Solved: MUFON case #124190: 'Mothership' UAP Crosses the North Pacific [Starlink Stack]

Well done Mick and everyone else on solving this so quickly. I will say, it's a bit unfair to criticize the SCU so harshly. Though if they'd sought out more collaboration from people here, people familiar with Starlink trains shortly after launch, they wouldn't have looked so foolish. Also the supplemental sets don't appear in satellite tracking software, so unless you knew what to look for, you wouldn't find it.

I'm not making excuses, I find it pretty disappointing and embarrassing too.

Mick, do you plan on making a video? I'm sure when presented with conclusive evidence, as in this case, they would make a correction.
The SCU world be given more slack if they addressed the egregious errors they made with Aguadilla and were also not being given the privileged position of presenting this this flawed analysis to NASA etc.
 
The SCU world be given more slack if they addressed the egregious errors they made with Aguadilla and were also not being given the privileged position of presenting this this flawed analysis to NASA etc.
I agree that their analysis (Or Powell's) of the Aguadilla video is extremely flawed. Was it presented to NASA?
 
I agree that their analysis (Or Powell's) of the Aguadilla video is extremely flawed. Was it presented to NASA?
I am not sure if that was specifically presented to NASA but the FOIA that Greenwald did for NASA's UAP stuff revealed that the SCU were introduced to NASA and a presentation was discussed as well as several well known cases.
 
Last edited:
Is it me, or does it look like MB is the only place where things are really researched and conclusions being made? I mean, all those "study groups" and whatnot do not seem to care much about it at all. It is probably not in their interest to solve things.......
Yeah it's a bit of problem

But I mean apart from Mick Metabunk is largely anonymous and none of us are really putting any personal/professional reputation the on the line.

With the recent videos people who have a lot of status are linked to the claims, that is probably off-putting to people who may think they are talking outside their wheelhouse.

Also it's possible Metabunk attracts all the people (seemingly few) around who both are interested in and capable of doing this that are not affiliated with organisations directly tasked in some capacity with doing so, so whilst it is varied and open to all and has a sort of internal peer review, it's conclusions can seem monolithic. Because no-one's gonna start the People's Republic of Metabunk when they can just post here.
 
Mick, do you plan on making a video? I'm sure when presented with conclusive evidence, as in this case, they would make a correction.
Yeah, in a day or two.

I will say, it's a bit unfair to criticize the SCU so harshly.
If it was a one-off thing, then maybe. But it's a pattern. Like they were told YEARS ago that Appendix L in their Aguadilla report was entirely false, and yet it's still there.

This case is more definitive overall, so maybe they will accept it. On Twitter they have already said it is "Not SCU" as it was a guest speaker.
 

Attachments

  • 1690732081016.png
    1690732081016.png
    60.2 KB · Views: 76
However if you visit the link now though the 'SCU Member' wording for Griffiths has been removed and replaced with Affil. Prof.
Maybe he's been fired.

Seriously though, on Twitter Rojas said to me "you know this is not SCU", when they very much presented it like it was SCU.
 
I’d like to see those calculations of upper limits of gravitational lensing of background stars. How massive did he think it might have been??? Even the Sun deflects light by only about an arc second.
 
I’d like to see those calculations of upper limits of gravitational lensing of background stars. How massive did he think it might have been??? Even the Sun deflects light by only about an arc second.
Upper limits tell you very little.

A metric ton is an upper limit on the weight of homo sapiens, i.e. all humans weigh less than a ton. This is factually correct, but only useful if you want to make people believe humans are the size of elephants.

What you really need in the case of alien motherships is a lower limit, because if that limit is big, then the mothership is bigger. But if that's zero, well, then you really don't know anything about the size, or the "propulsion".
 
SmartSelect_20230731-075823_Samsung Internet.jpg
"No visible wings" typically means the object is in free fall (a satellite or astronomical object), a helicopter, or the wings are shaded and invisible against the sky ("glowing cylinder" sightings).

It's a bold statement to make when the object is far into the LIZ that it's just a bunch of white dots: if it had wings, it'd be impossible to discern them from those images.
What's more, knowing these are Starlink satellites, we know they do have wing-like structures, and from afar, they look similar to solar-powered aircraft.:
Article:
2-spacexdescri.jpg

Article:
Helios_in_flight.jpg


"There are no corroborating radar or other observations" lacks the addendum "available to us", because (again, knowing it's starlink) they can't have looked very hard, especially if the non-observation of aerodynamic surfaces suggests the object is in space. Telephoning the local observatory should've cleared that sighting right up.


Here's a question to the experts: knowing it's a Starlink train, is their assessment that it's "a mile long" approximately correct?
 
Here's a question to the experts: knowing it's a Starlink train, is their assessment that it's "a mile long" approximately correct?
I had the same question in #33. Wondering what the best estimate is for the length of the lights they recorded. I'm guessing it's much, much longer than a mile. Are they seeing the whole train or just part of it reflecting sunlight?
 
Even if the estimate is near they had no basis to make it as they had no idea how far away they were looking. It would just be a coincidence.

I tried to find estimates online for the apparent length of the starlink trains during deployment but a brief search didn't reveal anything.

I found a reference to a train being 3 degrees here

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/spacex-launches-latest-starlink-satellite-batch/

The satellite train was an easy naked eye object (even under urban skies) about three degrees long
Content from External Source
So with known distance you could work it out, but they get longer as they deploy.
 
Even if the estimate is near they had no basis to make it as they had no idea how far away they were looking. It would just be a coincidence.

I tried to find estimates online for the apparent length of the starlink trains during deployment but a brief search didn't reveal anything.

I found a reference to a train being 3 degrees here

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/spacex-launches-latest-starlink-satellite-batch/

The satellite train was an easy naked eye object (even under urban skies) about three degrees long
Content from External Source
So with known distance you could work it out, but they get longer as they deploy.

I think I have an answer for this. I used https://www.satellite-calculations.com/TLETracker/SatTracker.htm to load in the TLE data (had to reformat slightly) , which then gives me a lat and long of the satellite for a set time, and also the range from an observer who's location I set to be the aircraft lat long.

1690900561101.png
1690900621406.png

TLE Data:
STARLINK-G4-26 STACK
1 72000C 22097A 22222.10427778 .00079168 00000+0 13040-3 0 09
2 72000 053.2190 249.4977 0077526 044.7868 032.1202 15.96675264 19

This webpage then outputs the attached file as a webpage, which includes a value for range, which is 18750.520 km

hour time time_since_epoch SatLon SatLat Azimuth Elevation Range GeoAlt AvrGeoAlt velocity Drift_rate Drift_rate_dir Avr_driftrate Avr_driftrate_dir
2 Wed Aug 10 2022 12:39:11 GMT+0100 (British Summer Time) +09:09:01.400 T=0.38126620148250 124.689351 West 48.9481181 North 7.509747 0.063565 1875.520 -35525.8 -35502.88882746507 7.7486302898203645 456.2232192806907 East 455.9289934253578 East

Note that the GeoAlt is with respect to a geostationary orbit of 35,800km, so in this case it is 35800-35525 = 275km

Plotting this (124.689351 West 48.9481181 North) and a later position into Google Earth shows that the orbit was approximately at right angles to the azimuth of observation, so we can say we are seeing the full length of the stack in the image

1690810777147.png

Using the picture to work out the angle of the Starlink Train....

1690811212838.png


So one degree at a distance of 1875km = 1875 x tan (1°) = 32.7km (I think). This number seems really large, but in reality it is just about 500m between each of the 60 Satellites in the Starlink Train.

Edit: Added graphic, TLE & Output file attachment
 

Attachments

  • StarlinkStackPosn.txt
    350.6 KB · Views: 66
Last edited:
"No visible wings" typically means the object is in free fall (a satellite or astronomical object), a helicopter, or the wings are shaded and invisible against the sky ("glowing cylinder" sightings).
Let us not forget our old friends, the Balloons,
 
Upper limits tell you very little.

A metric ton is an upper limit on the weight of homo sapiens, i.e. all humans weigh less than a ton. This is factually correct, but only useful if you want to make people believe humans are the size of elephants.

What you really need in the case of alien motherships is a lower limit, because if that limit is big, then the mothership is bigger. But if that's zero, well, then you really don't know anything about the size, or the "propulsion".
My point is that unless I’m misunderstanding something greatly this is more like putting an upper limit on a bacterium of one ton.

Since the Sun only deflects light by about an arcsecond, what kind of mass of the object was he thinking when he attempted to put an upper limit on the gravitational lensing of background stars? What kind of precision astrometric instrumentation was used to measure the stars??

Something massive enough to have discernible lensing effects that close to the earth would likely be catastrophic to humanity.

Unless he has some kind of knowledge about alien propulsion technologies that cause gravitational lensing and not simply that due to a massive object. And how could he know that?

Either way, that sentence alone implies that this is not a self-respecting physicist undergoing an honest investigation and seeking out facts.
 
So one degree at a distance of 1875km = 1875 x tan (1°) = 32.7km
Thank you!

1 mile ≈ 32.7 km / 20

That's off by quite a lot, and would place the "wingless" UAP inside the atmosphere. A prime example of how guessing leads to bad conclusions.
 
...on the other hand it is in good agreement with what you'd expect to see from a bunch of objects in orbit. Given that
In 16 seconds it goes 4x its own length.
they're moving at about 8 km/s, which is very close to the orbital speed of a satellite in a Starlink-type orbit.

300.png

500.png
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-orbit

And that's with quick and rough-ish guesses for the observed values (it's probably not going exactly 4 times its length in 16 seconds and it won't be exactly one degree in the sky). I suppose with more work on that you'd get closer still. Not that it'd be worth it though as it's quite obvious already what these lights are.
 
Back
Top