraft. It is definitely the case that even in small towns once a story spreads, other people will start to believe they are seeing the same thing. You should look into the clown panic in the southern US where everyone started seeing clowns that literally didn't exist. It's fascinating.

Thanks again for coming here to provide additional information, I wish you luck on your continued research and skycam setup. If you are able to get video footage demonstrating the orb behaviours witnesses have talked about that would be very cool! Please come share anything anomalous you discover, and be sure to include the original files with metadata
 
Last edited:
However, if the UAP was indeed over the reservoir, as is being considered, then it would be likely to see those lights if it was a commercial craft. Curious indeed
Worth noting that something can be "over the reservoir" by virtue of being in the direction of the reservoir and in the sky, without being anywhere near the reservoir. It might be considerably further away...

moonlit-serene-lake-stockcake.jpg
 
Isn't it possible from pictures like this on Chris's Wordpress to triangulate to its distance, by using treeline and mirror image as references?

Need to think this through a little further, too late for tonight.

1734565755895.png


I think it must be considerably further away than the tree line, otherwise the mirror image on the water would need to show room between tree line and object, right?
 
Worth noting that something can be "over the reservoir" by virtue of being in the direction of the reservoir and in the sky, without being anywhere near the reservoir. It might be considerably further away...
Or closer. But that would not seem to be likely to apply in this case!
Just mentioned for the sake of completeness.
Capture.JPG
 
It's further away than the tree line, maybe not by much - can't do proper geometry today.

Pictures on Chris's Wordpress show the light's reflection disappear behind the tree line, while the light is still seen.

1000114956.jpg
1000114958.jpg
1000114959.jpg


Unfortunately there seems to be a tiny bit of surface ripple which makes the reflection's boundaries somewhat difficult to measure.

Maybe one can get an estimate on maximum angle for the wave sides of a ripple?
 
It's further away than the tree line, maybe not by much - can't do proper geometry today.

Pictures on Chris's Wordpress show the light's reflection disappear behind the tree line, while the light is still seen.

Unfortunately there seems to be a tiny bit of surface ripple which makes the reflection's boundaries somewhat difficult to measure.

Maybe one can get an estimate on maximum angle for the wave sides of a ripple?

It's interesting in this one (first one of the same series) is that the reflection's suggested shape is different than a straight mirror image of the path of the light source. This could in theory be consistent with the light source covering quite some horizontal distance towards the camera in the first few fractions of the picture.

1000114960.png


It's kind of hard to tell what surface ripple does though.
 
That looks like a few seconds of exposure, the red light on the left seems to be repeated strobe flashes from an aircraft.
They're all 5 seconds exposure and taken on 10 Dec 2013 (unless I made a mistake and copied the wrong one - fairly sure though)
 
It's interesting in this one (first one of the same series) is that the reflection's suggested shape is different than a straight mirror image of the path of the light source. This could in theory be consistent with the light source covering quite some horizontal distance towards the camera in the first few fractions of the picture.
That's because the object is seen from one angle by the cameraman, but presents a different shape when seen from the water. (The blurring by water ripples also makes it hard to see). Here's a picture of a building reflected in water, where the roof is clearly seen on the object, but can't be "seen" from the direction of the water because if you were swimming in the pond at that location you'd be looking UP at it. (And yes, I know it's a stupid AI picture but it shows the basic principles of reflections.)
IMG_2946.jpeg
 
That's because the object is seen from one angle by the cameraman, but presents a different shape when seen from the water. (The blurring by water ripples also makes a change). Here's a picture of a building reflected in water, where the roof is clearly seen on the object, but can't be "seen" from the direction of the water. (And yes, I know it's a stupid AI picture but it shows the basic principles of reflections.)
View attachment 75070
Well, yes, but if the light source moved parallel to the shoreline and only changed altitude, the left end of the reflection should be "lower down" i.e. closer to camera on the water than the right side, as the light itself is shown higher up on the left than on the right.

However, the reflection seems to be "moving downward" (ripple notwithstanding) left to right as is the original light source, which could suggest a movement towards the camera rather than just left to right.

If you compare with the other pictures, my point may be easier to spot - in the other pictures the shape of the reflection seems to be closer to a mirror image of the shape of the original light, in the picture in question it's more a distorted version of the same shape, non-mirrored.

I thought that was curious.
 
Last edited:
(And yes, I know it's a stupid AI picture but it shows the basic principles of reflections.)
I THINK this one is a photo, while admittedly it is getting harder to be sure... But note visible roof surface, not visible in reflection.
house reflection water.JPG
 
Here's your 100% guaranteed real one minute old photo.

1000114982.jpg


That's not (really) my point though - or I'm not getting why it is.
 
That's not (really) my point though - or I'm not getting why it is.
I think the point is that if you only look at an unfamiliar 3-D object in 2-D, you don't really know what it looks like in 3-D. An object and its reflection at least give us two different viewpoints. As for its actual distance, all you can tell is whether or not it's occluded by the trees, and I'm not sure how you can actually measure distance without knowing its size and height.

Edit to add: as an example, you're seeing the left side of the object as being higher, when perhaps it is really just farther away from us.
 
Last edited:
Here's your 100% guaranteed real one minute old photo.

That's not (really) my point though - or I'm not getting why it is.

Actually it does kind of show what I mean - consider the right hand horizontal lower edge of the roof. The real one runs lower left to upper right in the picture, as does the reflection, too. However, the right-hand side front edge runs upper left to bottom right, and its reflection runs lower left to upper right, a "proper" mirror-image.

If the light follows a path roughly parallel to the shoreline (and if we're at it at a right-ish angle), we'd expect a "proper" mirror-image. Only if moving along our line of sight, we get an effect where the reflection shows the same inclination as the source, not an opposite one.

Maybe it's not important or trivial, but it kind of might suggest the light doesn't only do right-a-little left-a-little, but that it came from afar (well... at least does front-a-little and maybe back-a-little, too).
 
I think the point is that if you only look at an unfamiliar 3-D object in 2-D, you don't really know what it looks like in 3-D. An object and its reflection at least give us two different viewpoints. As for its actual distance, all you can tell is whether or not it's occluded by the trees, and I'm not sure how you can actually measure distance without knowing its size and height.
I think one can measure distance in multiples of distance-to-shoreline, maybe using an assumption about own height and shoreline forest height above surface, purely by geometry. One would use the measured distances from reflections to wood and actual light to wood.

Not completely certain though.
 
If the light follows a path roughly parallel to the shoreline (and if we're at it at a right-ish angle), we'd expect a "proper" mirror-image. Only if moving along our line of sight, we get an effect where the reflection shows the same inclination as the source, not an opposite one.
I'm trying to envision what effect camera-shake would have on that. Would that not produce more parallel trails for both the light and its reflection?
 
Last edited:
Actually it does kind of show what I mean - consider the right hand horizontal lower edge of the roof. The real one runs lower left to upper right in the picture, as does the reflection, too. However, the right-hand side front edge runs upper left to bottom right, and its reflection runs lower left to upper right, a "proper" mirror-image.
You're over-thinking it, and still thinking of 3-D as if it's 2-D. Turn your photo upside down and you can it see it just looks like a house seen from below while the object is seen from above. This is a hard thing to grasp for a lot of people, so I don't want you to feel I'm criticizing you specifically. But reflections - even in "still water" like your house-on-a-mirror - can reflect things in one plane parallel to the observer and show it as it looks on the object itself, but all the portions that are not in that plane don't look the same.
 
It's interesting in this one (first one of the same series) is that the reflection's suggested shape is different than a straight mirror image of the path of the light source. This could in theory be consistent with the light source covering quite some horizontal distance towards the camera in the first few fractions of the picture.
What you MAY be perceiving could be caused by the difference in shape of the object's path as seen from 2 different angles. Imagine a lighted, distant object that is at your eye level flying towards you and to your right. Because it is at your eye level, you can only perceive the left to right motion. The path remains horizontal. Now take a perspective from lower down (lake level). You can now see both the left to right and forward motion since your POV does not share the same plane any longer. The object will appear to move to the right and up. This of course applies even if the object isn't exactly at your eye level as proposed, it would just change the angle of the two paths. The further away the object, the less the path will change between the two perspectives.

It would take some pretty careful measurement of the photo to detect this difference and to me it appears that there is so much noise in the signal due to camera shake and water ripple that you would be unable to make an accurate determination. A tripod and windless lake might be able to show this difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eng
I'm trying to envision what effect camera-shake would have on that. Would that not produce more parallel trails for n=both the light and its reflection?
Probably.

I think that on these photos there's not too much shakin' goin' on, to be honest - shoreline looks fairly defined, and the light source, while moving through the frame, in itself doesn't seem too blurred...
 
I guess all I'm saying is the reflection in the first photo may suggest 3D-movement towards the camera, whereas the others are consistent with left-right movement parallel to the photo plane.

I was initially expecting left-right only from what I remembered from the accounts, so the front-back movement surprised me.

I think what you @Ann K and @Stryder wrote seems to go in the same direction, no? Or am I still missing something?
 
I think what you @Ann K and @Stryder wrote seems to go in the same direction, no? Or am I still missing something?
I agree in principle with the major caveat that I'm not sure it's possible to distinguish a difference in the the two paths (1 direct, 1 reflected) due to the noise in the signal. The other thing I'd point out is that if there were any vertical motion to the object, that would further confuse the issue of whether the object was moving towards/away from the observer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eng
I agree in principle with the major caveat that I'm not sure it's possible to distinguish a difference in the the two paths (1 direct, 1 reflected) due to the noise in the signal. The other thing I'd point out is that if there were any vertical motion to the object, that would further confuse the issue of whether the object was moving towards/away from the observer.
Of course.
 
I think one can measure distance in multiples of distance-to-shoreline, maybe using an assumption about own height and shoreline forest height above surface, purely by geometry. One would use the measured distances from reflections to wood and actual light to wood.

Not completely certain though.
Yes.
But that's 3 unknowns, so I kinda don't see the point.

When the mirror image of the light is obscured by the trees, but it can be seen directly above the trees, then the distance to the light is greater than the distance to the trees.
 
Yes.
But that's 3 unknowns, so I kinda don't see the point.

When the mirror image of the light is obscured by the trees, but it can be seen directly above the trees, then the distance to the light is greater than the distance to the trees.
I aassumed one would be able to somewhat constrain eye and forest height, and had hoped one could at least somewhat bound the distance (and with 5 seconds exposure the speed) into rough bins like less than a mile, more than 5 miles or somewhere in between.

Wouldn't that be somewhat useful?

I don't have much screen time today, may attempt over the weekend.
 
I think that on these photos there's not too much shakin' goin' on, to be honest - shoreline looks fairly defined, and the light source, while moving through the frame, in itself doesn't seem too blurred...
I am leaning towards agreeing. While the Mystery Light in this shot looks a lot like a classic "camera wiggling while light is pretty stationary" image, the other lights in the pic don't show the same wiggle trail (sorry if that got too technical...^_^) And the other pics look less like camera wiggle.movement happened.
Capture.JPG


Last chance for wiggle theory, for at least this one image -- if the camera was still for most of the exposure, and got jostled slightly right at, say, the end of the exposure, might the brightest light leave a trail while fainter lights (that need longer exposure to show up in a particular spot) don't? It seems logical, but others know more camera stuff than me. But since this is the image that shows the non-mirrored reflection, and is the one with the jiggle trail, it just seems such a nice fit... CAVEAT: things that look like a nice fit may not in fact be correct.
 
The thing about long exposure trails is they can differ per object by brightness, if the wiggle is inconsistent in speed, moving slowly during one part of the wiggle allows duller lights to streak a bit for that part, but the brighter lights streak for the entire exposure.
 
The thing about long exposure trails is they can differ per object by brightness, if the wiggle is inconsistent in speed, moving slowly during one part of the wiggle allows duller lights to streak a bit for that part, but the brighter lights streak for the entire exposure.
Looking at the series in my earlier post I would assume it's a stationary tripod. The wiggling light wiggles itself to the right, while the trees sway lightly in a little night breeze. The rocks at the shore are fairly ok. Haven't checked the other lights, but it might be nice to overlay all of the images from the blog
 
Looking at the series in my earlier post I would assume it's a stationary tripod. The wiggling light wiggles itself to the right, while the trees sway lightly in a little night breeze. The rocks at the shore are fairly ok. Haven't checked the other lights, but it might be nice to overlay all of the images from the blog
How can you assume that the camera is truly stationary? For that matter, how do we know it is moving left to right? (I'm just looking at a single picture and haven't taken the effort to look at time stamps on the series.) Just looking at the 1 picture we are discussing, it appears to me that the camera is mostly stationary while the object is on the right side of the trail. I base this on the fact that the trail is smoother and brighter on the right side. It looks like a significant "bump" in the middle, and possibly lots of motion on the left. Looking at a time lapse image is not the same as looking at a video even though we try to interpret them in a similar fashion. Because the object is (probably) moving in the horizontal, my mind tries to equate position with time, but we don't have strong evidence of the linearity of this. What I am trying to say is that it is not safe to divide the bright light "line" into 5 equal distance parts and say that each part is 1 second of exposure. I think you might be able to get closer if you were somehow able to divide the "line" into 5 equal parts based on total luminosity. That would take some serious effort of pixel counting and trying to determine luminosity (at least relative) of each pixel. It also assumes a more or less constant trajectory of the object which may be an invalid assumption. I think it may also be assuming that the motion of the camera is not backtracking over the top of the object, because if it is, then we really have a mash. If this were a 5 second video at 30-60 frames/second, we could do lots of neat tricks like stabilization, analysis of movement per frame, etc.

Also, time lapses of faintly lighted objects do not look the same as brightly lit objects. The trees may be showing movement, but not the blur of the lighted object. Note that each of the bumps on the horizon tend to show a group of trees of roughly the same size. This may be an indication of a small number of trees in each bunch that is being captured several times each and leading to a perceptual error that the trees are distinct when they are not.

As far as it being the light that is wiggling across the FOV, I am very doubtful. I would readily accept (highish probability) that the object is in fact moving, but in order for it to be moving that rapidly in the vertical direction (up and down) on the left side of the "line", it would be experiencing very high accelerations since we can see that it is at least the distance of the tree line. Come to think of it, we have limited perspective on how big those trees are. They could feasibly be small bushes behind a small pond. Do we have firm geolocation so that we know this was taken where it was said to have been?
 
  • Like
Reactions: eng
How can you assume that the camera is truly stationary? For that matter, how do we know it is moving left to right? (I'm just looking at a single picture and haven't taken the effort to look at time stamps on the series.) Just looking at the 1 picture we are discussing, it appears to me that the camera is mostly stationary while the object is on the right side of the trail. I base this on the fact that the trail is smoother and brighter on the right side. It looks like a significant "bump" in the middle, and possibly lots of motion on the left. Looking at a time lapse image is not the same as looking at a video even though we try to interpret them in a similar fashion. Because the object is (probably) moving in the horizontal, my mind tries to equate position with time, but we don't have strong evidence of the linearity of this. What I am trying to say is that it is not safe to divide the bright light "line" into 5 equal distance parts and say that each part is 1 second of exposure. I think you might be able to get closer if you were somehow able to divide the "line" into 5 equal parts based on total luminosity. That would take some serious effort of pixel counting and trying to determine luminosity (at least relative) of each pixel. It also assumes a more or less constant trajectory of the object which may be an invalid assumption. I think it may also be assuming that the motion of the camera is not backtracking over the top of the object, because if it is, then we really have a mash. If this were a 5 second video at 30-60 frames/second, we could do lots of neat tricks like stabilization, analysis of movement per frame, etc.

Also, time lapses of faintly lighted objects do not look the same as brightly lit objects. The trees may be showing movement, but not the blur of the lighted object. Note that each of the bumps on the horizon tend to show a group of trees of roughly the same size. This may be an indication of a small number of trees in each bunch that is being captured several times each and leading to a perceptual error that the trees are distinct when they are not.

As far as it being the light that is wiggling across the FOV, I am very doubtful. I would readily accept (highish probability) that the object is in fact moving, but in order for it to be moving that rapidly in the vertical direction (up and down) on the left side of the "line", it would be experiencing very high accelerations since we can see that it is at least the distance of the tree line. Come to think of it, we have limited perspective on how big those trees are. They could feasibly be small bushes behind a small pond. Do we have firm geolocation so that we know this was taken where it was said to have been?
Geolocation, time stamps, animated series all in the blog posted above.


My post with three pictures has them in chronological order so left to right is a fair assumption.

Of course we don't know whether it wiggled or moved in an orderly fashion.
 
Here's a quickie side view sketch. There's (roughly) a point on the water that reflects the top of the trees (green) and there's a slightly closer point that reflects the object (pink). I think the object can be anywhere along that line. If it were at point 1 it would be seen by the photographer as being in front of the trees, but points 2 or 3 (or indeed anyplace past 2 on that line) are other possible positions, and you can't really tell which point from the photo.
IMG_2948.jpeg
 
Tripods can get bumped, or hit by a little gust of breeze, etc.
dont know if it's relevant here but in the stephenville flap some UFO tv program replicated the squiggle lines.
a bit off topic, as this occurred january 19th in Stephenville (as part of the flap), but i see @Mick West has a thread on squiggley lines, and the UFO Hunters do debunk with experiments the "squiggle/ribbon ufo" claim in Stephenville.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...ctions-squiggly-lines-and-dancing-dots.12802/


stephenville (14 mins of video from claimant) but generally looks like this:
examples 13:50-13:55ish
View attachment 67861
1734639109705.png


unnecessarily complicated debunk 17:45-19:00
"camera was in night mode and it was taking longer exposures per frame"
View attachment 67863View attachment 67864
1734639140832.png
1734639124679.png

https://tubitv.com/tv-shows/490040/s01-e10-invasion-texas-2008
 
Back
Top