Reddit New York High Line Object

jarlrmai

jarlrmai

Senior Member.
This well constructed evidence post was made to Reddit UFOs today


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gej19f/oc_spotted_after_the_fact_a_strange_metallic_blob/


The person took a 3 photo exposure bracket and an object appeared in all three.

Drop box with raw images

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/t2fn...ey=y5i3puwzcq37i73sbhirzl51j&st=7sw4tgyc&dl=0

The main contention seems to be that the object is reflected in the building windows and

External Quote:
Each photo has a matching reflection on the building to the right. There is some distortion from the glass, but it is clearly the same object. This rules out insects or anything close to the lens.
I am not so sure as other closish objects are reflected like the US flag etc. My thoughts are its likely some airborne clutter like a bag or balloon etc.

But I wonder if anyone has any insights.
 
so based on the reflections on the building, do we assume the object is basically at the same distance as the flag/street light/sign thing? which means its a bit bigger than the guy in the red jacket's head?


1730233231626.png
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
jarlrmai said:
Drop box with raw images

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/t2fn...ey=y5i3puwzcq37i73sbhirzl51j&st=7sw4tgyc&dl=0
Click to expand...

Before anyone blindly downloads those, as I just did:

Code: 
Connecting to ucbec879f2c074b659e3a6a6f309.dl.dropboxusercontent.com (ucbec879f2c074b659e3a6a6f309.dl.dropboxusercontent.com)|2620:100:6026:15::a27d:460f|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 356797801 (340M) [application/zip]

That 340 MiB isn't just the "3 images", it's a zip file (which obviously performed no actual compression) containing:

Code: 
Archive:  AIfAKSGB07fahkyakCVNtSI?rlkey=y5i3puwzcq37i73sbhirzl51j&st=7sw4tgyc&dl=0
  Length      Date    Time    Name
---------  ---------- -----   ----
        0  2024-10-29 03:15   /
 87869952  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-1.dng
 23313089  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-1.jpg
 86873600  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-2.dng
 19293470  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-2.jpg
 85705216  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-3.dng
 15735745  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-3.jpg
 10569703  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-annotated.jpg
 27435628  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-composite.jpg
---------                     -------
356796403                     9 files

I'm not complaining about making raw images available, even if they are just of a floating kidney bean, but not everyone has gigabit internet, so it's would be nice to be pre-warned.
 
deirdre said:
so based on the reflections on the building, do we assume the object is basically at the same distance as the flag/street light/sign thing? which means its a bit bigger than the guy in the red jacket's head?


View attachment 72707
Click to expand...
In order for the marked weird reflection to correspond to the weird object in the sky, given your marked identified reflections - both of which I completely agree with, it would indeed have to be close. There's no other way the angles would work.

However, I still don't think that's possible. Unless the window is not vertical. I don't think the reflection is of the object under question. The indirect distance bouncing off the window to the object has to be longer than the direct distance to the object. Therefore the elevation of the real object should be lower than the elevation of the reflected object (arctan(constant elevation change / different distances)). But that's not the case. If anything, the reflection is higher elevation, but only to an extent that can be covered by lens distortions. It's pretty close. However, the only way it would be close is if the object is distant, and the distance off the window is practically the same as the direct line to the object.

I know I'm not explaining this well. It's late.
 
FatPhil said:
Therefore the elevation of the real object should be lower than the elevation of the reflected object
Click to expand...
(just tell me if i'm misunderstanding you)

i think ALL the reflections are lower than the real objects. i think JDog above is pointing to the wrong lamp post. just by the tiniest smidge of course
neon green lines are mine, and i went off the lowest ufo (its an overlap pic showing all 3 ufos at once..so he might have moved a touch between shots..im too lazy to click the drop box again :) )

hmm of course if i accept the top of the photo itself is straight then all real objects are a tad lower. (theres more distance between left end of lines to top of photo than the right sides.)

cc.png


and from the google "car" walk.. we see the opposite building is a bit higher. and that red patch on the yellow building side is higher in real life too. it must have to do with how the camera itself is being held. ?

2a.jpg



but without my drawn lines to help our eyes, the grey building and the red patch on the yellow building looks even higher (to my eye anyway) edit: added arrow to red patch im talking about
1730251842883.png
 
Last edited:
deirdre said:
(just tell me if i'm misunderstanding you)

i think ALL the reflections are lower than the real objects. i think JDog above is pointing to the wrong lamp post. just by the tiniest smidge of course
neon green lines are mine, and i went off the lowest ufo (its an overlap pic showing all 3 ufos at once..so he might have moved a touch between shots..im too lazy to click the drop box again :) )

hmm of course if i accept the top of the photo itself is straight then all real objects are a tad lower. (theres more distance between left end of lines to top of photo than the right sides.)

View attachment 72722
Click to expand...
Your understanding of both me and the things in the image are fine. The field of view seems quite narrow, I hadn't got to your telephoto comment yet, so the triangle inequality (distance from camera to object < distance from camera to reflection + distance from reflection to object) wouldn't be a huge difference as the triangle would be quite slim. So the drop of the reflection would be fairly small. Everything seems to fit a nearish and small layout. A top down map with reflection lines could probably be drawn at this stage given the number of reflections you've worked out. Apologies if I was confusing.
 
FatPhil said:
Before anyone blindly downloads those, as I just did:

Code: 
Connecting to ucbec879f2c074b659e3a6a6f309.dl.dropboxusercontent.com (ucbec879f2c074b659e3a6a6f309.dl.dropboxusercontent.com)|2620:100:6026:15::a27d:460f|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 356797801 (340M) [application/zip]

That 340 MiB isn't just the "3 images", it's a zip file (which obviously performed no actual compression) containing:

Code: 
Archive:  AIfAKSGB07fahkyakCVNtSI?rlkey=y5i3puwzcq37i73sbhirzl51j&st=7sw4tgyc&dl=0
  Length      Date    Time    Name
---------  ---------- -----   ----
        0  2024-10-29 03:15   /
 87869952  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-1.dng
 23313089  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-1.jpg
 86873600  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-2.dng
 19293470  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-2.jpg
 85705216  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-3.dng
 15735745  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-3.jpg
 10569703  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-annotated.jpg
 27435628  2024-10-29 03:15   2024-10-14 163249-composite.jpg
---------                     -------
356796403                     9 files

I'm not complaining about making raw images available, even if they are just of a floating kidney bean, but not everyone has gigabit internet, so it's would be nice to be pre-warned.
Click to expand...

No-one not using Linux command line (so pretty much everyone other than you) is going to be blindsided.

1730277585947.png


Perhaps a spider with wget might save you some bandwidth before you download. 3 raw images from any modern camera can also be assumed to be fairly large files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top